Ask me about Islaam

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I have solidly proven that you worship Mary

Oh no we must have missed it. This is how you proved it really... Watch ---> "Christians worship Mary" That is it, it is proven now. Nevermind the counter arguments because those were either not understood or blatantly ignored because there were no answers to it. Do I sound like I am repeating myself? Unfortunately it is the trend here. Your arguments were pretty much "Ad nauseam" arguments that are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else. This tactic employs intentional obfuscation, in which other logic and rationality is intentionally ignored in favor of preconceived (and ultimately subjective) modes of reasoning and rationality. This is how you proved it. NOT!

you have yet to explain why God commanded the destruction of the bronze serpent, orginally an icon turned into an idol.

I did, not my problem if you missed it. It is quite a dishonest but a regular muslim argument tactic to ignore the counter-arguments, when it is pointed out that their answer has been given, act like they didn't see it, or that was not the answer, and repeat their original statement to the point of disgust... It is a tactic that is born out of desperation. Notice that you called the serpent an icon that turned into an idol now. Earlier you stated that it was an idol to begin with. Too wishy washy we are getting, aren't we?

How did it become an idol? The Israelites were incensing it, exactly how Christians incense images of Mary

Ok let's take this bait, maybe you would show us biblically that it was "censing" that made the icon become an idol... What is your proof for that argument?

Islaam is very clear on what constitutes falsehood. You on the other hand cannot even say with confidence whether I am saved or not for rejecting Jesus to be my god.

Is that similar to Muhammad's words that he didn't know what Allah will do with him? Funny... Nevertheless, Salvation is not the subject matter here. I am not God, I can't and don't have the right to point out such judgment. Islam calls whatever gets in the way falsehood, that is why one would easily see the transformation regarding the status and identity of Islam's enemies in time.

The "struggle" is what I am doing right now by exposing how you worship idols.

Don't struggle too much, you might pop a hernia. What you are doing is committing the fallacy of argument from repetition. Yet you are to prove us how we replace God with Mary and saints, how? By gestures, incense, motions?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I don't know what his sins were, nor is it my job to find out.

Why do you generalize and commit this fallacy here? How can you possibly know if He sinned or not if you have no particular knowledge about Him? By just generalizing? I got news, Christians do not know a person named Isa as it appears in Quran. Scriptures are clear, He was God and sinless unlike the most venerated false prophet of Islam, if you have an argument against the Scriptures bring it forth.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

LOL there is absolutely no connection between "ego eimi" and YHWH. Actually, the name of God YHWH when translated is not "I AM", but "I AM THAT I AM" or "I WILL BE THAT WHICH I WILL BE". To say the phrase "ego eimi" corresponds to YHWH is an error to say the least.

Just ignore the reaction of the Jews who heard them. Because that would help you do your "LOL"... Whatever difficulty there may be in translating and comparing Hebrew and Greek, the Jews reacted as if they witnessed blasphemy.

Further, such arguments try to isolate Christ's use of the phrase 'I AM' as a reference to Exodus 3:14 alone. This is faulty reasoning since most the entire history of the Old Testament occurs between the third chapter of Exodus and the time of Christ. In that time, God uses the phrase 'I AM' routinely, especially in Isaiah.

Finally, when the verse is John 8:58 is left in context, we have a progression of increasing 'blasphemy' committed by Christ. First, He sets asside the Law. Then, He claims God as His Father. And finally, He claims to be God Himself. If Christ was not claiming to be God, this crescendo leads nowhere. Are we to believe this? That John builds this suspence and ends it with nothing? If so, to what are the Jews reacting? No, the only conclusion is that Christ was claiming to be God.

"St" John basically plagiarized that from Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher.

Oh another claim with no back up. Here is some back up if you can even understand.

The comparison between John and Philo are as follows:

1) the pre-existence of the Logos (John 1:1);
2) the intimate relation of the Logos to God the Father (John 1:1-2, 18; Philo: Fug 101);
3) the mediatorial work for the creation (1:3, 10);
4) the life motif (John 1:4, cf. 12; Philo: Leg All 2:86; Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-246; Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Rer 79, 191); .
5) the light motif (John 1:4; Philo: Op Mund 31; Abr 47; Leg All 3:45);
6) the water motif (John 4:17; Philo: Leg All 2:86; Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-246); and
7) the manna motif (John 6:35; Philo: Leg All 2:86; Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Rer 79, 191).

The similarity of logos used by ancient Greek philosophers and the Apostle John is just as easy to dismiss. John's reference is to a specific individual in mind, namely the person of Jesus of Nazareth. John's gospel uses logos to represent this spoken tradition. The logos of Christianity is a personal being who is the same God as the person of the Father. John then details the life of Jesus as the special revelation of God and as the divine, promised savior clothed in human form. John is also one of the few to chronicle the numinous aspects of the resurrection appearances on Easter morning. As far as the "word" is concerned, there seems to be a growing denial of a Christian adaptation of logos from Philo by many philosophers and theologians today. One interesting theory suggests that the Apostle John wrote in indignation toward Philo by purposely utilizing his logos! In this theory John, knowing the influence of Philo in his day, purposely catches the attention of readers by using logos to refer to Jesus. But he immediately stipulates his logos as being incarnated (John 1:14), something contrary to Greek conceptions of logos. Nonetheless, it is difficult to find such a direct relation. First, there already was a Jewish concept of "Wisdom" comparable to logos that appeared in Proverbs 8:22-26. Many scholars point to Old Testament usages of "The Word of the Lord" and "The Word of God" as possible sources for John's logos. Secondly, Philo's logos is far too abstract to have any connection with Jesus. Unlike Jesus, Philo's logos is not a singular person or a savior, and it is not a messiah. Instead, logos is only a device "to solve certain philosophical problems." Because of this there is no reason to suppose that descriptions of John's logos are similar to Philo's. Finally, John's logos displays an impassioned concern for his creation. John's gospel states:

"And the Word (logos) became flesh and dwelt among us . . . full of grace and truth . . . From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:14-17


Philo's (or any other Greek philosopher's) logos would not be something capable of bestowing "grace" upon mankind. Philo adopted the Stoic disparagement of emotion in favor of apathy. This could not be further from the Johannine logos who was the self-understood revelation of God.
Therefore, it is apparent that Platonism, Stoicism, and the Philonic logos are not responsible for creating Christian antiquity. It must be the case that Christianity possesses a unique view of the world dissimilar to Greek rivals. Hope this helps to clear your confusion in the matter.

And why does Jesus have to die to open the gates of heaven? God doesn't have to die to do anything. He merely wills it to happen and it does.

That would be against God's just nature which would require justice in doing so. Christian God is not a whimsical God like Islam's Allah, who claims a lot, but can not save Muhammad from getting poisoned.

Show me as many as you want, I will show you to be wrong in each and every case.

Such arrogance and self confidence is certainly dooming. That would require to establish some credibility first. How can you show someone to be wrong if you have no clue about what they believe?

Of course, incense is part of worship, thus its only to be for God.

Yes? How come muslims don't do it then around the Kabaa?

 

[Playfair]

Once again I thank you for your honesty.

Islaam teaches that the Holy Spirit is none other than Angel Gabriel. Gabriel being the angel that conveys revelation to prophets and reveals mysteries to them, which is the exact job description of the Holy Spirit (to inspire and reveal mysteries). Thus it is only logical to conclude that Gabriel is the holy spirit, the holy spirit is an angel, not God.

Where is this taught in the Bible? Gabriel is never called the Holy Spirit in the Bible in the Old or New Testament. Using the Bible, where does this teaching take place?

Satan is the evil one who tries to deceive humanity by whispering evil suggestions to them. Demons, or satans with a lower case "s", are lesser devils that follow him.

That is interesting...

God promised that He would make Ishmael into a great nation, a blessed nation, and he would be the father of twelve great princes.

The first part is definately true. The second part I am not sure about in that I don't know. It is an interesting thing to consider. Even though I know that Ismael was not chosen by God (Isaac was), God did keep His promise to Ismael.

Yeshua never said he is god, rather Yeshua himself prayed to the One True God, falling down upon his face in the garden of gethsemane, praying to God to save him.

ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ 10:30-33 (Arabic Life Application Bible)


30 أَنَا وَالآبُ وَاحِدٌ!»
31 فَرَفَعَ الْيَهُودُ، مَرَّةً ثَانِيَةً، حِجَارَةً لِيَرْجُمُوهُ.
32 فَقَالَ لَهُمْ يَسُوعُ: «أَرَيْتُكُمْ أَعْمَالاً صَالِحَةً كَثِيرَةً مِنْ عِنْدِ أَبِي، فَبِسَبَبِ أَيِّ عَمَلٍ مِنْهَا تَرْجُمُونَنِي؟»
33 أَجَابُوهُ: «لاَ نَرْجُمُكَ بِسَبَبِ أَيِّ عَمَلٍ صَالِحٍ، بَلْ بِسَبَبِ تَجْدِيفِكَ: لأَنَّكَ تَجْعَلُ نَفْسَكَ اللهَ ، وَأَنْتَ إِنْسَانٌ!»



English:

John 10:30-33
30 I and My Father are one.”
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”


Jesus made Himself the same as God. I know that you don't hold to the Trinity, but the Jews were ready to stone Him for saying that.


This brings me to another question - Does the Koran supercede the Bible?

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/b]


The name Emmanu-El means God with us, and it is actually referring to someone else, (read the context about Isaiah), I'll explain this later,

BTW - who was this referring to?
Jesus died and rose again - and the soldiers ran for their lives - and were not on guard after the event...
And He showed Himself...

HAD HE been a false Messiah - He would not have risen.

He rose again - which prooves He was God and that He was the Messiah.

NOW - who is it?
And what signs - ya know - like rising from the dead - have they performed?

BTW - about those chewed up babies...Muhammad alledged saw...

Does not look a bit chewed up.

 

[WarriorAngel]

God promised that He would make Ishmael into a great nation, a blessed nation, and he would be the father of twelve great princes.

God promised this only because Abraham asked for it.
But the rightful son - the one born of the legitimate wife was given the line to which man would find salvation...
Which would be the line to the world's Savior.

That does not mean Ishmael was loved less or not as good. It meant this - God is pure and so for Him to come to earth to save humanity, the line of which He would come would be pure. Unaffected by anything outside His natural Laws.

In Genesis God did not set up marital laws or such AS WE KNOW THEM TO BE - because the earth was new and being populated and the need for procreation to as many different partners was accepted for the world populice. It was a necessity more than anything.

However; to show Himself a protector to His Laws - He remained in the rightful [married] line and thus - staying away from anything conceived illegitimate - for all times - He gave the heir to Isaac.

All of us are outside the line of the Savior's birth. BUT like the grape vine, He grafted us ALL in and there are no more divisions.

The Choosen ppl does NOT mean only they were choosen alone.
It meant they were choosen as the pure line from Abraham to yield the Messiah.
But the Messiah loves everyone and died for every single person.

You have the same reward, the same love, the same hope and the same adoption as all of us.

This being misundertood has caused many years of unnecessary battles.
We didnt need another man to come along and fix what Jesus established.
We didnt need someone to come and give a different hope for a 'certain' group...

We have God Who came for all, and for always.

 

[Supreme]

Jokes aside, I was actually making a very valid point that the trinity is simply illogical. discussing with a Christian, he said, 1+1+1=1, I said bring a little girl, she is like 4 or 5 years old, and ask her does 1+1+1=1? And obviously she laughs. If the trinity makes a little girl (a Christian girl) laugh, how do you think adult non-Christians view it?

It cannot even be expressed in English in a sentence without containing grammatical errors.

The words of Jesus are enough to shatter the trinity: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE".

Interesting that Jesus never taught anything close to a trinity idea, and never once claimed to be God.

Ladies and gentlemen, what a brilliant story this is! I don't think being able to claim that you have the same intellect as a 5 year girl is a good thing, but let me explain the Trinity in a a metaphorical sense, as our Lord Jesus did with the Pharisees who did not understand His teachings. A woman can be a mother, daughter and sister. God can be Father, Son and Spirit. That is how to explain the Trinity in baby terms, because you are not understanding grown up language (heck, you have to argue with a 5 year old girl to win an argument). Now, the woman is one. Just because she is a mother, a daughter and a sister, does it make her three different people? Actually, I'm not sure if you'd know the answer, so let me tell you the answer: it does not make her three different people. In the same way, God can be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Also, it can be expressed without grammatical errors: God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Please inform me with the grammatical errors of that. Also, last point, Jesus claimed to be God, and introduced the concept of the Trinity:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

(Matthew 28:18-20)

So, any more points you want me or Bushmaster to ridicule? I love threads like this, it really makes me proud to be a Christian...

 

[WarriorAngel]

Ladies and gentlemen, what a brilliant story this is! I don't think being able to claim that you have the same intellect as a 5 year girl is a good thing, but let me explain the Trinity in a a metaphorical sense, as our Lord Jesus did with the Pharisees who did not understand His teachings. A woman can be a mother, daughter and sister. God can be Father, Son and Spirit. That is how to explain the Trinity in baby terms, because you are not understanding grown up language (heck, you have to argue with a 5 year old girl to win an argument). Now, the woman is one. Just because she is a mother, a daughter and a sister, does it make her three different people? Actually, I'm not sure if you'd know the answer, so let me tell you the answer: it does not make her three different people. In the same way, God can be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Also, it can be expressed without grammatical errors: God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Please inform me with the grammatical errors of that. Also, last point, Jesus claimed to be God, and introduced the concept of the Trinity: (Matthew 28:18-20)

So, any more points you want me or Bushmaster to ridicule? I love threads like this, it really makes me proud to be a Christian...

ANOTHER analogy would be water.
One substance with three forms.

Liquid, gas, solid.
Wet, steam and ice.
All three are water - all three contain the same substance - yet three forms.
THAT IS HOW GOD IS.

Notice that you called the serpent an icon that turned into an idol now.

Anything can be an idol.
A computer, a tv, money, careers, friends, family - you name it.
If we seek these more than God and put them above God - we have idols.

Icons are representations of Holy or Pious People who lived FOR the Lord or of the Lord.
This is why Christianity has icons.

Christians do NOT worship said icons, they pray TO God - or seek intercession from Saints TO God. Using the representations to keep their minds 'lifted' to Heaven which is directly aimed towards God.
Both of which [direct prayer to God, or intercessions] are based solely and totally on God - and Him alone.

Just as we would seek our friends help praying FOR us we are seeking their intercession.

Scriptures tell us we must pray for one another - AND - that prayers are like incense to God...and please Him.
AND also the prayers of the JUST availeth much.
SO if you have a friend who is pious [not perfect] you would ask them to pray for you.

 

[Yusha']

You mentioned earlier something about Saudi Arabia being the best most righteous society on earth. Why do think there is such great Muslim emigration to the West?

Probably the same reason there is such a great Chinese, Latin American, Hindu Indian, African, etc., emigration to the West. This is the age of globalization, people no longer feel they have to stay in their country of origin. Go to Saudi Arabia, you will find 1 million Catholic Filipinos, loads of American christians, Hindu Indians, etc.

 

[Yusha']

I don't think you got round to answering this.

Originally Posted by fm107

Can you clarify what you mean by lying about your beliefs?

Is it ok to lie to someone if it means you are able to convert them to Islam?
​

I actually did answer this question, but I'll just clarify for you once again, that in Islaam it is not allowed to lie about your beliefs. Lying is allowed in certain extreme conditions like during war or in order to save a life.
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said not to worship idols even if you are going to be killed or burned alive, so that's how much emphasis is put on staying true to one's beliefs in Islaam.

 

[Yusha']

In today's standards 14 is young, but back in the days of the Lord, life spans were shorter and 50 was a very old person.

They lived shorter lives and married around the age 14 and 15.

Still - its not getting married at age 6 and having intercourse at age 9 - NOW is it??

Like I said it depends on cultures, I already mentioned before that in some cultures women are able to give birth as early as age 9, meaning they can't be considered as children anymore if they are that stage of adulthood. In America for example people get married in their thirties, mid thirties, even their forties! Which is quite amazing and shocking for people of other cultures, just like you thinking getting married at age 9 is shocking for you.

Actually they are Three in One and thay ARE God, because it is grammatically correct, altho the Essense of God is not humanly comprehensible.

If the essence of God is not comprehensible, how do you know that there are three persons of the Godhead? Your friend and fellow Christian Supreme even admitted that the trinity could just be the beginning, it is possible that in God's essence there are more than three persons, maybe four or five. I mean he might even say that the burning bush is the fourth person of the Godhead, and Catholics might add virgin Mary to the godhead in the future, maybe at their next Vatican Council, when they will also probably decide women can be priests. It wouldn't suprise me, Christianity is constantly evolving. Few decades ago sodomy was a crime in many western countries, now the Anglican church is appointing openly gay priests.

Ok, i can see you will never even attempt to do as Jesus said and have faith as a child.

The faith of a child is not a complex philosophical mystery, the faith of a child is very simple and beautiful, very much like the creed of Islaam, there is only One God. Ask a young child to explain the trinity, they will get totally confused, ask them how many Gods there are, they will easily say "One". That is the faith of a child. God doesn't make belief so complex that only a learned scholar or philosopher can truly understand it, God wants that everyone can believe and so belief is simple.

That's the only way to understand God, by not trying to - and not putting Him in a box of human finite comprehension.

That is what you do when you say God has to be a trinity, you put Him in a box and define Him in a rather shallow manner. The Oneness of God makes the most sense, it is the most beautiful and the most coherent subject.

He is outside the scope of our understanding, but God is God - so who dares to tell Him He is not what He says He is..?

God never said He is a trinity, it is you who are telling Him what He is.

I am Catholic - we dont believe in the rapture.
Just to help you understand this.

That's funny considering the rapture is mentioned by your beloved Mr. Paul:

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

And the human soul does go to Heaven, Revelation says that no man in Heaven can read the book of life.

I don't see the connection, plus the Book of Daniel clearly says that people will awaken from the dust of the earth to eternal life or eternal contempt, awaken here meaning resurrection. (Daniel 12:2)

So conclusion is - the soul goes immediately to Judgement and the Last days the rest will be judged....who are on earth.

Your belief matches exactly that of the Sadducees who denied bodily resurrection from the dust of the Earth, and Jesus specifically repudiated the Sadducees based on this rejection of resurrection. You simply believe the body rots and that's it and only the spirit goes to heaven and hell, whereas the Bible clearly proves bodily resurrection.

Idols and images who are gods to the ppl who are bowing to the - is worship. idols ARE their gods...

Actually, the idol-worshippers like pagans, Hindus, ancient Greeks, etc., didn't believe that the images which they "venerate" are themselves divine, they believe the images represented the divine. You trying to make a distinction between pagan worship of idols and Catholic veneration of icons is simply not working.

Evidently - God can menifest our hearts to Heavenly beings...

The answer that the angel gave to John of Patmos after he tried to bow to him is as follows:

But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!" (Revelation 22:9, NIV)

So not only is the Angel saying that I am a servant of God, and I too must worship God, so why are you bowing to me, he also includes prophets and people who keep the words of the book, referring to saints as well. Only God should be singled out for acts of worship. Interesting that you venerate icons of Virgin Mary even more than icons of Jesus, whom you claim to be God.

Anyone claiming to change what He taught - yeah!

The point is you said that all prophets after Jesus are necessarily false, I clearly repudiated you on that, because such a belief is a denial of the gift of prophecy that Paul said you should desire for. Instead of answering this, which evidently you can't, you come along and say our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم changed what Jesus taught. The most important thing Jesus taught, and he himself said this is the most important, was "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One". Jesus himself said the spirit of truth is coming after me, he is going to guide to total guidance (see John 16)

Question ??
Do you follow the Gospel of Christ? Or do you follow someone else?
Its that simple.

The Gospel of Christ are his teachings, like "Hear O Israel the Lord our God, the Lord is One". Also, you know Jesus was only sent for the nation of Israel, not gentiles like you and me.

Who said the Holy Spirit was always there?

Your own Bible says it again and again. John the Baptist said he baptizes with water, but Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. You even believe Jesus was conceived by power of the holy spirit (which is nothing unique considering the Bible says Elizabeth, like Mary, was also filled with the holy spirit when she was pregnant with John the Baptist - Luke 1:41), as was her husband Zechariah. The bible also says John the Baptist is filled with the holy spirit from the time of his birth. Thus all this proves the Holy Spirit was present in the time before Jesus left, whereas according to John 16, Jesus says the Spirit of truth, or the counsellor, can only come once he leaves.

And if the Holy Spirit was assisting them - from the start - then why was Jesus teaching them, and they still had troubles understanding it all?

Jesus himself was filled with the holy spirit, how could the holy spirit only come when Jesus leaves? It makes no sense.

 

[Chesterton]

Probably the same reason there is such a great Chinese, Latin American, Hindu Indian, African, etc., emigration to the West.

I agree. Everyone likes the West.

This is the age of globalization, people no longer feel they have to stay in their country of origin. Go to Saudi Arabia, you will find 1 million Catholic Filipinos, loads of American christians, Hindu Indians, etc.

You're talking about "guest workers" who help the King pump his oil from the ground. I'm talking about people who actually want to permanently live in the West.

And how many Christian churches will I find in this wonderful society which is supposed to believe "there is no coercion in religion"?

 

[Yusha']

I find it hilarious that all the Muslims I've talked to think that Saudi Arabia is an atrocious society by religious standards, not to mention political e.g. collaborating with America, whereas a Salafi Muslim thinks it's great. Shouldn't Muslims of the Salafi stripe hate SA even more?

Most people who talk bad about Saudia have never even gone there. I find it ironic especially most of the people talking bad about Saudia happen to be from north African countries, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh. These people should look at their own countries which are extremely irreligious (by Islaamic standards that is...these countries are extremely pious compared to western countries) and than talk about Saudi Arabia.

 

[Philothei]

nope nope.... none is dead for centuries of other cultures than "after Mohamed" dying for they had domensticated dogs, cats etc. not from eating pork.... We know know how to cook pork... science has taught us that the "old law" is just that Old Law and dead and gone. We live in truth of Christ not in the darkness of supperstitions and old wife tales. Calling my dog haram is just full of superstition and ignorance. Makes the followers of a book that is obviously "outdated" and not facing up to the truth. Christ came to fullfil the law and the prophets. Your prophet came to tell you? What? that dogs and cats are "dirty"? proof? .....none.

 

[Philothei]

and how come a thread about Islam turned to ask why we practic communion? what this has to do iwth the topic here?

 

[Yusha']

Look disobedience and 'agreement to sin against God' makes humanity impure. Adam and Eve collectively betrayed God, they obviously didnt trust Him, they disobeyed Him directly and they choose the serpent [satan] over God Who gave them EVERYTHING...instead believing lies about Him.
That wasnt so nice, now was it?
Especially to be in His Benevolent Presense and feel His awesomeness.

So God knew - since He is All powerful and Loving that HE and only HE could show us the brutality of that sin and take it upon Himself to bear the weight of it.

So the single punishment for the sum total of all since past, present, and future, is one man being crucified on a cross, apparently for only a few hours, dying prematurely thereafter? In case you don't know, there are much more terrible punishments than crucifixion, but you would think the punishment that is suppose to redeem billions of peoples' sins throughout the history of mankind would be especially cruel and unimaginable. Instead God just hangs on a cross for a few hours, says I think I suffered enough, and alright, I died for everyone's sins, see how much I love you! LOL

No one else on earth can ever surpass His love, and His generosity, and His willingness to show us the depth of His love

And by depth of his love I assume you mean a one-time 2-3 hour crucifixion?! Please don't be ridiculous.

- a Perfect Being taking on our sins because we never could. Not only because we wouldnt be able to bear it,

Actually, if you ever been to certain religious festivals in the Philippines, some crazy people actually endure being crucified in imitation of Jesus. I wander how they are able to bear it, even better than Jesus who supposedly couldn't handle it for more than two or three hours and therefore died of "shock".

but also we are tainted with the first sin of all humanity that led to the seperation from God - since no sin can enter in the Presense of Heaven.

Sin only taints those people who are not forgiven by God. If you want to be purified from sin you need to be personally forgiven by the Almighty, that's all there is to it.

With sin, we could never make such a sacrifice. Animals would never be a pure sacrifice..only God Himself could sacrifice Himself to maintain our free will, while giving us the option to believe in Him and go to Heaven to BE with HIM eternally.

Then why did God institute certain animal sacrifice rituals in the first place? If these could not redeem sin since only the sacrifice of God can redeem sin, it would be kind of reduntant to prescribe animal sacrifice in the first place.

And in fact, God even said He accepts the offering of a scapegoat for atonement of sins, even though the goat is not even sacrificed (a priest merely whispers a bunch of sins in its ears and sends it off to wander in the desert). Now why would God have to sacrifice Himself in order for sins to be truly atoned for when He accepts sending off a goat to wander in a desert sufficient for that purpose?

Listen...Jesus is God..

Prove it.

Yeshua [Jesus] is the Hebrew (Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic (Yeshua), meaning "YHWH (Yahweh) rescues"; while Yahweh is an extention of the Tetragrammaton YHWH used by early Hebrew writers to signify the "unpronouncable" name of God.

So is the name of the prophet Elijah, Eliyahu, which means El is Yah. And by the way, the name of Jesus, Yahoshua, was not an uncommon or unique name which only God can have. In fact Jesus was actually named after the Prophet Joshua عليه السلام. Jesus is the latinized version of Joshua, or Yahoshua.

And the spirit of Yahweh shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yahweh; Isa 11:2

The passage you just quoted, a supposed prophecy of the Messiah, proves that the messiah Jesus is not Yahweh, because the messiah will have fear of Yahweh. Yahweh is not afraid of Himself. All of this proves the Messiah is not God, but one who fears God.

"Father, Son and Spirit - Immanuel"
And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. Jn 12:50

Like all prophets, Jesus only speaks that which the "Father" reveal to Him.

The Apostle John wrote, "Whosoever shall confess that Yosef is the Son of Elohim, Elohim dwelleth in him" (1Jn 4:15).

??? Yosef is Joseph, what are you talking about?

Yosef, the Son of Elohim, however, is an exception to this. He didn't come into existence through the means of procreation as given to Adam and Eve. He was conceived in the womb of Mary, a virgin, by the Holy Spirit. Though His flesh body was made of the woman, Mary, the life within Him didn't come from Adam.

Don't be ridiculous, Mary herself is a descendant of Adam, and so is Jesus. Virgin birth doesn't mean Jesus is divine. Adam himself was born without mother AND father.

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Yosef Messiah is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an Antimessiah .

Why do you keep writing Yosef? Yosef is not the name of Jesus. And we Muslims also believe the messiah has come, who is Jesus. It's the Jews who reject him, and the Jews specifically that are condemned again and again throughout the New Testament, writings of Paul.

Yahshua became Immanuel when the Holy Spirit descend on Him as a Dove. Immanuel - Elohim with us. And, take a good look at that verse ,it says the Spirit of Yahweh remained on him!!! It is Yahweh that is Yahshua who is the Savior, for its the Holy Spirit who saved us.

What exactly are you trying to say?

We are told we will call him Immanuel - Elohim with us,it did not say Immanuel was his name.

Immanuel was the name of Hezekiah, as explained in the book of Isaiah, but that's a totally different subject that really doesn't even concern me. It's more of a Jewish-Christian dispute regarding the identity of Immanuel. The point is that Jews don't consider someone who bears the name Immanuel to mean that person is God, as you know, that is simply due to the nature of Hebrew names.

The Pope seeks her assistance to Her Son...and burning insense pleases GOD....

Burning incense only pleases God when it is burned out of dedication to Him alone, otherwise, if it is burned to an idol, He condemns it. For example, it is mentioned about the pagans, particularly the foreign wives of Solomon, that they used to burn incense to their idols (1 Kings 11:8) He mentions that the bronze serpent originally built by Moses was also destroyed because the Israelites had begun burning incense to it (2 Kings 18:4). It is mentioned people even burned incense to the pagan deity Baal, to the sun, moon, and the constellations, all of this condemned (2 Kings 23:5)

Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and provoked me to anger by all the idols their hands have made, my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched. (2 Kings 22:17, NIV)

 

[Supreme]

I agree. Everyone likes the West.



You're talking about "guest workers" who help the King pump his oil from the ground. I'm talking about people who actually want to permanently live in the West.

And how many Christian churches will I find in this wonderful society which is supposed to believe "there is no coercion in religion"?

It's the perpetual fear of the Saudi authorities- maybe people will convert to other religions! A mixture of insecurity and self denial enable the Saudi authories to justify preventing the building of churches (although the Vatican is apparantly in negotiation for one for the large Filipino community, those crafty Catholics!). But yeah, considering it now only beheads around a thousand of its civilians a week (on average) for silly crimes, it's a righteous society! May I recommend visiting it some time? The famous site of women being stoned to death is oh so much better than anything the free West has to offer...

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Before I leave this thread,

This is unfortunately is not a very educated view. Things are different in the West than the East and maybe that is why. I grew up in the East where stray dogs roamed the streets. How many times I was chased in the middle of the night, God knows. I hated dogs. But to be honest, with God given instinct, these poor things were hurt so much being stray, they were protecting themselves and their puppies. In this whole dog argument in this thread, one thing we all skipped, the cultural differences of the East and West. Yes there are people who are lonely, or who can not have kids and they turn to pets for this reason, they want to channel the love, but we are no one to criticize this. We don't have dogs in my house, we live in an apartment complex, yes they are a big responsibility, and if I can not commit to them, I would not want them to get hurt. Anyway, we can not ignore the privileges of owning a dog. It's a privilege to build a relationship with a canine companion. Working through some of the problems of dog ownership is an opportunity to become a better person. There are few greater teachers than a dog when it comes to learning the life lessons of humility, consistency, patience and forgiveness. A dog is non-judgmental and accepts you. They read your intentions and emotions accurately and are understanding. A dog is your partner. For your affection, a dog bestows upon you the gift of constant companionship and is your best friend. It's true that dogs can be trouble and cause problems. Everything that's worthwhile does. But again, I think this point is moot. If we understand our cultural differences, this is actually non-religious argument and there is no need to drag religion into it.

This is also upsetting and I don't appreciate this judgment. If I am not mistaken, it is known that in early Muslim history, Muhammad told his companions to make use of camel urine for certain health problems. He told them to drink it in certain cases. We know from the bible story of the rich man and Lazarus, where his wounds are licked by dogs, he is in such a bad shape, it is not clear whether the licking of the sores by the dogs added to the misery of Lazarus or gave a measure of comfort, as he lay in his helpless condition. Maybe it is just that the only attention, and, so to speak, medical dressing, which his sores received, was from the dogs who came and licked them. Although I have never heard of it, people might imitate this as an act of humility, but the point is, when we drag science into religious arguments, it is entirely a different challenge to prove our points because I believe not many of us are scientists. It is unfortunate because I was born and raised in a muslim society and yet I was ten years old when mine was done.
Well again, these are not really religious arguments, because everything that we do in excess and not moderation will cause us some kind of harm. If we realize it, it is all about how much we eat not what we eat. Physical appetites are an analogy of our ability to control ourselves. If we are unable to control our eating habits, we are probably also unable to control other habits such as those of the mind (lust, covetousness, unrighteous hatred/anger) and unable to keep our mouths from gossip or strife. We are not to let our appetites control us; rather, we are to control them. This is why in the Apostolic church there are certain fast days. For example we Orthodox fast about 110 given days a year and every Wednesday and Friday in remembrance of the Passion week throughout the year. When you do it understanding the spiritual benefit, you can abstain from eating anything. As far as pork concerned, the spiritual danger is to dangle the claim in front of someone's face, "we are told by God not to eat pork, but you eat it, you are what you eat" these are not nice claims. Make it about respect. As for the meat, a better question would really be, "Is pork bad for the body?" Not necessarily. It all depends on the cut, how it's handled and how it's prepared. Pork is actually rich in many essential vitamins and minerals, such as B6, B12, niacin, thiamine, riboflavin, iron, magnesium, potassium and zinc. If you've got a lean cut of meat, made leaner by trimming off any additional adipose tissue, you're looking at a meal low in both calories and fat, especially when you stick to an appropriate serving size--about 3 oz. per portion. When preparing the pork, no matter the cut, you'll need to bring the internal temperature of the meat up to 170 degrees, a temperature set in place by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control). If you cook your meat to a lower temperature, it can be seen as undercooked.

 

[Yusha']

Show me where... I am curious how you are going to attempt to set this argument.

The Second Chapter of Hebrews is a perfect example, where Paul says God incarnated himself into the flesh and blood Jesus and lowered himself beneath the rank of the Angels!

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]

Paul's teaching, which he explains in Romans 14:14-23 and 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, is that eating food sacrificed to idols is not wrong in and of itself, but is better avoided for the sake of Christians who think it is wrong and would consequently be led into sin (Rom 14:23).

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]While eating food that has been sacrificed to idols is not wrong, [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]participating in idol worship is. Part of the idol worship of the time may have involved sacrificing meat to an idol and then feasting on the meat in celebration of the idol. In this case, participating in the feast would be participating in the worship of the idol, just as partaking of Communion is an act of worshiping Christ - a parallel Paul draws in 1 Corinthians 10:15-18. Therefore vv. 20-21 refer to eating sacrificed meat at an idol feast and thus practicing idolatry (as opposed to buying sacrificed meat in the market, or eating sacrificed meat at an ordinary meal in someone's home). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]The condemnation of eating sacrificed meat in Acts 15:29 and Revelation 2:20 probably refers to participation in an idol feast, but could also refer to the sin of leading others into sin by eating it (1 Cor 8:10-12).

[/FONT]

Is eating meat sacrificed to idols wrong or not? If its wrong at a festival, it's wrong at the market as well. You distinction is superficial. God specifically commanded not to eat meat sacrificed to idols, He didn't mention anything about doing so at their festivals or not.

Even more interesting, why would Christians be found at a pagan festival in the first place? The writings of Paul shed a lot of light on his movement and how they openly participated in pagan festivals and were thoroughly involved in pagan culture. Which definitely explains the pagan influence in much of Paul's teachings.

Yea? Based on what source you believe that he had a vision?

We don't believe he had a vision, all I said is if he had a vision it was without a doubt a vision of Satan, only Satan would want someone to think God is a man, only he would want to deceive someone into believing in incarnation. As I said before, incarnation is the root of idolatry, this is something you can't deny. Take a look at any pagan tradition, and you will see incarnation is the heart of the matter. For example, Hindu belief in the incarnations of vishnu, thus leading them to worship images that are representation of the incarnations of Ishwar (their word for God).

Back to Paul, whether he had a vision of the devil, or lied, either way, Jesus said "by your fruit you will know them", the fruit of Paul's teaching led to Christians worshipping images of Mary.

The fact that same vision appeared to another man foretelling him that Paul will to come to him? The transformation of Paul from persecutor to believer in Christ? Or that he went into a cave and an entity who called himself an angel physically abused him to the point of killing him?

And why would an Angel want to physically abuse and kill Paul? Very interesting...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
The Second Chapter of Hebrews is a perfect example, where Paul says God incarnated himself into the flesh and blood Jesus and lowered himself beneath the rank of the Angels!
..

You have read the book of Hebrews? NICE!