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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I do not think you are getting my point. I am saying that if you asked Muhammad if Jesus is the son of God he would have said no. I think if you asked him if Jesus ever claimed to be the son of God he would have said yes. The issue is not important enough to bother with looking up anything. In fact if you dissagree with my statements here then I will drop it. It does not matter.
I can't think of a single reason why I should answer this. The experience as many are is subjective and is not IMO by design accessable to others. I was not attempting to prove the spirit's existance. I was saying how I arrived at my understanding of the bible. The main issue was I was not influenaced by any denomination. My experience exactly matched every single claim that is applicable or relevant in the bible as to the experience and the spirit.
We were not discussing anything that tells me how to answer. What are you wanting the information for specifically and maybe that will tell me how or even if I should reply?
Please quote where I ever said that.
I agree and have even said so to you personally. It is a bit tricky though. They were no longer practicers of strict Judaism and were learning the ways of grace. I am not sure what you call them but even I slip and call them Christians sometimes. I mean they are believers if I evr do. What was the point here?
I did not say every single Muslim repeats this same test. I said that Muslim apologists are the only one who do. Deedat is famous for that stupid test.
What claim? What reason? and for what? I did not say I am a trinitarian I said that test is stupid.
I did not say I did know. I said I think. I have never heard a muslim apologist and I have seen many that ever said that Jesus never claimed to be the son. They would be idiots to do so. It is in the bible and is known to be reliable. Once again I do not think you understand that I do agree they do not believe it.
Sunbstantiate what, that I think actually I know Muslims have admitted that Jesus CLAIMED to be the son of God? The question makes no sence. Apologists are not in the Quran.
So?
The bible is far more likely from a divine source than the Quran is by a long long way. No matter what category you use: Historical method, Jurice Prudence procedure, textual integrity, philosophical consistency, explanitory power, etc....It beats the book written by a single very troubled man by miles.
Your not a Jesus in India guy are you? The famous G.K. Chesterton said that people who do not believe in the bible do not therefore believe in nothing, they will believe in anything. How right he was!!
Being that the Quran is not the standard by which things are proven, So?
I do not in any way care what the Quran says about someone that existed 500 years previously and which contradicts the bibles many eye wittness accounts of Jesus at the actual time, as well as many secular texts that far away pre-date Muhammad's poor attempts.
It is very clear that in no category used by scholars are Muhammadss word more reliable than the Bible. Try to leave offthe sermons and just give facts (at least one). The Bible has multiple eye witness attestations, 25,000 historical corroberations, over two thousand accurate prophecies that have been fullfilled, philisophic consistency, accurate scientific knowledge unknown at the time, the principle of emberassment, 95% - 99.5% textual reliability, is the most attested text in ancient history, Jesus has more textual attestation than any other figure of antiquity, and contains a perfectly consistent narrative given by over 40 authors over more than 1500 years. The Quran are one man's incorrect claims about things he heard from heretical Jews and Gnostics which conflict with contemporary accounts. It is a literary mess and full of proven inaccurate claims. The greatest expert on evidence in Human history (Simon Greenleaf) said the wittness testimony of the Gospels meets every single criteria of modern law. Produce anyone with equal credentials that confirms the Quran.
Your opinion without justification has no explanitory power. There were witnesses: Mary (mother), Mary Magdalene, John, Luke says some desciples watched from afar. This does not matter anyway. Events not seen are reliably related by interviewing the witnesses. That is exactly what the bible says was done. This is especially silly because you think one guy 500 years later knows what is up but the people who knew Jesus and did witness many events surroundings these proceeding do not know squat. They sure as heck witnessed him after his ressurection. I do not know what the point is here. In every category the bible exceeds the Quran by light years. It even says the spirit was sent to recall to the mind of the authors the events that had happened.
No this is not correct. They deserted him well before the crucifixion but if you actually keep reading Peter shows back up at many of the events, as well as others. Men were not allowed to watch the crucifixion that is why some of them watched from far off. However it certainly wasn't 500 years later far off.
There were no Christians at that time anyway. That word wsn't used until later. However his apostles did wittness from afar and witnessed many other events surrounding this issue. Ragardless even if they did not the spirit was sent to remind them of everything that had taken place specifically so they could accurately describe them. This is probably too inconvenient for you and so will be arbitrarily rejected. Even then there were eyewitnesses that could have been easily interviewed. They all knew each other and many lived together. Heck they even talked to Jesus after he was ressurected. I do not see the issue here. Every medical forensic report on the event said he died and there is no possability he could have lived through that. The Romans were masters at this and not killing someone could mean death for who ever screwed up.
You must have missed where I said they are recorded as returning. Yes they fled and yes they did return or at least some are mentioned as returning. This happened before the crucifixion. I do not consider anything out side the bible as a reliable source of information on this issue. Not because I am a Christian but because it is the only contemporary account. Muhammad coming 500 years later or arm chair critics do not have near the reliability as what is recorded by people actually there at the time.