Jump to content
Islamic Forum
kometa2

Crucifiction Of Jesus

Recommended Posts

As I showed above no muslim CAN deny that the Bible is true and they CANNOT say that the Bible was corrupted becauseit is Allah himself and Muhammad who say the Bible is true.

And the Bible says Jesus died on the cross.

 

Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.

 

SO there is no point in denying the truth and the fact that Jesus did die on the cross. And not only that but He also was raised from the dead. And the Gospels and book of Acts

are eyewitness accounts of the life and death of Jesus. So if Jesus died on the cross and was raised fro the dead by His Father then why try to earn somethig that was given by Him for free?

Jesus alreay provided the free giftof salvation by His sacrifice on the cross instead of every human being. He died so that we can live, He suffered so that we can become children of God and be reconciled to the Father who is now our Father too! God is love and He draws us to Himself by His goodness!

 

 

 

 

How would you respond to the post below taken from another thread?

 

In your rush to attempt to prove someone wrong, you skirt issues, ignore discrepancies, and dance around contradictions.

 

If you want to discuss the factual history of the New Testament, then would you care to enter into discussion about the genealogies of Jesus (pbuh), as written in Matthew 1:2-7 and Luke 3:23-38?  If, as Christians believe, Jesus (pbuh) was the actual son of God, then why were genealogies necessary?  Why would Matthew and Luke make such a great deal over tying Jesus (pbuh) to the House of David, through Jospeh, if Joseph was not even His father? Why was this so important to Matthew and Luke, when Mark and John make no mention of it?  And why do both Mark and John overlook the virgin birth?   Was Matthew right in stating Jacob was Joseph's father, or was Luke right in stating Heli was Joseph's father?  This is a question I have posed to a large number of Biblical scholars, none of whom were able to provide an explanation.  Although I find many do try to ignore Luke 3:23 and suggest Luke's genealogy is actually Mary's lineage.

 

Shall we discuss how Matthew and Luke cannot even agree on the time of the birth of Jesus (pbuh)?  Matthew says, in Matthew 2:1, He was born during the reign of Herod the Great, yet Luke says, in Luke 2:2, He was born during the first census, whilst Quirinius was governor of Syria.  History tells us Hrod died in 4 BC, whilst the census took place in 6 and 7 CE.  This isn't a matter of a few days, or a few weeks, this is the difference of an entire decade!

 

How about the history of the Last Supper, would you like to discuss that?  Matthew (26:17), Mark (14:12) and Luke (22:7) all agree The Last Supper took place on the first day of Passover.  But John (19:14) tells us it was the day before Passover and that Jesus (pbuh) was crucified on the first day of Passover.  Since we cannot have it both ways, which day is the factual day of the event, according to the unerring history of the New Testament?

 

How about the Last Supper?  Shall we discuss how and when it was instituted?  Was this custom instituted by Jesus (pbuh)?  Or was it instituted by Paul?  And no matter which is correct, shall we discuss how remarkably the story of the Last Supper leans on Mithraic communion for its liturgy?

 

Matthew 26:15 tells us how the chief priests weighed out 30 pieces of silver to pay Judas.  Is this historical fact?  Because actual history shows that minted coins were already in use at the time of Jesus (pbuh), and had been for nearly 300 years.

 

What does history tell of us of Judas?  Matthew (27:5) says Judas hanged himself.  Luke (Acts 1:18) says Judas fell headlong with his insides gushing out. 

 

Shall we discuss the historical events immediately following the arrest of Jesus (pbuh).  Matthew (26:57), Mark (14:53) and Luke (22:54) all say Jesus (pbuh) was arrested and taken directly to Caiaphas, the high priest.  But John says Jesus (pbuh) was first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas.  Which of these accounts is historically correct?

 

Matthew (26:57) tells us the priests and scribes were gathered prior to Jesus (pbuh) being brought before Caiaphas.  Mark (14:53) says they were assembled after Jesus (pbuh) was taken to Caiaphas.  And Luke (22:66) tells us they were assembled the day after Jesus (pbuh) was arrested.  Once again, which of these accounts is historically correct?

 

How about the crime Barabbas had committed?  Mark (15:7) tells us Barabbas was a murderer.  Luke (23:19) also tells us Barabbas was a murderer.  John (18:40) tells us Barabbas was a robber.  I ask you, which of these accounts is historically correct?

 

And now, we come to Pilate, where the accounts of the Gospel and actual history really separate themselves.  Mush is said about the Roman 'custom' of releasing a prisoner at Passover.  But actual history tells us this simply is not true, that the only authority Pilate had was to postpone executions until the day immediately following a religious festival.

 

And the story of Pilate 'giving in' to the unruly mob is equally erroneous.  Jospehus wrote that Pilate would often send his soldiers into unruly crowds to beat people, often killing them.  That Pilate was recalled to Rome because of his brutality seems to bear this out.

 

Who placed the robe on Jesus (pbuh)? Matthew (27:28), Mark (15:17) and John (19:2) all say the Roman soldiers draped a purple robe around Jesus and placed a crown of thorns on his head.  Yet Luke (23:11) contradicts them by saying it was Herod who draped the robe on Jesus.

 

How about the thieves, who were hung alongside Jesus (pbuh)?  Yes, Matthew (27:38) and Mark (15:27) say Jesus (pbuh) was crucified between two robbers.  Although John merely calls them men and Luke says they were 'criminals'.  Roman history disagrees with Matthew and Mark, because Rome did not execute robbers, only those found guilty of insurrection and rebellious slaves?

 

Well, so much for historical accuracy, eh?  If you are interested, I can provide you with many more examples, all backed up with Scriptural reference.  But I must admit, since you insist upon claiming we Muslims understand nothing of the Gospel of Jesus (pbuh), what were your own reactions, as you studied these verses and saw all of the historical inaccuracies and contradictions?  You were able to witness all these examples, along with a few dozen more, and still feel the Gospel is the unerring and Divine Word?  I find that to be incredibly fascinating.

 

Please, do let me know if you would care to discuss more inaccuracies and discrepancies from the New Testament.  The discussions can range from the actual location of the birth of Jesus (pbuh), to the time of year of His birth, to the failed fulfillment of the prophecies, to John the Baptist, to the tombs that allegedly opened at his death, to the discovery of the empty tomb, to  what was found at the tomb, to the date of the Ascension, to the conversion of Saul, and on and on.  If you would like to focus on just one topic, might I invite you to discuss the promise Jesus (pbuh) made the the so-called thief on the cross? 

 

I must tell you, your habit of relating to me your views of various events from the Bible is largely a waste of our time.  I've not hidden the fact that I spent a very large part of my life studying the Bible, as well as preaching its stories from a pulpit.  I know the stories about the missing body, at the Tomb.  I also know the stories of why Gospel accounts were written to show women discovering the empty tomb.  I am aware there are stories that the chief priest ordered the body to be removed from the tomb.  You're offering me nothing new, nothing I've not already read and considered.  Because, you see, it was after reading these same Scriptures, time and again, preparing messages about these same Scriptures, time and again, that I found I could no longer ignore the discrepancies and contradictions.

 

 

He was?  More past tense?  Maybe I should be asking who you believe Jesus (pbuh) is?  Is He the son, is He merely one who was sent (John 8:29), is He part of the Trinity, or...?  Who did He state He was?

 

I'll kindly thank you to stop insinuating I do not understand any portion of the Holy Bible, as well as intimating I do not believe in the life of Jesus (pbuh).  Your attempting to say these things certainly does make them so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

There ar eno discrepancies in the Bible nor the gospels. The only problem is with understanding of them. The Bible is the word of God. God reveals it to us. He is the Author of it and He is the One who reveals it.

Jesus said I am God. He said it so so so many times that there is no way you can misunderstand it... Jesus is God who came to live as a Man so if you take the verses talking about Jesus' humanity and use them as if talking about His divinity then you are confused. No wonder why...

Jesus was born as a human and in the jewish traditions the geneaolgies are very important and that is why they are in the Bible.

Matthew and Luke dont lie about Jesus. They are eye witnesses. ANd the Bible is true. Jesus stands behind the Word of God and Jesus is sinless. and He said I am THE truth. So if you deny the holiness of Jesus then you are lying. Since Jesus never lied nor sinned. And you yes....

ark does not overlook anything in the gospel. There are simply 4 gospels and they complete one another. So when you study them all you then and then only - have the full picture of what really happened. They, as eye witnesses and used by God as messangers of the truth, wrote what they saw, their part and together they make the whole. Simple.

 

If the genealogies are so important to the jews then why are you surprised that they are in the Bible, including the genealogy of Mary.

 

Of course we can discuss anything since the Bible is true. Firstly howevr we are discussing the crucifixion of Jesus which we showed you that it did happen. So you want to ignore this fact and that Islam denies what really happened there - even if it was proved) and you want to move to another point, right?

i have no problem with that. Hopefuly, when you see again that you are mistaken and the truth was shown to you and proven to you, you will not do the same thing as with crucifixion....

But I am open to talk about any subject if that can help you see the Truth (Jesus) and help you know God as Your God, and Savior (Jesus). The more you see the better....

 

So we can discuss the last supper or anything else. You choose. I would prefer to talk about Divinity of Jesus, since this is another truth whic is denied by Islam, Allah, Muhammad - and that is the central point because if you see that Jesus is God then you will (hopefully) no problems with following the true real only God and you will finally see that all else is a lie - used as satanic tool to deprive you of salvation, sonship and relationship with God and knowing Him!

So you choose what you want to talk about -- since I am sure you already saw that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead.

 

So remember, all gospels show the full picture. And there are NO inaccuracies in the Bible. None. The Bible is proven word of God.

 

Also,since Allah ascribes to himself the authorship of the Bible then by saying the Bible was false, incorrect or corrupted you disgrace Allah...who is a keeper of his word, right?

 

If one were to conceive 50 specific prophecies about a person in the future, whom one would never meet, just what's the likelihood that this person will fulfill all 50 of the predictions? How much less would this likelihood be if 25 of these predictions were about what other people would do to him, and were completely beyond his control? probability of Jesus fulfilling only eight prophecies about Him is 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!the fulfillement of 48 prophecies would be 1000000...... (157 zeros!!)and how many prophecies did Jesus perfectly fulfil in His life? over 400! The Bible is true!!.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above discussions are why I do not affiliate with any organized religion . People will believe what they want to believe . As I said from the outset of this discussion . The question was raised regarding the historicity and veracity of accounts of the crucifixion and death of Jesus .

As far as I'm concerned it is historical FACT . There is no logical nor scholarly reason to deny that. As for the Resurrection and propitiation of the sins for all mankind having been satisfied on that day , I believe that . I believe the Everlasting Gospel preached by Jesus . A for any religious dogma or discrepancies alleged or real regarding the writers of the books of the New testament ? I believe them all to be superficial to  The Everlasting Gospel .

 

 By that same Gospel I have determined that the Jews can and will be saved , after they recognize Jesus as their King and then subsequently as their Messiah . As for everyone else , that depends on whether they respond to the Holy spirit . That is my personal belief , however I do not preach it nor attempt proselytize it ,as it is not in my hands or those of any man . Each man is responsible for his own soul only .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There ar eno discrepancies in the Bible nor the gospels. The only problem is with understanding of them.

No discrepancies?  None at all?

 

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

 

Is it your understanding that Matthew has here identified Jacob as the paternal grandfather of Jesus?

 

"Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli..." Luke 3:23, NRSV

 

Or, is it your understanding that Luke has here identified Heli as the paternal grandfather of Jesus?

 

Wasn't it your theory that there are no discrepancies in the Bible?  You even went so far as to say there are no discrepancies in the Gospel accounts, so how will you explain the above quotes, taken directly from the very first chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew and the third chapter of the Gospel according to Luke?

 

If the account attributed to Matthew is correct, then that means the account attributed to Luke is wrong.  But this will create an incredible conundrum, because if the account attributed to Luke is wrong, then that means the Bible, which you identified as "the word of God", contains at least one error.

 

Since God does not make errors, how am I to believe the Bible is "the word of God"?

 

Of course, there is every possibility that the account attributed to Matthew is wrong, and that the account attributed to Luke is correct.  But that still means the Bible contains at least one error.

 

And none of this addresses the fact that neither the account attributed to Matthew, nor the account attributed to Luke can be corroborated by any external sources, which means there is an equal possibility that both accounts are in error.

 

 

Jesus said I am God.

Please, cite one example, where Jesus clearly and unequivocally said He was God.  Not a dozen examples, not five, not even two.  Just cite one.  Let me save you some time; there is no place in the Holy Bible where Jesus said, in a clear and unambiguous manner, that He is God.

 

You see, you have inadvertently stepped into a trap of your own design.  You feel it is your responsibility to explain what someone in the Bible has stated, when actually the Bible does not say that, at all.  This is a trap of interpretive folly.  Be reminded that as a Christian, you are responsible for what the Bible says, not for what it does not say.

 

But let's look at your unsupported claim, nonetheless.  The Bible cites many examples of Jesus praying to God.  If Jesus is God, who will you have me believe Jesus was addressing in His prayers?

 

And to take this a step further, if Jesus is God, and if Jesus died on the cross, then following this line of reasoning would have me believe that God died, wouldn't it?

 

Read the account in Matthew 19:16-30, and explain how you could possibly interpret any of that as Jesus equating Himself with God.

 

1. Jesus corrected the rich, young man, stating that He should not be addressed as good, that only One is good.

 

2. Jesus identified eternal life as entering into the kingdom of God, not as entering his own kingdom.

 

3. Jesus said with God, all things are possible, not that with Himself all things are possible.

 

You see, for every verse where you interpret Jesus admitting he is god, I can answer with a verse where He clearly demonstrated God was a completely separate entity.

 

I understand your position in all this, kometa2, I really do.  As a United Methodist minister, I regularly reminded people of the Great Commission, from the pulpit.  You are only doing your part in making disciples of all the nations.  But, you see, even promoting the baptism of believers brings us right back to another discrepancy in the Bible.  In Matthew 28:19, Jesus said people were to be baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".  Yet, Peter, in Acts 2:38, directly contradicts what Jesus said, because Peter told people to "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ..."

 

And we seem to have evidence that Peter was an eyewitness to the earthly ministry of Jesus (whereas your statement that Matthew and Luke were eyewitness accounts is most certainly questioned by nearly all Biblical scholars).  If Peter was an eyewitness, then why was he contradicting Jesus?  Yet another discrepancy, from a book you claim contains none.

 

Have you read The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, by Michael R. Licona?  It is an impressive text, one that seems to do an incredible job in supporting the historicity of the physical resurrection of Jesus.  But Licona ends up in the midst of a train wreck, specifically with respect to Matthew 27:51-54.  It seems even Licona cannot defend the account of the bodies of saints rising from their tombs and entering the city of Jerusalem.  Isn't it amazing how the ancients wrote about a man named Jesus being crucified in Jerusalem, yet none of them breathe a single word about all of these bodies of saints, who allegedly arose from their tombs and entered into the city, on the very same day?  Irrespective of anyone's belief in the crucifixion event, wouldn't the appearance of all these dead bodies have been somewhat newsworthy?

 

Licona, at one point, admits that the Bible might contain some "poetic language or legend at certain points".  He goes on to cite Matthew 27:51-54 as one of those points.  But when he points his study at those specific verses, he is suddenly back-pedaling, saying, "it seems to me that an understanding of the language in Matthew 27:52-53 as ‘special effects’ with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible.”

 

Special effects?  In an inerrant text, alleged to be the Divine Word of God?

 

Ultimately, Licona admits that the raising of the saints, "along with Matthew's other reported phenomena" could be a poetic device.  And then, he correctly states if the raising of the saints was a poetic device, "we may rightly ask whether Jesus' resurrection is not more of the same."

 

Believe me, i can go on and on with many other examples of discrepancies and contradictions taken directly from the pages of the Holy Bible.  Would you like some more examples?  Would you like to see examples of where the hands of man have changed the content of this allegedly inerrant book, so that different versions make statements that are 180° at odds with one another?

 

kometa2, I admire the zeal you demonstrate for your religious faith.  I am sure your pastor is well-pleased with it, as well.  But when you make statements such as "Jesus said I am God," you will have to understand people like myself are going to require you to cite proof for your claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and propitiation of the sins for all mankind having been satisfied on that day , I believe that .

Out of simple curiosity, if you believe the propitiation of the sins for all mankind has been satisified, what are your thoughts concerning the continuing ritual of Christian baptism?  If there was truly expiation, what need is there for baptism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of simple curiosity, if you believe the propitiation of the sins for all mankind has been satisified, what are your thoughts concerning the continuing ritual of Christian baptism?  If there was truly expiation, what need is there for baptism?

Salvation merited through Christ is not an automatic application. Salvation is granted by an act of faith through baptism. God doesn't want just want you to be saved. He also desires that you love him out of your own free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in infantile Baptism , nor do I believe Baptism is any requirement called for by Jesus . Again , you cite religious ritual , as a reason for turning away from the Everlasting Gospel . Baptism is a matter of religion.

 

Jesus did not institute religion , in addition baptism is a symbolic ritual , that a man dies to his old nature [immersed in water ] and is reborn to a new nature [ arises out of the water ] a new man , the old has passed away.

 

Baptism is not the mechanism for the propitiation of mans sins , the crucifixion and death of Jesus is . That is made quite clear in the Gospels . No one is saved by Baptism . How can an infant decide ? As for adults , Baptism is merely a symbol of their acceptance of Jesus as Savior /Redeemer .

 

There is no need for Baptism. It is a ritual required by Roman Catholics , Baptists and perhaps other religious sects . Baptism is not what makes a person a Christian .

 

This is the problem with Christian "religions " , and ANY religion for that matter , dogma , rituals and traditions  made by men .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again , you cite religious ritual , as a reason for turning away from the Everlasting Gospel .

 

No, I cited nothing of the kind, whatsoever.  Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

 

Baptism is not the mechanism for the propitiation of mans sins , the crucifixion and death of Jesus is . That is made quite clear in the Gospels .

Really?  Made quite clear by whom, in the Gospels?  Please, be very specific.  Was it Jesus that made this quite clear?  If it was made quite clear by someone else, by what authority did that person make it clear?

 

And for the record, the same person who you will be naming also stated that baptism secures purification from sins.  Romans 6:1-11.

 

 

There is no need for Baptism.

Yes, you are certainly correct in saying you are not a Christian.  Since you say there is no need for baptism does this mean the instructions Jesus gave His followers are null and void?  When, exactly, did this happen??  And on whose authority?

 

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."  Matthew 28:19 NRSV

 

I really have to give you credit for making this statement, as you are the first person I've ever met who was capable of separating Christian belief and baptism.  Now, who is turning away from Everlasting Gospel, Aligarr?  Who, indeed?

 

Here, I'll step back and leave you some extra room for your spin-doctoring.

Edited by Daris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to step back , however an earnest reread of the Christian verse is required . Does salvation come by believing or by Baptism ?

 Was the thief on the cross alongside Jesus Baptized when he was told by Jesus he would be in Paradise that very day ? Was Abraham baptized ?

 Baptism is an outward sign of belief , it is an act on the part of men , it is a sign of obedience .Do not the verses say Believe AND be baptized ?

 

Do the verses say one who believes but is not baptized is condemned ? No , they say those who do not believe are condemned . The verses and JESUS clearly state the " I am the way the truth and the Life , no one comes to the Father except thru me  " .The verses do not  say through baptism .

 

One is not saved through baptism but rather through belief in Jesus .One is not baptized THEN saved , One s SAVED and then baptized . If a man comes to belief and is alone , who will baptize him ?  Is he thus not saved ? What if men are in a desert with no water and come to belief in Jesus , are they not yet saved until they find water and are thus baptized ? Of course not .They are saved by belief in Jesus regardless of whether they eventually find water and perform the ritual of baptism .

 

Perhaps you have focused only on the Four Gospels and not the Books of Romans ,Corinthians , Thessalonians , Ephesians , Acts of the Apostles  etc . In addition , how does the practice of infantile Baptism guarantee salvation ? How can an infant make a decision to believe in Jesus  ?

 

No Daris , you have misinterpreted or misunderstood what the Gospel says . 

 

As for the Everlasting Gospel ? Men are saved through belief in Jesus ONLY , and can not be lost .That's it .

 

Did not Jesus say that whomsoever the Holy Spirit delivers into his hand shall in no way be lost or taken away ? No where in the Gospels does it say or imply " Be Baptized or be condemned " ......but it is specific in saying that to reject Jess as the only means of salvation -that man is already condemned .  Some also in error, believe that circumcision is a requirement .You miss the fact that there is a message for Jews and a message for the nations [gentiles ] There is NOTHING a man can do to be saved other than to believe Jesus is the only way to salvation .

 If you read the New Testament in it's totality , you would have reached that conclusion .Men will no doubt find reasons to reject the Everlasting Gospel , because it lacks religious ritual and upends traditional practices . It is "too simple " but requires great faith . Faith comes first and that is then evidenced by works although salvation is not attained through those works , for the way one lives once saved is evidence of that salvation .   That seems to be hard for men to do without interjecting religious dogma , rules and regulations ,and  rituals .Organized Religion .

 

 The Followers of Jesus were "called christians " or Christ-folk a Greek term . However they are/were Followers of the Way .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The peace of Christ be with you.

 

 

Please bear in mind I’m a Christian. I’m merely suggesting

how Muslims would answer seeing we are in an Islamic Forum.

 

 

In regards to your questions, Muslims would answer one of

the following three ways:

 

 

1)     

The gospels written were authentic but later

were corrupt by unholy men.

 

 

2)     

There was another gospel written earlier than

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but had been deliberately destroyed.

 

 

3)     

The Gospel was simply the words Jesus spoke. The

men that had transmitted it into writing deliberately distorted it.

 

Salaam,

 

Perhaps we could agree that there is another option. That being that the Gospels choosen by the Greeks were choosen because they fit the Greek Philosophical Bias and not for their authenticity to the 'true' of Isa (Jesus)?

 

I don't think that Islam is speaking of the Gospels found in the Bible as authentic. This is where you arguement falls apart.

 

Wa'salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baptism is practiced due to religion . It is a tradition and ritual .  The Gospels were not written in Greek , they were transliterated to Greek , even though the Jews of those days spoke Hebrew ,Aramaic and Greek  . So it was not the "choice of the Greeks " for any particular reason other than it was a language in use at the time of Jesus .

 But since the subject of the Greeks has come up , the Greek Orthodox Church , has exactly the same core belief in the crucifixion and death of the Christ [Jesus ] and believe also the propitiation of the sins of mankind was accomplished by it . And that is not by coincidence . THAT is the Everlasting Gospel , as simple as it is , and all the rest is the result of religion . The word "religion " is not mentioned at all in any of the Christian or Jewish verses .  The Church is a term used to describe a congregation of believers and usually designating their geographic location , spiritually the Church [the whole / all congregations of the Followers of the Way } comprise the body of Jesus , in that the church or whole body of believers are the bride of Christ . This concept is obvious throughout the Christian verses no matter the book or author .

According to the Jewish and Christian Book , the Jews have a Covenant with God called the Abrahamic Covenant , and those who believe on Jesus also have a covenant , called the New Covenant .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does salvation come by believing or by Baptism ?

Thank you.  It took you a few days, but I was certain you would trip yourself up, with your own words.

 

Well, if we accept the words of Paul, who was the one who said salvation comes by believing, then the answer to your question is a resounding, "both".  Paul makes it quite clear that the necessity of dying to sin is only taught through the Sacrament of Baptism.  Perhaps it is you, sir, who is in need of a re-read.  Or perhaps a tutor, to help you comprehend what you read?

 

You see, your studies have steered you down a path of fundamentalism, wherein baptism is not a sacrament, but rather an ordinance.  To you, baptism is only a public acceptance of one's faith, whereas to hundreds of thousands of Christians, baptism is is a conveyance of grace.  To those believers, baptism accomplishes the remission of sin.  To you, it is no more than someone declaring their faith, which could be done verbally, no water required.

 

Now, here is where you will doubtless be sputtering about your so-called facts again, but the actual fact is that your one-sided view of Christinaity is not shared by countless Christians.  Yes, yes, here is where you will say they are all wrong and only you are right, but that is when you show your true colors.

 

You continue to claim that faith in Jesus is the only element required for salvation, but proclaiming faith in Jesus, while denying what Jesus actually taught about salvation is accomplishing only one thing.  Specifically, denying faith in Jesus.

 

Jesus taught Grace is the root component to salvation.  Grace, not belief.  Jesus taught perseverance is another component to salvation.  Jesus taught keeping God's Law is another component to salvation.  Jesus did not teach salvation through faith alone.  It was Paul who taught that, not Jesus.  Jesus taught that if a person wanted to be right with God, then that person must keep the law and bear much fruit.  Go on with yourself, confusing the actual teachings of Jesus with the sales pitches of Paul, but here, sir, is where facts genuinely are facts.

 

Or perhaps I need to re-read Christian doctrine, because I have missed where the disciples of Jesus said that Jesus was just joking about things like grace and obedience?  :)

 

You see, this is why I mentioned that you really don't have a dog in this hunt.  You say you have studied for 50 years.  Maybe you have.  Then again, maybe you have not.  But your studies of this religion, your studies of that belief system, and your studies of other ways of life make you out as nothing more than what I call a dabbler.  You like to stick a toe in the water, but you've never really had the conviction to jump in and actually get wet.  So you dabble with this concept and you dabble with that idea, but you never exhibit the courage required to dive deep enough in order to really understand what you think you've been studying.

 

You were a pretty simple study, Aligarr.  It only took reading one of your posts to see all that would be required to successfully debate you would be to patiently keep you talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right Daris , 50 years of studying the Q'uran , the Jewish Book, the Christians books and others .  And you , who have fallen away from your original faith and have rejected the teachings of Jesus are going to lecture Christians and others ?

 

     I have read your Q'uran at least 5 times front to back  , the commentaries and sages , several Islamic Theologians and the writings of Muslima  and Bukari . I have studied the origin of the Semitic language and the evolved Hebrew words, in order to better understand what the Hebrew in the Jewish books really mean , in the Christian books I have studied the Aramaic words and their transliterated meanings to Greek , not the translations of Englishmen and Germans . I can say with surety I know more of Islam , Christianity and Judaism than you do , and I am certain you have no understanding of Christianity , it is no wonder you fell away from your Faith . You never were a believer of the Everlasting Gospel , you were a Methodist , a religionist ,and you failed to grasp the one core believe of Christians .

 

 You above statements make that as clear as day , you never understood and that is confirmed by your mention of The Law . You have reverted to Islam , and that indicates you reject the teachings of Jesus in as much as it pertains to salvation and what is truly required ,according to the words Jesus spoke .  You don't even believe that Jesus was crucified and died !  Gee , no surprise there . 

 

And you call me what ? LOL...a "dabbler "  ??  Seriously ?  I can teach you about the tenets of Christianity , but I am not here to teach , proselytize or preach.  I do know what I have read and studied and what I understand .

 

As for Mr. God's Servant ? He is too immersed in his religion , for he too misses the message of the Everlasting Gospel , and that is evident as you both miss the mark . He will work for his salvation and you shall hope for yours . That is in effect what you are both saying . You focus on what you perceive as "faults, discrepancies " in the narratives of men who put to pen what was redacted to them by witness . And you use that as a refute , when all narratives are in agreement about the core belief of Christianity.

 If I've read the Christian New Testament correctly the overriding theme is salvation by Grace , not works . Works in turn are evident of salvation , an outward sign . Just as is baptism . Salvation precedes baptism ,available to all who ask , yet baptism is not required . Neither one of you understands what is written in the books you claim to have read and understood .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

baptism is a symbol of our death, of the death of the old life, the old person who we were. now when we come out of he water we come to new life. the new life that Jesus IS in us.

Jesus is the only life we can live. HE IS THE LIFE!

Jesus said: I am he TRUTH, which means all else is a lie.

He said: I am the WAY which means all else is deception and misleading.

Jesus said I am the LIFE which means tha all else is DEATH.

when we come to Jesus and receive Him as our Lord and Savior we receive HIM into our lives. The old sinful nature is removed and our dead spirits are made alive by the LIFE tha Jesus is in us. He comes to INDWELL us! Now His life is in us, in our spirits, we are made children of God. God is now our Father, our Daddy. we have personal close intimate relationship with God, we are reconciled to Him, we now have direct access to the throne of God. We are saved, blessed and made children of God. We have it all.

Jesus now lives THROUGH us.  UNLESS He lives through us we cannot be christians. Christinity is relationship with God. Or else it is only a dead ceremonial religion as all others sects and cults. God proved His love on the cross! Love is practical. Love is sacrificial. Otherwise it is only a word on paper. Meangless empy word. But God IS love. and that is why He died in our place and now lives thorugh us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Scripture teaches us that love is not merely of God, but that God is love!

Love is not merely an attribute of God, but it is His very essence! His love is absolute and unceasing being revealed to us by the death of His Son for our sins!

 


God proved His love on the Cross. When Christ hung, and bled, and died, it was God saying to the world, "I love you." Billy Graham
 
Romans 5:8. "But God commendeth (showed) his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

1. He died for the ungodly.

2. We are in a system that knows nothing of love.

3. God will never withdraw His love from you.

  • a. He died for the homosexuals.

    b. He died for the rapists and child molesters.

    c. He died for the drunken fathers and mothers.

    d. He died for the prostitutes and drug addicts.

    e. He died for the business men, politicians, police officers, factory workers, farmers, military, housewives, den mothers, doctors nurses, teachers, and students.

    a. I want to assure that God does love you.

    b. You may not be loved by anyone else, but you are loved by the One who has given all He has to show His love for you.

    c. A sparrow cannot fall to the ground without it getting God's full attention.

    d. And there is nothing or no one who is too insignificant for God  to love and care for.

    a. His love for you is not dependent upon your reciprocal love.

    b. He loves us whether we love Him or not.

    c. God does not just possess the ability to love, HE IS LOVE.

    d. Because He is love, He loves us.

    e. And because He loves us He has displayed that love through His Son Jesus Christ.

John 15:13. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

1. Just as in John 3:16, this verse in John 15 tells us that there is no greater way to measure the love for someone than to give His life for that person or people.

2. When Jesus Christ gave up His last breath on the Cross of Calvary, He was saying in great huge, box car size letters, "I love you."

 

Every person can have the free salvation that has been provided for all mankind. God's love goes beyond the highest mountain; it goes beyond the deepest sea. His love is far reaching, and as you sit here today, His love has found you. If you are not saved, come to Him today. If you are saved, then surrender all to Him and make Him your Lord and Savior. God IS love! He is worth it all.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't think that Islam is speaking of the Gospels found in the Bible as authentic. This is where you arguement falls apart.

 

 

 

I’m not sure where you got that idea from but that statement

is incorrect.

 

 

The canon of scripture was first decided in the council of

Rome A.D. 382. There were the Pope’s delegates present who were Latin Bishops.

The council was not made up entirely of Greeks and it certainly was not

determined via Greek philosophical bias. The Bishops used the following

criteria to decide which books of scripture were inspired.

 

 

1)     

The book had to be traced back to the apostolic

time.

 

 

2)     

The book had to be widely circulated.

 

 

3)     

The book must not contain any teachings that

would contradict the fundament doctrines that were handed down through the

centuries by oral tradition.

 

 

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Mr. God's Servant ? He is too immersed in his religion , for he too misses the message of the Everlasting Gospel , and that is evident as you both miss the mark . He will work for his salvation and you shall hope for yours . That is in effect what you are both saying . You focus on what you perceive as "faults, discrepancies " in the narratives of men who put to pen what was redacted to them by witness . And you use that as a refute , when all narratives are in agreement about the core belief of Christianity.

 If I've read the Christian New Testament correctly the overriding theme is salvation by Grace , not works . Works in turn are evident of salvation , an outward sign . Just as is baptism . Salvation precedes baptism ,available to all who ask , yet baptism is not required . Neither one of you understands what is written in the books you claim to have read and understood .

 

Excuse me sir but can you prove you are infallible? Until

you can, please refrain from presuming you can advise me if I should follow a religion. You are not qualified to do so.

 

I don’t know where you get the idea that baptism is not

necessary for salvation. Can you please cite your references?

 

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>I made no claim of infallibility . The fact [which you just uttered ] that you believe Baptism is required for salvation , proves to me , that you do not fully understand the ore belief of the Christian Faith .</p>

<p>LOL....you wouldn't be of the Baptist sect would you ?   And I imagine if you were a Pentecostal , you would claim speaking in tongues was required . If you are a Roman Catholic then you would believe baptism as an infant provides salvation for that person . I would hope God is more merciful, in that so many die before they can understand or be baptized .</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> BTW , I advised you of nothing , nor am I attempting to judge you ,  I simply corrected your erroneous view/notion/ belief  , that baptism is a requirement of salvation .You may "follow " your religion in any way you choose , after all that is why there are about 2000 sects of Christianity . And that is the result of religion .  </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I will however play teacher , if you read the verses , research the meaning of the words , you will come to the conclusion that Baptism is not to remove dirt from the flesh , but rather a sign of repentence and does not in any case preceded Faith in Jesus as the only mechanism for salvation .</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here are a few  Acts 11: 17-18 , 8:12-13 , 8:36-38, 16:33,  2:38-41 , 10:44-48 , 16:15 , 16:33</p>

<p>                          Romans 8:9, 6:4, 6:38 ,</p>

<p>                          Ephesians 1:13,</p>

<p>                          Mark 10:38</p>

<p>                          1Cor. 1:16</p>

<p>                          1Peter 3:21</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There are seemingly contradictions ONLY if one has not studied the words used ,and their meanings in the original language used by the writer .</p>

<p> What of Cornelius ? And the Gentiles who spoke in tongues and received the Spirit before being baptized ?hey not receive their salvation through faith in Christ Jesus ? Would that salvation be revoked if they were not baptized ? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Again , the institutions of religion have caused the confusion . Some sects more than others , Roman Catholics and Methodists are no exception .</p>

<p> </p>

<p> And Daris'  mention of the Law is confirmation that he never understood from the start . And again let me reiterate , I do not judge you , nor do I attempt to instruct you on how to  go about following your religion , I simply tell you what I read and studied .</p>

<p>                  </p>

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about all those strange markings , it seems when you edit on this website , any spacing or punctuation is replaced by that jibberish .

 

I guess you just have to read between all those <p>  s .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>I made no claim of infallibility . The fact [which you just uttered ] that you believe Baptism is required for salvation , proves to me , that you do not fully understand the ore belief of the Christian Faith .</p>

<p>LOL....you wouldn't be of the Baptist sect would you ?   And I imagine if you were a Pentecostal , you would claim speaking in tongues was required . If you are a Roman Catholic then you would believe baptism as an infant provides salvation for that person . I would hope God is more merciful, in that so many die before they can understand or be baptized .</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> BTW , I advised you of nothing , nor am I attempting to judge you ,  I simply corrected your erroneous view/notion/ belief  , that baptism is a requirement of salvation .You may "follow " your religion in any way you choose , after all that is why there are about 2000 sects of Christianity . And that is the result of religion .  </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I will however play teacher , if you read the verses , research the meaning of the words , you will come to the conclusion that Baptism is not to remove dirt from the flesh , but rather a sign of repentence and does not in any case preceded Faith in Jesus as the only mechanism for salvation .</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here are a few  Acts 11: 17-18 , 8:12-13 , 8:36-38, 16:33,  2:38-41 , 10:44-48 , 16:15 , 16:33</p>

<p>                          Romans 8:9, 6:4, 6:38 ,</p>

<p>                          Ephesians 1:13,</p>

<p>                          Mark 10:38</p>

<p>                          1Cor. 1:16</p>

<p>                          1Peter 3:21</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There are seemingly contradictions ONLY if one has not studied the words used ,and their meanings in the original language used by the writer .</p>

<p> What of Cornelius ? And the Gentiles who spoke in tongues and received the Spirit before being baptized ?hey not receive their salvation through faith in Christ Jesus ? Would that salvation be revoked if they were not baptized ? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Again , the institutions of religion have caused the confusion . Some sects more than others , Roman Catholics and Methodists are no exception .</p>

<p> </p>

<p> And Daris'  mention of the Law is confirmation that he never understood from the start . And again let me reiterate , I do not judge you , nor do I attempt to instruct you on how to  go about following your religion , I simply tell you what I read and studied .</p>

<p>                  </p>

 

Thank you for proving my point. I don’t agree with you

therefore I’m wrong and you’re right, is that how it works? All you can do is

present me with references from the bible with your own personal

interpretation. Have you considered the fact your interpretation may be wrong?

If you cannot admit this then you are further claiming infallibility for

yourself.

 

 

Either be humble or be humbled by God. Your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor soul you read the Bible , but haven't studied it , and if you really believe that baptism is required for your salvation , then you don't understand it . You asked for references , I gave them to you , there are more ,but you wouldn't understand .  Are you Catholic ?

 Do you know that baptism only applied to Jews ? And  everything that Jesus said was to and for Jews ? Paul brought the Gospel to the gentiles and no gentile needed to be Baptized . But you missed that , and that is no surprise , you are a religionist first .

 

You are quick to use a right or wrong admonishment , when it in reality is not a matter of right or wrong at all , it is a matter of understanding your own Holy book .

 

 

You asked for references , I gave you some of many . Perhaps you recite your Bible , but you do not understand it .  Tell me , what are the rest of , what you think are requirements for salvation ?

 I am humble before God , but that does mean I must humble myself before your erroneous religious doctrinal beliefs .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See? Once again I don’t agree with you therefore I’m wrong because
you are infallible. it would be impossible for you to be wrong hey?


 

 


 

If it weren’t for the Church you wouldn’t even know which books
of the NT bible are inspired. Guys like you rely on the Church to decide for
you which books are inspired. You take the fruit of the Church’s work and
disregard the Church.


 

 


 

I wonder what you would have done with yourself between the
death of the last apostle and when the canon of scripture was concluded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure where you got that idea from but that statement

is incorrect.

 

 

The canon of scripture was first decided in the council of

Rome A.D. 382. There were the Pope’s delegates present who were Latin Bishops.

The council was not made up entirely of Greeks and it certainly was not

determined via Greek philosophical bias. The Bishops used the following

criteria to decide which books of scripture were inspired.

 

 

1)     

The book had to be traced back to the apostolic

time.

 

 

2)     

The book had to be widely circulated.

 

 

3)     

The book must not contain any teachings that

would contradict the fundament doctrines that were handed down through the

centuries by oral tradition.

 

 

God bless.

 

I dont think your opinion is imporant. But what koran says righ? And Allah ascribes to himself the authorship of the Bible and also - he talks about Moses, Abraham, Mary the mother of Jesus (whom he mistakes with Mary the sister of Aaron because in koran he confuses the old and the new testament and joins them together hough they were written and speak about different things)- so Koran which was written over 600 years after the whole Bible was written and the Bible was THE MOST important Book in those times- talks abou the truth of the Bible since there was no other Bible and there was no other Jesus but th One whoe made miracles, who was born of a virgin Mary, who raised people from the dead, who lived a holy pure sinless life and died on the cross and rose from the dead

 

If one were to conceive 50 specific prophecies about a person in the future, whom one would never meet, just what's the likelihood that this person will fulfill all 50 of the predictions? How much less would this likelihood be if 25 of these predictions were about what other people would do to him, and were completely beyond his control? probability of Jesus fulfilling only eight prophecies about Him is 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!the fulfillement of 48 prophecies would be 1000000...... (157 zeros!!)and how many prophecies did Jesus perfectly fulfil in His life? over 400! The Bible is true!!. Allah/Muhammad never prophecied a single prophecy that would come true....

http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor soul you read the Bible , but haven't studied it , and if you really believe that baptism is required for your salvation , then you don't understand it . You asked for references , I gave them to you , there are more ,but you wouldn't understand .  Are you Catholic ?

 Do you know that baptism only applied to Jews ? And  everything that Jesus said was to and for Jews ? Paul brought the Gospel to the gentiles and no gentile needed to be Baptized . But you missed that , and that is no surprise , you are a religionist first .

 

You are quick to use a right or wrong admonishment , when it in reality is not a matter of right or wrong at all , it is a matter of understanding your own Holy book .

 

 

You asked for references , I gave you some of many . Perhaps you recite your Bible , but you do not understand it .  Tell me , what are the rest of , what you think are requirements for salvation ?

 I am humble before God , but that does mean I must humble myself before your erroneous religious doctrinal beliefs .

 

 

Aligar, I study the Bible for many years. I suppose it it YOU who dont know it since as a muslim, and it is understandable, you read and sudy Koran, right?

So that is why I am helping you understand the Bible which was reffered by Allah, which was given by holy sinless God, which was confirmed by miracles of God and which was confirmed by history archeology science and was written over 600 years BEFORE Islam and koran came...

 

Whether i am a catholic or anything else does not matter and it does not influence the fact that koran came much later after Jesus already said who He is (God) and what He came to do (die on the cross for humanity).

At the beginning the gospel was addresses only to jews and then we read that apostle Peter in the book of Acts was sent to a pagan, gentile Kornelius and preached the gospel to him and his whole family and they were born again and became christians, then in the chater 9 of the same Book of Acts we read that Jesus revealed Himself to Saul, who later became apostle Paul and Jesus revealed o Paul the message of the gospel and sent him to gentiles/pagans.

CHristians are both people from the nation of israel and from gentiles. and both of them were baptised. So hopefully i could help you understand more. I dont hink you ever read the Bible because most of the epistles of Paul were written to gentiles : collosans, ephesians, romans, galaians.... so how can you form such an opinion when you dont know the Bible and never read it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think your opinion is imporant. But what koran says righ? And Allah ascribes to himself the authorship of the Bible and also - he talks about Moses, Abraham, Mary the mother of Jesus (whom he mistakes with Mary the sister of Aaron because in koran he confuses the old and the new testament and joins them together hough they were written and speak about different things)- so Koran which was written over 600 years after the whole Bible was written and the Bible was THE MOST important Book in those times- talks abou the truth of the Bible since there was no other Bible and there was no other Jesus but th One whoe made miracles, who was born of a virgin Mary, who raised people from the dead, who lived a holy pure sinless life and died on the cross and rose from the dead

 

If one were to conceive 50 specific prophecies about a person in the future, whom one would never meet, just what's the likelihood that this person will fulfill all 50 of the predictions? How much less would this likelihood be if 25 of these predictions were about what other people would do to him, and were completely beyond his control? probability of Jesus fulfilling only eight prophecies about Him is 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!the fulfillement of 48 prophecies would be 1000000...... (157 zeros!!)and how many prophecies did Jesus perfectly fulfil in His life? over 400! The Bible is true!!. Allah/Muhammad never prophecied a single prophecy that would come true....

http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

 

What on earth are you talking about?? Your post makes no

sense in relation to mine. I just provided the criteria used by the Bishops to

decide which books of the NT were deemed inspired. That’s it! I have no idea what

you are on about…

 

 

 

 

 

Note – you may want to stop your preaching in an Islamic

forum. The moderator may decide to kick you out if you don’t start showing an

interest in learning about Islam.

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


×