Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe Jesus makes a distinction:
Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Quran and the Son of God
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
I believe Jesus makes a distinction:
Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"See my hands and my feet" Unquote.
Jesus here wants to assure his disciples with this gesture that he was the same human being as he was before he was put on the Cross. Those who were in doubt that he had died, in between, they could verify by seeing somewhat fresh injuries/wounds on his hands and feet due to Crucifixion. G-d saved his life against all odds and heard his prayers in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus neither died on the Cross, nor in the tomb where he was put for treatment by his friends. They could see him and verify that. It was just like Jonah was before going in the belly of fish, in the belly of the fish, and out of the belly of the fish. Neither Jonah died for even a single moment when the event of going on, nor Jesus. As Jonah met his his people after the event so did Jesus.
Right, please?
Regards
As a Christian, yes.
j1i
Smiling is charity without giving money
The second paradox: that Jesus cursed the fig tree which did not physically hurt him, but forgave the sins of the criminals who tried to crucify him
The original Greek translation does not show any words that Jesus is the Son of God. But are interpretations
Many righteous people in the world are communicate with them as gods, this is the logic of mankind in elevating and maximizing the righteous
because of the feelings of loss of this righteous and for the survival of the remains are placed figures, pictures and statues and the multiplication of his as a pillar of moral faith
This future culture has turned into a desire to develop communication with the righteous of reverence and respect to the place of divinity
In Islamic culture
Many Shiites believe that Ali is like God and that his will controls God's will. Therefore, when the Shiites are exposed to any misfortune or problem, they call upon Ali, O Ali, and they do not say, O God.
We are trying to educate the Shiite side and warn them that this is wrong behavior that It causes the wrath of God and hurts the feelings of Allah (GOD) and we have to respect God
But they did not care
THANKS
Thank you for your latest comments. I intend to respond over two posts (in šāʾ Allāh).
On the 11th October you claimed that a person is at risk of losing salvation if they deny that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is both ‘God and man’; and I wondered what you meant by ‘man’.
Why wonder? Well, according to the Nestorians he is one person, two hypostases and two natures. According to Trinitarians he is one person, one hypostasis and two natures. Monophysites, on the other hand, hold that he is one person, one hypostasis, and one nature. For Unitarians – and the rest of us folk – he is just a man: one person; one nature; no hypostasis.
According to you, Yeshua is not a true man at all – not a man like us. He’s a superman; being both omnipotent and omniscient.
Concerning his alleged omnipotence:
Irenaeus of Lyon writes:
‘But as our Lord is the only true teacher, he is also the true Son of God, who is good and who suffers in patience – the Logos of God the Father become Son of man. He struggled and conquered. He was a human being, fighting on behalf of his fathers.’ (‘Adversus Haereses’; Book 3).
Irenaeus is writing of one who conquered through suffering and struggle; of a human being fighting on behalf of others. The one he is describing is not omnipotent; rather, he is one like us.
Irenaeus goes on:
‘Therefore, as I have said, he caused humanity to cleave to God – he united humanity with God. For if a human person had not conquered humanity’s foe, that foe would not have been conquered justly.’
Humanity’s foe is, of course, Satan. According to Christian theology it was Satan who brought about humanity’s downfall; and so he, in turn, must be conquered by a human. For God to do so would be unjust.
Irenaeus continues:
‘The Word, having been made flesh, had to share himself with us. That is why he went through every stage of human life, restoring to all of them communion with God. Consequently, those who say that he was manifested only in appearance, and that he was not born in the flesh and did not truly become a human person, are still under the ancient condemnation, they still lend their support to sin.’
To argue, as you do, that Yeshua as man was both omnipotent and omniscient is to make him other than a true human being. Let there be no doubt about this.
Tertullian writes:
‘Let us look closely at the Lord’s corporeal substance, for the question of his spiritual substance is settled. It is to his flesh that people pose questions. They ask whether it is real and what its quality is. They want to know whether it existed and where it came from and what sort of thing it was. Its reply will determine what resurrection means for us.
‘The Son of God has been crucified…….Furthermore, the Son of God died………..Furthermore, he rose from the dead after burial…………In what way will these things hold true of (Christ) if he himself was not true, if he did not truly have what it takes to be crucified, to die, to be buried, and to be raised – that is, this flesh of ours, suffused with blood, built up on bones, woven through with sinews, intertwined with veins? Flesh which knew how to be born and to die, flesh which was indubitably human because born of a human being and therefore mortal – this is what, in Christ, will be taken as “humanity” and “Son of man.”’
He asks:
‘Else why, if there is nothing human about him, nothing derived from a human being, is Christ (called) “human being” and “Son of man”? It would have to be the case, either that a human being is something other than flesh, or that human flesh is derived elsewhere than from a human being, or that Mary was something other than a human being, or that God is a human being.’
According to Tertullian, Yeshua is both man and God. He is man in virtue of being born; in virtue of being ‘fleshly’; in virtue of being ‘feeble’; in virtue of being ‘mortal’. He is God in virtue of being unborn; in virtue being spirit; in virtue of being mighty (omnipotent); in virtue of being eternal.
Tertullian concludes:
‘The special quality of the two ways of being – divine and human – is settled and established by the equal reality of each nature, both the Spirit and the flesh. With the same trustworthiness, the mighty works of God’s Spirit establish that he is God, and his suffering shows that he is human flesh.’ (‘De Carne Christi’).
The author of ‘Hebrews’ writes:
‘Since all the children share the same blood and flesh, he too shared equally in it, so that by his death he could take away all the power of the devil, who had power over death, and set free all those who had been held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death. For it was not the angels that he took to himself; he took to himself descent from Abraham. It was essential that he should in this way become completely like his brothers so that he could be a compassionate and trustworthy high priest of God's religion, able to atone for human sins. That is, because he has himself been through temptation he is able to help others who are tempted.’ (2:14-18).
This passage stresses the ordinary human nature of Yeshua.
According to Church doctrine, the denial of Yeshua’s human nature is a denial of the true incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity (the ‘Word’) as a man. Without a true incarnation (it is said) there can be no atonement for sin, since it was not then a true man who died for our sins. To claim – as you do – that Yeshua was not a normal man, but a superman – a kind of demi-god – is to be ignorant of the very basics of the gospel of Christ.
You claim that Yeshua was omnipotent because he ‘did numerous miracles without asking God for the ability to do so and without being commissioned to do so.’
When he was about to raise Lazarus from the dead, he lifted his eyes and prayed: ‘Father, I thank you for hearing my prayer. I knew indeed that you always hear me, but I speak for the sake of all these who stand around me, so that they may believe it was you who sent me.’ (John 11:41).
Yeshua had complete trust in God; he knew that his unspoken requests would always be answered. There was no need for him to speak them aloud; apart from this particular occasion (so that others might believe that he was ‘sent’).
An omnipotent Yeshua would not have needed to ask for a miracle – neither silently nor openly.
The Tanakh records that the prophets Elijah and Elisha did fantastic miracles – including healing the sick and raising the dead. When Elijah resurrected the widow’s son (1King 17:22) he demonstrated that he was a ‘man of God.’ Elisha is said to have resurrected the Shunammite’s son (2 Kings 4:34); and he did so by the power of Yahweh.
Peter is said to have cured a man crippled from birth, and to have done so in the name of Yeshua (Acts 3:6); and to have restored the life of Tabitha, after a period of prayer (Acts 9:40). He is also said to have killed both Ananias and his wife for theft and deceit, merely by speaking to them (Acts 5: 4-10).
Paul is said to have blinded Elymas (Acts 13: 9-11); and to have cured a man crippled from birth (Act 14: 8-10). This second miracle was carried out with no appeal to God. He is also said to have restored life to Eutychus, again without appeal to God (Acts 20: 8-12). Does this make Paul omnipotent?
One who performs a miracle is merely a channel for the power that flows from God; who alone is omnipotent.
You wrote that Yeshua made certain statements, for example, that twelve legions of angels would ‘come at his beck to deliver (him) from the cross.’
This, of course, is a reference to his arrest in Gethsemane:
‘At that, one of the followers of Jesus grasped his sword and drew it; he struck out at the high priest's servant, and cut off his ear. Jesus then said, "Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father who would promptly send more than twelve legions of angels to my defense?’ (Matthew 26: 51-53)
The words ‘Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father’ demonstrate, quite clearly, Yeshua’s conviction that the Father is more powerful than he. This destroys the notion that Yeshua was omnipotent. There can be only one such Being.
Concerning Yeshua’s alleged omniscience:
I understand omniscience to be a state of infinite awareness, understanding, and insight.
I asked: ‘If Yeshua the man was 'omniscient', then why did he say this: 'However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.'? (Matthew 24:36).
You replied:
‘The remark about the "Father knows" is simply understood: In the ANE, Jewish men would build a home on their father's property, when the father approved the new home, the father would commission the son to get his bride and bring her home. Yeshua fulfilled a Jewish engagement ceremony at the Last Supper, and is clearly (per the scriptures) preparing space for us at His Father's home. Yeshua was saying when the bride and mansions are ready/the time right, He will return.’
This has absolutely nothing to do with the context of Matthew 24:36. Yeshua is not referring to the building a bridal home. He is referring to the coming of the Son of Man the End of Days:
‘If, then, they say to you, “Look, he is in the desert,” do not go there; “Look, he is in some hiding place,” do not believe it; because the coming of the Son of Man will be like lightning striking in the east and flashing far into the west. Wherever the corpse is, there will the vultures gather. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, the moon will lose its brightness, the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of heaven will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven; then too all the peoples of the earth will beat their breasts; and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet to gather his chosen from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Take the fig tree as a parable: as soon as its twigs grow supple and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. So with you when you see all these things: know that he is near, at the very gates. I tell you solemnly, before this generation has passed away all these things will have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But as for that day and hour, nobody knows it, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, no one but the Father only.’ (26-36).
I think you will agree that the events described in these verses are of major significance: the end of heaven and earth as we know it! How could an ‘omniscient’ Yeshua not know the day and the hour of their happening?
These verses contain a failed prophecy, since many generations have come and gone since they were written, and the events they so vividly describe have yet to happen (by the way, I do not believe that Yeshua spoke these words).
Bart Ehrman writes:
‘It is also striking and worth noting that this apocalyptic message comes to be toned down, and then virtually eliminated, and finally preached against (allegedly by Jesus!) in our later sources. And it is not hard to figure out why. If Jesus predicted that the imminent apocalypse would arrive within his own generation, before his disciples had all died, what was one to think a generation later when in fact it had not arrived? One might conclude that Jesus was wrong. But if one wanted to stay true to him, one might change the message that he proclaimed so that he no longer spoke about the coming apocalypse. So it is no accident that our final canonical Gospel, John, written after that first generation, no longer has Jesus proclaim an apocalyptic message. He preaches something else entirely. Even later, in a book like the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus preaches directly against an apocalyptic point of view (sayings 2, 113). As time went on, the apocalyptic message came to be seen as misguided, or even dangerous. And so the traditions of Jesus’s preaching were changed. But in our earliest multiply attested sources, there it is for all to see. Jesus almost certainly delivered some such message. As we will see, this is a significant key for understanding who Jesus actually thought he was: not God, but someone else.’ (‘How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee’).
Yeshua was not omniscient. Like the rest of us he ‘increased in wisdom’ (Luke 2:52) – yet another confirmation of his being a normal human being.
Conclusion:
Trinitarian and Unitarian Christians would argue that notion of Yeshua (the man) being both omnipotent and omniscient is a heresy; derived from an inadequate understanding of the Bible, and a reluctance to take seriously the opinion of scholars (as opposed to merely reading their works – see your post of 8th Oct).
Pope Leo I writes:
‘What could be more iniquitous than to dabble in irreverence and to refuse deference to people who are wiser and better instructed than ourselves? This, however, is just the kind of folly people fall into when, in the face of some obscurity which prevents their grasping the truth, they turn to themselves and not to the voices of the prophets, the letters of the apostles, or the authority of the evangelists. The result is that since they have not been students of the truth, they are teachers of error, for what can a person have learned from the sacred pages of the Old and New Testaments when he does not even understand the opening phrases of the creed? What is declared all the world over by the voice of every single candidate for rebirth, (such a person) does not even yet understand in his heart.’ (Letter to Flavian of Constantinople).
As you know, Trinitarians claim that Yeshua was ‘wholly man’ and ‘wholly God’; and this takes us right back to my original question: How is this possible?
I understand omniscience to be a state of infinite awareness, understanding, and insight.
I asked: ‘If Yeshua the man was 'omniscient', then why did he say this: 'However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.'? (Matthew 24:36).
You replied:
‘The remark about the "Father knows" is simply understood: In the ANE, Jewish men would build a home on their father's property, when the father approved the new home, the father would commission the son to get his bride and bring her home. Yeshua fulfilled a Jewish engagement ceremony at the Last Supper, and is clearly (per the scriptures) preparing space for us at His Father's home. Yeshua was saying when the bride and mansions are ready/the time right, He will return.’
This has absolutely nothing to do with the context of Matthew 24:36. Yeshua is not referring to the building a bridal home. He is referring to the coming of the Son of Man the End of Days:
‘If, then, they say to you, “Look, he is in the desert,” do not go there; “Look, he is in some hiding place,” do not believe it; because the coming of the Son of Man will be like lightning striking in the east and flashing far into the west. Wherever the corpse is, there will the vultures gather. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, the moon will lose its brightness, the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of heaven will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven; then too all the peoples of the earth will beat their breasts; and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet to gather his chosen from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Take the fig tree as a parable: as soon as its twigs grow supple and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. So with you when you see all these things: know that he is near, at the very gates. I tell you solemnly, before this generation has passed away all these things will have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But as for that day and hour, nobody knows it, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, no one but the Father only.’ (26-36).
I think you will agree that the events described in these verses are of major significance: the end of heaven and earth as we know it! How could an ‘omniscient’ Yeshua not know the day and the hour of their happening?
These verses contain a failed prophecy, since many generations have come and gone since they were written, and the events they so vividly describe have yet to happen (by the way, I do not believe that Yeshua spoke these words).
Bart Ehrman writes:
‘It is also striking and worth noting that this apocalyptic message comes to be toned down, and then virtually eliminated, and finally preached against (allegedly by Jesus!) in our later sources. And it is not hard to figure out why. If Jesus predicted that the imminent apocalypse would arrive within his own generation, before his disciples had all died, what was one to think a generation later when in fact it had not arrived? One might conclude that Jesus was wrong. But if one wanted to stay true to him, one might change the message that he proclaimed so that he no longer spoke about the coming apocalypse. So it is no accident that our final canonical Gospel, John, written after that first generation, no longer has Jesus proclaim an apocalyptic message. He preaches something else entirely. Even later, in a book like the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus preaches directly against an apocalyptic point of view (sayings 2, 113). As time went on, the apocalyptic message came to be seen as misguided, or even dangerous. And so the traditions of Jesus’s preaching were changed. But in our earliest multiply attested sources, there it is for all to see. Jesus almost certainly delivered some such message. As we will see, this is a significant key for understanding who Jesus actually thought he was: not God, but someone else.’ (‘How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee’).
Yeshua was not omniscient. Like the rest of us he ‘increased in wisdom’ (Luke 2:52) – yet another confirmation of his being a normal human being.
Conclusion:
Trinitarian and Unitarian Christians would argue that notion of Yeshua (the man) being both omnipotent and omniscient is a heresy; derived from an inadequate understanding of the Bible, and a reluctance to take seriously the opinion of scholars (as opposed to merely reading their works – see your post of 8th Oct).
Pope Leo I writes:
‘What could be more iniquitous than to dabble in irreverence and to refuse deference to people who are wiser and better instructed than ourselves? This, however, is just the kind of folly people fall into when, in the face of some obscurity which prevents their grasping the truth, they turn to themselves and not to the voices of the prophets, the letters of the apostles, or the authority of the evangelists. The result is that since they have not been students of the truth, they are teachers of error, for what can a person have learned from the sacred pages of the Old and New Testaments when he does not even understand the opening phrases of the creed? What is declared all the world over by the voice of every single candidate for rebirth, (such a person) does not even yet understand in his heart.’ (Letter to Flavian of Constantinople).
As you know, Trinitarians claim that Yeshua was ‘wholly man’ and ‘wholly God’; and this takes us right back to my original question: How is this possible?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Why do you ask me what I believe about Yeshua, then follow by telling me what Irenaeus and Tertullian believed, as if I am compelled to agree or disagree with them?
Why do you quote Hebrews to emphasize Jesus's humanity as our priest, without quoting Hebrews statements that Jesus is a pre-existent, eternal priest, above all men and angels, who received tribute from Abraham in person? Is it because you do not realize Hebrews also says Yeshua is God and man both?
Why do you quote John 11 to disprove Jesus's divinity when the statement you quoted, "I knew indeed that you always hear me," is a demonstration of Jesus's omniscience?
Why do you question why a man subject to death on a cross is co-equal in all things with His Father? Is Allah subject to death on a cross? Of course not. The prophecy goes, "a body you have prepared for me". Yeshua's body or tent was sacrificed to save the world. I've rarely questioned the doctrine that the Son is subservient to the Father, but that does not make the Son less than God.
Thanks!
j1i
Smiling is charity without giving money
Dear beloved brother
Why is God subject to being a body basically?
The crucified person is not Jesus but he is an imposter because he wanted the betrayal of Jesus
with respect
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Allah is subject to no one, no thing. Allah wanted to save us from sin, guilt and shame, and according to Bible prophecy, prepared a body for sacrifice. From Adam through Jesus, there was always bloody sacrifice, but Allah made the greatest sacrifice on the cross IMHO.
I've not read the Noble Qu'ran in Arabic, but I have read much of it in English. If the New Testament is partly corrupt, which parts are? And why do we not obey the sinless prophet Jesus, Lord of Judgment Day, when He commands us to be born again?
Thank you, BB.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe the record shows otherwise. This is a familiar Islamic myth.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe if that were really true, you would never be anything but a Christian.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that accounts for the body but not the Spirit.
I believe it is different Adam was cloned from something found in the earth. Jesus was created a conception using Mary's genes.
I believe it isn't the same thing, Adam would be a son of God by dint of creation but Jesus is The Son of God by dint of His divinity.
AdamRaja
Islamic Philosopher
Yep, your beliefs match your faith. lol
j1i
Smiling is charity without giving money
Let me pose another question: if a "Holy" book contained conflicting verses would you still consider it to be Holy? Most likely you will say of course not. Let me share with you some conflicting verses both in the Old and New Testaments:
II Samuel 8:4 (vs) II Samuel 8:9-10 II Kings 8:26
II Samuel 6:23 Genesis 6:3 John 5:37
John 5:31 I Chronicles 18:4 I Chronicles 18:9-10
II Chronicles 22:2 II Samuel 21:8 Genesis 9:29
John 14:9 John 8:14
Only two contradictions of the New Testament have been mentioned, but others will be referenced when the Trinity, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Original Sin and Atonement are reviewed.
How could the "inspired words" of God get the genealogy of Jesus incorrect (See Matthew 1:6-16 where it states 26 forefathers up to Prophet David, and Luke 3:23-31 says 41 in number). Or for that matter, give a genealogy to Jesus who had NO father? See II Kings 19:1-37, now read Isaiah 37:1-38. Why is it that the words of these verse are identical? Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, one unknown and the other is Isaiah, who are centuries apart; and yet, the Christians have claimed these books to be inspired by God.
I looked up the word Easter in the Nelson Bible dictionary and learned that the word "Easter" (as mentioned in Acts 12:4) is a mistranslation of "pascha," the ordinary Greek word for "Passover." As, you know Passover is a Jewish celebration not a Christian holiday. I think human hands, all to human, had played havoc with the Bible.
From the brief points mentioned above, and the fact that Biblical scholars themselves have recognized the human nature and human composition of the Bible (Curt Kuhl, The Old Testament: Its Origin and Composition, PP 47, 51, 52), there should exist in the Christian’s mind some acceptance to the fact that maybe every word of the Bible is not God’s word.
As a side note to this subject, let me mention that some Christians believe that the Bible was dictated to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by a Christian monk, and that is why some of the biblical accounts are in the Quran. After some research, I found that this could not have happened because there were no Arabic Bible in existence in the 6th century of the Christian era when Muhammad (SAW) lived and preached. Therefore, no Arab, not even Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who was absolutely unlettered and unlearned, would have had the opportunity to examine the written text of the Bible in his own language.
in this
The Bible Led me to Islam - IslamiCity
The subject of writing notes and comparisons is annoying and negative
But dialogue is needed to find out the full truth
I am not with religion or against religion
But I want to know the truth and touch it
am not interested in entering Islam More than what we are interested in being educated and know the facts on the assets
We must correct errors in all religions, even Islam
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Let me pose another question: if a "Holy" book contained conflicting verses would you still consider it to be Holy? Most likely you will say of course not. Let me share with you some conflicting verses both in the Old and New Testaments:
II Samuel 8:4 (vs) II Samuel 8:9-10 II Kings 8:26
II Samuel 6:23 Genesis 6:3 John 5:37
John 5:31 I Chronicles 18:4 I Chronicles 18:9-10
II Chronicles 22:2 II Samuel 21:8 Genesis 9:29
John 14:9 John 8:14
Only two contradictions of the New Testament have been mentioned, but others will be referenced when the Trinity, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Original Sin and Atonement are reviewed.
How could the "inspired words" of God get the genealogy of Jesus incorrect (See Matthew 1:6-16 where it states 26 forefathers up to Prophet David, and Luke 3:23-31 says 41 in number). Or for that matter, give a genealogy to Jesus who had NO father? See II Kings 19:1-37, now read Isaiah 37:1-38. Why is it that the words of these verse are identical? Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, one unknown and the other is Isaiah, who are centuries apart; and yet, the Christians have claimed these books to be inspired by God.
I looked up the word Easter in the Nelson Bible dictionary and learned that the word "Easter" (as mentioned in Acts 12:4) is a mistranslation of "pascha," the ordinary Greek word for "Passover." As, you know Passover is a Jewish celebration not a Christian holiday. I think human hands, all to human, had played havoc with the Bible.
From the brief points mentioned above, and the fact that Biblical scholars themselves have recognized the human nature and human composition of the Bible (Curt Kuhl, The Old Testament: Its Origin and Composition, PP 47, 51, 52), there should exist in the Christian’s mind some acceptance to the fact that maybe every word of the Bible is not God’s word.
As a side note to this subject, let me mention that some Christians believe that the Bible was dictated to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by a Christian monk, and that is why some of the biblical accounts are in the Quran. After some research, I found that this could not have happened because there were no Arabic Bible in existence in the 6th century of the Christian era when Muhammad (SAW) lived and preached. Therefore, no Arab, not even Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who was absolutely unlettered and unlearned, would have had the opportunity to examine the written text of the Bible in his own language.
in this
The Bible Led me to Islam - IslamiCity
The subject of writing notes and comparisons is annoying and negative
But dialogue is needed to find out the full truth
I am not with religion or against religion
But I want to know the truth and touch it
am not interested in entering Islam More than what we are interested in being educated and know the facts on the assets
We must correct errors in all religions, even Islam
There are a number of issues in your "contradictions", for example, misunderstanding the double geneaology of Jesus, who was of King David, per prophecy, through His mother Mary, and received the rights to the title of King of the Jewish people via Joseph, a descendant not just of David but of Solomon, Joseph being His adoptive father.
In ancient Israel, titular rights and all rights went to the eldest, even if they were adopted. Since Solomon's line was thrown off the kingship but the Messiah was prophesied from David, the ONLY way for Messiah to be King was to be adopted into Solomon's line while descended from a non-Solomonic line of David.
As a Jewish Christian, I also have firsthand experience of the Pesach/Passover and of Easter and etc.
Here's the real issues:
1) Do you have assurance of eternal life?
2) If someone preached eternal life to you outside this forum, would you be interested?
3) Why did Jesus die and resurrect, in the Bible?
4) Does Muhammed or Jesus truly love us? How might love be best demonstrated?
j1i
Smiling is charity without giving money
I must thank you for your kind and humble response
I want to tell you that I believe that the success of man is 100% certified on his moral side
I congratulate you
1) Do you have assurance of eternal life?
That of the attributes of God that he does not die so it will be truly for every creature to die and then return to life as a kind of proof that it is not worthy of divinity
2) If someone preached eternal life to you outside this forum, would you be interested?
Every human being loves life and hates death, but there must be a moral and believable side
The dream of eternal life in our present bodies is impossible
Recyclable biological materials are recoverable but capture of spirits is not available to creatures
The soul has a specific time to come out of the body and no one will be able to hold the spirits and keep them at this time
Soul energy also has a default timing
3) Why did Jesus die and resurrect, in the Bible?
Jesus did not crucify but God raised him to protect him from conspiracies and put the analogy of someone who intended to kill him
The Bible was written after the death of Jesus by 300 years and this is a legal reason for disbelief
There are many ancient Bibles telling other stories
4) Does Muhammed or Jesus truly love us? How might love be best demonstrated?
Yes, they love us, but evil and ignorance played a role in turning these benefits into miserable excerpts and changes to suit the age in which they live.
This caused the emergence of different sects and conflicts
My beloved brother, the son of Israel
We are one family
take care (^_^)
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I must thank you for your kind and humble response
I want to tell you that I believe that the success of man is 100% certified on his moral side
I congratulate you
1) Do you have assurance of eternal life?
That of the attributes of God that he does not die so it will be truly for every creature to die and then return to life as a kind of proof that it is not worthy of divinity
2) If someone preached eternal life to you outside this forum, would you be interested?
Every human being loves life and hates death, but there must be a moral and believable side
The dream of eternal life in our present bodies is impossible
Recyclable biological materials are recoverable but capture of spirits is not available to creatures
The soul has a specific time to come out of the body and no one will be able to hold the spirits and keep them at this time
Soul energy also has a default timing
3) Why did Jesus die and resurrect, in the Bible?
Jesus did not crucify but God raised him to protect him from conspiracies and put the analogy of someone who intended to kill him
The Bible was written after the death of Jesus by 300 years and this is a legal reason for disbelief
There are many ancient Bibles telling other stories
4) Does Muhammed or Jesus truly love us? How might love be best demonstrated?
Yes, they love us, but evil and ignorance played a role in turning these benefits into miserable excerpts and changes to suit the age in which they live.
This caused the emergence of different sects and conflicts
My beloved brother, the son of Israel
We are one family
take care (^_^)
Thank you, I would say that the "dream of eternal life" you mentioned revolves around these facts:
1) Humans sin
2) Humans sin when they disobey conscience (they act against that voice that says "no")
3) Jesus died and rose so that all who trust Him, when He returns, will transform them to obey that voice, so they may enter Heaven IMHO
Also, the New Testament can be proven to not have been written 300 years after Jesus:
1) Most every verse in the New Testament was shared in correspondence between church leaders during the 1st and 2nd centuries
2) Archaeology, a modern science the NT writers did not have access to, has shown numerous points in the NT, demonstrating the NT was written in the 1st century
'By their fruit you will know them (Matthew 7:16).
Insult and calumny are rotten fruit. If this is all you can offer after years of Christian devotion, then I pity you...I truly do.