i agree that Jesus was take to heavens BUT ALIVE. By feast u mean that some kind of celebrations r held on that day ???
We agree that He was alive also.He died, was Resurrected in the body, and later Ascended. He was alive without a doubt, but He had been dead prior to that.
How can you prove rest of sone r like adopted sons. As i said in a post pious ppl loved by God & angels were referred to as "son" in hebrew ..... similarly Jesus was a beloved prophet of God that why he is referred in bible as "son"
I'm not even going to try to prove it to you. You are trying to teach Christians what Christian Scripture means so the onus is on you to prove what you say. You explain why Christ is described as 'only begotten' (in actual fact the English translation is not perfect, the Greek is monogenes) Son of God, why Christ is uniquely referred to in this way and what monogenes actually means, and maybe I'll consider explaining to you why the Christian view is that we are all children of God by adoption but the Christ is truly the Son of God in a way that we never can be.
1st please tell me how to add multiple replies in one post single post. Thanks in advance.
Just put quote tags around the parts you wish to quote. If they're in different posts, you can just press the little plus at the bottom of each one before pressing the quote button on the last one.
2nd Jesus was given Injeel(bible) NOT in book form BUT as teachings of God.
No, Christ Jesus
is the Evangelion (Good News), which is what you render as Injeel. Injeel is a corruption of the Greek word, nothing more.
That whole set of teachings is called Bible.
No it isn't. It's a collection of books, defined by the Church, as a record of God's revelation to mankind. Christ was not given any book, whether in written form or oral.
Even Muhammad DID NOT write anything himself, he used to dictate revealations to his companions & they wrote it down.
When we say BOOK we don't literally mean hard copy.
I know this (well, I don't believe it but I know that Muslims do) which is why I said that Christ did not transmit or author 'in the sense of Muhammad' the Gospel. That in the sense of Muhammad was meant to signify that His role in the creation of the New Testament is in no way similar to Muhammad's role in the creation of the Quran, not to imply that Muhammad invented the Quran (though I don't believe it was dictated to him by Gabriel, either).
3rd many versions of bible itself prove that it's NOT in original shape.
Also RED-LETTER-BIBLE is another evidence.
Do you mean many translations (because they will always vary) or many manuscript variants? If the latter then you are overplaying your hand, because the variants are actually incredibly insignificant considering the antiquity of the text and there are, despite Muslim claims to the contrary, similar variants in the early history of the Quran. If you mean the former, it's an irrelevance because translations are always imperfect.
*The word “WORD” which is translation of word”LOGOS” (logoz in Greek) is being mis-understood as describing Jesus.
*“Wikipedia Encyclopedia” says that this is incorrect translation of this word which plays a central role in supporting the doctrine of Jesus' divinity and the Trinity..
Firstly, don't trust everything you read at Wikipedia. Secondly, this is plain wrong and has almost certainly been submitted by a JW, given the use of the NWT. It is the NWT translation that is incorrect. If anyone knows the correct translation we ought to, after all, as Koine Greek is still used in worship in my Church. The scholarly credentials of the translators responsible for the NWT on the other hand are practically non-existent. It's actually incorrect translation that is used to support the idea that Christ is not God.
*No dictionary gives meaning of LOGOS as “God” or “Jesus”. What is written in dictionaries is that christians equate this word with Jesus.
And that's all any of us have ever said. Do you actually read my posts before reacting?
*In Red-Letter-Bible where true words r written in RED ink, John 1:1-15 r NOT in red. So they r human additions & can be wrong. While one thing is said in RED ink; John:1:51 ”And he saith unto him,Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man”----------------------SON OF MAN.---------TRUE WORDS OF JESUS.
The red letter Bible proves absolutely nothing. It is late conjecture and an attempt to identify words actually spoken by Christ, but that doesn't mean it's correct, and it certainly isn't any kind of an authority on the subject.
(Now don’t say this doesn’t refer to Jesus, because I have read explanations by christians trying to explain why Jesus was called son of man here.)
I wouldn't dream of it. You don't understand what it means though, just as you've amply demonstrated that you have no understanding of what Christians believe at all. Next thing I know you'll be tying to tell me that Mary is part of the Trinity!
*Here are few examples from bible where logoz (LOGOS/”WORD”is used, none of these indicate that it can be used to refer to God/Jesus, then WHY should we consider John1:1-15 declaring Jesus as son of God:
You know how words taken out of context have different meanings? This is the case with all your Biblical verses. If you take Logos out of context and then look at all the other occurrences of it, you're bound to find that they don't all mean the same, because it does mean word and you yourself have admitted that that can have more than one meaning. In the context of John's Gospel, though, as I demonstrated only to clearly, it is quite obvious that Logos does refer to Christ, something you have yet to even attempt to directly refute. Try it if you think you have an argument, but please stop with the scrabble to pull as many red herrings as possible out of the bag. All you are achieving is showing me that your naivetee with regards to linguistics is the match to your ignorance of Christianity.
James
