71 replies to this topic

[Forever Young]

4.If Jesus is God then God had a penis and at that time there were men at the time Jesus was a baby, so a man can easily say that they had a bigger penis than God.
11.God had a penis tell me did it get hard??? If it didnt then was God impotent??

Do you also need to know his penis size?
Erect length?





RIDICULOUS

Edited by Forever Young, 25 November 2008 - 09:22 PM.

[twoswordali]

RIDICULOUS

And this is what im talking about, It is ridiculous to even say that God has a penis. All respect is due to Jesus, if he never once said in the Bible or in his other sayings that " I AM GOD" then we should accept that and see him as a very righteous man, very holy man. who taught people the understanding of scripture.


Now im still waiting for the other ones to answer

[Forever Young]

All respect is due to Jesus, if he never once said in the Bible or in his other sayings that " I AM GOD" then we should accept that and see him as a very righteous man, very holy man. who taught people the

Matthew 16:15-17

"Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[ the Son of the living God."
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.


but you know , the Bible is corrupted , so...

[twoswordali]

Matthew 16:15-17

"Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[ the Son of the living God."
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
but you know , the Bible is corrupted , so...

Yes sis now take it back to the beginning of that conversation Jesus askes them and also gives them a hint to the answer he askes in Mathew 16:13 Jesus asks his diciples .. "Whom do men say that I the son of man am?" The son of man not the son of God. He askes them who do they say i am other than the son of man. they answered you are a prophet Elias, john the baptist, but Jesus said who do you say Iam still they answered wrongly. Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my father which is in heaven, this is clearly saying that you did not get this meaning from me, or any other man, but God the Father which is in heaven will guide you to the correct answer.

You see the diciples didnot understand Jesus they were always getting things wrong and Jesus was always trying to teach them. This chapter in matthew 16 shows how they constantly misunderstood Jesus. In verse 20 He says that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ, The same peter who he just finished asking a question misunderstands him again and what does Jesus say( now that hes fed up with his misunderstanding) He says in verse 23 to Peter "GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN YOU ARE AN OFFENCE TO ME FOR YOU SAVOUREST NOT THE THINGS BE OF GOD, BUT THOSE OF MEN!!

Such harsh words for good understanding diciples huh He called him Satan Now if Jesus is God why would he call one of his diciples Satan? And why would God come to die for our sins yet he takes sinful people as his diciples, not only that he reffers to them as Satan, why would God take Satan as a diciple?.These men misunderstood Jesus and always questioned him and he had to keep explaining things to them but they just didnt get it. Look answer this ForeverYoung who you say that I TWOSWORDALI the son of man am??

Edited by twoswordali, 26 November 2008 - 04:12 PM.

[CarlosTheJackal]

The son of man is not the son of God.

In Christian theology we believe in the hypostatic union which means Jesus has 2 natures divine and human. We believe Jesus Christ is true God and true man. Perhaps the passage taken from St Paul’s writings contained in the Bible will help clarify the point.

“who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” – Philippians 2:6-9

In light of the above text we can conclude Jesus Christ was not merely the Son of man but much more.

Grace and peace be with you,

[umar abdullah]

Hi Stranger,

Thanks for responding.

Firstly, St Paul had nothing to do with the Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He wrote letters to the early converts about different matters concerning the Church. Therefore he had nothing with the 4 accounts of the Gospel.

Secondly, The Council of Nicaea was called into session to defend the Church against allegations denying the Divinity of Christ led by Arius. Arius was a heretic. There is no evidence to suggest Bishops added in anything in the Bible during the council unless you can show me otherwise.

Thirdly, Dr Tischendorf’s works do not coincide with the majority of Bible scholars, therefore his conclusions are questionable.

In conclusion Stranger you must take into consideration we Christians are not as Mohamed puts it “the people of the book”. We have three pillars of truth sacred scripture, sacred tradition and the magestrium. The Bible cannot be read alone, it must be read in light of our sacred tradition guided by the magestrium. That’s the way it was from the beginning and that’s the way it remains. Our teaching does not solely depend on the Bible alone.

Grace and peace be with you,

salam.

my grandmother went to an all girls catholic school as a child. she told me many stories of the "rules changing"

one example was the no eating meat on fridays. at first it was no eating meat on fridays, then for whatever reason it was changed into that they can eat meat on fridays, then to only working men can eat meat on fridays, then back to no eating meat, and then it changed again.

now if you dont belive me remember that i am commaned by my lord to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. and he is sufficant enought as a witness for what i say.

now, bisops and cardinals made these changes. if somthing like eatig meat on firdays was changes so many times in a short amount of time what else has been changed?

i got a photocopy of a book from a christian trying to convert me, this book is basicly Islam vs. christianity and it basicly takes every verse from the quran and spins it out of context. andways this book reads "the bible is confirmed to be 99.5% authentic"

99.5% is still .5% off from 100%. .5% is 901 words(based on the new testament) that are changed. this dosent include what has been omited since words that are ommited cant be plugged into a percentage proportion. this book is also very, very bias to christianity and it will cite only information that it usefull to its intrests. if i were to look up an un-bias report of the bibles authenticity im sure it would not be 99.5%. then also why wont other documents be added into the bible?

if we had a list of people who have changed the ibble over the ages it would be a book larger then the quran. satian dose his thing slowly. meaning that its not going to bo one guy who massivly changed the bible in one shot. no, that would be to noticable.

satian makes people do evil in slow, gradual progression, so that they themself dont even know it. to change somthing like the bible would take generations. the thing is saitian dose not have a lifespan, so he has untill the day of judgment to try and mislead as many people as he can. so generations mean nothing to him.

the quran uses signs, big and small to prove its point, to prove its authenticity. in a surah called "the ants" Allah refers to ants as "she". this may seem insignifigant. but back in the days of the prophet they dident know that ALL ants are female, except one. like bees in a hive. this is a proof that the quran is from Allah the almighty, the mercifull and gracious.

in every surah there is at least one example like this, as well as the storise of moses and lut, ect. even how the earth works, how the universe exists. so many things. even the theroy of reletivity is proven by the quran. "to Allah belongs all that is on the heavan and the earth and all that is in between" so all that is inbetween would be the alternate dimensions, and many other things which we may know not of.

so when the quran says that the bible has been changed and not beliveit, you would have to be willfully ignoring the truth. this in itself is a sign from Allah the one, the exaulted. for he talks about people who do this in the quran somwhat, and how they act, what they say and how theyreact to a muslims answers.

so in essence, this whole thread, this conversation, is a proof of Allah almighty, the mercifull.

salam.

[CarlosTheJackal]

Hi Andre,

I mean no disrespect I’m sure your grandmother had good intentions but unfortunately what she taught you was inaccurate. Obstaining from meat on Fridays is a canon law given by the Church (Bishops in union with the Pope) to her spiritual children. The point of it is to share with the sufferings with Christ so that we may be close to Him. This rule does not apply to people with health issues or people with any other issues that would harm them. Nothing has been changed since.

If the Bible is 0.05% unauthentic it does not destroy our faith simply because we are not as Muslims put it “people of the book”. We have 3 pillars of truth the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterial Teaching (Bishops in union with the Pope. The Bishops are DIRECT successors of the original apostles by the laying of the hands). There is nothing in the Bible that harms the teachings of our Sacred Tradition or the Magisterial Teaching. Our doctrines have exsisted before the original Bible was written so you see that analysis does not change anything.

Grace and peace be with you,

[2btrue]

originally posted by twoswordali

And this is what im talking about, It is ridiculous to even say that God has a penis.

Yes, it does if based just from intellect; but understanding from a Christian perspective helps immensely. If God manifested Himself via flesh (incarnation), one should expect that form to have the same or very similar characteristics as the form suggests. It would be just as ridiculous for a form of a human not to eat, have a heart, lungs, to talk, etc. How about a human that doesn't have vocal chords? Wouldn't you find that weird?

The key is that the human attributes are part of His manifestation and should be separated from His deity. His deity is not part of His human nature. The divine nature is not mixed with the human nature, but yet they exist together in the personage of Jesus. This is easier to understand if you understand that God exists outside of time, space, etc., but He can appear within time, space, etc. while not being affected or compromised since He is not confined by limitations of time, space, etc. like we are. Now, how all of this happens is beyond our comprehension, which is should be since we are finite. At most, we can relate to 3 dimensions.

All respect is due to Jesus, if he never once said in the Bible or in his other sayings that " I AM GOD"

I disagree, but for the sake of discussion, let's say that He didn't. Would that rule out the possibility that He isn't? It think that you put too much emphasis on a direct statement uttered and not take a look at His actions.

then we should accept that and see him as a very righteous man, very holy man. who taught people the understanding of scripture.

Jesus wouldn't be a very righteous man since he allowed people to worship Him and forgive sins. That is a function of God. How would you explain that?

He also enhanced the Torah on His own authority with such statements as Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Jesus shows that He has power and authority of Himself to die and to come back to life in Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Mat 26:62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mat 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.


Jesus lead by example. He didn't have to say who He was. Another way to understand why Jesus wouldn't go around saying "I am God" is because it would not benefit His ministry. People have to come to discernment of God by being ministered to. Going around saying that He is God would lead people to think that He was some kind of crazy person. They would be fixated on His claims and would not contemplate on the content of His message during His ministry.

Jesus acted as if He had no moral imperfections. He never had to rethink or retract anything that he had said. He also acted as if He knew eternity from the inside in how He communicated. His demeanor showed that He did not think that He had any inadequacies.

Now im still waiting for the other ones to answer

Here is a start.

[umar abdullah]

Hi Andre,

I mean no disrespect I’m sure your grandmother had good intentions but unfortunately what she taught you was inaccurate. Obstaining from meat on Fridays is a canon law given by the Church (Bishops in union with the Pope) to her spiritual children. The point of it is to share with the sufferings with Christ so that we may be close to Him. This rule does not apply to people with health issues or people with any other issues that would harm them. Nothing has been changed since.



If the Bible is 0.05% unauthentic it does not destroy our faith simply because we are not as Muslims put it “people of the book”. We have 3 pillars of truth the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterial Teaching (Bishops in union with the Pope. The Bishops are DIRECT successors of the original apostles by the laying of the hands). There is nothing in the Bible that harms the teachings of our Sacred Tradition or the Magisterial Teaching. Our doctrines have exsisted before the original Bible was written so you see that analysis does not change anything.

Grace and peace be with you,

salam.

so if i am to look at a bisiops certificate(i dont know what it would be called, i am just using certificate for my lack of a better word right now), it will show his name, then his predecessor, and his predicessor ect ect untill we get back to the orriginal opposles?

also pagans, who worship the sun and such, have their traditions and such that go with their teachings. when the traditions come first, it iseasy to write them down after as "rules."

and also the bible is the biggest part of christian teaching(last time i checked anyways). being .5% unauthentic changes alot.


as for saying isa(p.b.u.h) was god, or god like, or a partner to god, or the son of god, why dident moses(p.b.u.h) say the same thing? he could do maricles, just as isa(p.b.u.h)and solomon(p.b.u.h) and all of the prophets could.

Edited by André, 27 December 2008 - 07:58 PM.

[John Paul]

as for saying isa(p.b.u.h) was god, or god like, or a partner to god, or the son of god, why dident moses(p.b.u.h) say the same thing? he could do maricles, just as isa(p.b.u.h)and solomon(p.b.u.h) and all of the prophets could.

Moses was a normal human being with a beginning, Jesus Christ on the other hand is God who assumed a human nature and dwelt among his people. The concept is hard to understand I know…then again we can only think as human beings not as God thinks.

“Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.’” – John 8:58

“I AM” was the name the Jews used to address God.

God bless,

[umar abdullah]

Moses was a normal human being with a beginning, Jesus Christ on the other hand is God who assumed a human nature and dwelt among his people. The concept is hard to understand I know…then again we can only think as human beings not as God thinks.

“Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.’” – John 8:58

“I AM” was the name the Jews used to address God.

God bless,

salam.

this "john" fellow said alot of things. what about all the other gospels that arent in the bible, that contadict your christianity?

also Allah tell us of his nature. having a begotton son would take away at least one of his sole "properties" for lack of better term. one of them is is oneness, and another one would be him being abosoloutly perfect.

also if jesus(alahis salam) was a god, why did he ask Allah ta'ala for sustenence? after all he is the man who miraculously fed 5000 men(i forget the exact number, i need to brush up on bible stories) with some fish and bread, right? thhen why would he ask Allah for his daily bread?

and if jesus(alahis salam) did die for our sins, then why dose a baby, the most innocent, purest thing in the world, need to get baptized for inheriting the sins of the world? if jesus(alahis salam) did die for our sins, that baby would not need to get baptized for "orriginal sin", since they were alreay forgiven.

and that just dosent make sence anyways, that Allah ta'ala, the most mercifull, oft-forgiving, most loving, the cherisher, the sustainer, the provider, the protector, the compassionate,the appricative,the generous,the trsustee,the giver of life and death,the gentle, and the forbearing would give an innocent, pure baby- who is purer then a chaste woman-orriginal sin. that alone would contadict most of the qualities of Allah ta'ala i just mentioned. how is being bron with sin mercifull?or loving?or forgiving(the baby cant pray yet)?how is that compassionate?or appricative? after all, he is the one who created the baby, he is the most appricative of his work. would a trustee call the bank a sinner for holding their money in the bank for them? no. how is that gentle? it simply isint. that baby has done NOTHING to be born into sin. we may not know or understand Allah subhanallah ta'ala at the very least, except for what he has made crystal clear to us. i got this information our of a book for new muslmis, basicly a childrens book, but this information you will find in the most in depth muslim literature arround, becasue this is all that a true belive in god needs to know about god to make his or her conviction stronger. and that in itself is a maricle.

salam.

[peaceuponyou]

If the Bible is 0.05% unauthentic it does not destroy our faith simply because we are not as Muslims

That is a wishful thinking ....

while an error-free book won't alone prove it as divine, errancy from any kind should get the book under suspicion ..
both the bible and The Quran claims inerrancy:

Holy Quran 41:42 No falsehood can approach it(the Quran) from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise.

in the clearest of terms the bible also claims to be the verbal ,plenary inspired word of God
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

not only inerrancy is specifically affirmed in the bible and the Quran but an inference as well:
the belief of a divine, error-free book is the one that is held by the church for seventeen centuries.
Due to the produced indisputable evidence of inaccuracies in the bible, a tiny minority of modern Christian scholars , began to be more realistic denying the concept that the bible is an error-free book…. Such concept, though realistic, has a tremendous obstacle to gain popularity among Christians ,as it Ignores the serious consequences for declaring that the bible is errant,the consequences would be the answer to the question:

[size="4"]Does Biblical Errancy matter? [/size]

quotes by some of the scholars of mainstream Christianity :

“the very nature of inspiration renders the bible infallible, inspiration involved infallibility from start to finish, if inspiration allows for possibility of errors ;then inspiration ceases to be inspiration.
Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible

“Even if the errors are supposedly in ‘minor’ matters, any error opens the Bible to suspicion on other points which may not be so ‘minor.’ If inerrancy falls, other doctrines will fall too.” If we can’t trust Scripture in things like geography, chronology, and history, then how can we be sure we can trust it in its message of salvation and sanctification?
Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media.


Again. a belief in limited inerrancy demands the impossible__that a fallible exegete become an infallible discerner and interpreter of (the word of God)within the scripture .This opens the door for confusion and uncertainty ,undergirded by either subjectivism or personal bias.
Indeed can the holy spirit inspire error; can the spirit of truth inspire untruth.?
Handbook of Biblical Evidences By John Ankerberg, John Weldon


“By this word ( inerrancy) we mean that the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.
E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1957, p. 113

‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’ (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)


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


Some say that the Bible is inspired in the same sense that great literature is inspired, as the plays of Shakespeare or the poems of Tennyson and Browning. Such people sometimes say, "I know the Bible is inspired because it inspires me." Really they mean that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God but that it is a good inspiring book even though it has mistakes. Some say that God gave the general thought and left it to men to write it down so that of necessity there would be some slight errors. Some say that the New Testament is authoritative and true, but the Old Testament is imperfect and is simply a survival of primitive religious thinking. Some so-called scholars, who are not scholars enough to know what the Bible claims for itself nor the evidence that it is true, teach a so-called "progressive revelation" and say that none of the Bible is reliable except the very words of Jesus, and they doubt many of the statements of the gospels. Many good men are deceived by these theorists and quote them. Some people say that the Bible contains the Word of God but that not all of it is the Word of God. If one must find for himself or depend upon some modernistic scholar to say just how much of the Bible is really the Word of God and authoritative, of course no two living men, on that plan, would perfectly agree as to what was true and what was not. Some good men very foolishly say that the Bible is inspired and reliable for religious knowledge but is not necessarily true in scientific matters, or in history (John R. Rice, Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, Sword of the Lord Publishers, p. 1).


"The Bible is the inerrant... Word of God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." (Jerry Falwell,Finding Inner Peace and Strength,Doubleday, 1982, p. 26, ).


It(The Bible) does not err in its revelation, its assertions relative to doctrine, ethics, history, et al. The autographs were absolutely and totally free from error. The Bible gives a faultless record of everything with which it deals (including lies and faults, at times); it chronicles the record of those errors but does not sanction them. It does claim infallibility in all that it does teach, however. Further, when accurately transmitted/translated, the translation is also inspired, the Word of God" (Biblical Inerrancy: The First Annual Gulf Coast Lectures, Church of Christ, Portland, Texas, 1993, pp. 33-34).


I believe that God moved the men who wrote the Holy Bible so that the very words they wrote and the very thoughts they expressed were given to them by God and miraculously preserved from every possibility of error. I further believe that Holy Scriptures "since they are the Word of God, contain no errors or contradictions, but are in all their parts and words infallible truth, also in those parts that treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters" . I will go even further since Jesus went further. I believe that the Bible is not only verbally inspired, but is also totally accurate in its tense, mood, voice, and case (in the original autographs) because Jesus says so
William Bischoff, a pastor in Bridgeton, Missouri.


"... But how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You may be worshipping a Christ of your own imagination." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 24)

Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false. As ICBI said: "... But this position (claiming truthfulness for those parts of the Bible where God, as opposed to men has spoken-ed). is unsound. People who think like this speak of Biblical authority, but at best they have partial Biblical authority since the parts containing errors obviously cannot be authoritative. What is worse, they cannot even tell us precisely what parts are from God and are therefore truthful and what parts are not from God and are in error. Usually they say that the "salvation parts" are from God, but they do not tell us how to separate these from the non-salvation parts." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 8)

the last valid arguments should be,not only,applied to the bible but the Quran as well....

to be continued