Who Do Christians Follow Paul or Jesus(pbuh)???

[Pegg]

Every miracle given to each messenger are unique from others , this doesn't make one miracle superior from other----Like I said before Adam(pbuh) didn't had both Mother or Father ----according to your logic this makes Adam(pbuh) superior to Jesus(pbuh)

there was nothing special about being the first of Gods human creations. And Adam was not a prophet btw...he was a rebel.
God was Adams father, but he proved himself unworthy of that honor for the reason that he followed the Devil.

So that does make Jesus far superior to Adam. Also, God did not resurrect Adam but he did resurrect Jesus and gave him 'a name above all others so that in heaven and on earth every knee should bend'
On the other hand, Muḥammad's father was Abdullah.

According to Islam all humans existed before this life----this doesn't prove anything-------If Jesus(pbuh) was truly god/real son of god he would have explicitly spoken of it, but thats not the case----He didnt said this even once----If paul got something wrong it doesn't means , jesus actually said that

But Jesus did say he was Gods son.
John 10:32-36 33 "The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?"

You can see from Jesus reply to the Jews that he was a bit surprised that they were stoning him for saying that he was Gods son because, as he pointed out to them, the OT scriptures say that the Jews were called 'gods' .....he wasnt calling himself God, he was calling himself a 'Son of God' which is less then the OT scriptures called the Jews.

Also you might note that he was quoting them from the scriptures...this also indicates that Jesus did not view the scriptures in his day as false or wrong as Mohammad did.

Thats a complete lie---the world oldest Bible which is 1600 years old doesn't matches 'todays' bible according to a report of CNN

http://www.smalllinks.com/OV2
http://www.smalllinks.com/OV3

Also all the Bible today not only contradict each other but contradict themselves

I have no need to lie. The bible we have today has no major differences to the one circulating in 2BCE. When they found the Dead Sea Scrolls, these were able to be compared to our bibles and they are virtually the same. This is no lie.

This is what is written in the opening page of New Revised Standard Version

"King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision."

Do you realise that you are talking, not about the original language manuscripts but about translations into english which were made of them?

Of course there are translation errors. But because we have the original language manuscripts, those errors can be seen and corrected....which is exactly what most modern translators have done. And where there is some doubt on a translation, we can go to the original language manuscripts and compare them and correct them if needed.

Imagine If i, as an english speaker, made a copy of the Quran into english...you might expect some errors in my translation because Arabic is not my first language.
Which do you say is incorrect...my translation or the Quran from where I translated?

Also you need to get your history correct, The Arabic version of the Bible was not present at the time of Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). The earliest Arabic version of the Old Testament is that of R. Saadias Gaon of 900 C.E. - more than 250 years after the death of our beloved Prophet. The oldest Arabic version of the new Testament was published by Erpenius in 1616 C.E. - about a thousand years after the demise of our Prophet.

Are you seriously telling me that Mohammad could not read the Hebrew or Greek scriptures and yet somehow knew that what was written in them was wrong?

If I came to you as an English speaker and told you that what is written in your Arabic Quran is wrong, you'd think I was pulling your leg.
Can you explain to me exactly how it is that Mohammad was able to study the Hebrew and Greek scriptures to know they were wrong?

"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy." Quran 4:82

Arabic is a complex language for most English speaking people and it's been proven time and time again through debates with Christians and Atheist by Muslim scholars that there are NO contradictions or mistakes in Al Quran :yes:

“None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or the like. Knowest thou not that God hath power for all things?”—Sura 2:106; 16:101, Ali.
Since both the former or the canceled verse remains in the Quran then it certainly would have contradictions. Especially is this possible in view of the fact that it is not at all certain when each sura was “revealed,” and therefore how can you determine which is the new teaching and which is the old?

The Quran contradicts itself about freedom of worship. On the one hand it teaches “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”
But then it also states: “When the sacred months are passed, kill those that join other gods to God wherever ye find them; and seize them, besiege them, lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way for God is gracious.”
Sura 2:186-190, 212, 213; 8:12; 9:5, 124, Rodwell

Also there is the fact that many Muslims were killed by other Muslims because of religious differences. Certainly that does not spell out freedom of religion.

First , Trinity isn't present in Bible itself , it was just a assumption made by paul , which Christians today follow it blindly

You are correct, it is not written in the bible, but you are wrong to say Paul spoke of it...he didnt.
Paul lived in the 1st century and the trinity didnt begin to be taught in the church until the 3rd & 4th Centuries.
There is nothing in Pauls writings implying a trinity.

Second , like I said before teachings of Jesus(pbuh) and Muhammd(pbuh) will never contradict , the things which were falsely added into bible is corrected in Quran

Can you show me whats been 'added' to the bible. Which scriptures are you talking about? And can you provide me references to where such new things were added into the scriptures?

 

[Pegg]

Every miracle given to each messenger are unique from others , this doesn't make one miracle superior from other

All prophets came with miracles to prove they were from God, yet the Quran says that Mohammad had no miracles. Why not?

According to Islam all humans existed before this life

According to God, Adam existed only as dirt before he was given life.
Gen. 3:17-19 “In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

A human can have a begotten son/daughter but not God-----God never begets

Only according to you. According to Jesus, he was the Son of God. This means that God begot a son.
If Jesus is a prophet as Mohammad said he was, then as a prophet he cannot lie about such things.

You have two options

1. Jesus was the Son of God because prophets dont lie,
or
2.Jesus lied about being Gods Son and therefore he could not have been a true prophet.

If you say 2 is correct, then to admit that Mohammad was not a prophet because if he were a true prophet then he would never have said that Jesus was a prophet.

If you say 1 is correct, then you are following the wrong prophet because Jesus said that "no one comes to the father except through me"

 

[smokydot]

Im sure you know that there are verses that appear to say Jesus was God such as 'he who has seen me has seen the father'
but we have to take all scripture into account in order to understand the meaning of ones like this.
In the OT, God never said he was coming as the Messiah, but he did say he would 'send' a messiah. God never claimed that he would be the Messiah in the OT either so its unreasonable to claim that the Messiah was God Almighty.
Then we have to ask why would Jesus have called himself the 'Son' of God over and over again. If he wanted people to recognize him as God,

Thanks, Pegg, for your thoughtful response.
But the NT says Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and the NT says Jesus is the son of Mary.
Now, to be begotten of God means Jesus has the nature of God--divine,
just as to be begotten of Abraham means his offspring have the nature of Abraham--human.
As the begotten son of God, Jesus had a divine nature, and as the son of Mary he had a human nature.
Jesus is the only being in existence to have two natures, divine and human. Divinity is ascribed to God only.

why not just come out and say it plainly?

Because he wanted to live long enough to complete his mission.
When the theologians finally figured out that's what he was really saying, it was the end for him. . .they had him executed for blasphemy.

He never did that, he only ever claimed to be the Son.
Now read John 14. Jesus had just finished telling the disciples that they would
2 In the house of my Father there are many abodes. Otherwise, I would have told YOU, because I am going my way to prepare a place for YOU...4 And where I am going YOU know the way.” 5 Thomas said to him: “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How do we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Jesus had just said his fathers house had many abodes and he was going there to prepare a place for them. Notice how Thomas asked how to get to where the father is? What do you think Jesus had in mind when he answered
7 If YOU men had known me, YOU would have known my Father also;

The way to the father was by living as Jesus lived

But when you read the NT, this statement is in major disagreement with it.
1) In the NT, Jesus says those who do not believe in him remain under the wrath of God for their sin (Jn 3:18,36).
He never says the way to the Father is by living as he lived.
2) And then there are the NT epistles which are emphatic that the only way to be saved from the wrath of God for one's sin is by faith alone--in Jesus Christ alone, and in no other.
3) And that's because Jesus says, "No one comes to the Father except through me." (Jn 14:6)

So the NT is quite clear that salvation from the wrath of God for one's sin is by faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, and not by good works (living as Jesus lived).


Continued in post #84.

 

[smokydot]

Post #83 continued:

because Jesus was in union with his father. Only by being in union with the father could they make their way into heaven.

Jesus was so in union with his father that he could say that seeing Jesus was like seeing God....later we also hear Paul say that Christ is “the reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact representation of his very being.” Heb 1:1-3
This explains why Jesus said in vs9 “Have I been with YOU men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
and now here is the real context in how Jesus was identifying himself with the father:
10 Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me?

The problem here is that the original language does not say "in union with."
The Greek word is this verse is en, which means "in." It's the same Greek word used, for example, in:
Mt 1:20--"what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."
Mt 2:1--"born in Bethlehem.

Jesus said, "I am in the Father. . ." (Jn 14:10)
Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:30)
There is no relationship (after birth) between two persons like that anywhere in mankind. It's a lot more than just "in union with."
It is two persons in one being, the one and only God.
There is no other way to say it and still remain true to the words Jesus used.

the Jews objected to the fact that Jesus claimed to have lived before Abraham...this implied to them that Jesus must be claiming to be a supernatural person...that he was more then a human. They said he 'makes himself equal to God' by claiming that he is Gods Son. They reasoned among themselves that Jesus could not be supernatural because they said "is not his mother and brothers and sisters among us, is this not the carpenters son?" And then when he told them that he was "not from this world" they concluded that he was saying he was from heaven which made him a spirit person...but this they refused to believe and instead accused him of blasphemy.

In Mk 2:5-7, they accused him of blasphemy because he made himself equal with God when he told the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven."

Think also of the illustration he gave about the Vineyard owner:
33 “Hear another illustration: There was a man (God Jehovah), a householder, who planted a vineyard ...34 When the season of the fruits came around, he dispatched his slaves (Prophets) to the cultivators (Priests) to get his fruits. 35 However, the cultivators took his slaves, and one they beat up, another they killed, another they stoned. ... 37 Lastly he dispatched his son (Jesus) to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 On seeing the son the cultivators said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance!’ 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. ...
45 Now when the chief priests and the Pharisees had heard his illustrations, they took note that he was speaking about them"

This illustration plainly shows that the vineyard owner was not the son and the son was not the vineyard owner. Jesus made clear that he was not God Jehovah.

True, Jesus, the Son, is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son.
But according to the words Jesus uses (Jn 10:30, 14:10), they are the same being, they are one, they are in one another.
They are both persons in ("I am in the Father.") the one ("I and the Father are one.") and only God.
Jesus made clear that he and the Father were two persons in the same being, the one and only God.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Post #83 continued:

The problem here is that the original language does not say "in union with."
The Greek word is this verse is en, which means "in." It's the same Greek word used, for example, in:
Mt 1:20--"what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."
Mt 2:1--"born in Bethlehem.

Jesus said, "I am in the Father. . ." (Jn 14:10)
Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:30)
There is no relationship (after birth) between two persons like that anywhere in mankind. It's a lot more than just "in union with."
It is two persons in one being, the one and only God.
There is no other way to say it and still remain true to the words Jesus used.
In Mk 2:5-7, they accused him of blasphemy because he made himself equal with God when he told the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven."
True, Jesus, the Son, is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son.
But according to the words Jesus uses (Jn 10:30, 14:10), they are the same being, they are one, they are in one another.
They are both persons in the one and only God.
Jesus made clear that he and the Father were two persons in the same being, the one and only God.

Actually none of this denotes the same person. All this means is they were (one in purpose). This is echoed when the biblical Yeshua prayed to his god in John Chapter 20.

Not only did the supposed ascended Yeshua explicitly say he had a god in the book of Revelation but back in John he explicitly says it. He constantly said his god sent him with a task and whatever he spoke it was because he was commanded to say it...Then in the book of John, while the biblical Yeshua prays to his god, he informs his god that the task that his god had given to him was complete...and he begged his god in prayer that his god would make the disciples one with both of them. This one..is of purpose. The biblical Yeshua only spoke as an ambassador on behalf of his god....as John the baptist believed....

 

[smokydot]

Actually none of this denotes the same person.

They are not the same person. They are two persons.

All this means is they were (one in purpose). This is echoed when the biblical Yeshua prayed to his god in John Chapter 20.
Not only did the supposed ascended Yeshua explicitly say he had a god in the book of Revelation but back in John he explicitly says it. He constantly said his god sent him with a task and whatever he spoke it was because he was commanded to say it...Then in the book of John, while the biblical Yeshua prays to his god, he informs his god that the task that his god had given to him was complete...and he begged his god in prayer that his god would make the disciples one with both of them. This one..is of purpose. The biblical Yeshua only spoke as an ambassador on behalf of his god....as John the baptist believed....

Those are all true regarding his human nature as the son of Mary. In his human nature the Father was his God, but he never called him that.
He always called him Father, or Holy Father. When he prayed it was to his Father.

But, being begotten of God, he likewise had the nature of God--divine, which divine nature is exclusive to God.
In his divine nature he is the begotten Son of God, and God is the Father.
They are two persons, Father and Son, in the one and only God.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

They are not the same person. They are two persons.

That's not what the biblical Yeshua said....

Those are all true regarding his human nature as the son of Mary. In his human nature the Father was his God, but he never called him that.

Not so...according to your scriptures. The biblical Yeshua maintained he had his own will while in heaven. So we can conclude he, while in heaven was not "God". He explicitly said he was sent, not by his will, but the will of his (his god) that "sent" him. Who did he say his father was? He explicitly said his father was "your father"...and HIS "god" as well as "your god"....This is even maintained in the book of Revelation where he, once again, is in heaven and says he has a god (over and over in one verse).

He always called him Father, or Holy Father. When he prayed it was to his Father.

But again...there's nothing in your 4 gospels that says "God" became a man. The biblical Yeshua did call "God" his father but also said the father was his god. So the declaration as only being referred to as "the father" is incorrect because we know he meant it synonymously.

If you're saying "God" became a man...then fine..but now we must determine at which point is "God" the man or when it's just man. Was it only when he wasn't doing magic and unable to stop his creation from crucifying him or did he become "God" at the point when he spoke from the heavens declaring himself the son and pouring the "holy spirit" upon him?

I maintain, by the use of your 4 gospels, that Yeshua was not "God" from before her was sent by his god, while he was here and after he "ascended" back into heaven. This, after all, is the description given in your 4 gospels.

But, being begotten of God, he likewise had the nature of God--divine, which divine nature is exclusive to God.

One can be divine and not be deity. Being divine, biblically speaking, is not exclusive to "God". As a matter biblical fact Yeshua said explicitly that the ability to do what he was able to do was granted to him by his god (the father). So we can conclude he had a god above him who allowed him to do what he did...

 

[Pegg]

Post #83 continued:

The problem here is that the original language does not say "in union with."
The Greek word is this verse is en, which means "in." It's the same Greek word used, for example, in:
Mt 1:20--"what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."
Mt 2:1--"born in Bethlehem.

Jesus said, "I am in the Father. . ." (Jn 14:10)
Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:30)
There is no relationship (after birth) between two persons like that anywhere in mankind. It's a lot more than just "in union with."
It is two persons in one being, the one and only God.
There is no other way to say it and still remain true to the words Jesus used.

Lets say you are correct here, can you explain why Jesus also prayed that his followers might become 'one' in the same way as he was 'in' the Father, “I in union with them and you in union with me,”
If Jesus was saying that he and God are of the same substance, how is it possible that his disciples could become of the same substance with each other and with God and Jesus?

John 17:23 I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one"

NIV John 17:20-21 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us"

Can you explain how the disciples become 'in' Jesus and God and 'each other'

 

[Pegg]

Thanks, Pegg, for your thoughtful response.
But the NT says Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and the NT says Jesus is the son of Mary.
Now, to be begotten of God means Jesus has the nature of God--divine,
just as to be begotten of Abraham means his offspring have the nature of Abraham--human.
As the begotten son of God, Jesus had a divine nature, and as the son of Mary he had a human nature.
Jesus is the only being in existence to have two natures, divine and human. Divinity is ascribed to God only.

I do agree with you, however I believe you are taking the view that that the Chief Priests also took with regard to 'divinity' They wrongly assumed that to be of 'divine nature' means you must be God....yet what about the angels who live in heaven? Are they not of divine nature?

What exactly is divinity?
In the Christian Greek Scriptures, there are other words derived from the‧os′ (god) which relate to that which is divine but are not God himself.
Here are some examples:
thei′os at Acts 17:29, where Paul is discussing the 'gods' that the nations worshiped and made idols of
“Seeing, therefore, that we are the progeny of God, we ought not to imagine that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and contrivance of man.
NIV-divine being
ESV-divine being
ASV-godhead
Wycliff- godly
(KJV uses godhead at this verse)

thei‧o′tes as at Romans 1:20 about how God reveals himself to mankind through his creative works
For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godshipso they are inexcusable'
ESV- divine nature
ASV- divinity
Holmans- divine nature
(KJV uses godhead again for this verse)

the‧o′te‧tos at Colossians 2:9 in speaking about remaining strong in their faith in Christ
because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.
NASV-diety
KJV-godhead
NIV-diety
Holman- gods nature
NLT-fullness of God


thei′as at 2 Peter 1:3, 4. The disciples are told they can become divine in nature like Christ.
Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these YOU may become sharers in divine nature

NIV-divine nature
Holman-divine nature
NASB-divine nature
KJV-divine nature


Now I agree that Jesus is of divine nature. But I would argue that all heavenly beings are of divine nature. They have to be divine in nature to be in heaven because someone of human nature could not live in heaven. Only spirit persons can live in heaven and if they exist as spirits, then they exist in the same form as God...that is they have spiritual bodies just as God has.

So the NT is quite clear that salvation from the wrath of God for one's sin is by faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, and not by good works (living as Jesus lived).

Continued in post #84.

I agree again, faith is what gives us Gods approval, but as James pointed out, 'faith without works is dead'
If we trully have faith it will produce in us good fruits. It should motivate us to good actions, to love, obedience, repentance etc

I've heard the argument that those works dont save you and i agree...the works in themselves dont save us, our faith saves us. But a person who has faith should be motivated to express it in acts of goodness.

 

[smokydot]

That's not what the biblical Yeshua said....

Indeed, it is. . .they are two persons, Father and Son, in one being, God the one and only.

Not so...according to your scriptures. The biblical Yeshua maintained he had his own will while in heaven. So we can conclude he, while in heaven was not "God". He explicitly said he was sent, not by his will, but the will of his (his god) that "sent" him.

That's what it means to be the person Son: you do the will of the person Father.

Who did he say his father was? He explicitly said his father was "your father"...

There are three kinds of fatherhood in the NT.
1) begotten of God, issuing from God himself, therefore of God's nature--divine. Jesus is the only being in existence begotten of God, making God his progenitor.
2) begotten of man, issuing from man, therefore of man's nature--human. All mankind is begotten of humans.
3) adopted, by rebirth through faith in Jesus Christ as one's Savior and Lord (Master, Ruler, King). God is father only to those who are reborn by faith in Jesus Christ (God's promise). Prior to the death of Christ, God was father only to those who believed in God's promise of Jesus Christ.
To all others, he was and is Creator.

There is one and only one God, who is three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son. They are distinct.
Each has a specific work in the Godhead relating to the salvation of those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
The Father ordains the means of salvation from his wrath, and sends his Son to execute the salvation he has ordained.
The Son executes the salvation ordained by the Father by sacrificing himself, in atonement for the sin of those to whom the sacrifice is applied through faith in Jesus Christ.
The Spirit applies the benefits of Christ's sacrifice, for salvation from the wrath of God on their sin, to those who believe in Jesus Christ.
This is the revelation of the NT.

and HIS "god" as well as "your god"....This is even maintained in the book of Revelation where he, once again, is in heaven and says he has a god (over and over in one verse).

Jesus is both divine and human. God is both his Father and his God. As divine, his God is his Father (parent), as human his Father is his God.

But again...there's nothing in your 4 gospels that says "God" became a man.

1) The Christian church has believed since apostolic times and the gospel of John, that, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Jn 1:1)
2) It likewise was the special revelation of Jesus to Paul (Ro 9:5):
Nestle's Greek Text: and of their race (Israelites) ". . .from whom (is) the Christ--according to the flesh; the (one) being God over all blessed unto the ages (forever)."
Textus Receptus Greek Text: who are Isarelites ". . .from whom (is) the Christ according to the flesh, he being God over all, God blessed to the ages (forever)."

The biblical Yeshua did call "God" his father but also said the father was his god. So the declaration as only being referred to as "the father" is incorrect because we know he meant it synonymously.

I didn't say "only being referred to" as the father.
You're skimming these posts. . .you will never grasp them by just skimming them.

If you're saying "God" became a man...then fine..but now we must determine at which point is "God" the man or when it's just man. Was it only when he wasn't doing magic and unable to stop his creation from crucifying him or did he become "God" at the point when he spoke from the heavens declaring himself the son and pouring the "holy spirit" upon him?

1) He was always God.
2) He was always man.
3) He was always both.
4) The specific point at which he became both is when he became human.

He came for the specific purpose of dying as a sacrifice for the atonement of the sin of those who believe in him.
He wasn't "unable to stop his creation." He was "handed over to them by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you (Jews, v.14), with the help of wicked men,
put him to death by nailing him to the cross." (Acts 4:23)

I maintain, by the use of your posts, that you do not understand the NT.

I maintain, by the use of your 4 gospels, that Yeshua was not "God" from before her was sent by his god, while he was here and after he "ascended" back into heaven. This, after all, is the description given in your 4 gospels.

It is only your misunderstanding of the four gospels.

One can be divine and not be deity. Being divine, biblically speaking, is not exclusive to "God".

Not so. . .divine means belonging to a deity. It's meant that for thousands of years.

As a matter biblical fact Yeshua said explicitly that the ability to do what he was able to do was granted to him by his god (the father). So we can conclude he had a god above him who allowed him to do what he did...

We can conlude that Jesus was both man and God. The properties of his divine nature were not the properties of his human nature.
His reference point--human, divine, or both--depends on to whom he is speaking and on what he is trying to impart.

There will be a short test on this lesson. . .so don't present any posts regarding the NT that run counter to this lesson. . .unless they are questions regarding the lesson.

 

[A Thousand Suns]

there was nothing special about being the first of Gods human creations. And Adam was not a prophet btw...he was a rebel.
God was Adams father, but he proved himself unworthy of that honor for the reason that he followed the Devil.

Correction----- Adam(pbuh) is the first prophet of God

So that does make Jesus far superior to Adam. Also, God did not resurrect Adam but he did resurrect Jesus and gave him 'a name above all others so that in heaven and on earth every knee should bend'
On the other hand, Muḥammad's father was Abdullah.

God didn't resurrected Jesus(pbuh) either-----thats another debate----If you want to know, see this debate between a Muslims and Christian pastor---it has 8 parts you need to see all----http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzZRn0lHXc

But Jesus did say he was Gods son.
John 10:32-36 33 "The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?"

I already told you I have no problem with the phrase ' Iam Gods son'

All prophets were sons of god----and so are the people who follow God

Bible 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God

I have no need to lie. The bible we have today has no major differences to the one circulating in 2BCE. When they found the Dead Sea Scrolls, these were able to be compared to our bibles and they are virtually the same. This is no lie.

I think CNN has more credibility than a crappy website

Do you realise that you are talking, not about the original language manuscripts but about translations into english which were made of them?

Not only the original manuscript in which bible was written is lost but also there is a huge difference in bibles present today

Imagine If i, as an english speaker, made a copy of the Quran into english...you might expect some errors in my translation because Arabic is not my first language.
Which do you say is incorrect...my translation or the Quran from where I translated?

Translations are different but the content is the same

Are you seriously telling me that Mohammad could not read the Hebrew or Greek scriptures and yet somehow knew that what was written in them was wrong?

Yes--its a historical fact that Muhammad(pbuh) was illiterate----he didn't knew how to read or write Arabic either

“None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or the like. Knowest thou not that God hath power for all things?”—Sura 2:106; 16:101, Ali.
Since both the former or the canceled verse remains in the Quran then it certainly would have contradictions. Especially is this possible in view of the fact that it is not at all certain when each sura was “revealed,” and therefore how can you determine which is the new teaching and which is the old?

1) we know when each surah of Quran weer revealed
2) and " both the former or the canceled verse remains in the Quran" is actually substituted with something better like Quran said

The Quran contradicts itself about freedom of worship. On the one hand it teaches “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”
But then it also states: “When the sacred months are passed, kill those that join other gods to God wherever ye find them; and seize them, besiege them, lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way for God is gracious.”
Sura 2:186-190, 212, 213; 8:12; 9:5, 124, Rodwell

Quran never contradicts , if you know the full context

This verse was revealed at time when the peace treaty between Muslims and non-muslims

[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.

[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.

Also there is the fact that many Muslims were killed by other Muslims because of religious differences. Certainly that does not spell out freedom of religion.

Same with Christianity----IRA did the same

If someone doesn't follows his religion and starts violence its his/her fault not of the religion

Can you show me whats been 'added' to the bible. Which scriptures are you talking about? And can you provide me references to where such new things were added into the scriptures?

Lets see what Christian theologians say about bible

The Cambridge history of the Bible ... - Google Books

With the exception of the Pauline letters the New Testament writings were relatively slow in appearing and a high proportion of them are anonymous. (p. 233)

He writes further:

... such external evidence on matters of origin, authorship, sources and date as has come down from the second and succeeding centuries is very meager, and, when itself subjected to critical examination, turns out to be of dubious value, if not worthless. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", , p. 235)

About the Pauline letters, the author writes:

Further elucidations of the Pauline letters as documents in the Church is faced by three not unconnected problems, their formation into a corpus, their unity and authenticity, and their chronology; and in each case the data are insufficient for a solution. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", , p. 239)



he Encyclopedia Britannica says about the Gospel of Mark:

Though the author of Mark is probably unknown, authority is traditionally derived from a supposed connection with the Apostle Peter, who had transmitted the traditions before his martyr death under Nero's persecution (c. 64-65). Papias, a 2nd century bishop in Asia Minor, is quoted as saying that Mark had been Peter's amanuensis (secretary) who wrote as he remembered (after Peter's death), though not in the right order... (harmony of the Gospels). (Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation, THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, The Gospel According to Mark: Background and overview.)

Regarding the Gospel of Matthew, the encyclopedia says:


Although there is a Matthew named among the various lists of Jesus' disciples, more telling is the fact that the name of Levi, the tax collector who in Mark became a follower of Jesus, in Matthew is changed to Matthew. It would appear from this that Matthew was claiming apostolic authority for his Gospel through this device but that the writer of Matthew is probably anonymous. (Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation, The Gospel According to Matthew.)

Regarding the Gospel of Luke, it says:

The author has been identified with Luke, "the beloved physician," Paul's companion on his journeys, presumably a Gentile (Col. 4:14 and 11; cf. II Tim. 4:11, Philem. 24). There is no Papias fragment concerning Luke, and only late 2nd century traditions claim (somewhat ambiguously) that Paul was the guarantor of Luke's Gospel traditions. The Muratorian Canon refers to Luke, the physician, Paul's companion; Irenaeus depicts Luke as a follower of Paul's gospel. Eusebius has Luke as an Antiochene physician who was with Paul in order to give the Gospel apostolic authority. References are often made to Luke's medical language, but there is no evidence of such language beyond that to which any educated Greek might have been exposed. Of more import is the fact that in the writings of Luke specifically Pauline ideas are significantly missing; while Paul speaks of the death of Christ, Luke speaks rather of the suffering, and there are other differing and discrepant ideas on Law and eschatology. In short, the author of this gospel remains unknown. (Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation, The Gospel According to Luke.)
------> the list goes on

 

[A Thousand Suns]

All prophets came with miracles to prove they were from God, yet the Quran says that Mohammad had no miracles. Why not?

He did have the many miracles but of different type e.g splitting of moon ,Quran

Only according to you. According to Jesus, he was the Son of God. This means that God begot a son.
If Jesus is a prophet as Mohammad said he was, then as a prophet he cannot lie about such things.

You know what you are saying 'God begot a son.' ----it means god had s*x with Jesus mother-----Iam sorry to say ,you are degrading your god

God isnt a God when he begets---if you say that than i will have to agree we worship different God

You have two options

1. Jesus was the Son of God because prophets dont lie,
or
2.Jesus lied about being Gods Son and therefore he could not have been a true prophet.

If you say 2 is correct, then to admit that Mohammad was not a prophet because if he were a true prophet then he would never have said that Jesus was a prophet.

If you say 1 is correct, then you are following the wrong prophet because Jesus said that "no one comes to the father except through me"

Yes Jesus(pbuh) never lied----show me a single verse from red letter bible where Jesus said worship me or Iam am God---Iam ready to accept Christianity today--

Also You may think in your ignorance that Muhammad(pbuh) is not Prophet of God------but you are soo wrong

never comes (aught) to them of a renewed message from their lord, but they listen to it as in jest,-[Surah: 21, Verse: 2]

 

[allright]

To a Thousand Suns
Red Letter Bible

John 9:35-38

Jesus said "Does thou believe on the Son of God"
He answered "who is he that I might worship him"
Jesus said "thou hast seen him and it is he who talks to you"
He said "Lord I believe . And he worshipped him"

See you in church

 

[A Thousand Suns]

To a Thousand Suns
Red Letter Bible

John 9:35-38

Jesus said "Does thou believe on the Son of God"
He answered "who is he that I might worship him"
Jesus said "thou hast seen him and it is he who talks to you"
He said "Lord I believe . And he worshipped him"

See you in church

Now where does Jesus said in John 9:35-38
1)Iam God
2)Worship Me

And I stand by my claim

John 9:35-38 (New International Version)

35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

36"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."

37Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."

38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him

 

[smokydot]

[/color][/b]Lets say you are correct here, can you explain why Jesus also prayed that his followers might become 'one' in the same way as he was 'in' the Father, “I in union with them and you in union with me,”

You must be using a translation of a translation of a translation. Your text reflects significant departure from the original language by compounding language upon language. "In union with" is not in the original language.

If Jesus was saying that he and God are of the same substance, how is it possible that his disciples could become of the same substance with each other and with God and Jesus?

John 17:23 I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one"
NIV John 17:20-21 [/color]"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us[/color]"
Can you explain how the disciples become 'in' Jesus and God and 'each other'

A) They are "in" the Father and the Son through being united to Jesus Christ by faith.
Those who are united with Jesus Christ are one with him in the Holy Spirit. (1 Co 6:17) It is a spiritual reality. . .their spirits have been united with the Holy Spirit,
who "indwells" the reborn (next point).
Because their spirits are united with the Holy Spirit who is in the Father and the Son, their spirits are with the Holy Spirit in the Father and the Son.

B) The text does not say "one in each other." The text says "that all of them may be one."
The Father in the Son is called "indwelling." Those born again in Jesus Christ have the Holy Spirit "indwelling" them. (Ro 8:9,11)
Two indwellings here:
1) that of the Son in believers (by his spirit, the Holy Spirit) and
2) that of the Father, who is spirit, in the Son.

Human bodys are material. They cannot indwell one another.
The divine Father and the divine Son have the same spirit, the Holy Spirit, who indwells both of them because he is their spirit.
The Spirit of the Father and the Son also indwells those born again in Jesus Christ. (Ro 8:9,11)
Because the divine Father, the divine Son and the divine Holy Spirit are spirits, they can indwell persons' spirits.

And because those who are born again all have the same indwelling Holy Spirit, they are the one body of Christ (Eph 4:25), united in their spirits
because they have the same spirit--the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:4).
It is this spiritual unity in the Holy Spirit for which Jesus is praying, that it will complete (perfect) itself in outward unity for the sake of their proclaiming the gospel,
so that the world may know that God sent Jesus, that God loves Jesus, and that God loves those for whom he is praying (those in the world who will believe the gospel).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Indeed, it is. . .they are two persons, Father and Son, in one being, God the one and only.

There is no place in the 4 gospels where Yeshua says he's "God". All quotes that have been provided are snatched out of context.

You're skimming these posts. . .you will never grasp them by just skimming them.

I've skimmed over nothing when it comes to the 4 gospels. I assure you..I understand them very well. We can agree to disagree but to classify me as not grasping then is unfounded. You approach them from a trinitarian view and I don't. I simply see the words of the biblical Yeshua, his actions and how he was perceived by those he interacted with as well as his followers and there simply is no evidence in the 4 gospels he said, thought, taught or believed he was "God"...rather maintained that he wasn't and that he had a god...we find these word and actions even in the book of Revelation. In that book we also find that "God" is being praised and has possession of the scroll and the only one worthy to open it is (not "God") but the Lamb (Yeshua) who is in the crowed and steps forward to receive the scroll from his god. We are not left with the impression that "he" is "God"...rather a servant.

I maintain, by the use of your posts, that you do not understand the NT.
It is only your misunderstanding of the four gospels.

Why, because I disagree with you? I find this to be a common christian tactic when challenged or in debates. Unlike yourself I'm not a newbie here at this forum. Not only do I understand your 4 gospels but I also understand the Quran. So..while I might disagree with you It, in no way, means I don't understand.

Not so. . .divine means belonging to a deity. It's meant that for thousands of years.

While divine is heavily associated with "God" it is not exclusive to "God". The biblical Yeshua being divine does not by default mean he is deity... One can be divine without being deity.

There will be a short test on this lesson. . .so don't present any posts regarding the NT that run counter to this lesson. . .unless they are questions regarding the lesson.

:biglaugh:...don't flatter yourself.

 

[smokydot]

I do agree with you, however I believe you are taking the view that that the Chief Priests also took with regard to 'divinity' They wrongly assumed that to be of 'divine nature' means you must be God....yet what about the angels who live in heaven? Are they not of divine nature?

Divine, divinity means means belonging to a deity. That is an ancient definition going back for thousands of years.
Therefore, since its definition predates the NT, when that word was chosen by the NT writers, it was because that was its meaning--of deity.
Angels have an angelic nature, not a divine nature.
That is a false notion, manufactured to refute that the begotten Son of God is God.
That angels are not divine, is easily seen in that some of the angels became evil spirits.
To say they are divine, of the same nature as God, and then became evil would be blasphemy.

What exactly is divinity?

It's not that complicated. Its meaning existed before the NT Scriptures, and that meaning is why the NT writers chose the word when they used it.
Your definitions below verify its ancient meaning as "of deity."

In the Christian Greek Scriptures, there are other words derived from the‧os′ (god) ]which relate to that which is divine but are not God himself.
Here are some examples:
thei′os at Acts 17:29, where Paul is discussing the 'gods' that the nations worshiped and made idols of
“Seeing, therefore, that we are the progeny of God, we ought not to imagine that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and contrivance of man.
NIV-divine being
ESV-divine being
ASV-godhead
Wycliff- godly
(KJV uses godhead at this verse)
thei‧o′tes as at Romans 1:20 about how God reveals himself to mankind through his creative works
For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godshipso they are inexcusable'
ESV- divine nature
ASV- divinity
Holmans- divine nature
(KJV uses godhead again for this verse)
the‧o′te‧tos at Colossians 2:9 in speaking about remaining strong in their faith in Christ
because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.
NASV-diety
KJV-godhead
NIV-diety
Holman- gods nature
NLT-fullness of God
thei′as at 2 Peter 1:3, 4. The disciples are told they can become divine in nature like Christ.
Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these YOU may become sharers in divine nature
NIV-divine nature
Holman-divine nature
NASB-divine nature
KJV-divine nature

Now I agree that Jesus is of divine nature. But I would argue that all heavenly beings are of divine nature. They have to be divine in nature to be in heaven because someone of human nature could not live in heaven. Only spirit persons can live in heaven and if they exist as spirits, then they exist in the same form as God...that is they have spiritual bodies just as God has.

True, no one of fallen human nature can live in heaven. But there are more than just divine and human natures.
There is the angelic nature, which in terms of ranking is higher than the human nature, but lower than the divine nature.
They are indeed spirits, as is Satan, but they are not of the same divine nature as God.
And since spirits have no form, that they exist "in the same form as God," is to have no form.

I agree again, faith is what gives us Gods approval, but as James pointed out, 'faith without works is dead'
If we trully have faith it will produce in us good fruits. It should motivate us to good actions, to love, obedience, repentance etc
I've heard the argument that those works dont save you and i agree...the works in themselves dont save us, our faith saves us. But a person who has faith should be motivated to express it in acts of goodness.

Absolutely!

 

[allright]

Now where does Jesus said in John 9:35-38
1)Iam God
2)Worship Me

And I stand by my claim

John 9:35-38 (New International Version)

35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

36"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."

37Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."

38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him

The "son of man" comes from a corrupted text.
In any case the man worships Jesus.
Either Jesus is God or he is man allowing himself to be worshiped as God which under the law of Moses is blasphemy and to be punished by death.
So Jesus either is God which means Islam is false or he is a blasphemer and an enemy of God. Since a prophet of God cannot be a blasphemer that would mean Islam is false

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The "son of man" comes from a corrupted text.
In any case the man worships Jesus.
Either Jesus is God or he is man allowing himself to be worshiped as God which under the law of Moses is blasphemy and to be punished by death.
So Jesus either is God which means Islam is false or he is a blasphemer and an enemy of God. Since a prophet of God cannot be a blasphemer that would mean Islam is false

Can we all agree to refrain from calling another person's way of life (fake)? While there are certain aspects we don't agree with we can keep the debate civil and just do comparative studies. Is that acceptable?

As far as (worship)....What do you take it to mean...because the word has many meanings. How we view the word today was a little different as to how it was used then...

 

[smokydot]

There is no place in the 4 gospels where Yeshua says he's "God". All quotes that have been provided are snatched out of context.

I invite you to pick just one of those 15 claims made by Jesus and show how it is out of context.
You can find them in this Forum, on the thread, Who is the only true God?, at post #446. . .pick just one.

I've skimmed over nothing when it comes to the 4 gospels. I assure you..I understand them very well. We can agree to disagree but to classify me as not grasping then is unfounded. You approach them from a trinitarian view and I don't. I simply see the words of the biblical Yeshua,

You approach his words through the view of the Quran, which causes you to allow no meaning which disagrees with the Quran. That is not to "simply see the words."
You have a reference point from which you judge the words of the NT to be true or not. It is not simply anyone's understanding of the words that you judge as true or not,
you judge the NT words themselves to be true or not, using the Quran as your reference point.
The NT is judged from no other reference point than the Scriptures, which do not contradict themselves, and all those who see contradiction therein evidence their lack of understanding regarding the NT.

and his actions and how he was perceived by those with whom he interacted with as well as his followers and there simply is no evidence in the 4 gospels he said, thought, taught or believed he was "God"

Unfortunately for your contention, the theologians of Jesus' time were more than convinced he claimed to be God. . .for which they accused him of blasphemy. . .
and had him executed. (Mk 2:3-7; Jn 6:41-42, 10:30-33, 5:18, 8:58-59, 19:7)
They were there. . .you weren't.

A review of his claims in post #446 will show what more than convinced them he claimed to be God.

...rather maintained that he wasn't and that he had a god...we find these word and actions even in the book of Revelation. In that book we also find that "God" is being praised and has possession of the scroll and the only one worthy to open it is (not "God") but the Lamb (Yeshua) who is in the crowed and steps forward to receive the scroll from his god. We are not left with the impression that "he" is "God"...rather a servant.

And the elders fell down and worshiped the Lamb. (Rev 5:14)
In of all places, heaven is where worship is of God only.
The Lamb, Jesus Christ, is God. (Rev. 5:14)

Why, because I disagree with you? I find this to be a common christian tactic when challenged or in debates

It is a common response from Christians because you misunderstand the NT, due to your seeing it through the grid of the Quran.

Unlike yourself I'm not a newbie here at this forum. Not only do I understand your 4 gospels but I also understand the Quran. So..while I might disagree with you It, in no way, means I don't understand.

You may be more than a newbie in this forum, but you are less than a newbie in the understanding of the NT, in light of the Scriptures rather than in light of the Quran.

While divine is heavily associated with "God" it is not exclusive to "God". The biblical Yeshua being divine does not by default mean he is deity... One can be divine without being deity.

Not so. The meaning of the word divine as deity is ancient, predating the NT.
That's why the NT writers chose that specific word when speaking of deity, because that is what it meant even then.
It will take more than your willful denial of it to overturn its ancient meaning.

don't flatter yourself.

. . .because there is no way you could do well on the test as long as you view the NT through the grid of the Quran.