Jump to content
Islamic Forum
al faqeer

EISA (JESUS) PBUH in the QURAN

Recommended Posts

I don’t know about you guys but the above information suffices to prove the Bible remains unchanged.

 

It would be impossible to change every single manuscript ever written that has been spread throughout the world. There is no evidence of an original Gospel written before being allegedly corrupt.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls which is around 2000 years old discovered in 11 caves (by a Muslim I might add) is all the more proof the Bible remains unchanged.

 

If all you can give me is “there are contradictions in the Bible therefore it is not the word of God†by throwing in verses out of context then it’s plain obvious you are living your faith by ignorance because you are ignoring the above facts. I can easily throw in verses from the Quran out of context and make it appear there are contradictions. It’s a waste of time throwing verses at each other.

 

Again I reaffirm my position…to say the Bible has been changed sounds like a cover up to accommodate the Quranic teachings and quite frankly complete garbage when there are no historical facts to back it up.

 

 

Grace and peace be with you,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

well what happened at the nicene council with costantine?? Why were the people who followed Jesus being killed when they preached Jesus not being divine as how the romans were doing? The Bible does have words taken out and put in as well, also the Bible was written in a coded language as to protect the teaching but that plan failed and the majority of Bible scholars know this. The dead sea scrolls is proof of this, goa and read the dead sea scrolls and see for your self, scrolls that were hidden to protect the teachings of Christ. Also the gospel of Judas what about that?? Many things were taken out of the Bible especially during the consantine era, question is where is all of that info that was taken out??? and why did Jesus become like other gods in greek mythology?? Alot of good christians were killed because of this because they stood up to the wrong that they were doing. The Language was put in code to try and protect it, here is an example of the coded language

 

1st Corinthians:

17-28

 

For Christ sent me NOT to baptize ,but to preach the Gospe; NOT WITH WISDOM OF WORDS LEST THE CROSS OF CHRIST SHOULD BE MADE OF NONE EFECT.

 

For the PREACHING of the CROSS is to them that perish foolishness but unto us which are saved it is the power of God

 

19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

 

20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

 

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

 

22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

 

23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

 

24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

 

25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

 

27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Carlos,

 

I know we cannot convince you that bibles been changed; but I will tell you this, its not the Muslims that changed the Bible. If you need proof, that its been changed. Here's a video of an ex-priest about what he found changed, I am sure a search on Google will produce more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Twoswordali,

 

You tell me what happen at the Council of Nicaea?

 

The Church never preached Jesus was not divine and the Bible is living proof of that. If you want more proof here is a passage from St. Ignatius of Antioch addressing the Romans 110 AD. St Ignatius was the student of St John the Gospel writer found in the Bible:

 

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in

the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son: to

the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God,

by the will of Him that has willed everything which is: to the Church also

which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans ... To

those who are united in flesh and in spirit by every commandment of Hisâ€

 

Did you notice something? He addressed Jesus Christ as “Godâ€. Are you going to tell me this letter has been corrupted too?

 

See this is the thing you have no historical proof the Bible has been changed yet you stand by word that it has been changed with no evidence…

 

Grace and peace be with you,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW – Scholars have found the Dead Sea Scrolls to be identical with the Bible we have today. Where do you get your source the Dead Sea Scrolls conflicts with the Bible?

 

Grace and peace be with you,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Twoswordali,

 

You tell me what happen at the Council of Nicaea?

 

they changed the bible, took words out ,put words in, threw away parts of scriptures, Made Jesus divine and also made him just like other greek gods, greek mythology was fused with Jesus.

 

The Church never preached Jesus was not divine and the Bible is living proof of that. If you want more proof here is a passage from St. Ignatius of Antioch addressing the Romans 110 AD. St Ignatius was the student of St John the Gospel writer found in the Bible:

 

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in

the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son: to

the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God,

by the will of Him that has willed everything which is: to the Church also

which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans ... To

those who are united in flesh and in spirit by every commandment of His”

 

Did you notice something? He addressed Jesus Christ as “God”. Are you going to tell me this letter has been corrupted too?

 

Please show me where in the Bible Jesus addresses himself as "GOD", Please dont tell me what you can derive out of certain verses, please show me where he says Iam GOD period that will settle it for me. , He calls himself the son of man or the son of God, however the term son of God is not nothing special, why?? Because if one were to follow Moses laws (which Jesus says hes he is here to uphold) if one were to call himself God or the son of God then that statement is blasphemous punishable by death by being stoned.

 

In john 10:31-34, When the Jews came to stone Jesus ,Jesus said " I have shown you from my father many wonderful works for which of these do stone me??" The jews said for good works we donot stone you but for Blasphemy and because You being a man, make yourself God.

 

Now right here and right now Jesus could have said that yes i am God or yes I am the son of god here to die for your sins then the matter would have been settled at once. He could have been stoned to death and instead of people wearing crosses they would be wearing stones nowdays. But what does Jesus say, when he is confronted with these Jews who want to stone him.. Jesus answered them"Is it not written in your law "I said you are gods"" In another translation"is it not written we are all sons of God?".... So here Jesus is confronted with the fact that he is breaking the Law by saying that he is the son of God or that he is a god he turns it right around and says hey.. we are all sons of God thats what the torah says.

 

Nowhere does Jesus makes himself divine so why does other people make him divine?? When its blasphemy to call your self a god or the Personal son of God. Jesus showed them how they misunderstood him and his mission and every time they came to try and shut him down he used common sense to put them in their place. Jesus was not a liar, he was not one to practice deception, so if he was divine or he was the Personal son of God he would have said it, but he didnt so who went against Jesus's teachings and made him into Gods personal son or worst made him into a God??....This came during the nicene council when Jesus was made divine and if anybody did it before nicea they would still be going against Jesus.

 

 

22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

 

23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

 

25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men

 

From these verses we see that to preach Christ crucified is a stumblingblock to the Jews and to the gREEKS FOOLISHNESS Here we have scripture being put into codes to try and preserve it,

 

 

 

See this is the thing you have no historical proof the Bible has been changed yet you stand by word that it has been changed with no evidence…Grace and peace be with you,

 

 

Yes the nicene council is just one of the proofs, the fact that Jesus never says that he is God, now what about the gospel of Judas????

Edited by twoswordali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said the council of Nicaea did not change the Bible. Where is your proof? All you’re giving me is an empty argument with no evidence…

 

If you do some research you will see the reason the council was called into session primarily was to defend the Church against heretical claims that Jesus Christ was not divine and hence they formulated the Nicene Creed. Arius was a heretic that started most of the trouble to which a few centuries later Mohammed resurrected this heresy.

 

I have shown you evidence recorded by Jewish and Roman historians of Christ’s crucifixion; a fact that Mohammed denied he might as well have denied the history of Julius Caesar while he was at it.

 

If you’re so convinced that Council of Nicaea changed anything from the Bible give me evidence to support it.

 

Did the council also change the 14700 manuscripts found all over world dated before the council?

 

Oh by the way you claim there are no passages in the Bible that say plainly Jesus is the Son of God…

 

“Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"

[62] And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Mark 14:61-62

 

“Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!" – Matthew 16:16 (If you read on you will see Jesus does not deny this claim but blesses St Peter

 

“IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.†John 1:1 If you read it says “and Word became flesh and dwelt among usâ€

 

Is that plain enough for you?

 

Again all you have is the Quran with no historical evidence to support it. I believe you are living your faith in ignorance because the difference between us is we have historical and archaeological proof…you don’t.

 

Anyway this discussion is not getting us anywhere. It’s obvious we are standing our ground and will not move…

 

Grace and peace be with you,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said the council of Nicaea did not change the Bible. Where is your proof? All you’re giving me is an empty argument with no evidence…

 

If you do some research you will see the reason the council was called into session primarily was to defend the Church against heretical claims that Jesus Christ was not divine and hence they formulated the Nicene Creed. Arius was a heretic that started most of the trouble to which a few centuries later Mohammed resurrected this heresy.

 

 

Arius along with many others left the council because of what they was doing to the religion of Jesus they was fusing it with greek mythology go look at the movie Zeitgeist look at Jesus is so similar to many of the Greek gods. I have researched the Nicene counsil very well, All you have to do is look at the state of constanoplis at that time and the rift between the pagans and the Christians and you will see that after the council of nicaea that greek mytology was fused with christianity.

 

I have shown you evidence recorded by Jewish and Roman historians of Christ’s crucifixion; a fact that Mohammed denied he might as well have denied the history of Julius Caesar while he was at it.

 

Many of the greek gods were crucified as well, the crucifixion is not the physical death of Jesus it is bragging that was done by the Jews their claim that they killed Jesus, they killed his dotrine or so they thought.

 

 

 

If you’re so convinced that Council of Nicaea changed anything from the Bible give me evidence to support it.

 

The council of nicaea is proof of what happened to the Bible. How can you deny that the Bible never had words taken out or words put in when every priest would tell you that yes this has happened to the Bible, Bibles were burned Good Christians were killed because they followed Jesus, haven't you ever wondered why 1000s of christian priest were killed 1000s of scholars killed, heritics you say ???

 

 

 

Oh by the way you claim there are no passages in the Bible that say plainly Jesus is the Son of God…

 

I said that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say that He is God !! Show me where he says I am God. If you belive that he is God then surely you can find 1 verse where Jesus says I am God. Ive already shown you that to be called the son of God is really no big deal amongst the Jews because in the Torah it says we are all sons of God its the same as saying we all belong to God and i can except that language. Thats why they couldnt stone him, or did you not read the passage that i have given you above??

 

“Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"

[62] And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Mark 14:61-62

 

The son of the blessed of course he is the son of the blessed. He recieved deep insight into the reading of scriptures hes teaching people Gods words his mother was a holy woman his grandfather was a holy man his father Joseph was a holy man. Jesus was blessed to recive good guidance from God so was his parents and his family, was he the son of the blessed? he sure was. Now why do you neglect what he says next he says yes im the son of the blessed(meaning the blessings that he has recieved) and then he says that you will see THE SON OF MAN seated at the right hand of power not the personal son of God or God himself but THE SON OF MAN.

 

 

“Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!" – Matthew 16:16 (If you read on you will see Jesus does not deny this claim but blesses St Peter

 

We have already established that son of God does not mean the personal son of God if it did then Jesus would have been stoned to death.

 

“IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.†John 1:1 If you read it says “and Word became flesh and dwelt among usâ€

 

Yes heres where i agree, Jesus is the word of God and that word became flesh. When ever we read Gods word it should be manifested whithin side of us, Gods word should become part of us. Jesus was highly enlightened by Gods words he became Gods word in the flesh meaning he lived the word of God i accept this as well. Muhammad was the Quran walking but he wasnt God in the flesh no he was the WORD of God walking and so was Jesus, he was the word of God walking I agree.

 

 

 

Again all you have is the Quran with no historical evidence to support it. I believe you are living your faith in ignorance because the difference between us is we have historical and archaeological proof…you don’t.

 

No we have the Quran and the Bible and evidence to support it and common sense supports it as well. Heres somthing that i give to all my Christian friends to ponder on,.. .answer them if you can..

 

1.If Jesus is the physical son of God and Mary was not married to God then that makes Jesus the ###### son of God.

 

2. Heres another one .. if God had a baby with mary and Jesus is the only BEGOTTON SON of God then God broke his own commandment and had spirtual fornication or some sort of fornication with Mary and got her pregnent...

 

3.If Jesus is God when God was a baby he crapped himself, Gods come to die for your sins to save you yet he couldnt even wipe his own behind?? he couldnt save himself form smellimg like do do.but hes going to save the world?

 

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.5.

 

5. Not only that, God was a Jew so please tell me what man circumcised God what man had the privilege of touching Gods penis???

 

6.Jesus was breast fed so your telling me that God sucked on breast?

 

7.God knows all and heres all an he knows everthing yet your saying that Jesus is God but the devil tempted Jesus meaning that he thought about something that the devil suggested to him, so the devil tempted God??

 

8 While on the cross to die for your sins and he knew of this mission, Jesus says Father why has thou forsaken me?? Yeah this really sounds like somebody who knew that he was going to die for your sins.

 

9. Nowhere and i mean NOWHERE DOES JESUS EVER SAY IN THE BIBLE THAT I AM GOD!!

 

10. God says 1000s of times in the Bible who he is but yet when it comes to Jesus he becomes quiet he nolonger wants to tell people that he is God?? He wants to die for your sins but yet he never said that this was his mission, his followers some how came up with that after he is gone.

 

11.God had a penis tell me did it get hard??? If it didnt then was God impotent??

 

12. How can God die for our sins when sins is a learning process in order for us to come to know God better and to sin is part of our test?

 

13. is God a racist? If not why did He pick a particular colour and race to come to earth as??

 

Can you answer these please. God says in the Bible that He is not the aurthor of confusion Look at how much confusion can come from saying that Jesus is Gods begotton son and that Jesus is God

 

 

 

Anyway this discussion is not getting us anywhere. It’s obvious we are standing our ground and will not move…

 

Grace and peace be with you,

 

No please dont run from the conversation, discuss these matters, if what you say is true then I will believe that Jesus is God, so answer my questions. I believe that God has no need to have a penis,or to die for us because he created us why would the very same God who created us, die for us, so that we can be sin free when he created us to sin. If thats the case then whats the point of having a judgment day?? Those who believe that Jesus is God they go straight to heaven and all those who dont go straight to hell. If I can see this why cant God? Why does he need to have a judgment day when we all are already being prejudged before we die? Are you saying that God is stupid? That he cant figure this out??

 

There is no point to judjment day there is no need for judgment day. What is the point is the point only to show us that Jesus is God and so that all the Christians can see the rest of humanity thrown in hell and you say God is mercyful?? According to you God has already prejudged us befor we die and all christians as it stands now is going to heaven and the rest is going to hell, again WHATS THE POINT OF JUDGEMENT DAY THEN??

And what about a newborn Muslim baby or Muslim children who die , according to you they are sinners because they are born in sin and they deserve to brun in hell?? How does a baby or children deserve hell?????

Edited by twoswordali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arius along with many others left the council because of what they was doing to the religion of Jesus they was fusing it with greek mythology go look at the movie Zeitgeist look at Jesus is so similar to many of the Greek gods.
Arius left because he disagreed with with the idea that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. btw: Arius DID claim that Jesus/the Son was divine. I would recommend reading something about history of Christianity (& it's heresies) before posting about them... :sl:
I have researched the Nicene counsil very well, All you have to do is look at the state of constanoplis at that time and the rift between the pagans and the Christians and you will see that after the council of nicaea that greek mytology was fused with christianity.
Trust me - you did not research it very well.

I would be happy to agree that greek philosophy influenced Christian theology. However I'm not sure if in this case Nicaean Council was any landmark. Still I can't find any relationship between I Council of Nicaea and "fusion of greek mythology"...

Many of the greek gods were crucified as well
how many? any example?
The council of nicaea is proof of what happened to the Bible.
as far as I know this council did not deal with Bible....agenda of I Nicaean Council as stated by wiki:

 

The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in being;

The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation

The Meletian schism;

The validity of baptism by heretics;

The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius

 

...nothing about Bible so far....

 

other - minor subjects:

1. prohibition of self-castration; (see Origen)

2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumen;

3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion;

4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the metropolitan;

5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually;

6. exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome, for their respective regions;

7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem;

8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists;

9–14. provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius;

15–16. prohibition of the removal of priests;

17. prohibition of usury among the clergy;

18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving Holy Communion, the Eucharist;

19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics;

20. prohibition of kneeling during the liturgy, on Sundays and in the fifty days of Eastertide ("the pentecost"). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics. (In time, Western Christianity adopted the term Pentecost to refer to the last Sunday of Eastertide, the fiftieth day.)

 

once again no Bible....so what are you talking about?

 

1.If Jesus is the physical son of God and Mary was not married to God then that makes Jesus the ###### son of God.

2. Heres another one .. if God had a baby with mary and Jesus is the only BEGOTTON SON of God then God broke his own commandment and had spirtual fornication or some sort of fornication with Mary and got her pregnent...

of course you're aware that it takes a lot of good will to take your points as pour curiosity and not as an intended offence? If I remember Isa in Islam is also said to be born of virgin. And Christians never claimed that God had an sexual intercourse with Mary.

 

3.If Jesus is God when God was a baby he crapped himself, Gods come to die for your sins to save you yet he couldnt even wipe his own behind?? he couldnt save himself form smellimg like do do.but hes going to save the world?

6.Jesus was breast fed so your telling me that God sucked on breast?

7.God knows all and heres all an he knows everthing yet your saying that Jesus is God but the devil tempted Jesus meaning that he thought about something that the devil suggested to him, so the devil tempted God??

8 While on the cross to die for your sins and he knew of this mission, Jesus says Father why has thou forsaken me?? Yeah this really sounds like somebody who knew that he was going to die for your sins.

Christians believe Jesus was incarnation of Son (2 person of Trinty) - both God and man - fully God and man. And sucking breast - doubting - fearing and being tempted is part of being human.

 

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??

I guess that this is Islamic way of being respectful towards other faiths?...on a side note: one have to be a male to have such a theological problems....

 

5. Not only that, God was a Jew so please tell me what man circumcised God what man had the privilege of touching Gods penis???
you really need his name?

 

13. is God a racist? If not why did He pick a particular colour and race to come to earth as??
maybe He tossed a coin and the outcome was "Jew"?

I skipped more serious questions because it is really hard to take you seriously....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arius left because he disagreed with with the idea that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. btw: Arius DID claim that Jesus/the Son was divine. I would recommend reading something about history of Christianity (& it's heresies) before posting about them... :sl:

 

I loked at your source as well wiki and got this

In about the year 318, he was involved in a dispute with his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, maintaining against him that the Son of God was not consubstantial or coeternal with God the Father, but that there was once a time, before he was begotten, that he did not exist. Arius, with a following of other priests, was excommunicated, but debate continued throughout the Eastern Roman Empire. Many bishops, particularly those who studied under Lucian of Antioch, agreed with Arius. By the time Constantine I took over the East in 324, debate was fierce, with various councils condemning and approving Arius's views on the Son.

This doesnt show me that he thought that Jesus was divine.

 

 

 

I would be happy to agree that greek philosophy influenced Christian theology. However I'm not sure if in this case Nicaean Council was any landmark. Still I can't find any relationship between I Council of Nicaea and "fusion of greek mythology"...

 

Look at all the pagan religions that were going on at the time of this council then look at how they and christianity relate to greek mythology

 

how many? any example?

 

Example: Attis of greece

 

of course you're aware that it takes a lot of good will to take your points as pour curiosity and not as an intended offence? If I remember Isa in Islam is also said to be born of virgin. And Christians never claimed that God had an sexual intercourse with Mary.

 

we dont believe that Jesus is the BEGOTTON SON OF GOD. You lie Christians say that Jesus is the Beggoton son of God, tell me what does beget or begotten mean, use wiki or any dictionary or here you may use what i found in the Bible:Genesis 5:3

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth Adam had sex with eve. Now you say that Jesus is the only begotton son of God what does that mean?? If this is true it means that God fathered a bastad child. and not only that, because Jesus Is God (according to you) then God made himself a ###### why would God do such a confusing thing?. Was Mary married when she gave birth??? What do we call any child that was born without their parents being married???(psssst we cal it a ######) and according to you believe that

 

Christians believe Jesus was incarnation of Son (2 person of Trinty) - both God and man - fully God and man. And sucking breast - doubting - fearing and being tempted is part of being human.

 

If you believe that God became a man and He was tempted by the devil so then God becomes under the human being scope because hes part human being. OK, then if he was a human an if he was born to a woman who wasnt married the he has to take on the human name for those who are born to such people who are not married and that name is ######. So God is part divine part ######???

 

I guess that this is Islamic way of being respectful towards other faiths?...on a side note: one have to be a male to have such a theological problems....

 

 

This is no disrespect to the followers of Jesus however to say that God has a penis is a huge disrespect to our own logical intellect. It actually destroys good thinking on God, and thats disrespecful.

 

you really need his name?

 

Yes i would like to know the man who touched Gods private parts. Look how silly this sounds, tell me how can you condem two gay men for touching each others private parts, when God allowed for another man to touch His penis(according to you)

 

maybe He tossed a coin and the outcome was "Jew"?

 

Laugh it up but you know this is an act of being a racist!! Prophets is a different story, there can be prophets from any race, sent to all humanity because they are a human being. But for God to come to earth and choose a specific race of people thats not a fair God at all, no wonder the whites thought that they was over the slaves.

 

I skipped more serious questions because it is really hard to take you seriously....

 

Why have you bowed out of the conversation?? These questions beg to be answered which you havent done and still you and the other person still have neglected THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS as well or did you forget?? and the last part of my questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 bookâ€. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 bookâ€. 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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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:

 

Does Biblical Errancy matter?

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twoswordali,

 

     When you bring up the Son of Man you seem to think he's not pointing to God.  Yet, Jesus is actually referring to Chapters 7:13-15 in the Book of Daniel.

 

As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time. 13"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

 

Jesus is likely referring to this when he brings up the Son of Man.   

 

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is truth from the Qur'an about Eisa (peace be upon him):

 

HISTORICAL FACT: It is agreed the 1st century records a long guerrilla war between Messianic Jews/Zealots against Roman occupation. The Paulinian christians have denied these Messianic Jews/Zealots belong to their Jesus the Peacenik God. They declare that their leaders were "false messiahs".  Even though Jesus disciples carried swords (John 18:10) and have names like Simon the ZEALOT (terrorist) and Judas ESCARIOT (meaning man of the dagger / assassin).

 

The Jews deny the Messianic Jews/Zealots because for them Jesus was a fake because he didn't fullfill prophesy.  Being that  the promised messiah will be a Ruler/Imam/Warrior King who will conquer his enemies and rule the world with an iron fist.   Also Psalms declares the Messiah cannot be harmed.  Even the devil testifies to this & Jesus confirms (40 days in the wilderness).

QUR’AN: Allah tells us in the Qur’an that Jesus was not crucified nor harmed but rescued by angels. AND Jesus called the people to JIHAD (armed rebellion against Rome)Qur’an 9:111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [it is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.  Qur'an 9:111
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed Jesus laid his life down for us and had the power to take it up again, which he did.  As for Simon the Terrorist well it should be noted that most men wore swords or daggers back then.  It was a dangerous time, still is in fact, depending on where you go. While your certainly entitled to opinion about Simon being a Terrorist and Judas an assassin, its not the common position on those two men  as both were disciples of Jesus in Christianity. 

 

Peace be with you   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×