Jesus and mohamid

GreyLeader · Oct 20, 2006

Dear benmaarof,

benmaarof said:
On the logical existence of God;

(Quran 2.164) Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which God Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.

(Quran 021.030) Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

This isn't some miraculous statement or new idea. Anyone can look to the stars, look out at the complexity of life and come to the conclusion that God exists. In fact, the apostle Paul takes this one step further in Romans 1:19-20:

They know the truth about God because He has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see His invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

This passage takes your statement to the next level by saying that not only can people believe that some higher being exists by looking at what has been created, but that we can know Him through what He has made because His creation reflects who He is. This, btw, was written long before Muhammad was on the scene.

Further more, the Bible says that God has placed eternity in the hearts of men such that they just know that there's more to life than the reality of here and now. We are created with that hole (that many try to fill with drugs, sex, etc) to know God. Many people don't feel "complete" and that is why - He has created a yearning in their hearts to know Him.

benmaarof said:
On the logical nature of God;

Quran 002.255 God! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).

Um, I'm not sure how this is "logical;" it sounds like blind faith to me. He is just telling you about his nature and you aren't doing any thinking or analyzing.

benmaarof said:
On logical nature of the Prophet Jesus;

Quran 003.059 The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

Quran 004.171 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so bel
ieve in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.

Quran 005.017 In blasphemy indeed are those that say that God is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against God, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to God be longeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For God hath power over all things."

005.075 Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

Once again, this isn't logical but blind faith.

If Allah is omniscient, then why doesn't He understand what the Christian view on the Trinity actually is? It is implied that Christianity's view on the Trinity is polytheistic, but it is not. We believe in only one God (one being), but that He exists in three persons - just as the closed fist differs from an open palm for a practical example. They are three modes of existence within the one being (God) if you will. Put differently: God is one "What" but three "Whos."

These verses seems to come from the words of a fallible and ignorant man, not an omniscient God who would actually understand what we believe. Hardly "miraculous."

Also, since you seem to enjoy logic, who would you rather get information about me from: my friends, or someone who never knew me and was around long after I died? My friends, right? Why? Because they know me the best and they can give trustworthy information on my character, works, and life. So it is with gaining information about Jesus; the most logical and reliable source is His closest friends, namely, his apostles including John and Peter.

All of His friends claim that He died on the cross and all of His friends claim that He rose again three days later. All of His friends claim that He is God. Now, why would anyone want to lift anyone else up to such a level when they have nothing to gain from it? Peter, for example, was crucified up-side-down and had his faults recorded in Scripture time and time again; Paul was beheaded in Rome and we read about many of the troubles and tribulations that he went through and how evil he was prior to turning to faith in Christ and how much he failed (note: Romans 7:14-16). You see, their accounts don't honour themselves or bring praise to them (contrary to what mankind is like), in fact, they are shown warts and all. It glorifies Jesus as Lord.

I ask that you consider this. What purpose would Jesus' friends have lied for? What implications does this have on the Quran, particularly when Muslims are commanded to obey the Bible?

In any event, you have not presented any astounding evidence to even make be think that the Quran is any more of a miracle than anything else. Personally, I think that prophecies made 800 years before the fact of Jesus (e.g. Isaiah 53) are more impressive, or perhaps the fact that the Bible, even though being written by more than 40 authors from over 19 different walks of life over some 1600 years, is a consistent revelation from beginning to the end. Indeed, the first and last books of the Bible dovetail so perfectly - telling of "Paradise lost" and "Paradise Regained."

benmaarof said:
The Quran asks us to think first before committing to blind faith. And that is it's miracle.

:o Committing to what blind faith in what? Blind faith in Allah? I still don't see how the latter two points support your view. I do use reason and logic when deciding what I choose to believe, and that is why I believe in Christ Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

benmaarof, in response to a previous topic about Jews:

No, the Bible does not urge violence against the Jews, in fact, it assures us to reach out to them with the same passion that Paul had. He said that he would give up his place in heaven if his fellow Jews would be saved ... that's how much he loved and cared for them. Our Saviour was a Jew, as were His disciples and apostles.

Unfortunately, some so-called Christians (which I dispute whether or not they really were) did some bad and very regrettable things, but I don't think that you can paint a brush across all of Christianity for this. Jesus tells us to look at people's lives for their fruit, and when you look at some of those people's lives, the fruit ain't in-line with the fruit of the Spirit, which includes love.

peaceful soul · Oct 20, 2006

originally posted by benmaarof

Logic equal truth.

That is a false statement. Logic is like common sense. There is no such thing as common sense, since our experiences, knowledge, wisdom, and thoughts do not all come from the same source and discipline. What is common to you many not be common to me; therefore, common sense is not all so common. It depends on many other factors, which include what you have learned, have been taught and have encountered. Logic works on the same principles.

Is it logical for God to begotten a Son?

Yes, if you have no understanding of the question in relation to what the Bible stipulates. If you depend upon an alternate source, Qu'ran, then of course, it will seem illogical. This touches back to what I have previously said about factors of logic and common sense.

Shouldn't God be unique?

Again, that is relative to what you understand and what source you are using. If you use the original source (Bible), you would be hardpressed to conclude logically that God is neither unique or begotten in the sense that you think of a natural birth. Begotten is a term used to relate to us in human terms the incarnation of God in flesh while still having the nature associated with God - perfection. That is why Jesus never sinned. He is beyond that human frailty but yet was very much like any man in terms of biological functions. I remind you that Jesus is God but God is not Jesus. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Shouldn't He as the Supreme Creator be nothing like any of His creations?

Well, it does say in Genesis that we are created in God's image; so that must mean that we share some of His attributes - although not at the same level as He. What I mean by that is that we do not have His holiness, which is only attributed to Himself.

The Bible does not say that God is reduced to flesh because of Christ's incarnation. An incarnation is not the same as a physical representation of God as if God being born as flesh. God was not born as flesh, rather our Saviour, Christ, was manifested in flesh as a visible sign to us. He does not reside in flesh like you and I becasue He has two natures. We are not privy to completely understanding how these two natures remain integral without contradicting or infringing upon each other.

Jesus was born of a virgin. Why shouldn't it be logical for God to make him exists like Adam was made to exist.? And Adam does not even have a mother. God commands "Be!" and "PRESTO!" there existed Adam and Jesus.

The Qur'an does not give the details or Jesus or the facts surrounding His existence in flesh. That is one of the reasons that your logic is not effective in persuading or explaining what a Christian comes to know and understand.

We could ask also why didn't God make Adam speak Arabic since it is considered by Islam to be the mother language or the language of God. In that way, we would never have had a need to translate Arabic; for we would all be able to read it.

Also, if Arabic is the language of choice by God, then why wasn't it only sufficiently formed before Mohammad was born?

Why does the Qur'an require at least two witnesses for things such as marriage, and legal matters but does not provide a second witness to the authentication of Mohammad as a prophet of God? No other person could hear from Allah but Mohammad. To me, that is illogical based upon the fact that the Bible has at least two witnesses for verifying the things of God. If God gave a revelation to a prophet, He always gave a confirmation to someone else that could know that this prophet was from God. A prime example of this is seen from Moses and Israel at Mount Sinai. God notified the congretation of Israel that He had sent down to them the Laws to follow. They knew first-hand that they were to obey. Now contrast that with Mohammad telling Muslims that God said this and that with no dirrect communication with God to verify what was stipulated.

Is it logical for us to sin for something that we have not done?

Again, since you have an alternate text to base your logic on, it is reasonable to conclude that you will not understand or know what I believe as a Christian. Sin entered the world through one man - Adam, and it was covered by one man - Jesus, the Saviour. It would seem logical that this could be true, given what the Bible speaks of - not the Qur'an. You would not even have a clue to this concept by reading the Qu'ran.

Before Adam sinned, man was complete. He could obey God perfectly. With Adam's sin, Adam and Eve along with the habitation they lived in, became subject to sin. Sin can be analagized with radiation. If your parents came in contact with nuclear materials, you are going to suffer the effects of that radiation if they conceive. It was not your choice, but it was the action of your parents that lead to your contamination, although you see yourself as innocent or unfairly subjected to what they came in contact with.

Sin is a convoluted act. It does not just affect the doer, rather a multitude of others. If I apply a hot torch to the end of a chain, eventually all of the other links will become hot. I did not apply heat to all links directly. Can you begin to see what I am getting at? Our minds can not totally conceive the things and ways of God and why things happen the way they do.

An alternative way of looking at sin is to say that if Adam, being born a perfect man, can fall to corruption; so can everyone else. Suppose for a moment that sin only affected the one that did it. It would be only a matter of time that each individual would succomb to what Adam succombed to. Each person would still at some point sin on His own actions and fall short of the Glory of God - as stated in the Bible. You see, there is no way out of sin eventually bringing you below God's perfection in which his judgement has to be executed that will condemn your soul.

I hope that you give my post some careful thought before you plead logic to me and others who see a different world than you through the Bible.

Shalom!

PS: You should take careful note of post # 41. It is very clear and demonstrative of what I think that you are missing in your understanding of Christianity and its logic opposed to what you gather from using an alternate book to conclude logic or illogic of the original source. Your agrument is filled with many flaws.

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 22, 2006

Is it logical for God to begotten a Son?

Yes, if you have no understanding of the question in relation to what the Bible stipulates. If you depend upon an alternate source, Qu'ran, then of course, it will seem illogical. This touches back to what I have previously said about factors of logic and common sense.

The Quran does seem to make the logical of the Bible into the "illogical"

Mark 9:7 And became a cloud overshadowing to them, and became a Voice out of the cloud, `This is the Son of Me/Y@hovah--the Beloved, be ye hearing Him !;'

Psalms 110:1 A Psalm of David. Y@hovah said to my Lord [ 0113 'adown], "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."

Jadis40 · Oct 22, 2006

LittleLambofJesus said:
The Quran does seem to make the logical of the Bible into the "illogical"

Not to mention the Qu'ran contradicts some of the foundational truths of Christianity as enumerated in the Apostle's Creed (The one I'm quoting is that one that is sometimes used in the United Methodist Church)

I believe in God the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord:
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
the third day he rose from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Saints Peter, Jude and Paul understood that revelation would cease:

1 Corinthians 13:8
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be toungues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Jude 3
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

2 Peter 1:3
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

Mark 9:7 And became a cloud overshadowing to them, and became a Voice out of the cloud, `This is the Son of Me/Y@hovah--the Beloved, be ye hearing Him !;'[/quote]

peaceful soul · Oct 22, 2006

LittleLambofJesus said:
The Quran does seem to make the logical of the Bible into the "illogical" '

Very true! I never thought of it that way. It would make sense to me that if I am going to contest the Bible, I should at least study it or the parts that I am contesting with as little bias as possible so that I can form, hopefully, an accurate view of it instead of approaching it piecemeal. How else can I claim that it is illogical if I don't have the complete understanding of how all of the parts fit together?

MK11 · Oct 23, 2006

Hi all Christians

I hope that I answer your last posts because I haven't seen any replies so far.

First of all, I see that there is a bit of misunderstanding in this conversation. First of all, in case of knowing God through his signs, this is something common between Muslims and Christians, and I don't see that this is the real point of discussion, but our discussion must be in the points which we differ in because we are all supposed to really want God.

One of these main points is the prophecy of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), and why does Muslims say that he is a prophet. Well, there are many points to judge the man if he is really a prophet or not. Miracles are not the main evidence of prophecy, Muhammad (Peace be upon him) had miracles but I say that this is not the main evidence of prophecy, because false prophets sometimes have miracles. God put many and variant ways of judging the prophecy of man according to the variance of people themselves, for example in case of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), his evidence of prophecy to the people of the book was the prophecies in the Torah and Gospel (although evil Jews and Christians tried to remove these prophecies, there are still residuals of them in the Bible till now), for the Arab pagans, they were famous for being very rhetorical in Arabic language that they were talking with poems, the Quran was very rhetorical that God challenged them to get a chapter like it and they couldn't. Now in the age of science, many scientific miracles in the Quran have been discovered which can't have been written by a man in the 7th century in the desert except that it was a revelation from God.

In my opinion, the most important way to judge a prophet is his religion, his life, his acts, and all these prove the prophecy of Muhammad (Peace be upon him). He came telling people to worship God only and stop worshipping idols, he came ordering people to love and mercy each other and that the only standard for being high is being pious and worshipping God not money or power or even being relative to the Prophet (Peace be upon him). Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) didn't want anything from this world, he lived a very simple life although he could have ordered his disciples to provide him with all luxurious ways of life. Muhammad (Peace be upon him) forbade adultery and all ways leading to it as letting women go naked or having any relationship between both genders before getting married, God forbade wine for its unhealthy effects and because it takes man's mind. How can all these morals come from a false prophet?

For the case of Jesus (Peace be upon him) and the doctrine of Trinity in the Quran, the Quran is not supposed to make a long discussion in refuting every religion, the Quran gives us the outlines of the right beliefs and discusses some other beliefs as the belief of the other pagans and Jews. In case of Christianity, God told us who Jesus (Peace be upon him) was and that was what we need. In case of GreyLeader's quote that Quran speaks as if Christians are polytheists, that's right because as I said Quran gave us the dogma of the Christians' belief, and we are supposed to search and discuss that belief with Christians, and I really found that Quran is 100% right, because saying that God is three person but one God has no meaning because the 3 can't be one , and because it's very clear through the Bible itself that they are three different persons and can't be one, one of them begets the other, and they are still one, one of them prays to the other and they are still one, one of them sends the other, one of them says about the other "my God", they are still one……………etc. Look at this script in John 8:

Joh 8:16 Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me.
Joh 8:17 In your Law it is written that the testimony of two men is true.
Joh 8:18 I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me."

So if Jesus and the father are one, then the testimony will be disabled.

Moreover, nowhere in the Bible which is a proof to this doctrine except an interpolated script (1 John 5:7) and most Bible commentators acknowledge this.

For the case of saying that Jesus is the begotten son of God, first of all, the word begotten is not exclusive for Jesus (Peace be upon him), see these two verses in 1 John:

1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.
1Jo 5:18 We know that whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not; but he that was begotten of God keepeth himself, and the evil one toucheth him not.

So you are all supposed to be begotten sons of God. Also anyone of you could be loved by God, so it is not something exclusive for Jesus:

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

You say that begotten son of God means God being incarnated and having man's nature, I challenge any Christian to give me a verse where Jesus tells about himself that he is God incarnated or that he has human and divine nature. Don't you say that you knew God by logic, so let's discuss with logic, and your book in this case must be the first source of logic for you.

As for the prophecy in Isaiah 53, this is really a prophecy out of context as that of Immanuel, if you'd like to discuss it in a new thread, I don't have any problem.

Sorry, but the Bible isn't consistent at all, it's full with contradictions and errors that are acknowledged even by the Bible scientists and commentators. I will give you now some examples from the commentary of Adam Clarke, and then I will disprove that Jesus (Peace be upon him) is the Christ from the Bible itself. Of course as a Muslim, I believe that Jesus (Peace be upon him) is the Christ and a prophet, but I will do this to prove to you that no book on Earth glorified Jesus except the Quran, even the Gospels which are supposed to be written by the apostles blasphemed him by there contradictions and errors. See this in the second and third parts.

MK11 · Oct 23, 2006

These are some of the comments of Adam Clarke:
1Ch 7:6 -
The sons of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher and Jediael - In Gen_46:21, ten sons of Benjamin are reckoned; viz., Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Eri, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard. In Num_26:38, etc., five sons only of Benjamin are mentioned, Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shupham, and Hupham: and Ard and Naaman are there said to be the sons of Bela; consequently grandsons of Benjamin. In the beginning of the following chapter, five sons of Benjamin are mentioned, viz., Bela, Ashbel, Aharah, Nohah, and Rapha; where also Addar, Gera, Abihud, Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah, a second Gera, Shephuphan, and Huram, are all represented as grandsons, not sons, of Benjamin: hence we see that in many cases grandsons are called sons, and both are often confounded in the genealogical tables. To attempt to reconcile such discrepancies would be a task as endless as it would be useless. The rabbins say that Ezra, who wrote this book, did not know whether some of these were sons or grandsons; and they intimate also that the tables from which he copied were often defective, and here we must leave all such matters.

1Ch 8:29 -
And at Gibeon - This passage to the end of the 38th verse is found with a little variety in the names, 1Ch_9:35-44.
The rabbins say that Ezra, having found two books that had these passages with a variety in the names, as they agreed in general, he thought best to insert them both, not being able to discern which was the best.
His general plan was to collate all the copies he had, and to follow the greater number when he found them to agree; those which disagreed from the majority were thrown aside as spurious; and yet, in many cases, probably the rejected copies contained the true text.
If Ezra proceeded as R. Sol. Jarchi says, he had a very imperfect notion of the rules of true criticism; and it is no wonder that he has left so many faults in his text. (Clarke)
Then you say that Ezra or any other prophet were really inspired???!!!!

Deu 27:4 -
Set up these stones - in Mount Ebal - So the present Hebrew text, but the Samaritan has Mount Gerizim. Dr. Kennicott has largely defended the reading of the Samaritan in his second dissertation on the present state of the Hebrew text, and Dr. Parry has defended the Hebrew against the Samaritan in his Case between Gerizim and Ebal fairly stated. So has J. H. Verschuir, in his Dissert. Critica. Many still think Dr. Kennicott’s arguments unanswerable, and have no doubt that the Jews have here corrupted the text through their enmity to the Samaritans. On all hands it is allowed that Gerizim abounds with springs, gardens, and orchards, and that it is covered with a beautiful verdure, while Ebal is as naked and as barren as a rock. On this very account the former was highly proper for the ceremony of blessing, and the latter for the ceremony of cursing.

Isa 64:4 -
For since the beginning of the world men have not heard “For never have men heard” - St. Paul is generally supposed to have quoted this passage of Isaiah, 1Co_2:9; and Clemens Romanus in his first epistle has made the same quotation, very nearly in the same words with the apostle. But the citation is so very different both from the Hebrew text and the version of the Septuagint, that it seems very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile them by any literal emendation, without going beyond the bounds of temperate criticism. One clause, “neither hath it entered into the heart of man,” (which, by the way, is a phrase purely Hebrew, עלה על לב alah al leb, and should seem to belong to the prophet), is wholly left out; and another is repeated without force or propriety; viz., “nor perceived by the ear,” after, “never have heard:” and the sense and expression of the apostle is far preferable to that of the Hebrew text. Under these difficulties I am at a loss what to do better, than to offer to the reader this, perhaps disagreeable, alternative: either to consider the Hebrew text and Septuagint in this place as wilfully disguised and corrupted by the Jews; of which practice in regard to other quotations in the New Testament from the Old, they lie under strong suspicions, (see Dr. Owen on the version of the Septuagint, sect. vi.–ix.); or to look upon St. Paul’s quotation as not made from Isaiah, but from one or other of the two apocryphal books, entitled, The Ascension of Esaiah, and the Apocalypse of Elias, in both of which this passage was found; and the apostle is by some supposed in other places to have quoted such apocryphal writings. As the first of these conclusions will perhaps not easily be admitted by many, so I must fairly warn my readers that the second is treated by Jerome as little better than heresy. See his comment on this place of Isaiah. - L. I would read the whole verse thus; “Yea, from the time of old they have not heard, they have not hearkened to, an eye hath not seen a God besides thee. He shall work for that one that waiteth for him.” This I really think on the whole to be the best translation of the original.
2Sa 23:8 -
Eight hundred, whom he slew at one time - Three hundred is the reading in Chronicles, and seems to be the true one. The word חלל chalal, which we translate slain, should probably be translated soldiers, as in the Septuagint, στρατιωτας; he withstood three hundred Soldiers at one time. See the note on David’s lamentation over Saul and Jonathan, 2Sa_1:21 (note), and Kennicott’s First Dissertation, p. 101. Dr. Kennicott observes: “This one verse contains three great corruptions in the Hebrew text:
1. The proper name of the hero Jashobeam is turned into two common words, rendered, that sat in the seat.
2. The words, he lift up his spear, הואעורר את חניתו hu orer eth chanitho, are turned into two proper names wholly inadmissible here: הוא עדינו העצני hu Adino haetsni, he was Adino the Eznite; it being nearly as absurd to say that Jashobeam the Hachmonite was the same with Adino the Eznite, as that David the Beth-lehemite was the same with Elijah the Tishbite.
3. The number eight hundred was probably at first three hundred, as in 1Ch_11:11.”

MK11 · Oct 23, 2006

Now I come to the third part which disproves that Jesus (Peace be upon him) is the Christ:
1. In the genealogy of Matthew (which totally contradicts with the genealogy of Luke), we find that Gospel is trying hardly to fit it so that it reaches to 42 generations, but he made much faults, the first fault I will talk about is in Matthew 1:17
Mat 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations.
It's clear here that David was reckoned twice, Adam Clarke tried to solve this problem in his commentary to Mat 1:11, where Joakim was missed in the genealogy so he thought that this is the solution to this problem is by adding Joakim, but he didn't pay attention to the reason of omitting Joakim, this reason was in that script:
Jer 36:30 Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David; and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.
And this is a condition for the Christ:
Luk 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,

2. Also the writer of the Gospel dropped 3 generations in Mat 1:8 "and Joram the father of Uzziah," which is not true, see 1 Chronicles 3:11-12

3. He foretold with false prophecies:
Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

But the problem is that one of the twelve betrayed him, and they became 11. Some may say that he was replaced with Mattias, but this also can't be because Mattias wasn't present there but Judas was the one there.

Another false prophecy:
Mat 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
But we find that the apostle Paul threw the whole law, cancelled circumcision, ate pork, told that faith is only enough and law will do nothing.
Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
So either Jesus or Paul is a false prophet (according to the Bible)

A third false prophecy:
Mat 26:64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."
The word" from now on" tells that he is supposed to say that Jews will him that way always after that time, but that didn't happen.

Deu 18:20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'
Deu 18:21 And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'--
Deu 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

And the Bible said that Jesus died on the cross.

The only thing I can do is to thank God who sent the Quran and defended Jesus (Peace be upon him) and all other prophets from what has been written in the Bible and gave them their real rank.

Jadis40 · Oct 23, 2006

The problem with Adam Clarke is that he denied that Jesus existed before the incarnation (also known as the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ), which contradicts the following verses (which, by the way, clearly establish that our Lord Jesus Christ truly is the Son of God):

John 17:1
These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

John 17:11
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:24
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the creation of the world.

Basically, it's no different than believing in Arianism or Gnosticism, both of which were declared by early church councils to be heretical.

Our Lord Jesus Christ had two natures: human (in that he was physically born of Mary) and divine (in that Joseph was his father while on earth, but was conceived by the power of God through the Holy Spirit which overshadowed Mary) but, no matter how Muslims want to dispute it, I hold fast to the declaration made by St. Peter:

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

I think what's telling is our Lord's response:

Matthew 16:17-18
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The declaration that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of the Living God has been the declaration of the Church for centuries before Mohammad was even born.

Confirmed again in John 6:68-69
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the Living God.

As a side to that, the comforter that Jesus Christ was talking about was the Holy Spirit poured out on Pentecost.

So there we have the three-in-one which make up the trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

MK11 · Oct 24, 2006

Hi Jadis
Thank you for your reply, and I hope to have a good conversation.
First of all, I didn't say that Jesus is not the Christ, if I said so, I wouldn't be a Muslim immediately because the Quran tells us that Jesus is the Christ. And I know that the Gospels say so, but what I meant is to prove that the Gospels are filled with mistakes that I can prove that Jesus is not the Christ through them, but that doesn't mean that I say so. I am sorry if you misunderstood me.
The second thing about Adam Clarke is that even if he doesn't share you in the belief of Jesus, but he is supposed to be a Christian who believes that the Bible is God's word, and you are supposed to share him that belief, and he is supposed to have studied Bible science, and this is not new in Christianity, many Bible translations have been made by different denominations because all of them share in their belief in the Bible, and Church Fathers take the history of Josephes although he was a Jew, so you are supposed to have the same belief in the Bible even if you had some differences in other beliefs.
You didn't get me also a single script where Jesus says:' I am God incarnated' or 'I have both human and divine natures' or 'Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons of the Trinity but yet one God'. I am waiting for a script like this.

John 17:1
These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Saying the statement in bold doesn't say that he is eternal, it also says that God promised him with a glory in God's knowledge before the world was when he was in God's knowledge. So it doesn't mean that. Look at this verse:
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
So according to the Bible, we can also say that Paul and the apostles are eternal, since they were chosen before the foundation of the world.
Please Jadis, don't take the scripts out of context, you put John 17:1, 17:5, but I don't know why didn't you put verse 3:
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
The Christ is clearly telling what is the eternal life, the eternal life has nothing to do with your belief, the eternal life is that the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus (Peace be upon him) is a prophet sent from God. The eternal life is not to believe in Trinity or incarnation or all these things which were invented after centuries by Constantine and Ithnasius.

John 17:11
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

This script disproves the divinity of Jesus not proving it, can you tell me how can the apostles be one?

Basically, it's no different than believing in Arianism or Gnosticism, both of which were declared by early church councils to be heretical.

Arianism is the real belief in Jesus (Peace be upon him), the church councils were led by Constantine who was an ex-pagan and when he entered Christianity he preferred the belief in deity of Jesus because of his paganic background, then he exiled Arius and his followers.

Our Lord Jesus Christ had two natures: human (in that he was physically born of Mary) and divine (in that Joseph was his father while on earth, but was conceived by the power of God through the Holy Spirit which overshadowed Mary) but, no matter how Muslims want to dispute it

I am still waiting for a proof for what you are saying, where did Jesus say" I am human and divine"?

For the word "son of God", it is not something new for Jesus in the Bible as you know, the word begotten also is not exclusive for him, as well as being loved by God as I explained.

Jadis40 · Oct 24, 2006

MK11 said:
Hi Jadis
Thank you for your reply, and I hope to have a good conversation.
First of all, I didn't say that Jesus is not the Christ, if I said so, I wouldn't be a Muslim immediately because the Quran tells us that he is the Christ. And I know that the Gospels say so, but what I meant is to prove that the Gospels are filled with mistakes that I can prove that Jesus is not the Christ through them, but that doesn't mean that I say so. I am sorry if you misunderstood me.
The second thing about Adam Clarke is that even if he doesn't share you in the belief of Jesus, but he is supposed to be a Christian who believes that the Bible is God's word, and you are supposed to share him that belief, and he is supposed to have studied Bible science, and this is not new in Christianity, many Bible translations have been made by different denominations because all of them share in their belief in the Bible, and Church Fathers take the history of Josephes although he was a Jew, so you are supposed to have the same belief in the Bible even if you had some differences in other beliefs.
You didn't get me also a single script where Jesus says:' I am God incarnated' or 'I have both human and divine natures' or 'Father, me and the Holy Spirit are three persons of the Trinity but yet one God'. I am waiting for a script like this.

Let me ask you a question: why do Muslims deny that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified? The crucifixion is the central event of Christianity. By denying that, you're basically denying every single statement make by our Lord Jesus Christ regarding his death, and his resurrection. You're denying every single statement made by St. Peter, and St. Paul regarding that foundational truth - that Jesus was crucified, he was placed in a tomb, but was resurrected by the power of God.

Saying the statement in bold doesn't say that he is eternal, it also says that God promised him with a glory in God's knowledge before the world was when he was in God's knowledge. So it doesn't mean that. Look at this verse:
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
So according to the Bible, we can also say that Paul and the apostles are eternal, since they were chosen before the foundation of the world.
Please Jadis, don't take the scripts out of context, you put John 17:1, 17:5, but I don't know why didn't you put verse 3:
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
The Christ is clearly telling what is the eternal life, the eternal life has nothing to do with your belief, the eternal life is that the Father (and the Father only see verse 1) is the only true God, and that Jesus (Peace be upon him) is a prophet sent from God. The eternal life is not to believe in Trinity or incarnation or all these things which were invented after centuries by Constantine and Ithnasius.

Right, John 17:3 shows that our Lord Jesus Christ was sent by God, but he is more than just a prophet. Did you even read the statement that St. Peter made, when he made the confession that Jesus Christ was the Son of the Living God? That declaration, as our Lord Jesus stated, is the foundation upon which the church was going to be founded.

This script disproves the divinity of Jesus not proving it, can you tell me how can the apostles be one?

Because the apostles were sent by Jesus with the great commision set forth in Matthew 28:18-20

Jesus came and told his disciples, "I have been given complete authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even unto the end of the age."

Our Lord Jesus Christ himself referred to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit hadn't been poured out yet as detailed in Acts 2, which was the birth of the Church, as 3000 people became believers that day. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was the fulfillment of the promise made by Jesus Christ before his ascension to send a comforter. All of the disciples, except for Judas, were present. I would point out that it doesn't refer at all to Mohammad as Muslims claim.

The 12 apostles were sent to all the known world, and they were all martyred for their faith, except for St. John. They were different individuals, but their message was the same.

St. Matthew the Evangelist was martyred in either Ethiopia or Parthia.
St. Thomas was the apostle sent to India, and was martyred there.
St. Andrew was martyred in Achaea.
St. Bartholomew was the apostle to Armenia, which was the first Christian nation, back in the 1st century, and he was also martyred there.
St. Peter was crucified in Rome, during the time of Nero.

I've given 5, but as you know, there were 7 more, but Judas Iscariot was the one who betrayed Jesus.

Arianism is the real belief in Jesus (Peace be upon him), the church councils were led by Constantine who was an ex-pagan and when he entered Christianity he preferred the belief in deity of Jesus because of his paganic background, then he exiled Arius and his followers.

That Arianism is the real belief is just your opinion only. The Council of Nicaea was called in 325 A.D., and was attended by bishops from all over the Christian world. When the vote was finally taken, the Arian position only received two votes, out of some 300 who voted on the issue. So the view held by the overwhelming majority of bishops in Christendom (and not just in the Church of Alexandria, where the whole debate originated) were right in calling Arianism heretical. St Mark the Evangelist, I might add, was the first Patriarch of Alexandria. To place the decision at the feet of Constantine, by himself, is false.

For a more detailed view of the Council of Nicaea, I would refer you to this page:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/nicaea.htm

I am still waiting for a proof for what you are saying, where did Jesus say" I am human and divine"?

I think the proof of our Lord's divinity is best expressed, again, by St. John:

John 1:1-14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name;
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.

The Word that John is referencing can only be our Lord Jesus Christ. The Father was never incarnated, but the Word, which co-existed with God, was. That's the point of the last verse I quoted. St. John (one of the disciples), who was writing under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit, that he received on Pentecost wasn't afraid to say that he was the only begotten of the Father, which echoes what Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Koine Greek, the language that the New Testament was written in, is a very precise language. Going back to the original language, the word used is transliterated as 'monogenes' which means only begotten.

For the word "son of God", it is not something new for Jesus in the Bible as you know, the word begotten also is not exclusive for him, as well as being loved by God as I explained.

Right, but Jesus is truly unique in all of the history in the world in that he was not conceived in the traditional way, but by the power of God when the Virgin Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. In this sense, Jesus truly is the Son of God.

GreyLeader · Oct 24, 2006

MK,

Now in the age of science, many scientific miracles in the Quran have been discovered which can't have been written by a man in the 7th century in the desert except that it was a revelation from God.

Such as... Please tie the insight directly to the verse and then to observation in science, e.g. Isaiah 40:22 tells us that the Earth is round; the Earth is suspended in space without support (Job 26:7); etc. I've seen some Muslims take verses out of context to the point of being intellectually dishonest, so please don't provide those kind of "evidences" because they are rubbish as clearly, the writers would not have been thinking like that.

In my opinion, the most important way to judge a prophet is his religion, his life, his acts, and all these prove the prophecy of Muhammad (Peace be upon him). He came telling people to worship God only and stop worshipping idols, he came ordering people to love and mercy each other and that the only standard for being high is being pious and worshipping God not money or power or even being relative to the Prophet (Peace be upon him).

While simultaneously ignoring that fact that he and his cronies callously murdered many in cold blood...

With all due respect, history paints a different and darker picture of Muhammad.

Muhammad (Peace be upon him) forbade adultery and all ways leading to it as letting women go naked or having any relationship between both genders before getting married, God forbade wine for its unhealthy effects and because it takes man's mind. How can all these morals come from a false prophet?

A glass of red wine is actually good for your heart, as recent scientific studies show.

As for your last sentence, it isn't difficult to see that adultery causes pain and heartache in families, so the best way to keep a family together is to avoid adultery... Similarly with drinking, don't drink in excess lest you loose control. They aren't some new commands, but are just repetitions of what people have known for thousands of years. King Solomon speaks about drinking and to avoid it, while much of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) speak against adultery because it is ungodly and causes destruction.

You don't need to be a true prophet to point out the obvious.

For the case of Jesus (Peace be upon him) and the doctrine of Trinity in the Quran, the Quran is not supposed to make a long discussion in refuting every religion, the Quran gives us the outlines of the right beliefs and discusses some other beliefs as the belief of the other pagans and Jews. In case of Christianity, God told us who Jesus (Peace be upon him) was and that was what we need.

Once again, why do you take some unproven "revelation" over the accounts of Jesus' closest friends? The Bible tells us that Satan can masquarde as an "angel of the light" and Muhammad wouldn't know that Gabriel was Gabriel and not some other being pretending to be Gabriel...

In case of GreyLeader's quote that Quran speaks as if Christians are polytheists, that's right because as I said Quran gave us the dogma of the Christians' belief, and we are supposed to search and discuss that belief with Christians, and I really found that Quran is 100% right, because saying that God is three person but one God has no meaning because the 3 can't be one , and because it's very clear through the Bible itself that they are three different persons and can't be one, one of them begets the other, and they are still one, one of them prays to the other and they are still one, one of them sends the other, one of them says about the other "my God", they are still oneetc.

You just overlooked and tried to explain away a mistake in the Quran. You are missing the point, it is not a contradiction because God is three in a different way than He is one. Allow me to delve into this a little more and deeper:

In regards to the Trinity, we use the term Person differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an independent individual in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another. What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as I and others as You. So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because He regards the Son as a You, even though He regards Himself as I. Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that Person means a distinct subject which regards Himself as an I and the other two as a You. These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but a form of personal existence other than a difference in being.

How do they relate? The relationship between essence and Person, then, is as follows. Within God's one, undivided being is an "unfolding" into three personal distinctions. These personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being.

Because each of these forms of existence are relational (and thus are Persons), they are each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding Himself as I and the others as You. Nonetheless, these three Persons all consist of the same stuff (that is, the same what, or essence). As theologian and apologist Norman Geisler has explained it, while essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is one what but three whos.

Taken from: Understanding The Trinity.

So if Jesus and the father were really one, then the testimony will be disabled.

I never claimed that they were the one Person, only that they are one in essence (i.e. being or God). The Father regards Himself as "I" and the Son as "You" and vice versa (please see information above for more information).

Regardless, the fact remains that the Quran has lied about what Christians believe, presumably out of ignorance, which is quite weird indeed if God really inspired it...

Moreover, nowhere in the Bible which is a proof to this doctrine except an interpolated script (1 John 5:7) and most Bible commentators acknowledge this.

That particular translation of 1 John 5:7 is termed the Johannine Comma and is not found in the original manuscripts.

The term "Trinity" does not appear in Scripture, but the foundations for it are heavily laid down in the Bible, particularly the New Testament (which is the full revelation of the Old Testament) where God now reveals Himself to us by coming down to Earth for us.

But as for Jesus being God before He came to Earth as God in human flesh, I suggest that you read Colossians 1:15-20 and Philippians 2:5-7.

Further more, the way that Jesus spoke does not show that He was just a prophet, because He spoke with such authority saying, for example, "For I say unto you" instead of "Thus says the LORD."

Jesus even spoke of Himself as "I AM," which were a forceful claim to divinity. In John 8:58 Jesus is recorded by the apostle John as saying "Before Abraham was, I AM" and the response of the crowds was to pick up stones and stone Him, so it is obvious that they knew He was claiming divinity. He even speaks with such authority to say that He is the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father except by Him (John 14:6).

Added onto this, Jesus even dared to forgive the sins of people, which is something that only God can do, when - for example - he told the paralyzed man on the mat being lowered down through the roof by his friends, "My son, your sins are forgiven." (Matthew 2:5). Listen to the response of the religious leaders: "What? This is blasphemy! Who but God can forgive sins?" (see: Matthew 2:6-7). By healing this man, Jesus authority over sin is visible to all, for more information on this passage and the consequences of it, please click here.

The Spirit of God was present at creation as well when we read of the Spirit of God (Gen. 1:1-2). In fact, the apostle Paul tells us that "And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And hwen you believed in Christ, He identified you as His own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom He promised long ago. The Spirit is God's guarantee that He will give us everything and that He has purchased us to be His own people.

The apostle Peter seems to describe the work of the Trinity in 1 Peter 1:2 when he said: "God the Father chose you long ago, and the Spirit has made you holy. As a result, you have obeyed Jesus Christ and are cleansed by His blood."

For the case of saying that Jesus is the begotten son of God, first of all, the word begotten is not exclusive for Jesus (Peace be upon him), see these two verses in 1 John:

1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.
1Jo 5:18 We know that whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not; but he that was begotten of God keepeth himself, and the evil one toucheth him not.

The Greek term for beget (Gennaó) is used metaphorically in the writings of the Apostle John, of the gracious act of God in conferring upon those who believe in the nature and disposition of "children," imparting to them spriitual life (John 3:3, 5:7; I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18).

However, in Matthew 1:20 it is used of conception, "that which is conceived in her." It is used of the act of God in the Birth of Christ, Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5, quoted from Psalm 2:7, none of which indicate that Christ became the Son of God at His brith.

Can I suggest that before you try to refute such passages that you take the term or phrase in context so that you can understand the original meaning of the word.

You say that begotten son of God means God being incarnated and having man's nature, I challenge any Christian to give me a verse where Jesus tells about himself that he is God incarnated or that he has human and divine nature. Don't you say that you knew God by logic, so let's discuss with logic, and your book in this case must be the first source of logic for you.

While I believe that circular reasoning isn't logical as it presupposes that what you say is true in the first place...

If you wanted to discuss logically, you would compare what is written in the book with history to see what might have happened and if it didn't, then what does it mean? For example, how is it possible that the Pharisees and teachers of the law who knew very clearly what Jesus looked like murder the wrong person on the cross? Further more, why didn't they produce Jesus' dead body if it really were in the grave - for they had every reason to do so? Doing this would have destroyed Christianity from the start! Added onto this, how else do you explain the life of Paul and his conversion? And on it goes...

Sorry, but the Bible isn't consistent at all, it's full with contradictions and errors that are acknowledged even by the Bible scientists and commentators.

Bible scientists? I think you mean theologians. It is allegedly filled with errors, the same as every other religious book. For all practical purposes, most to all of them are misinterpretations or other wise brought about by a person's ignorance of Hebrew/Greek, language styles, etc (e.g. Gen 1 & 2 contradiction).

GreyLeader · Oct 24, 2006

For one, the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke are not contradictory because they do not trace the same line and have different purposes: Matthew traces Joseph's line to show that Jesus had a legal claim to the throne of David; Luke traces Mary's line to show that Jesus is blood descended from David's son Nathan and that He is fully human and thus is eligable to be the Messiah.

Also, with genealogies, they aren't generation specific, i.e. they aren't always father-son, but can be grand-father, great-grandfather, etc. This is a major flaw in your reasoning that extends through all three of your posts.

With the Law not being abolished, there is no contradiction here. Instead, Jesus acomplished or completed or fulfilled the Law through Him living a perfect life and dying as a sacrifice for our sins as the Law requires. All of the Law's requirements to get into heaven have been met by Jesus and it is through faith in Him that we stand in His grace and are not condemned by the Law because He was condemned for us. Christians are set free from the Law because we stand in the completed work of Jesus; unbelievers already are condemned by the Law. The Law stands, but it only condemns the unbeliever. For more information on this very issue, please click here.

With justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, there is no contradiction here. Jesus said in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son such that whoever believes in Him will not die but have eternal life." All the works required to get into heaven have been done by Jesus. His death paid the penalty for our sins and built a bridge between the casm of us and God because of our sins that we couldn't build for ourselves. His sacrifice is defined as "God's gift" and like any gift, you have to accept it. How do you do this? By faith. Works come naturally as the movings of the Holy Spirit and our love for Jesus show in our lives.

With reference to Matthew 19:28, I don't believe that it should be taken literally because only God judges, but that it refers to the authority of these men as bequeathed by Christ, and implemented by their subsequent teaching in the church (the new Israel of GodGalatians 6:16) and as manifest in the sacred writings that remain authoritative today. The first part I believe refers to their honour in heaven and in the church.

This passage has many other various interpretations because it is filled with symbolism.

I didn't understand the last objection.

You also said in a reply to Jadis that you didn't say that Jesus wasn't the Christ, yet you did in the post before that when you tried to disprove "that Jesus (peace be upon him) is the Christ." So what do you actually believe? Is He or is He not the Christ? If so, what does this mean?

MK11 · Oct 25, 2006

Hi Jadis and GreyLeader

Thank you for your replies, and I hope that we have a respectful conversation.

Since both of you are discussing the divinity of Jesus (Peace be upon him), I preferred to give this introduction which talks about the scripts that disprove the divinity of Jesus (Peace be upon him) and proves that he is God's prophet:

19 God is not a man that He should lie, neither the son of man that He should repent.(Numbers 23:19)

While Jesus tells about himself that he is a man and the son of man.

40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. (John 8:40)

And you of course know that he was frequently calling himself the son of man.

See also this script:

Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,
Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

See, he says that the Father is the only true God, you know if he said "God" in the beginning this wouldn't have been a proof, because God means the whole Trinity, but in this script, he clearly states the Father only is the only God not the son or the holy spirit.

And see, this is the eternal life, it is not that he is God who came in flesh or that he is a person in the Trinity, or that Jesus came to die for our sins, it is simply that the Father is the only God, and that Jesus is a prophet sent by God.

Also in other scripts, Jesus refers to Father as his God, and this clearly means that Jesus is not God, and can't be interpreted by the human nature because the human nature is supposed to be God also:

Joh 20:16 Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).
Joh 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
Mar 12:28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?"
Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Our not your.

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Christ even denies to be good and says that there is no good but God:

Mat 19:16 And behold, one came and said to Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

See also another note; the way to enter the life is to keep the commandments, not as Paul told you that the law has no value and that only faith is enough.

These are some other scripts:

28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14::28)
9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Messiah. (Matthew 23:9)
32 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32)
30By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. (John 5:30)
42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." 43An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. (Luke 22:42-43)

MK11 · Oct 25, 2006

Hi Jadis
Thank you for your reply

Let me ask you a question: why do Muslims deny that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified? The crucifixion is the central event of Christianity. By denying that, you're basically denying every single statement make by our Lord Jesus Christ regarding his death, and his resurrection. You're denying every single statement made by St. Peter, and St. Paul regarding that foundational truth - that Jesus was crucified, he was placed in a tomb, but was resurrected by the power of God.

As a Muslim, I believe that none of them really said that, and the statements referred to them concerning that are not authentic.

Right, John 17:3 shows that our Lord Jesus Christ was sent by God, but he is more than just a prophet.

And it clearly says that the Father is the only true God, doesn't it? This means that neither the son nor the holy spirit are God or persons in the Trinity, read my introduction for more information.

Did you even read the statement that St. Peter made, when he made the confession that Jesus Christ was the Son of the Living God? That declaration, as our Lord Jesus stated, is the foundation upon which the church was going to be founded.

As I told you, the word son of God is not a real evidence, did you really read my reply?

Quote:
This script disproves the divinity of Jesus not proving it, can you tell me how can the apostles be one?

Because the apostles were sent by Jesus with the great commision set forth in Matthew 28:18-20

Then they are not one in reality, they are not one apostle in 12nity, this means that Jesus is not also one in reality with God, but he is one with God by being a prophet telling what God ordered him to do:
but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. (John 8:40)

That Arianism is the real belief is just your opinion only. The Council of Nicaea was called in 325 A.D., and was attended by bishops from all over the Christian world. When the vote was finally taken, the Arian position only received two votes, out of some 300 who voted on the issue. So the view held by the overwhelming majority of bishops in Christendom (and not just in the Church of Alexandria, where the whole debate originated) were right in calling Arianism heretical. St Mark the Evangelist, I might add, was the first Patriarch of Alexandria. To place the decision at the feet of Constantine, by himself, is false.

I heard about this before, but I don't think that it is historically right, Saed ibn el Batriq, the Patriarc of Alexandria in the 10th century said that that council had many different beliefs. Even if what you are saying is right, the Bible is clearly disproving the divinity of Jesus (Peace be upon him).

I think the proof of our Lord's divinity is best expressed, again, by St. John:

John 1:1-14

First of all, these are not the quotes of Jesus and many Bible scripts totally disprove that concept.
The second thing is that there is a mistranslation to this verse, the first "God" in this verse is "hotheos" in Greek origin which means God (with capital G), while the second is "tontheos" which is supposed to be translated into god (with small g), and of course there is a big difference between both words , since God means Jehovah of the Old Testament, while the word god, means a god for pagans which is not meant in this verse, or god which means master as told about Moses (Peace be upon him) in Exodus 7:1" And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh. And Aaron your brother shall be your prophet." Or Psalms 82:6 ""I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' (Psalms 82:6)"

which echoes what Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Koine Greek, the language that the New Testament was written in, is a very precise language. Going back to the original language, the word used is transliterated as 'monogenes' which means only begotten.

As I told you, there have been many people begotten by God (1 John 3:9, 5:18) which clearly contradicts with that script. Also it contradicts with the scripts I put in the introduction.

Right, but Jesus is truly unique in all of the history in the world in that he was not conceived in the traditional way, but by the power of God when the Virgin Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. In this sense, Jesus truly is the Son of God.

Adam was born from no father no mother, and was also called son of God due to this reason (Luke 3:38)
59. Surely the case of Jesus is like the case of Adam. HE created him(Adam) out of dust, then he said to him, "Be', and he was. (Holy Quran 3:29)

Have a nice day

MK11 · Oct 25, 2006

Hi GreyLeader
Thank you for your reply

Such as... Please tie the insight directly to the verse and then to observation in science, e.g. Isaiah 40:22 tells us that the Earth is round; the Earth is suspended in space without support (Job 26:7); etc. I've seen some Muslims take verses out of context to the point of being intellectually dishonest, so please don't provide those kind of "evidences" because they are rubbish as clearly, the writers would not have been thinking like that.

It's ok, no problem, but please speak politely and behave yourself so that I also respect you.
As for the scientific miracles in the Quran, for example the Quran tells that Earth is spherical and old scientists understood this from the Quran so it is not out of context. Imam Ibn Taymiyah who died in about 1350 AD says that and tells that he doesn't hear that a Muslim scientist tells the opposite(Majmoo' el Fatawa (collection of fatwas) Vol 6 p.587), also Ibn Hazm who died in the beginnings of the 11th centuries said so in his book (al fasl bayn al milal wal nihal (Separation between religions Vol 2 p.243), how did they know that at their age?
these verses are an example:
5. HE created the heavens and the earth in accordance with the requirements of wisdom. HE makes the night to cover the day, and HE makes the day to cover the night (Sura 39:5)
The arabic idiom for covers is (Yokawwer) which means to wrap in a circle.
Also another verses:
33. And HE it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each gliding along smoothly in its orbit. (Sura 21:33)
40. It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day. All of them float smoothly in an orbit. (Sura 36:40)

There is also another examples as the case of embryology, where Quran precisely illustrates the stages of formation of an embryo:
12. Verily, WE created man from an extract of clay;
13. Then WE placed him as a drop of sperm in a safe depository;
14. Then WE fashioned the sperm into a clot; then WE fashioned the clot into a shapeless lump; then WE fashioned bones out of this shapeless lump; Then WE clothed the bones with flesh; Then WE developed it into another creation. So blessed be ALLAH, the Best of creators. (Sura 23:12-14)
This is a link where this miracle is explained and illustrated by images.
http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm

There are many other miracles of the Quran and many scientists acknowledged that, you can see this link concerning the testimonies of scientists:
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1.htm
For more information about that issue, you can view this link:
http://sultan.org/articles/QScience.html

For the miracles in the Bible, I see that this is really the wrapping out of context. For the case of Isaiah 40:22, read the verse well, it says circle not sphere, the word circle makes me understand that Earth is circular plane not a sphere which is scientifically wrong. Also the script in revelation tells that Earth is rectangular:
Rev 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree.

So is Earth circular or rectangular?

What about the scientific mistakes in the Bible, did you forget that the Bible tells through tracing the genealogies that the age of Earth is not more than 7000 years which clearly collides with science?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://0-www.search.eb.com.library.uor.edu/eb/article-29849

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

http://0-www.search.eb.com.library.uor.edu/eb/article-9106191
Did you forget what the church made with Gallileo and other scientists?
Did you forget the secular revolution against the church due to its puritan acts and being an obstacle against science?

While simultaneously ignoring that fact that he and his cronies callously murdered many in cold blood...

With all due respect, history paints a different and darker picture of Muhammad.

Who told you that? Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his disciples didn't kill anyone except when he fights Islam, but murdering innocents in Islam is totally forbidden. Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was ordering his disciples not to kill a child or a woman or cut a tree or a monk or any innocent man as mentioned in Bukhari. Quran clearly tells us so:
8. ALLAH forbids you not respecting those who have not fought against you on account of your religion, and who have not driven you out from your homes, that you be kind to them and deal equitably with them; surely, ALLAH loves those who are equitable.
9. ALLAH only forbids you respecting those who have fought against you on account of your religion and have driven you out of your homes, and have helped others in driving you out, that you make friends with them, and whosoever makes friends with them - it is these that are transgressors. (Sura 60:8-9)
Compare this with what the OT illustrates Israel and their prophets' acts against others:
Num 31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand from each tribe, together with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, with the vessels of the sanctuary and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand. Num 31:7 They warred against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every male. Num 31:8 They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. And they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. Num 31:9 And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones, and they took as plunder all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods.

Deu 20:10 "When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. Deu 20:11 And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. Deu 20:12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. Deu 20:13 And when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, Deu 20:14 but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. Deu 20:15 Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here.

See also Joshua 10:40, 1 Samuel 15:2-3

A glass of red wine is actually good for your heart, as recent scientific studies show.

I really didn't hear about this, but what happens proves the opposite, because most people drink much, and wine is an addiction, if you drank for one time, the door will be opened to drink much, and most people can't stop drinking. Besides, I heard that the third reason of death in USA is drinking. Wine makes man feels unconcious, do what he doesn't feel.

As for your last sentence, it isn't difficult to see that adultery causes pain and heartache in families, so the best way to keep a family together is to avoid adultery

So the woman walks naked in the street, everybody looks at her, takes a boyfriend who kisses her, do everything with her less than adultery then leaves her, also what is happening disproves your point, and the scandals happening in the church frequently are the best evidence for this.

You just overlooked and tried to explain away a mistake in the Quran. You are missing the point, it is not a contradiction because God is three in a different way than He is one. Allow me to delve into this a little more and deeper:

This is not a mistake. I know well than you say so, but the consequence of what you say can't be what you say because the 3 can't be 1. The church fathers say that because the OT clearly tells about the unity of God. They tried to say so to overcome this problem.

The term "Trinity" does not appear in Scripture, but the foundations for it are heavily laid down in the Bible, particularly the New Testament (which is the full revelation of the Old Testament) where God now reveals Himself to us by coming down to Earth for us.

So you clearly acknowledge that the word Trinity is not present, in case of foundations, they are either misinterpreted or an interpolation. I would also like to give some statements fromthe church fathers concerning Trinity:
"Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith."(Basil

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vii.xxviii.html)

“Not only is the word ‘Trinity’ not in Scripture, but there is no isolated exposition on this attribute of God in either testament. It is an inferred doctrine, gathered eclectically from the entire Canon.” - p. 630 of the highly trinitarian publication, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publishers, 1982.
“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

MK11 · Oct 25, 2006

But as for Jesus being God before He came to Earth as God in human flesh, I suggest that you read Colossians 1:15-20 and Philippians 2:5-7.

These scripts contradict with clear quotes by Jesus telling that Father is the only God as I mentioned some in the introduction

Further more, the way that Jesus spoke does not show that He was just a prophet, because He spoke with such authority saying, for example, "For I say unto you" instead of "Thus says the LORD."

The word "Lord means Master or Sir, it is a famous title for the Peers, for example "Lord Chancellor, Lord justice Bingham. In Britain, you adress a judge or Peer as my Lord" ( Cambridge International Dictionary of English) This was what meant by Paul calling him lord: yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him. (1 Cor 8:5), so Paul separated between the two words God and Lord because he meant that Father is the only God to be worshipped other than false gods, and Jesus (Peace be upon him) the only master to be followed other than false prophets, this was also meant by saying "through whom are all things, and we through him. " because he is the prophet whom they get their religion through him. Even there are some English translations which sometimes use the word Master instead of Lord. For example in John 5:7, CEV and LITV uses the word lord instead of Sir or Master, in John 13:36 YLT and WNT use the words Master or Sir instead of Lord.

Jesus even spoke of Himself as "I AM," which were a forceful claim to divinity. In John 8:58 Jesus is recorded by the apostle John as saying "Before Abraham was, I AM" and the response of the crowds was to pick up stones and stone Him, so it is obvious that they knew He was claiming divinity. He even speaks with such authority to say that He is the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father except by Him (John 14:6).

The word "I AM" doesn't claim divinty, anyone can say I am. The word "ego eimi" if it really meant Jehovah, it would have been translated that way.
Joh 9:9 Some said, "It is he." Others said, "No, but he is like him." He kept saying, "I am the man."
So the beggar also may become a divine!!
For saying that Jesus is eternal, the script doesn't say so, what Jesus (Peace be upon him) meant here is that Abraham (Peace be upon him) rejoiced when he knew that Jesus (Peace be upon him) will be from his descendants, and this word " Before Abraham was born, I am!, means that he was as Paul, in God's knowledge since God knows everyone's life from the beginning.
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

Added onto this, Jesus even dared to forgive the sins of people, which is something that only God can do, when - for example - he told the paralyzed man on the mat being lowered down through the roof by his friends, "My son, your sins are forgiven." (Matthew 2:5). Listen to the response of the religious leaders: "What? This is blasphemy! Who but God can forgive sins?" (see: Matthew 2:6-7). By healing this man, Jesus authority over sin is visible to all, for more information on this passage and the consequences of it, please click here.

Jesus (Peace be upon him) said "your sins are forgiven" NOT " I forgive your sins", he referred forgiving sins to unknown which is inevitably God, he didn't refer it to himself. And it's clear through the context:
Mat 9:8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
Look also at that script :
Luk 23:34 And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And they cast lots to divide his garments.
So if Jesus really forgives sins, he would have forgiven them immediately with pray to God.

The Spirit of God was present at creation as well when we read of the Spirit of God (Gen. 1:1-2). In fact, the apostle Paul tells us that "And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And hwen you believed in Christ, He identified you as His own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom He promised long ago. The Spirit is God's guarantee that He will give us everything and that He has purchased us to be His own people.

God's spirit is a property of God, but it has nothing to do with the holy spirit:
Num 22:22 And God's anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of Jehovah placed himself in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.

Why don't you make God's anger another person for example?

The apostle Peter seems to describe the work of the Trinity in 1 Peter 1:2 when he said: "God the Father chose you long ago, and the Spirit has made you holy. As a result, you have obeyed Jesus Christ and are cleansed by His blood."

This again doesn't prove that they are three persons in a Trinity, or that Christ and Spirit are persons in the Trinity, since as I said before, very clear scripts by Jesus says that Father is the only God.

The Greek term for beget (Gennaó) is used metaphorically in the writings of the Apostle John, of the gracious act of God in conferring upon those who believe in the nature and disposition of "children," imparting to them spriitual life (John 3:3, 5:7; I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18).

However, in Matthew 1:20 it is used of conception, "that which is conceived in her." It is used of the act of God in the Birth of Christ, Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5, quoted from Psalm 2:7, none of which indicate that Christ became the Son of God at His brith.

Can I suggest that before you try to refute such passages that you take the term or phrase in context so that you can understand the original meaning of the word.

So you clearly say that the word beget is used metaphorically by John, and John is the one who said that Jesus is the only begotten, so there is a clear contradiction here, the word son of God is used also metaphorically in other Gospels as in Mat 5:9. Again Jesus clearly says that there is no God but the Father.

Bible scientists? I think you mean theologians. It is allegedly filled with errors, the same as every other religious book. For all practical purposes, most to all of them are misinterpretations or other wise brought about by a person's ignorance of Hebrew/Greek, language styles, etc (e.g. Gen 1 & 2 contradiction).

So can you please give me the right interpretations?

For one, the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke are not contradictory because they do not trace the same line and have different purposes: Matthew traces Joseph's line to show that Jesus had a legal claim to the throne of David; Luke traces Mary's line to show that Jesus is blood descended from David's son Nathan and that He is fully human and thus is eligable to be the Messiah.

So the genealogy in Matthew has no importance because it is not the real genealogy, since Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, it is only the genealogy of Joseph.
You also didn't answer me concerning Joakim and Jeremiah 36:30. According to that script, Jesus can't be the Messiah, since descendants of Joakim can't sit on David's throne.

Also, with genealogies, they aren't generation specific, i.e. they aren't always father-son, but can be grand-father, great-grandfather, etc. This is a major flaw in your reasoning that extends through all three of your posts.

So you clearly say that the gospel writer omits in the genealogy as he likes to fit it for the Jesus. Is this a scientific honesty.
This also can't be because Matthew says "somebody begat somebody" not "somebogy the son of somebody" as in Luke which means direct sonship.

With the Law not being abolished, there is no contradiction here. Instead, Jesus acomplished or completed or fulfilled the Law through Him living a perfect life and dying as a sacrifice for our sins as the Law requires. All of the Law's requirements to get into heaven have been met by Jesus and it is through faith in Him that we stand in His grace and are not condemned by the Law because He was condemned for us. Christians are set free from the Law because we stand in the completed work of Jesus; unbelievers already are condemned by the Law. The Law stands, but it only condemns the unbeliever. For more information on this very issue, please click here.

With justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, there is no contradiction here. Jesus said in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son such that whoever believes in Him will not die but have eternal life." All the works required to get into heaven have been done by Jesus. His death paid the penalty for our sins and built a bridge between the casm of us and God because of our sins that we couldn't build for ourselves. His sacrifice is defined as "God's gift" and like any gift, you have to accept it. How do you do this? By faith. Works come naturally as the movings of the Holy Spirit and our love for Jesus show in our lives.

So does this mean that you do what you want if you have a faith in Jesus as the Savior?
And if the answer is no, then you must obey the law, get circumcised, stop eating the pork, don't make statues,........etc., wasn't your lord circumcised? Did he tell you not to circumcise?

With reference to Matthew 19:28, I don't believe that it should be taken literally because only God judges, but that it refers to the authority of these men as bequeathed by Christ, and implemented by their subsequent teaching in the church (the new Israel of God—Galatians 6:16) and as manifest in the sacred writings that remain authoritative today. The first part I believe refers to their honour in heaven and in the church.

This passage has many other various interpretations because it is filled with symbolism.

It seems that you didn't understand what I mean, I didn't talk about judging. I say that Judas was one of the twelve whom Jesus was talking to, and he didn't have that honour but he died as a traitor.
I didn't find an answer to the other parts in the message.

You also said in a reply to Jadis that you didn't say that Jesus wasn't the Christ, yet you did in the post before that when you tried to disprove "that Jesus (peace be upon him) is the Christ." So what do you actually believe? Is He or is He not the Christ? If so, what does this mean?

As I said, I believe as a Muslim that Jesus (Peace be upon him) is the Christ. What I meant here is that referring these Gospels to the Christ lets him down due to its errors.

GreyLeader, I am really sorry if I annoyed you, I only mean to explain what I mean. Sorry again if I said any word that you find it unrespectful. I am sorry if my reply was long. I myself had much time to prepare it.
Have a nice day.

Jesus and mohamid

Member

Senior Veteran

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Member

Regular Member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency