Jump to content
Islamic Forum
andalusi

Muslim-Christian Debate, Here

Recommended Posts

I applaud what you are trying to show, truly, and it is a valiant effort.  But, new testament is irrelevant to Islam because they view it as corrupted and unreliable.  The key is in the messianic qualifications that were listed before hand.....

 

what did the old teachings believe?  what was the oral tradition?

 

Also it might be interesting to note that the Qur'an was not put together during the life of Muhammad.  I personally believe that the history of the written Qur'an is a bit sketchy...

 

 

no, it is not only Islam who says it is corrupted and unrealiable, bible says about itself that

 Jeremiah 8:8 

"'How can you say, "We are wise because we have the word of the LORD," when your teachers have twisted it by writing lies?

 

 

let have a look in the corruption of

 

Bible

… and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah. [Matthew 1:16]

 

vs

 

Bible

 

Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son of Joseph son of Heli… [Luke 3:23]

 

 

so who is the father of Joseph??

 

as you can see both new and old testament are corrupted, just like God said in the Quran. and we see clear evidence for that.

 

 

 

Also it might be interesting to note that the Qur'an was not put together during the life of Muhammad.  I personally believe that the history of the written Qur'an is a bit sketchy

 

dont lie, not true

 

Quran was written and memorised whole during life of the prophet, it was only on different fragments during Muhammed life, fragments like animalskin, bones, stones.

 

but after Muhammeds death, Quran text was transferred to paper form.

 

 

http://www.worldconferenceohrid.kultura.gov.mk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=111&Itemid=96&lang=en

Mohammed, Allah’s messenger, memorized the whole Quran and bestowed it onto the ashabs (his companions). They would learn it by heart, write it down and verify it together with the Prophet Mohammed. Its verses would be written on palm tree leaves, on stones, on dried animal skins and any other handy material suitable for writing purposes. Every year Mohammed repeated the Quran together with the Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) and twice during his last year of life. Since the revelation of the Quran a vast number of Muslims have been memorizing the whole verbal text. It is such an easily memorable text that even pre-school children may learn it by heart.

 

 

i dont know were you get such lies about Islam???? and you claimed to be a muslim before, come on man, dont make jokes here

 

 

let see what the chief of the scribers say about that

 

Zaid bin Thabit, one of the chief scribes relates: "I used to write down the revelation for the Holy Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. When the revelation came to him he felt intense heat and drops of perspiration used to roll down his body like pearls. When this state was over I used to fetch a shoulder bone or a piece of something else. He used to go on dictating and I used to write it down. When I finished writing the sheer weight of transcription gave me the feeling that my leg would break and I would not be able to walk anymore. Anyhow when I finished writing, he would say, 'Read!' and I would read it back to him. If there was an omission or error he used to correct it and then let it be brought before the people"

Mu'jam Al-Tabarani Al-Awst, Hadith 1913. Dar al-Haramain, Cairo, 1415 AH

Authenticated by Al-Haithmi in Majma’ Al-Zawaid 8/257, Hadith 13938

 

 

so how can you come here and lie about Islam, and you claimed to be a muslim before??????

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

to be able to debate with me about these stuff you need know you bible very well and quran of course, while i know both your bible and my Quran, very well. and i know your arguments , and i know the answers for your arguments, in that case i know how you think and what you are going to say to me, in that case i am always 10 steps in front of you christians in these debates.

 

Abdullahfath, God has a mesage for you

 

God says to you from the Quran:

 

3: 144 Muhammad is only a messenger before whom many messengers have been and gone. If he died or was killed, would you revert to your old ways? If anyone did so, he would not harm God in the least. God will reward the grateful.

 

O My servants who have transgressed against their own souls, despair not of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surah az-Zumar 39:53)
 

54 And repent to your Lord, and surrender to Him before the punishment overtakes you and you can no longer be helped.

 

55 Follow the best that has been sent down to you from your Lord before the punishment comes upon you suddenly when you are not expecting it;

 

56 Lest a soul will Say: "How sorry I am for disregarding God's path; and I was certainly one of those who mocked."

 

57 Or should say, "Had Allah guided me, I would certainly have been of those who are dutiful!"

 

58 Or, faced by punishment, it says, “If only I could have another chance, I would join those who do good!”
 

Edited by andalusi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) I said put together, and you confirmed my words when you yourself admitted it was in fragments on skin and bones.  Thus the Qur'an was not put together while Muhammad was alive

b) I find it very intriguing that you disregard the book of Isaiah and then go use it to try and confirm yourself.

 

I think there should be a careful look at the qualifications originally for the messiah, if we are simply going by anointed we all know there were others called messiah but Jesus was to be the messiah.  I can list them all here if you like, one by one.  Or since you say you are ahead of me you can simply go ahead and guess my next reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) I said put together, and you confirmed my words when you yourself admitted it was in fragments on skin and bones.  Thus the Qur'an was not put together while Muhammad was alive

b) I find it very intriguing that you disregard the book of Isaiah and then go use it to try and confirm yourself.

 

I think there should be a careful look at the qualifications originally for the messiah, if we are simply going by anointed we all know there were others called messiah but Jesus was to be the messiah.  I can list them all here if you like, one by one.  Or since you say you are ahead of me you can simply go ahead and guess my next reply

 

 

a) I said put together, and you confirmed my words when you yourself admitted it was in fragments on skin and bones.  Thus the Qur'an was not put together while Muhammad was alive

 

Quran was put together during prophet Muhammed's Life, everybody knew the order of the chapters and verses beacuse they memorised it, while they have those chapter and verses on different fragments.

 

 

if i know that chapter 1 is on stone, chapter 3 is on animalskin, chapter 2 on bones, and chapter 4 on dry leaf, if i memorised them in the correct order commaded by the prophet

 

it is easy for me to put them in my mind chapter 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on, even though they are on different fragments. do you understand me.

 

 

 

b) I find it very intriguing that you disregard the book of Isaiah and then go use it to try and confirm yourself.

 

i have reference wich is Quran and prophet Hadith, i can detect errors with quran and hadith beacuse quran and hadith are divine information.

 

i used some verses from Isaiah wich clearly Point towards Muhammed. but those verses wich talk about man taking sins of others contradicts logic and bible itself, beacuse nobody can take your sins. you are only responsible for them , nobody else.

 

 

 

I think there should be a careful look at the qualifications originally for the messiah, if we are simply going by anointed we all know there were others called messiah but Jesus was to be the messiah.  I can list them all here if you like, one by one.  Or since you say you are ahead of me you can simply go ahead and guess my next reply

 

Messiah were kings also during old Days, but the title Messiah, Meshiha, or Masih fits on jesus beacuse

 

 

He was named the Messiah because whenever he wipes over a person with disability, the person becomes cured. Not that he is savior, he is not savior, God clearly said in bible that only savior is God, not jesus.

 

God says in bible:

 Isaiah 43:11 

I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.

 

and jesus is not God, that is why he is not savior. only God saves nobody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.answering-Islam.org/Shamoun/messiah_dilemma.htm

 

 

A messiah is a saviour or liberator of a group of people, most commonly in the Abrahamic religions.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

 

 

The translation of the Hebrew word Mašíaḥ as Χριστός (Khristós) in the Greek Septuagint[5] became the accepted Christian designation and title of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians believe that prophecies in the Hebrew Bible (especially Isaiah) refer to a spiritual savior and believe Jesus to be that Messiah (Christ).

source: same as above

 

 

 

15. The Messiah would have his hands and feet pierced.

Prophecy: Old Testament: Psalm 22:16 (Written: around 537 BC)
”Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.”

Fulfilled:  32 AD New Testament: Luke 23:33: ”When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals--one on his right, the other on his left.”
 

source: http://israelsmessiah.com/prophecy/messiah/Y%27SHUAH.htm

 

 

17. The Messiah would suffer and be rejected.

Prophecy: Old Testament: Isaiah 53:3 (Written: Between 701-681 BC)
”He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”

Fulfilled:  New Testament: About 32 AD
In Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the prophet foreshadowed the life and mission of Jesus, who was born about 700 years later. In Isaiah 53:3, the prophet said that a servant of God would be rejected and despised. Jesus was indeed rejected by many people living in the land of israel , and He was later crucified by the Romans.

It has been claimed by some scholars that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 actually refers to israel as a nation and not to an individual Messiah. Rabbi Moshe Alshekh, one of the great seventeenth-century expositors from Safed , israel , said "Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view."

source: http://israelsmessiah.com/prophecy/messiah/Y%27SHUAH.htm

 

 

20. Psalm 22 foreshadowed the crucifixion of Jesus.

Prophecy: Old Testament: Psalm 22:1,7,8,16,17,18 (Written: 1000 BC)
1: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? 7: All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 8: "He trusts in the LORD ; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him." 16: Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. 17: I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. 18: They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Fulfilled:  New Testament: About 32 AD: People are sometimes curious, when they read Matthew 27:46 or Mark 15:34, why Jesus, while dying on the cross, said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Those words are actually the first line of Psalm 22, which according to Jewish tradition was written by King David about 1,000 years before Jesus was crucified.

Psalm 22 speaks of a man who cries out to God for deliverance from intense persecution. There are parallels between the details in Psalm 22 and the details written in the New Testament about Jesus' crucifixion, such as:

Psalm 22:7 speaks of a man surrounded by others who scorn and despise him. This is what happened to Jesus in Matthew 27:39 and Mark 15:29.

Psalm 22:7 speaks of a man being mocked, which is similar in the descriptions of Jesus' crucifixion given in Matthew 27:31, Mark 15:20 and Luke 22:63; 23:36.

Psalm 22:8, "He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him." In Matthew 27:43, Jesus’ enemies taunted him by saying, "He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him."

Psalm 22:16, a man who was numbered with the transgressors, meaning an innocent man being regarded as being one of a group of criminals. Jesus too was numbered with the transgressors when he was crucified next to two criminals, as described in Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27, Luke 23:32 and John 19:18.

Psalm 22:16, a man whose hands and feet are either pierced, or mauled, or disfigured, depending on which is truly the best English translation of the original verse. In John 19:23,34,37 - Jesus' hands and feet were pierced with nails during the crucifixion process.

Psalm 22:17, a man who would be surrounded by others who stared and gloated at him. This too was the situation for Jesus during the crucifixion, according to Matthew 27:36 and Luke 23:35.

Psalm 22:18, onlookers gamble for pieces of clothing that belonged to the person being persecuted. As explained in Matthew 27:35, Roman soldiers gambled (cast lots) for articles of Jesus' clothing while he was being crucified.

There are other descriptions in Psalm 22 that sound like an accurate description of what would happen to a person being crucified, such as the disjointing of bones, the drying up of a person's strength, an intense sense of thirst.

Many Christian scholars have written about their views of the significance of Psalm 22 and the crucifixion of Jesus. The late Charles Briggs, who had been a professor at the Union Theological Seminary, said "These sufferings [of Psalm 22] transcend those of any historical sufferer, with the single exception of Jesus Christ. They find their exact counterpart in the sufferings of the cross.... This ideal is a Messianic ideal, and finds its only historical realization in Jesus Christ."


source: http://israelsmessiah.com/prophecy/messiah/Y%27SHUAH.htm

 

 

21. Zechariah foreshadowed the crucifixion of Jesus and His return.

Prophecy: Old Testament: Zechariah 12:10 (Written: 520 - 518 BC)
"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.
 
To be fulfilled with the soon return of Jesus when God removes the veil of spiritual blindness from the eyes of the Jewish people. They will then recognize that their long awaited Messiah was Jesus, and they will truly mourn for Him as for a firstborn son.

                             

source: http://israelsmessiah.com/prophecy/messiah/Y%27SHUAH.htm

 


These are but a taste of what I am talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

A messiah is a saviour or liberator of a group of people, most commonly in the Abrahamic religions.

 

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

 

not true, do you know why, beacuse Bible contradicts that and language contradicts that.

 

word Messiah means "annointed one"  and i explain to you why jesus was called Messiah beacuse annointed sick people and they got cured.

 

So can Jesus Messiah be savior?

NO

 

beacuse bible clearly says that

 

God says in bible:


 Isaiah 43:11 

I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.

 

and jesus is not God, that is why he is not savior. only God saves nobody else.


 

so now question araises, is jesus God then.

 

no he is not according to bible and quran

 

 

Bible
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man

if God is not a man, and jesus is a man, then jesus is not God, simple fact.

 

God clearly says in the Quran:

 

"Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" (5:75).

 

"And behold! God will say [i.e. on the Day of Judgment]: 'Oh Jesus, the son of Mary! Did you say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God?' He will say: 'Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would indeed have known it. You know what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Yours. For You know in full all that is hidden. Never did I say to them anything except what You commanded me to say: 'Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' And I was a witness over them while I lived among them. When You took me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things'" (5:116-117).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brother andalusi you are doing a good job here, may Allah reward you for your efforts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then Elisha was messiah too? he healed the sick too.

 

note: anyone note he didn't address a single one of the scriptures I gave?

Edited by abdullahfath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then Elisha was messiah too? he healed the sick too.

 

note: anyone note he didn't address a single one of the scriptures I gave?

 

 

 

So then Elisha was messiah too? he healed the sick too.

 

if you learned Islam properlly you would understand these titles, but you did not hesitate to leave Islam, i even doubt you were a muslim.

 

prophets got titles from God, Abraham was got title Friend (Halilullah) the Friend of God, Moses got title (the one who spoke with God), Jesus got title The messiah (the one who annoint, or annointed one) and Prophet Muhammed got title Rasoolallah (Messanger of God)

 

even though all prophets were friends of God, only Abraham God that title, even though All spoke directly to God only moses got this title, even though other messangers healed sick only jesus got this title (the messiah) , even though they were all messangers, only Muhammed got this title RasoolAllah messanger of god.

 

the Messiah title refers only on jesus, even though other messangers healed sick people, even prophet Muhammed did that, actually nobody of those prophets did that, it was God who did actually, they only pushed the button and power supply comes from power station (God), they touched (pushed the button) and power comes from power station (God). that is how it works. 

 

 

 

15. The Messiah would have his hands and feet pierced.

 

Prophecy: Old Testament: Psalm 22:16 (Written: around 537 BC)

”Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.”

 

Fulfilled:  32 AD New Testament: Luke 23:33: ”When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals--one on his right, the other on his left.”

 

 

 

Dogs have surrounded me;

 

did anyone saw dogs around jesus on the cross? actually iot was not jesus on the cross, it was other man who looked like jesus, i think it was Judah, who was transformed to look like jesus so God punished Judah for leaving jesus in the most crucial moment.

 

 

a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.”

 

how many people troughout history have been piercied on the tree and cross...this has nothing to do with jesus.

 

 

 

 

21. Zechariah foreshadowed the crucifixion of Jesus and His return.

 

Prophecy: Old Testament: Zechariah 12:10 (Written: 520 - 518 BC)

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

 

 

 

of course they mourned for him, beacuse they thought it was jesus on the cross, but it appear to them that it was jesus, beacuse transformed man who looked like jesus was on the cross , and they though it was really jesus, but God saved jesus from the cross and death.

 

why dont you watch this debate was jesus crucified between a muslim biblical scholar deedat and christian?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abduallahfath i have challenge for you , a puzzle to solve if you can.

 

Ressurected body from the dead get spiritualised says jesus according to bible:

In (Luke 20: 34-36): "And answering said unto them: 'The children of the world marry, and are given in marriage. But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and then resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Neither can they die any more for they are equal unto the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection’

 

angels are spirits according to bible

 Hebrews 1:13-14 
To which of the angels did God ever say, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"?

Aren't they all serving spirits, sent out to do service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

so Angels are spirits who does not have flesh and bones, just like ressurected people

 

But look here

Read Luke 24:36-41: “And as they (the
disciples) thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them,
and saith unto them, “Peace be unto you”. (Exactly as a Muslim
greets) But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed that
they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, “Why are ye
troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Behold my
hands and my feet, that it is I myself, handle me and see, for a
spirit hath no flesh and bones as ye see me have
.” And when
he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And
while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto
them, “Have ye here any meat?” And they gave him a piece of
broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat
before them
.” Living people eat food, not dead people or
resurrected ones, as Jesus stated in Luke


as we can see here, jesus was not spirit as ressurected bodies from the dead are.

That is why jesus was never on that cross nor was he ever killed.

God talks about so called crusifixion of Jesus in quran:

4:157 And their saying: "We have killed the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of God!" They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them as if they had. Those who dispute are in doubt of him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.

158 God raised him up to Himself. God is almighty and wise.

 

if jesus ressurected he would spiritualized, and would become like angel according to bible, but he was with flesh and bones, in other words never died and never got ressreucted.

 

so how can you claim then that he died when these texts clearly denies that.

Edited by andalusi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I was Muslim...ask Dot

2.  I am not referring to simply whether he was or was not crucified but was the messiah supposed to be crucified?

Under the qualifications as to what was needed to be fulfilled was one of the fulfillments that the messiah be sacrificed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crucifixion
 

    • It is important to know that Islam is the only non-Christian faith in the world that believes in the miraculous birth of Jesus. Islam makes it a fundamental issue of faith to believe in Jesus. He along with Noah, Abraham and Moses are considered 4 of the 5 best men, ever. However, there are differences between the Christian belief in Jesus and the Islamic one. The first is in regards to Adam and the Original Sin, and the second concerns the crucifixion of Jesus.
      • The Jews planned to kill and crucify Jesus but God saved Jesus. This is described in the Quran:


        "And their saying (the Jews):
        'We killed Messiah I'esa, son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah (God)' - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but was his resemblance. And those who differ therein are full of doubts, they have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not. But Allah raised him up unto Himslef. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise." (Quran 4:157-158)


        A question is raised by the above verse: Is there doubt in the crucifixion of Jesus as the Quran states?
         


        Doubt in the Bible?The Quran states that those who say that Jesus was crucified are in doubt and have no certain knowledge. Here, we will turn to study the Bible and the crucifixion. The focus will be on these issues:
        • 1. The Issue of Resurrection.
        • 2. Discrepencies in the Story ?
        • 3. The Sign of Jonas.
         
        1. The Issue of Resurrection.The following verse takes place after the event of crucifixion.

        "Jesus himself stood in their midst, and said unto them, Peace be unto you.... But they were terrified, and supposing that they were seeing a spirit. And he said unto them:


        'Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit has no flesh and bones, as you see me have.' And showed them his hands and feet. And while they yet believed not for joy and wondered, he said unto them:


        'Have ye here any meat?' And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." (Luke 24:36-43).


        Two this understood from the verses:


        1. The disciples where shocked to see Jesus, in flesh and bone.
        2. Jesus asserts that he was not a spirit and that he was flesh blood. He asserts that by letting them feel him and by eating.


        The disciples of Jesus were scared because they were not EYEwitnessess or EAR-witnesses to the actual happenings of the crucifixion on the previous three days, as described by St. Mark who says that at the most critical juncture in the life of Jesus, "they all forsook him and fled." (Mark 14:50). All the knowledge of the disciples regarding their Master was from hearsay. They had heard that their master was HANGED ON THE CROSS; they had heard  that he had GIVEN UP THE GHOST; they had heard that he was DEAD AND BURIED. A logical conclusion is that they were seeing a ghost. However, Jesus comforts them, telling them he is not a spirit, but he is flesh and blood.


        The fact that Jesus was flesh and blood is what creates some of the doubt. According to the Bible, after the resurrection :


        "Neither shall they die any more: for they (the resurrected bodies) are equal unto the angles, and the children of God, for such are the children of the resurrection.' (Luke 20:36)


        The verse explains that resurrected bodies will be 'angelized' or spiritualised, and will become spirit-creatures. However, Jesus states that he is flesh not a spirit ( i.e. he has not been resurrected).
         


        2. Contradiction ?There is a question as to what hour was Jesus actually crucified. The following verses of the Bible seem to contradict each other.

        "It was the third hour, and they crucified him." (Mark 15:25)
        "It was the sixth hour, and he was not crucified yet." (John 19:14)


        Another is the place where Jesus was put.


        "They put Jesus on the cross." (Mark 15:21)
        "They put Jesus on the tree." (1 Peter 2:24 see also Gal. 3:13)
         
        And, doubt in how Judas died:


        "Judas went and hanged himself." (Mathew 27:5)
        "Judas fell headlong, and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)


        2. The Sign of Jonas.Matthew records that the learned men among the Jews -- the Scribes and Pharisees -- came to Jesus and asked:

        "Master, we would see a sign from thee"  Jesus replies:


        "An evil and adulterous generations seeketh after a sign; And there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the Prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; So shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Mathew 12:39-40).
         
        We understand the following from the above verses:


        1. Jesus Christ stands or falls by the only sign (i.e. miracle) he was prepared to give: the special sign similar to that of Jonas.
        2. The sign of Jonas is: Jonas lived inside the whale for 3 days and 3 nights.
        3. The sign that Jesus is going to give: remain buried in the earth for 3 days and 3 nights.


        Although, the sign of Jonas states that Jonas lived in the whale, Christians believe that Jesus died and was dead while fulfilling the sign, we will not argue that point there .  Christians say that: it is the time factor that Jesus was stressing.


        The whole Christian world believes that Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon.  According to the Gospel, the Jews were in a hurry to eliminate Jesus. However, as much as they were in a hurry to hang him on the cross, they were in equal hurry to bring him down from the cross before sunset on Friday because of the Sabbath.  The Sabbath starts at about 6 p.m. on Friday and the Jews were warned in Deuteronomy 21:23 that the victim of crucifixion was an "accursed of God" and was not to be permitted to remain hanging on the Sabbath day, "that thy land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance".  To satisfy the religious scruples of the Scribes and Pharisees the "secret disciples" of Jesus took down the body from the cross.  They gave the body the Jewish burial-bath, plastered it with "one hundred pounds weight of aaloes and myrrh" (John 19:39), then placed the shrouded body into the sepulcher before night-fall.
         


        Three Days and Three Nights.We must not forget that the Gospels are explicit in telling us that it was "before sunrise" on Sunday morning (the First day of the week), that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus and found it empty. This means that Jesus was in the tomb Friday night, Saturday Day, and Saturday Night which does not add up to three days and three nights.

        Furthermore, the Jews (like the early Muslims) considered the day to start after sunset. Which means that Saturday would start on what we would consider in our modern day and age Friday after sunset. Similarly, Sunday would start on Saturday after sunset.


        Some argue: any part of the day is a day! No matter how poor this argument is (since Jonas spent 3 days and 3 nights in full) we shall examine that argument. We shall assume that Jesus was "dead" and buried before sunset on Friday (and not after). And that he remained in the tomb until few minutes before Mary Magdalene examined the tomb on Sunday morning. So, if any part of the day is a day, then:
         


        In those very relaxed conditions, there are 3 days and only 2 nights. So there is a night missing compared to the prophecy!
         
      • Friday day is the 1st day.
        Friday night becomes the 1st night.
        Saturday day is the 2nd Day.
        Saturday night is the 2nd night.
        Sunday day is 3rd day.
         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea still haven't really addressed the issue being brought up here. 

 

As there was a list of things to be fulfilled by the messiah was sacrifice part of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I was Muslim...ask Dot

2.  I am not referring to simply whether he was or was not crucified but was the messiah supposed to be crucified?

Under the qualifications as to what was needed to be fulfilled was one of the fulfillments that the messiah be sacrificed.

 

 

1. I was Muslim...ask Dot

 

if you really learned Islam you would never leave it beacuse it is most logical relgion in the world, it gives answers to everything.

 

 

2.  I am not referring to simply whether he was or was not crucified but was the messiah supposed to be crucified?

Under the qualifications as to what was needed to be fulfilled was one of the fulfillments that the messiah be sacrificed

 

no, does God planned to kill him for sins of others???? NO

 

What kind of God is that to kill innocent man for sins of others???

 

even God says that in the Bible, but you dont study your bible properlly

 

 Hosea 6:6 

For I(God) desire mercy, not sacrifice,

 

so why would he sacrifice innocent beloved prophet who sinners??

 

is it not easier to forgive them if they ask for repentance??? yes, so why do you complicate your reklgion christianity??? why do you rape your own mind with such illogical belief system. you are only harming your logic with this, nothing else.

 

i really dont know if you cant speak english or read bible properlly but it seems that you shut your eyes every time i post this verse from bible

 

Bible says:

 Deuteronomy 24:16 

Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

so why do you want sooo bad to put jesus on the cross for God sake??? why put innocent man for your sins?? are you incapable of asking forgivnes of God to forgive your sins, so you want put innocent man on the cross that he take away your sins. this is madness.

 

why do you want such sacrifices, when God himself does not want that. 

aztec%20sacrifice.jpg

 

 

this is God, this is logic, this is beauty

 

God says in Hadith - Qudsi 34

O son of Adam(human being), so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as it.

 

but you dont want that beauty, you want sacrifice , you want blood, you want that someone else take away your sins, beacuse you dont have time for asking God for forgivness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

son, your bible goes against your illogical belief system

 

Bible says:

Deuteronomy 24:16

Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

nobody shall die for you, if you sins, your will be puinished by God for that or be forgiven by God's mercy, there is no need that anyone die for you or me. God punish or forgive , there is no other alternative.

 

 

 

 

Muhamemd remain with us with his teachings, God brought Quran via Muhamemd, and Muhammed hadith remain among us until the day of Judgtment, that is why he remain with us. You dont need to remain physically with us, you can stay with us with your teachings wich people follow in details.

 

How can Muhammed be in us, of course he can be in us with his teachings, we muslims learn by heart whole Quran, and even his sayings, so Muhammed is in our minds every day, beacuse we pray 5 times a day.

 

 

 

Muhammed did not wrote anything, it is well known fact that he could not write and read, he was illitarate, even bible confirms his illiteracy.

 

God says in the quran that Muhammed is illitarate

 

7:158 ...There is no God but Him; He gives life and death, so believe in God and His Messenger(Muhammed), the unlettered prophet who believes in God and His words, and follow him so that you may find guidance.’

 

bible confirms this

Isaiah 29:12

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

 

look what Muhammed said when he met angel Gabriel bring first verses of the book called Quran

 

One of Muhammad's wives (Aisha bint Abu Bakr) later gave the following narration of the event

 

Forerunners of the Revelation assumed the form of true visions that would strikingly come true all the time. After that, solitude became dear to him and he would go to the cave, Hira, to engage in devotion there for a certain number of nights before returning to his family, and then he would return for provisions for a similar stay. Unexpectedly, the angel Gabriel came to Muhammad and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read". The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, "I do not know how to read." Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, "I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?"

Ok. The reason the bible is regarded as Gods word is because it is the most accurate recording of the events described. The old testament was written during the Babylonian Captivity. The New was written over time starting around 7 years after the death of Christ.

 

Now I'm no master of the old testament but from what I understand there was little controversy over what books to include. The contradictions between Samuel and Chronicles are due to them being history in addition to sacred literature. Now from what I understand Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of God. Correct me if I am wrong. However Christians, or most Christians, believe the bible is not the literal word of God. The bible is just the recorded relationship of God and israel as well as recorded words of Jesus.

 

On your Deuteronomy quote. That verse is about the laws of Jewish courts. Here is some good commentary on that verse.

Verse 16. - Among heathen nations it was common for a whole family to be involved in the penalty incurred by the head of the family, and to be put to death along with him (cf. Esther 9:13, 14; Herod., 3:118, 119; Ammian. Marcell., 23. 6; Curtius, 6:11, 20; Claudian, 'In Eutrop.,' 2:478; Cicero, 'Epist. ad Brut.,' 12, 15). Such severity of retribution is here prohibited in the penal code of the israelites. Though God, in the exercise of his absolute sovereignty, might visit the sins of the parent upon the children (Exodus 20:5), earthly judges were not to assume this power. Only the transgressor himself was to bear the penalty of his sin (cf. 2 Kings 14:6).

From http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/24-16.htm

 

Also there isnt in the bible. The only part that looks anything like is the song of songs, but that is a love song from Solomon to his wife as well as an allegory for God's love of israel.

 

On Jesus and prison. The reason it is just is because it reversed Adams sin. While Adam sinned and so died, Jesus was sinless and so need not have died. Thus when he was killed he reversed the original sin and opened the way back to heaven.

 

On God being a barber. Ha. Ha. Ha. :| The reason God says he will shave your legs is because as you said, no one wants to have his legs shaved. I don't see how this helps in the discussion. I have heard jokes many times more offensive about Islam but I will not post them as they are unimportant.

 

Excellent. So you have explained why Muhammad could be in anybody. Now we have a problem. We both interpret a verse in a certain way. So we must look back into the writings of the early church fathers and see what they said on the matter.

 

Here is what Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was the disciple of the apostle John.

The sending of the Holy Spirit

 

"When the Lord told his disciples to go and teach all nations and to baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he conferred on them the power of giving men new life in God. He had promised through the prophets that in these last days he would pour out his Spirit on his servants and handmaids, and that they would prophesy. So when the Son of God became the Son of Man, the Spirit also descended upon him, becoming accustomed in this way to dwelling with the human race, to living in men and to inhabiting God’s creation. The Spirit accomplished the Father’s will in men who had grown old in sin, and gave them new life in Christ.

 

Luke says that the Spirit came down on the disciples at Pentecost, after the Lord’s ascension, with power to open the gates of life to all nations and to make known to them the new covenant. So it was that men of every language joined in singing one song of praise to God, and scattered tribes, restored to unity by the Spirit, were offered to the Father as the first fruits of all the nations.

 

This was why the Lord had promised to send the Advocate: he was to prepare us as an offering to God. Like dry flour, which cannot become one lump of dough, one loaf of bread, without moisture, we who are many could not become one in Christ Jesus without the water that comes down from heaven. And like parched ground, which yields no harvest unless it receives moisture, we who were once like a waterless tree could never have lived and borne fruit without this abundant rainfall from above. Through the baptism that liberates us from change and decay we have become one in body; through the Spirit we have become one in soul.

 

The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of Godcame down upon the Lord, and the Lord in turn gave this Spirit to his Church, sending the Advocate from heaven into all the world into which, according to his own words, the devil too had been cast down like lightning. If we are not to be scorched and made unfruitful, we need the dew of God. Since we have our accuser, we need an Advocate as well. And so the Lord in his pity for man, who had fallen into the hands of brigands, having himself bound up his wounds and left for his care two coins bearing the royal image, entrusted him to the Holy Spirit. Now, through the Spirit, the image and inscription of the Father and the Son have been given to us, and it is our duty to use the coin committed to our charge and make it yield a rich profit for the Lord."

 

Thus we know Jesus prophesied the coming of the Holy spirit. What you need to show me is where the Apostles disciples speak of a coming prophet.

 

On Muhammad writing. Even I he was illiterate his teachings were still written down and so would be known to the world. In addition you have ripped th Isaiah quote out of all context.

 

11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I can’t; it is sealed.” 12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I don’t know how to read.”

 

In context you can see that it speaks of how the vision is impossible for any others to understand except for Isaiah.

Edited by Heavens Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, it is not only Islam who says it is corrupted and unrealiable, bible says about itself that

Jeremiah 8:8

"'How can you say, "We are wise because we have the word of the LORD," when your teachers have twisted it by writing lies?

let have a look in the corruption of

 

Bible

… and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah. [Matthew 1:16]

 

vs

Bible

 

Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son of Joseph son of Heli… [Luke 3:23]

so who is the father of Joseph??

 

as you can see both new and old testament are corrupted, just like God said in the Quran. and we see clear evidence for that.

 

 

 

dont lie, not true

 

Quran was written and memorised whole during life of the prophet, it was only on different fragments during Muhammed life, fragments like animalskin, bones, stones.

 

but after Muhammeds death, Quran text was transferred to paper form.

 

 

http://www.worldconferenceohrid.kultura.gov.mk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=111&Itemid=96&lang=en

Mohammed, Allah’s messenger, memorized the whole Quran and bestowed it onto the ashabs (his companions). They would learn it by heart, write it down and verify it together with the Prophet Mohammed. Its verses would be written on palm tree leaves, on stones, on dried animal skins and any other handy material suitable for writing purposes. Every year Mohammed repeated the Quran together with the Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) and twice during his last year of life. Since the revelation of the Quran a vast number of Muslims have been memorizing the whole verbal text. It is such an easily memorable text that even pre-school children may learn it by heart.

 

 

i dont know were you get such lies about Islam???? and you claimed to be a muslim before, come on man, dont make jokes here

 

 

let see what the chief of the scribers say about that

 

Zaid bin Thabit, one of the chief scribes relates: "I used to write down the revelation for the Holy Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. When the revelation came to him he felt intense heat and drops of perspiration used to roll down his body like pearls. When this state was over I used to fetch a shoulder bone or a piece of something else. He used to go on dictating and I used to write it down. When I finished writing the sheer weight of transcription gave me the feeling that my leg would break and I would not be able to walk anymore. Anyhow when I finished writing, he would say, 'Read!' and I would read it back to him. If there was an omission or error he used to correct it and then let it be brought before the people"

Mu'jam Al-Tabarani Al-Awst, Hadith 1913. Dar al-Haramain, Cairo, 1415 AH

Authenticated by Al-Haithmi in Majma’ Al-Zawaid 8/257, Hadith 13938

 

 

so how can you come here and lie about Islam, and you claimed to be a muslim before??????

I'm only commenting on the Jerehmiah quote. I already told you how you misinterpreted that verse. Either reply to my point on it or stop using it all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok. The reason the bible is regarded as Gods word is because it is the most accurate recording of the events described.

 

how man?

 

i showed to you contradictions in the bible, one verse say 1700 horsemen, other verse say 7000 horsemen, and you say most accurate recording????

 

 

 

Luke says that the Spirit came down on the disciples at Pentecost, after the Lord’s ascension, with power to open the gates of life to all nations and to make known to them the new covenant. So it was that men of every language joined in singing one song of praise to God, and scattered tribes, restored to unity by the Spirit, were offered to the Father as the first fruits of all the nations.

 

This was why the Lord had promised to send the Advocate: he was to prepare us as an offering to God

 

not true eighter , do you know why, beacuse bible contradicts you

 

according to bible holy spirit was present before and during life of jesus.

 

and jesus said:

 

 John 16:7 

But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

 

 

so jesus say if Jesus dont depart Advocate/Holy spirit will not come, but holy spirit was present during life of jesus

 

evidence:

 Matthew 3:16 

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

 

so question now is how can that prophecy be about holy Spirit when holy spirit was allready present on earth?

 

no son, it was not holy spirit, that prophecy is about prophet Muhammed.

 

even if that prophecy refers on holy spirit, even then he did not fullfill it. beacuse jesus said that this spirit will inform people about future stuff, when did holy spirit come and talked to people to inform them about future stuff.

 

Spirit refers also on prophet

 

evidence:

 1 John 4:1 

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

here is spirit synonime to prophet

 

so when jesus said that spirit of truth will come he means a new prophet, and that is of course Muhammed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only commenting on the Jerehmiah quote. I already told you how you misinterpreted that verse. Either reply to my point on it or stop using it all together.

 

show me how did i missrepresent that verse????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you really learned Islam you would never leave it beacuse it is most logical relgion in the world, it gives answers to everything.

 

 

no, does God planned to kill him for sins of others???? NO

 

What kind of God is that to kill innocent man for sins of others???

 

even God says that in the Bible, but you dont study your bible properlly

 

Hosea 6:6

For I(God) desire mercy, not sacrifice,

 

so why would he sacrifice innocent beloved prophet who sinners??

 

is it not easier to forgive them if they ask for repentance??? yes, so why do you complicate your reklgion christianity??? why do you rape your own mind with such illogical belief system. you are only harming your logic with this, nothing else.

 

i really dont know if you cant speak english or read bible properlly but it seems that you shut your eyes every time i post this verse from bible

 

Bible says:

Deuteronomy 24:16

Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

so why do you want sooo bad to put jesus on the cross for God sake??? why put innocent man for your sins?? are you incapable of asking forgivnes of God to forgive your sins, so you want put innocent man on the cross that he take away your sins. this is madness.

 

why do you want such sacrifices, when God himself does not want that.

aztec%20sacrifice.jpg

 

 

this is God, this is logic, this is beauty

 

God says in Hadith - Qudsi 34

O son of Adam(human being), so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as it.

 

but you dont want that beauty, you want sacrifice , you want blood, you want that someone else take away your sins, beacuse you dont have time for asking God for forgivness.

At first I tryed to explain Jesus' sacrifice but this site does it so much better.

 

Answer: The Bible makes it quite clear that God hates human sacrifice. The pagan nations that surrounded the israelites practiced human sacrifice as part of the worship of false gods. God declared that such “worship” was detestable to Him and that He hates it (Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:10). Furthermore, human sacrifice is associated in the Old Testament with evil practices such as sorcery and divination, which are also detestable to God (2 Kings 21:6). So, if God hates human sacrifice, why did He sacrifice Christ on the cross and how could that sacrifice be the payment for our sins?

 

There is no doubt that a sacrifice for sin was necessary if people are to have any hope of eternal life. God established the necessity of the shedding of blood to cover sin (Hebrews 9:22). In fact, God Himself performed the very first animal sacrifice to cover, temporarily, the sin of Adam and Eve. After He pronounced curses upon them, He killed an animal, shedding its blood, and made from it a covering for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21), thereby instituting the principle of animal sacrifice for sin. When He gave the Law to Moses, there were extensive instructions on how, when, and under what circumstances animal sacrifices were to be offered to Him. This was to continue until Christ came to offer the ultimate perfect sacrifice which made animal sacrifice no longer necessary. “But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:3-4).

 

There are several reasons why the sacrifice of Christ on the cross does not violate the prohibition against human sacrifice. First, Jesus wasn’t merely human. If He were, then His sacrifice would have also been a temporary one because one human life couldn’t possibly cover the sins of the multitudes who ever existed. Neither could one finite human life atone for sin against an infinite God. The only viable sacrifice must be an infinite one, which means only God Himself could atone for the sins of mankind. Only God Himself, an infinite Being, could pay the penalty owed to Himself. This is why God had to become a Man and dwell among men (John 1:14). No other sacrifice would suffice.

 

Second, God didn’t sacrifice Jesus. Rather, Jesus, as God incarnate, sacrificed Himself. No one forced Him. He laid down His life willingly, as He made clear speaking about His life: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (John 10:18). God the Son sacrificed Himself to God the Father and thereby fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. Unlike the temporary sacrifices, Jesus’ once-for-all-time sacrifice was followed by His resurrection. He laid down His life and took it up again, thereby providing eternal life for all who would ever believe in Him and accept His sacrifice for their sins. He did this out of love for the Father and for all those the Father has given Him (John 6:37-40).

 

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/human-sacrifice.html#ixzz2W6f1rEYZ

 

Also you seem to love using the bible to back up Islam. But when it denies Islamic views you call it corrupt and wrong. Which is it? If you think it isn't the explain the contradiction of the bible by the Quran. If you think it is then prove the corruption. Show me ancient versions of Mark, Matthew, John and Luke where all the Trinitarian verses aren't written.

Edited by Heavens Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

show me how did i missrepresent that verse????

The verse clearly says that people twisted the bible to back up there heresy. This has been a problem throughout Christianity. It does not say that the bible is corrupt. Think about it. If a corrupt text says its corrupt then due to its corruptness, what if that claim of corruption was a corrupted part. Then it isnt corrupt which means since it says it is corrupt, that it is corrupt etc. etc. ad infinitum. Now you have a liar's paradox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how man?

 

i showed to you contradictions in the bible, one verse say 1700 horsemen, other verse say 7000 horsemen, and you say most accurate recording????

 

 

 

not true eighter , do you know why, beacuse bible contradicts you

 

according to bible holy spirit was present before and during life of jesus.

 

and jesus said:

 

John 16:7

But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

 

 

so jesus say if Jesus dont depart Advocate/Holy spirit will not come, but holy spirit was present during life of jesus

 

evidence:

Matthew 3:16

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

 

so question now is how can that prophecy be about holy Spirit when holy spirit was allready present on earth?

 

no son, it was not holy spirit, that prophecy is about prophet Muhammed.

 

even if that prophecy refers on holy spirit, even then he did not fullfill it. beacuse jesus said that this spirit will inform people about future stuff, when did holy spirit come and talked to people to inform them about future stuff.

 

Spirit refers also on prophet

 

evidence:

1 John 4:1

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

here is spirit synonime to prophet

 

so when jesus said that spirit of truth will come he means a new prophet, and that is of course Muhammed.

I already explained the horsemen. It is a historical record and so errors can be expected. Here is an explanation of why the error is there.

http:///bible-difficulties/joshua-esther/how-many-horsemen-did-david-capture-1700-or-7000

 

Also, Obviously the bible must be pretty accurate as you keep using it to make claims on Muhammad.

 

Here is a side by side discussion of te verses on the holy spirit. After each verse it explains why it is not about Muhammad.

 

John 14:16 — And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Comforter to be with you forever - the Spirit of Truth.

The Comforter will be with these disciples forever.  Jesus promised the Comforter would be with these disciples forever.  Muhammad could not be the Comforter because he wasn't born until over 500 years later - following the deaths of these disciples.  He was born around 570 and died around 632 AD.

 

John 14:17 — But you know him for he lives with you and will be in you.

The Comforter lives with the disciples already now and will later be 'in' them.   The Holy Spirit came to the disciples and indwelt them.  Muhammad could not be the Comforter because first he wasn't around at the time when Jesus was speaking to his disciples nor second could he ever be in any of the disciples.  The Greek word is 'en', and it means 'right inside'.  Jesus is saying that the Comforter will be 'right inside' of the disciples.

 

John 14:26 — The Comforter is specifically described as the Holy Spirit.   The Comforter is not a man.  Muhammad could not be the Comforter because he was never the Holy Spirit.

 

John 14:26 — The Comforter will be sent in Jesus' name.  The Holy Spirit represented the Lord on earth.  No Muslim believes that Muhammad was sent by God in Jesus name.  Muhammad did not come in Jesus' name, as the apostle of Jesus, rather he came in his own name with his own questionable “revelations”.

 

John 14:26 — But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

The Comforter will teach these disciples and remind them of what Christ said to them.  As the early Christians grew the Holy Spirit taught them.  Muhammad is not the Comforter because he never knew the disciples and he didn't teach these disciples, and Muhammad never reminded the disciples of what Christ said.

 

John 15:26 — When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

The Comforter would be sent to these disciples.  These disciples received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.  Muhammad was never sent to these disciples.

 

John 16:13 — But when he, the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.

The Comforter will guide these disciples into all truth.  These disciples (and others) grew in the knowledge of God through the revelations from the Holy Spirit.  Muhammad never guided these disciples into any truth.

 

John 16:13 — He will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

The Comforter will speak to these disciples.  These disciples grew to know the leading of the Holy Spirit, i.e. they knew His voice.  Muhammad never spoke to these disciples.

 

John 16:14 — He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.  All that belongs to the Father is mine.  That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

The Comforter will take from Jesus and make it known to the disciples.  Muhammad never knew Jesus and never took from Jesus and made it known to anyone.

 

 

         The context of these passages shows clearly that Muhammad could not be the Comforter.  Jesus was not speaking of another person to come at a later date.  Jesus’ precious final words to His disciples were meant for them.  Jesus was not merely preaching a sermon to be analyzed and intellectually talked about through the centuries, rather, He was giving His the disciples with Him there His final commands, love, and encouragement.

 

Here's a question for you to consider: In Islamic theology, Muhammad rendered Jesus’ message fulfilled or ended because Muhammad brought God’s latest message to the people. Muhammad expected that true believers in God would accept Islam. Therefore, if Jesus was foretelling Muhammad, wouldn’t Jesus be prophesying that his ministry will be rendered void by the Paraclete? Read the context of the passages and decide.

 

         Further, to fulfill exactly what Jesus foretold concerning the Comforter and His relationship with the disciples, the New Testament records the fulfillment of the coming of the Holy Spirit and the disciples receiving Him.  The disciples received the Comforter - the Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:3, 4.  The Comforter was now “in” the disciples and He remained “in” them from then on and taught them — just as Jesus had said He would.

 

Here are the church fathers, many of whom were disciples of the apostles, on the comforter.

 

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILIPPIANS

Page 224

“What is His name, or what His Son’s name, that we may know?” And there is also one Paraclete. For “there is also,” saith [the Scripture], “one Spirit,” since “we have been called in one hope of our calling.” And again, “We have drunk of one Spirit,” with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] “worketh one and the self-same Spirit.” There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete.

 

 

FRAGMENTS OF CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS

Page 1155

The old things which were done by the prophets and escape the observation of most, are now revealed to you by the evangelists. “For to you,” he says, “they are manifested by the Holy Ghost, who was sent;” that is the Paraclete, of whom the Lord said, “If I go not away, He will not come.”

 

 

TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS;

Page 1083

He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.

 

Page 1094

Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth,”

 

 

ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS, BOOK 2, CHAPTER 7

ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

It is time, then, that we say a few words to the best of our ability regarding the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Savior in the Gospel according to John has named the Paraclete.

 

We must therefore know that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, who teaches truths ...

 

But the Paraclete, who is called the Holy Spirit, ...

 

In the case of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete ...

 

         Above are the statements of 4 of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers.  They state that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit.  From the time of Jesus through the history of the early church the early Christians believed that the Comforter was the Holy Spirit.  There was no confusion or uncertainty on their part regarding the identity of the Comforter. Thus Christians an be sure in the knowledge that it is not Muhammad that the verse speaks of.

 

 

On a sidenote does that mean you agree He was God's son? Again Irenaeus, disciple of the apostles says it was about the Holy Spirit. Show me an early church father talking about the "prophesied" prophet.

 

Again you have still not shown me a man who never sinned. That would disprove original sin easily. You also have stoppe mentioning the Deuteronomy prophecy. Am I correct in saying that it is not about Muhammad from the reasons I gave earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is evidence for divinity??? son you have missunderstood bible completely, i dont know what they teach you in the church , but i will explain to you these texts and this has nothing to do with divinity.

 

actually it was not Jesus who preformed miracles, it was God

 

evidence:

 

Acts 2:22

New International Version (©2011)

"Fellow israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

 

not jesus as you see

 

but what does this words mean

 

the Father is in me and I am in the Father

 

let have a look what jesus about these words

 

Also let us look at verse John 17:20-22 "That the ALL may be made ONE. Like thou Father art in me, I in thee, that they may be ONE in us. I in

them, they in me, that they may be perfect in ONE". In this verse, the same word ONE used, the Greek, HEN is used, not only to describe Jesus and the Father but to describe Jesus, the Father and eleven of the twelve disciples of Jesus. So here if that implies equality, we have a unique case of 13 Gods.

 

Question: In John 10:30 Jesus says, "I and the Father are one [hen]." Doesn't this show that they are one in essence?

 

This statement does not suggest either a dual or triune deity. What John's Jesus meant by the word hen ("one") becomes clear from his prayer concerning the apostles: "That they may be one [hen], just as we are one [hen]" (John 17:22), which means that they should be united in agreement with one another as he (Jesus) is always united in agreement with God, as stated: "I [Jesus] always do the things that are pleasing to Him [God]" (John 8:29).

There is thus no implication that Jesus and God, or the twelve apostles are to be considered as of one essence.

 

as you can see you have missunderstood completly what jesus meant by

the Father is in me and I am in the Father

 

 

 

 

26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he (Jesus) said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

 

Thomas doubted that Jesus (pbuh) was alive, so Jesus (pbuh) shows him his hands and asks him to put his hand into his (Jesus’s) side and stop doubting and believe that he is still Alive. This was surprising to Thomas, So Thomas exclaimed.

 

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

 

This was a mere exclamation by Thomas. In day-to-day life, we utter things like “Oh My God! What have I done?” “Oh My God ! Its so late” Does it mean I am calling my hearer a God?

 

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

 

Believed what? Believed that he is God? No !! Believe that Jesus (pbuh) is still alive and NOT dead. Din’t Thomas see Jesus (pbuh) before the alleged “crucifixion”? Of course he did ! If Jesus meant, that you have believe that I am God, so why is Jesus saying that you have seen me and believe? He had already seen him before.

 

This explanation is sufficient to Prove that Jesus (pbuh) did not claim divinity. It was only an exclamation by Thomas.

 

 

 

 

according to bible, Adam, david, jacob are sons of God, so what is special with jesus, biblically son of God is righteous person, not physically son of God.

 

 

 

no he did not show any divinity, but i saw you missrepresenting or missunderstanding what he really said and meant.

 

 

God said in bible

 

Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man

 

Bible

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

 

Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man

 

if God is not a man, and jesus is man, then jesus is not God, simple fact

 

 

Bible

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God

 

but people have seen Jesus, that is why jesus is not God.

 

 

If jesus was God, what kind of God is this

 

God that does nor know stuff?

 

Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

 

What kind of God is this who can't do anything?

 

John 5:30 By 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.

 

Jesus was a man acredited by God, not that he is God?

 

Acts 2:22 "Men of israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

 

if jesus was God, what kind of God is jesus when he need to be acredited by another God

 

Jesus God have another God???? 2 Gods?

 

John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

 

and jesus himself said this

 

Mark 12:29 Jesus replied, "The most important commandment is this: 'Listen, O israel! The LORD our God is the one and only LORD.

 

 

What kind of God prays to another God?

 

Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed

 

this is evidence from your own bible that jesus was not God

 

 

 

 

First off on being in the father, here is how a brother in Christ explained it to me.

 

The oneness that the Apostles and all redeemed Christians share with Christ (and with the Father and the Holy Spirit) is as his mystical body the Church. This is indeed an intimate oneness with God by which we participate in his divinity but this does not make us (or the Apostles) God.

 

All of Jesus' oneness with the Father statements, on the other hand, must be read in the context of the entire Gospel of John, which begins with the explicit assertion of his divinity as the pre-existent Word of God: "In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1). This same Word (the pre-incarnate Son) became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).

 

The cited verse from the the Jews for Judaism website you linked to (John 10:30) is indeed an assertion was Jesus' divinity: "I and the Father are one," is a Trinitarian reformulation of the Jewish Shema, "Hear O israel, the Lord our God the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4). Jesus elsewhere asserts both his pre-existence and divinty as the great I AM (Yahweh) when he says,"Very truly I tell you.. before Abraham was born, I am" (John 8:58).

 

Yes, through the "new birth" the Apostles (and we) participate in God's divinity (we are indwelt by the Holy spirit) but that does not make the Apostles (or us) God. Jesus Christ on the other hand is the pre-existent Word/Son, the second person of the blessed Trinity; he is God (John 1:1), and has always been one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. As he says at John 17:5, "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

 

It is not I who has misunderstood the verse, but the writers of JewsforJudaism.

 

On Thomas. But it says that Thomas said to him. When someone says Oh my God it is usually not to another person. Again you and I disagree on interpretation. I will discuss this later.

 

Also the seeing and believing part is not about Jesus being alive and not dead. It is about Jesus' resurrection. That is what Thomas was doubting.

 

On the son of God could you give me a quote. I checked Genesis and couldn't find where Adam was called son of God.

 

On Hosea remember that that verse is about Gods forgiveness and that he forgives forever unlike man. Also that is the father talking and the father is not man. However again this comes down to interpretation.

 

Here is a site refuting your arguements against Jesus' divinity. It is intended for JWs but works for your claim as well.

 

http://www.goodcathinfo.com/ccarchjesnotgod.htm

 

Finally the greatest proof of Jesus' divinity is the testimony of the disciples of the apostles. As I have shown you and I disagree on interpretation. This we can look at these men who were taught by those who knew Jesus and be sure of his divinity.

 

This is also intended for JWs but refutes Islam just as well.

 

 

Two of the earliest Church Fathers, Polycarp and Ignatius taught the deity of Christ. The early Church father, Irenaeus (circa A. D. 120-190) wrote that Polycarp was "instructed" and "appointed" by the apostles, "conversed with many who had seen Christ," "having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles,"(2) "the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the 'Word of life,'"(3) So his view of Jesus is very important. In The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, he mentions "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" and "our Lord and God Jesus Christ."(4)

 

Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness and in all freedom from anger and forbearance and steadfastness and patient endurance and purity, and may he give to you a share and a place among his saints, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.

 

Thus, Polycarp agrees with the teachings of the apostles that Jesus is God.(5)

 

Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch at the same time Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna. He wrote seven letters to the Churches while en route to his execution in Rome around the year A. D. 110. In Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians 18:2 he states:

 

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God's plan . . .

 

In 19:3 he states:

 

Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished, when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life . . .

 

In 7:2 he states:

 

There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

And in 1:1 . . .

 

Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.

 

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1 over whom Polycarp was Bishop he states:

 

I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise . . .

 

Thus, Ignatius and Polycarp both referred to Jesus as God.

 

The later Church Fathers also commented on who Jesus is. In the Watchtower tract we are considering, six major Church Fathers are cited in support of the view that the deity of Jesus was a heretical doctrine not taught until several centuries after Jesus. We have already seen that this is false, having considered Polycarp and Ignatius. Let's look at these other Church Fathers individually, viewing what the Watchtower claims they say, then looking at what the particular Church Father really said about Jesus.

 

Justin Martyr was a major defender of the Christian faith during the second century. The Watchtower tract says, "Justin Martyr . . . called the prehuman Jesus, a created angel who is 'other than the God who made all things.' He said that Jesus was inferior to God and 'never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say."(6) The Watchtower failed to provide any references documenting where Justin or any of the Church Fathers made the statements they attribute to them. However, today's technology has made it somewhat easy for us, since the entire works of the early Church Fathers are available on CD and search capabilities are present.(7) The Watchtower has loosely translated what the Fathers said and it is sometimes difficult to find the particular quotes they cite. A search of the terms "created" and "angel" reveal that Justin nowhere referred to Jesus as a "created angel." Neither does he write anywhere that Jesus is "other than the God who made all things." The closest reference is found in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, where he says, "the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit."(8) What did Justin mean by saying that Jesus is "numerically distinct" from the Father? This will become clearer as we see what else Justin wrote.

 

Did Justin claim that "Jesus was inferior to God and 'never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say'" as the tract claims? This reference is likewise from Dialogue with Trypho.

 

Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, — numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world — above whom there is no other God — has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with."(9)

 

It is striking to note that this statement by Justin falls within the 21 chapters in his Dialogue where he is setting out to prove that Jesus is God!(10) Notice that Justin did not say that Jesus was inferior to God. Here he writes that the God who appeared to the patriarchs and prophets is distinct numerically from the Creator who is also God. But who was it whom Justin believed "appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God . .?"

 

And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God [italics mine], and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.(11)

 

[T]he Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God [italics mine]. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin . . ."(12)

 

Justin says that the person who appeared in the burning bush to Moses, to the prophets and patriarchs, and who is called "God" is the Son. Therefore, it is striking to note that the very passage that the Watchtower sites in order to support their claim that "Justin said that Jesus was inferior to God" comes immediately after Justin says that Jesus is God and is within his 21 chapters where he sets out to prove that Jesus is God!(13) Notice what else Justin says concerning Jesus:

 

For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.(14)

 

What about the numerical distinctness between God the Father and Jesus? It is clear that Justin believed that Jesus is God. Yet he viewed Jesus as distinct from God the Father in his person, but never distinguished Jesus and God in terms of their essence. Such fits in with the Christian view of the Trinity and not with the belief that Jesus was a created angel as the JWs believe.

 

Next we go to Irenaeus who wrote around the year A. D. 185. The Watchtower tract says, "Irenaeus . . . said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the 'One true and only God,' who is 'supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.'"(15) Now let's look at what Irenaeus really said about Jesus?

 

Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God. . . . For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God — both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father.(16)

 

In the same writings, Irenaeus states,

 

. . . this God, the Creator, who formed the world, is the only God, and that there is no other God besides Him.(17)

 

Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God [italics mine] (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man . . . we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.(18)

 

It seems that Irenaeus, as with Justin, viewed Jesus as God, saw the Father and the Son as distinct persons, and yet as one God.

 

On to Clement of Alexandria who wrote around the year A. D. 200. The tract claims that Clement "called Jesus in his prehuman existence 'a creature'(19) but called God 'the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.' He said that the Son 'is next to the only omnipotent Father' but not equal to him."(20) Now let's look at what Clement wrote.

 

For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Savior, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity [italics mine], He that is made equal to [italics mine] the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God . . .(21)

 

Clement says that the Savior "is truly most manifest Deity" and that he is "made equal to the Lord of the universe, because He was His Son." Therefore, it seems that Clement not only regarded Jesus as God but that he is equal to God, contrary to the tract's claim that Clement wrote that he was "not equal to him."

 

Tertullian wrote around A. D. 200. The Watchtower cites Tertullian: "'The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.' He also said: 'There was a time when the Son was not . . . . Before all things, God was alone.'"(22) Let us look at this first citation in its context.

 

Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other [italics mine], and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy[23] ) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole [italics mine], as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the angels." Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another [italics mine to note what the Watchtower cites]; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, "I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter.... even the Spirit of truth," thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?"(24)

 

Notice what Tertullian says. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "inseparable from each other." On the other hand, each are one and they are "distinct from each other" "in personality." In other words, they are different persons, but inseparable. The Father is the entire substance and the Son is a "portion of the whole." He adds that his statement is taken in a wrong sense by "uneducated" and perverse people, as if there is a "separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit."(25) What is amazing is that Tertullian says this just four sentences before his statement which the Watchtower quotes in their attempt to claim that Tertullian believed that Jesus is separate from God that he is not God! It becomes painfully obvious that the Watchtower with the heretics of Tertullian's time are the subjects of his rebuke. Tertullian adds that the Father is greater than the Son, yet there is not a "division or severance . . . but mutual relations in the Godhead." For Tertullian, the Father being greater than the Son is one of position, not of essence.

 

The second reference of Tertullian cited by the Watchtower comes from Against Hermogenes.

 

[Hermogenes] adds also another point: that as God was always God, there was never a time when God was not also Lord. But it was in no way possible for Him to be regarded as always Lord, in the same manner as He had been always God, if there had not been always, in the previous eternity, a something of which He could be regarded as evermore the Lord. So he concludes that God always had Matter co-existent with Himself as the Lord thereof. Now, this tissue of his I shall at once hasten to pull abroad. I have been willing to set it out in form to this length, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the subject, that they may know that his other arguments likewise need only be understood to be refuted. We affirm, then, that the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself — but not eternally so the Lord. Because the condition of the one is not the same as that of the other. God is the designation of the substance itself, that is, of the Divinity [italics mine]; but Lord is (the name) not of substance, but of power. I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son [italics mine to note what the Watchtower cites]; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.(26)

 

Notice that Tertullian does not also say in connection with "a time when the Son was not" that "Before all things, God was alone," as the Watchtower tract claims. That latter statement is found in Against Praxeas,(27) where Tertullian stated such to say that "matter" does not co-eternally exist with God as the heretic, Praxeas, held. But what about the statement that there was a time when the Son did not exist? Tertullian says that while God always was, He only became "Lord" when He created something to Lord over. You cannot be a "Judge" unless there is something you are judging. You cannot be a "Father" unless you have a "Son." Therefore, prior to the Son, He was not "Father."(28) For Tertullian, the essence of what we call Jesus and the Son of God always existed. However, there was a time when the "Economy" differed.

 

Let's look at what else Tertullian wrote concerning Jesus in terms of his being God:

 

The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, "I am in the Father;" and is always with God, according to what is written, "And the Word was with God;" and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father [italics mine], since "I and the Father are one."(29)

 

Much more is (this true of) the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of Son. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word — the Father and His Son — two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible [italics mine]; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated: Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain [italics mine], or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, whilst it at the same time guards the state of the Economy [italics mine].(30)

 

n the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person.(31) As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [italics mine].(32)

 

For Tertullian, Jesus was "never separate from the Father, or other than the Father" and part of the "Trinity."(33)

 

We next visit Hippolytus, who was the spiritual son of Irenaeus and died in the early part of the third century, the Watchtower tract claims that he "said that God is 'the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,' who 'had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himeself; who willing it, called into being what had no being before,' such as the created prehuman Jesus."(34) Here is the citation from Hippolytus:

 

The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos, nor measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them.(35)

 

Notice that the comment, "such as the created prehuman Jesus" does not appear in the quote but is an added commentary by the Watchtower. What did Hippolytus mean when he wrote that God "was One, alone in Himself?" In the very next chapter he writes the following:

 

Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first; not the word in the sense of being articulated by voice, but as a ratiocination [i.e., the process of exact thinking] of the universe, conceived and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Logos was in the Father Himself . . . The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. (36)

 

Hippolytus would seem to agree with Tertullian that there was a time when the "Economy" or the mode of God's existence as three persons was different. However, Jesus was in God, was from God, is God, and is the substance of God. Elsewhere, Hippolytus writes,

 

For, lo, the Only-begotten entered, a soul among souls, God the Word with a (human) soul. For His body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity; but as, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father, so was He also in the body and in Hades. For the Son is not contained in space, just as the Father; and He comprehends all things in Himself.(37)

 

For all, the righteous and the unrighteous alike, shall be brought before God the Word [italics mine].(38)

 

Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary,

in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe on His name. . . . He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body [italics mine], coming forth too as a perfect man. For it was not in mere appearance or by conversion, but in truth, that He became man. Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God [italics mine], He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow.(39)

 

Hippolytus' view of Jesus was that he is "God," "being the substance of God," "was in essential being with His Father," was "God the Word," and "was manifested as God in a body."

 

We finally come to Origen who wrote around A. D. 200. The Watchtower tract claims that Origen "said that the 'Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence,' and that 'compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.'"(40) Now let's see what Origen said.

 

Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated from Him by "prolation," as some suppose. For if the Son be a "prolation" of the Father (the term "prolation" being used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then, of necessity, both He who "prolated" and He who was "prolated" are corporeal. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist [italics mine]. . . . How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father [italics mine]; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence.(41)

 

Origen did not say that the "Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence," as the Watchtower tract claims, but precisely the opposite; "He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father . . ." What about their statement that Origen wrote that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light?" That passage is found in Contra Celsus.

 

Those, indeed, who worship sun, moon, and stars because their light is visible and celestial, would not bow down to a spark of fire or a lamp upon earth, because they see the incomparable superiority of those objects which are deemed worthy of homage to the light of sparks and lamps. So those who understand that God is light, and who have apprehended that the Son of God is "the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," and who comprehend also how He says, "I am the light of the world," would not rationally offer worship to that which is, as it were, a spark in sun, moon, and stars, in comparison with God, who is light of God's creative power, or to call them, after the fashion of Anaxagoras, "fiery masses," that we thus speak of sun, and moon, and stars; but because we perceive the inexpressible superiority of the divinity of God, and that of His only-begotten Son, which surpasses all other things.(42)

 

Origen is speaking in reference to the worship of the sun, moon, and stars. He says that someone who sees the brilliance of these would not worship a spark which is small by comparison. Likewise, one who understands that "God is light" and that Jesus is "the light of the world" does not worship the sun, moon, and stars which are sparks in comparison. The Watchtower has completely misread Origen.

 

For we who say that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, "The Father who sent Me is greater than I." And none of us is so insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God. But when we regard the Savior as God [italics mine] the Word, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Truth, we certainly do say that He has dominion over all things which have been subjected to Him in this capacity, but not that His dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all.(43)

 

Origen writes here that the Savior is God, but inferior to the Father. Since he does not seem to embrace polytheism saying above that Jesus is inseparable from the Father and "the perfect essence of God the Father," Origen must mean that Jesus, while God, is positionally inferior to the Father. Commenting on Proverbs 8, he writes:

 

Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning [italics mine], not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding.(44)

 

For Origen, although Jesus derived His existence from God, He had no beginning. Commenting elsewhere on this matter, he states that to claim that the Son of God had a beginning to His existence implies that there was a time when God was not a Father.

 

John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in the beginning of his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, "And God was the Word [italics mine], and this was in the beginning with God." Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God [as the Watchtower does], take care that he be not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father Himself, seeing he denies that He had always been a Father, and had generated the Word, and had possessed wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages, or anything else that can be so entitled.(45)

 

But it is monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-begotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man or other living thing engaged in such an act; for we must of necessity hold that there is something exceptional and worthy of God which does not admit of any comparison at all, not merely in things, but which cannot even be conceived by thought or discovered by perception, so that a human mind should be able to apprehend how the unbegotten God is made the Father of the only-begotten Son. Because His generation is as eternal [italics mine] and everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced from the sun. For it is not by receiving the breath of life that He is made a Son, by any outward act, but by His own nature [italics mine].(46)

 

But how is the Son of God generated or born, yet without a beginning? This is a difficult question which Origen seemed to struggle with.

 

. . . as an act of the will proceeds from the understanding, and neither cuts off any part nor is separated or divided from it, so after some such fashion is the Father to be supposed as having begotten the Son . . ."(47)

 

Nevertheless, Origen held that Jesus fully possessed deity and was as omnipotent as the Father.

 

. . . the Son of God, who was in the form of God, divesting Himself (of His glory), makes it His object, by this very divesting of Himself, to demonstrate to us the fullness of His deity.(48)

 

And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: "Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." For who else was "He which is to come" than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Savior is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent.(49)

 

Origen never made any of the claims attributed to him by the Watchtower who has misrepresented him.(50) Rather he recognized Jesus as deity, as one possessing two natures; deity and human.(51)

 

We have looked at the writings of the six major early Church fathers cited by the Watchtower. We found that none of them regarded Jesus as a created angel, inferior to God in His essence, contrary to Watchtower claims. Rather, all six embrace a very high view of Jesus.

 

More here. http://www.risenjesus.com/the-early-church-fathers-on-jesus

This we know that the verses I cited were interpreted by the apostles to mean Jesus was God.

 

I will be unable to reply until tomorrow to anything else you say. God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no doubt that a sacrifice for sin was necessary if people are to have any hope of eternal life. God established the necessity of the shedding of blood to cover sin (Hebrews 9:22). In fact, God Himself performed the very first animal sacrifice to cover, temporarily, the sin of Adam and Eve. After He pronounced curses upon them, He killed an animal, shedding its blood, and made from it a covering for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21), thereby instituting the principle of animal sacrifice for sin. When He gave the Law to Moses, there were extensive instructions on how, when, and under what circumstances animal sacrifices were to be offered to Him. This was to continue until Christ came to offer the ultimate perfect sacrifice which made animal sacrifice no longer necessary. “But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:3-4).

 

 

what a terrible belief system, thank god i am a muslims. You depict God as blood sucking murderer, in Islam, God forgives those who repent sincerly to him. you christians are really strange people , even though bible clearly say, everyone is responsible for his own sin, you want sacrifice jesus for you. crazy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I already explained the horsemen. It is a historical record and so errors can be expected. Here is an explanation of why the error is there.

http:///bibl...re-1700-or-7000

 

 

how can Word of God, a book inspired by God contain errors?????? how can you be sure that it does not contain other hidden errors???

 

a book of God should not have errors at all. like Quran does not have errors.

 

 

 

John 14:16 — And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Comforter to be with you forever - the Spirit of Truth.

The Comforter will be with these disciples forever.  Jesus promised the Comforter would be with these disciples forever.  Muhammad could not be the Comforter because he wasn't born until over 500 years later - following the deaths of these disciples.  He was born around 570 and died around 632 AD.

 

you dont understand, when he say "you" it also means you or your future generations, in same language spoke Muhammed also.

 

 

 

John 14:17 — But you know him for he lives with you and will be in you.

The Comforter lives with the disciples already now and will later be 'in' them.   The Holy Spirit came to the disciples and indwelt them.  Muhammad could not be the Comforter because first he wasn't around at the time when Jesus was speaking to his disciples nor second could he ever be in any of the disciples.  The Greek word is 'en', and it means 'right inside'.  Jesus is saying that the Comforter will be 'right inside' of the disciples.

 

muhammed lived in their minds, jesus foretold him and talked about him, so they knew a lot about him.

 

 

 

 

John 14:26 — The Comforter is specifically described as the Holy Spirit.   The Comforter is not a man.  Muhammad could not be the Comforter because he was never the Holy Spirit.

 

 i dont know if you ever read my post. i clearly showed you that according to bible spirit can also mean prophet, false spirit is false prophet, spirit of truth is prophet of truth.

 

evidence:

1 John 4:1

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

here is spirit synonime to prophet

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

John 16:13 — He will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

The Comforter will speak to these disciples.  These disciples grew to know the leading of the Holy Spirit, i.e. they knew His voice.  Muhammad never spoke to these disciples.

 

 

 show me only one evidence when did this holy spirit came to disciples and talked about future events??? never

 

so jesus lied or what???

 

but look here how much Muhammed talked about future

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740416-signs-of-the-judgment-day-muhammed-prophecies-about-future/

Edited by andalusi

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


×