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

[allright]

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...

It has nothing to do with aspects.
If Islam is true every Christins on earth is headed for eternity in hell.
If Christianity is true every Muslim on earth is headed for eternity in hell

The passage is plain. Jesus declares himself the Son of God. The man says he believes him and worships him.
He is either the Son of God or a blasphemer.

In Chapter 10:33 some of the Jews make their choice clear "for no good work do we stone thee, but for blasphemy because thou a man makes theyself equal to God".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It has nothing to do with aspects.
If Islam is true every Christins on earth is headed for eternity in hell.
If Christianity is true every Muslim on earth is headed for eternity in hell

The passage is plain. Jesus declares himself the Son of God. The man says he believes him and worships him.
He is either the Son of God or a blasphemer.

In Chapter 10:33 some of the Jews make their choice clear "for no good work do we stone thee, but for blasphemy because thou a man makes theyself equal to God".

I understand...

The Quran holds that Allah did not beget (the way we think of begetting) a child. The Quran says that all belong to Allah. Muslims don't deny that "God" has "sons" but their interpretation of (son of God) is more of a title than a biological position. In their view everyone from heaven to earth are children of "God". Biblically speaking Yeshua is the only one of the (sons of "God") that is set apart as to his existence on Earth. All the others came straight from heaven in whatever form they were in but Yeshua, theologically speaking, was the only one from heaven that was born through a human.

As far as John 10:30...yes that was the charge but that's not what the biblical Yeshua was doing at all. The whole of that chapter is him giving all respect to his god but the Jews didn't either understand him nor wanted to really listen to what he was saying so they wanted to kill him. The fact of the matter is...he never, in that chapter, tried to make himself equal to his god.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Part 1

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.

Been there and dealt with that already.

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.

Now do you see how easy it is to misunderstand what some one says? I do not judge your bible through the lens of the Quran. Now I have to explain what I meant by previous post....What I meant was I have been reading the bible as well as the Quran since I was a child. I have family members on both sides of the coin (christian and muslim)....So I am very familiar with both scriptures and what they say..and for you to have charged me with not understanding them was unfounded. I'm not a Muslim so I don't run to the Quran to show a fallacy in the bible nor do I run to the bible to show a fallacy in the Quran.

Unfortunately for your contention, the theologians of Jesus' time were more than convinced he claimed to be God. . .

And it's understandable that they did but they were completely wrong and that's why, when read in full context, the biblical Yeshua can be found trying to explain to them that he wasn't "God"...They didn't want to listen so they wanted to kill him.

for which they accused him of blasphemy. . .
and had him executed. (Mk 2:3-7)

Right and that's what I mean by context because saying "blasphemy" to try and prove your point does no justice here. It gives one the impression, for the sake of our current discussion, the blasphemy in question was a charge of him believing or making himself equal to "God" and in fact they were ticked because he was "working" on the Sabbath and in the synagogue no less. The Pharisees went to the Herodians to find how to go about killing him but Yeshua and his crew left (escaped?)

Jn 6:41-42

Yep in no place in that chapter that I can remember they wanted to kill him. They muffled under their breath amongst themselves and others not understanding what he meant by he being sent down from heaven by his god. Even his own disciples questioned whether others would be able to understand what he was trying to tell them. After this he goes to Galilee.

, 10:30-33,

Yep, and they were completely wrong. He was trying to tell them how he was bringing the good news to the lost sheep (people) which his god tasked him to do. He, to them, spoke in parables and because they were waiting on the prophesied Messiah they wanted to hear it plainly from him without the beating around the bush but the message wasn't for them. His task was to do the will of his god that sent him thus they are one in purpose. The Jews of his day like the trinitarians of today assume he meant (he was God)...but as you can see right after their charge he tried to clear their misunderstandings but they didn't want to hear him anymore so Yeshua and his followers ran for their lives. But it's worth noting that one in purposes declaration is coo-berated by his prayer to his god in chapter 20.

5:18,

Yep, apparently it was blasphemy to work on the Sabbath but here the Jews didn't think he was "God" or claiming to be "God" rather they assumed he was trying to elevate himself in status ("equal to") their god. But the biblical Yeshua talked his way out of the killing and moved on. It's important to note that throughout all of these quotes you keep listing here...the biblical Yeshua maintains his god (sent) him, his god (gave) him, his god (knows) him, his god (testifies) of him....and in each instance where they misunderstood what he was telling them he then tries to clarify it for them but to no avail.

8:58-59,

They took up stones to kill him because he said he existed before Abraham. Remember, Abraham was their patriarch and they had a lot of respect for him considering they were of the lineage of Abraham. But go back a read some of the earlier verses because in context you'll see how the biblical Yeshua viewed himself totally separate from his god while in heaven.

19:7)

Blasphemy (AS THEY CLAIMED) for claiming to be the (son of God) but not for being "God". Furthermore, I have found no law forbidding oneself for proclaiming oneself to be the "son of "God". It appears this was a trumped up charge. From what I can tell of Matthew 26:64,,,when asked if he was the ("son of God")..the biblical Yeshua said (That's what YOU said)....then after that he refers to himself as the (son of Man)...

They were there. . .you weren't.

Neither of us were there....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Part 2

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)

"God" was already seated on his thrown and all of the hevenly creation were praising him...and it was asked who was worthy of opening the seals..and none in heaven, on earth or under the earth were worthy...but in the midst of those gathered (not already seated on the thrown receiving praise) the Lamb steps forward and retrieved the scroll from the right hand of his god. Before they simply blessed the Lamb...this what they said....

Rev 5:13 "Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever."

Rev 5:14 ....."And the four [and] twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. "

If you study the book of Revelation you'll notice that verse 5:14 is for "God" alone and not Yeshua (the Lamb) at all.

It's in reference the verse 4:9 of Revelation;

"And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever

Remember, at this point the Lamb (Yeshua) is not seated on the throne but standing amongst the elders....So this reference is in reference to "God" alone.

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

Again, I didnt view the bible through the Quran. Anyone here on RF can tell you that....more importantly is I do understand your bible and have shown by your mis-use of Rev. 5:14 that you may not be aware of who's who in chapter 5...

You may not be a newbie to the forum, but you aren't even a newbie to the understanding of the NT,

Right... that's what I said..unless you meant something different..?

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.
. . .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.

The classification of divine may go further back before the bible when we gaze upon the writing of the Sumerians. We see it in the Epic of Gilgamesh as well when talking about the Nephillim or as your bible calls them ("sons of GOD") - (Giants).

http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320AncLit/chapters/02gilgam.htm
1. Gilgamesh and the Nephilim (Tablet I.29-91)Gilgamesh is described in The Epic of Gilgamesh as part mortal and part god. A similar sort of hybrid can be seen in the Bible, too. Semi-divine beings called in Hebrew the nephilim—nephilim is often translated "sons of God"—populate some of the earliest sections of the Bible, e.g. Genesis 6:4:


Nephilim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
offspring of angels. A number of early sources refer to the "sons of heaven" as "Angels". The earliest such references seem to be in the Dead Sea scrolls, the Greek, and Aramaic Enochic literature, and in certain Ge'ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch (mss A-Q) and Jubilees used by western scholars in modern editions of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. However, "Angels" in this context has sometimes been considered to be a sarcastic epithet for the offspring of Seth who rebelled (see above). The earliest statement in a secondary commentary explicitly interpreting this to mean that angelic beings mated with humans, can be traced to the rabbinical Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and it has since become especially commonplace in modern-day Christian commentaries. Alternatively, there are those that do not take either view, and hold that they are not historical figures, and are ancient imagery with questionable meaning.

Basically their was/is a view that divine does not rest with "God" alone. It can be (a god) or and angelic being. Even mortals were referred to as divine...so divine isn't strictly used in biblical terms.

Angel | Define Angel at Dictionary.com

2.) a divine messenger from God

At dictionary.com it says this about Angels...


Bible Dictionary
Angel definition

"..............But its distinctive application is to certain heavenly intelligences whomGod employs in carrying on his government of the world. The name does not denote their nature but their office as messengers. The appearances to Abraham at Mamre (Gen. 18:2, 22. Comp. 19:1), to Jacob at Peniel (Gen. 32:24, 30), to Joshuaat Gilgal (Josh. 5:13, 15), of the Angel of the Lord, were doubtless manifestations of the Divine presence, "foreshadowings of the incarnation," revelations before the "fulness of the time" of the Son of God."

 

[smokydot]

Part 1
Been there and dealt with that already.
Now do you see how easy it is to misunderstand what some one says? I do not judge your bible through the lens of the Quran. Now I have to explain what I meant by previous post....What I meant was I have been reading the bible as well as the Quran since I was a child. I have family members on both sides of the coin (christian and muslim)....So I am very familiar with both scriptures and what they say..and for you to have charged me with not understanding them was unfounded. I'm not a Muslim so I don't run to the Quran to show a fallacy in the bible nor do I run to the bible to show a fallacy in the Quran.

Interesting. . .

And it's understandable that they did but they were completely wrong and that's why, when read in full context, the biblical Yeshua can be found trying to explain to then that he wasn't "God"...They didn't want to listen or (didn't want to listen) so they wanted to kill him.

The texts indicate that the Jews did not misunderstand what Jesus was claiming.

Right and that's what I mean by context because saying "blasphemy" to try and prove your point does no justice here. It gives one the impression, for the sake of our current discussion, the blasphemy in question was a charge of him believing or making himself equal to "God" and in fact they were ticked because he was "working" on the Sabbath and in the synagogue no less. The Pharisees went to the Herodians to find how to go about killing him but Yeshua and his crew left (escaped?)

Okay, this is why I think you don't understand the NT.
Mark 2:7 plainly says, "He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone."
If only God can forgive sin, then anyone who claims to forgive sin is thereby claiming to be God. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
To maintain your denial of the Trinity, you must deny that the Jews didn't "really understand" the implication of what Jesus said.

Yep in no place in that chapter that I can remember they wanted to kill him. They muffled under their breath amongst themselves and others not understanding what he meant by he being sent down from heaven by his god. Even his own disciples questioned whether others would be able to understand what he was trying to tell them. After this he goes to Goes to Galilee.

Their effort to kill him is first reported in Jn 5:18.
I included this passsage, Jn 6:41-42, in the list of verses (showing that the Jews were convinced that Jesus claimed to be equal with God, thereby making himself God) because it shows their grumbling against him and rejection of him, not because it shows the Jews thought he claimed equality with God.

Yep, and they were completely wrong. He was trying to tell them how he was bringing the good news to the lost sheep (people) which his god tasked him today. He, to them, spoke in parables and because they were waiting on the prophesied Messiah they wanted to hear it plainly from him without the beating around the bush but the message wasn't for them. His task was to do the will of his god that sent him thus they are one in purpose. The Jews of his day like the trinitarians of today assume he meant (he was God)...but as you can see right after their charge he tried to clear their misunderstandings but they didn't want to hear him anymore so Yeshua and his followers ran for their lives.

Here again is why I don't think you understand the clear text of the NT, or more accurately, you deny its plain words for the sake of maintaining your denial of the Trinity.
Jn 10:30-37 -- "We are not stoning you for any of these (great miracles)," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Jesus answered them. . ."Why do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son?'"
The text is clear that the Jews equated being God's Son with being God, because they understood that would make God his progenitor,
and make him the nature of God--divine (deity). They understood exactly what being God's Son meant, it meant he was deity, a claim to be God.
It is you, not Jesus, who says the Jews misunderstand what he says. . .and for the sake of your denial of the Trinity.

But it's worth noting that one in purposes declaration is coo-berated by his prayer to is god in chapter 20.

I think you mean chapter 17.
The "one in purpose" declaration is a declaration of the Son's relationship to the Father, that he and the Father are one, that he is in the Father and the Father is in him, because he and the Father have the same spirit, the Holy Spirit, who is in both.
The "one in purpose" interpretation of "in the Father and the Father in me" is common to those of the Quran, who are committed to denying the Trinity.

Yep, apparently it was blasphemy to work on the Sabbath but here the Jews didn't think he was "God" or claiming to be "God" rather they assumed he was trying to elevate himself in status ("equal to") their god. But the biblical Yeshua talked his way out of the killing and moved on. It's important to note that throughout all of these quotes you keep listing here...the biblical Yeshua maintains his god (sent) him, his god (gave) him, his god (knows) him, his god (testifies) of him....and in each instance where they misunderstood what he was telling them he then tries to clarify it for them to no avail.

The "making himself equal with God" of Jn 5:18, as later in Jn 10:33-37, was for the same reason, "he called God his own Father."
The Jews knew what that meant, that God was his progenitor, which gave him God's nature--divine (deity). They knew exactly what it meant, that he was deity, making himself equal with God.
And contrary to what you maintain--that to no avail he tried to clarify their "misunderstanding," he did just the opposite. He went on to defend his claim of equality with God. . .and what he clarified was his equality, by explaining
he does what God does--
he works miracles, as does the Father,
he raises the dead and gives life, as does the Father,
he is Judge, as is the Father,
he is to be honored, as the Father is honored,
he has life in himself, as does the Father. . .and in other passages
he sends with power and authority, as does the Father (20:21),
he confers the kingdom, as does the Father (Lk 22:29),
he makes law, as does the Father (Mt 5:23-47, 12:7-8, 19:9, 21:23-27, chp 23).
Your denial and wrestling with the plain meaning of these Scriptures is common to those of the Quran, because they are committed to denying the Trinity.

They took up stones to kill him because he said he existed before Abraham. Remember, Abraham was their patriarch and they had a lot of respect for him considering they were of the lineage of Abraham. But go back a read some of the earlier verses because in context you'll see how the biblical Yeshua viewed himself totally separate from his god while in heaven.
Blasphemy (AS THEY CLAIMED) for claiming to be the (son of God) but not for being "God".

The Jews understood that being God's Son made God his progenitor, and gave him God's nature--divine (deity). The Jews understood that a claim to be God's Son was a claim to deity.

Furthermore, I have found no law forbidding oneself for proclaiming oneself to be the "son of "God". It appears this was a trumped up charge.

It is not a trumped up charge to those who know its import--that to be God's Son is to be deity.

From what I can tell of Matthew 26:64,,,when asked if he was the ("son of God")..the biblical Yeshua said (That's what YOU said)....

The text says Jesus answered, "Yes, it is as you say."

....then after that he refers to himself as the (son of Man)...

Son of Man is a messianic title from Dan 7:13-14.

Neither of us were there....

True, but I take the word of those who were. . .you take the word of one who was not.

 

[smokydot]

Part 2
"God" was already seated on his thrown and all of the hevenly creation were praising him...and it was asked who was worthy of opening the seals..and none in heaven, on earth or under the earth were worthy...but in the midst of those gathered (not already seated on the thrown receiving praise)

This is the Father's throne here, right? Where does it say that the rest of the gathered will be seated on the throne receiving praise?

the Lamb steps forward and retrieved the scroll from the right hand of his god. Before they simply blessed the Lamb...this what they said....
Rev 5:13 "Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever."
Rev 5:14 ....."And the four [and] twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. "
If you study the book of Revelation you'll notice that verse 5:14 is for "God" alone and not Yeshua (the Lamb) at all.
It's in reference the verse 4:9 of Revelation;
"And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever
Remember, at this point the Lamb (Yeshua) is not seated on the throne but standing amongst the elders....So this reference is in reference to "God" alone.

But then the Lamb is on the throne (5:6, 7:17, 12:5, 22:1,3) and the elders, etc. worship before the throne. Are they not then worshiping the Lamb, who is on the throne?

Again, I didnt view the bible through the Quran. Anyone here on RF can tell you that....more importantly is I do understand your bible and have shown by your mis-use of Rev. 5:14 that you may not be aware of who's who in chapter 5...

Granted, I am not a student of prophecy, but of the other books.

Right... that's what I said..unless you meant something different..?
The classification of divine may go further back before the bible when we gaze upon the writing of the Sumerians. We see it in the Epic of Gilgamesh as well when talking about the Nephillim or as your bible calls them ("sons of GOD") - (Giants).

http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320AncLit/chapters/02gilgam.htm
1. Gilgamesh and the Nephilim (Tablet I.29-91)Gilgamesh is described in The Epic of Gilgamesh as part mortal and part god. A similar sort of hybrid can be seen in the Bible, too. Semi-divine beings called in Hebrew the nephilim—nephilim is often translated "sons of God"—populate some of the earliest sections of the Bible, e.g. Genesis 6:4:
Nephilim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
offspring of angels. A number of early sources refer to the "sons of heaven" as "Angels". The earliest such references seem to be in the Dead Sea scrolls, the Greek, and Aramaic Enochic literature, and in certain Ge'ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch (mss A-Q) and Jubilees used by western scholars in modern editions of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. However, "Angels" in this context has sometimes been considered to be a sarcastic epithet for the offspring of Seth who rebelled (see above). The earliest statement in a secondary commentary explicitly interpreting this to mean that angelic beings mated with humans, can be traced to the rabbinical Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and it has since become especially commonplace in modern-day Christian commentaries. Alternatively, there are those that do not take either view, and hold that they are not historical figures, and are ancient imagery with questionable meaning.
Basically their was/is a view that divine does not rest with "God" alone. It can be (a god) or and angelic being. Even mortals were referred to as divine...so divine isn't strictly used in biblical terms.
Angel | Define Angel at Dictionary.com
2.) a divine messenger from God
At dictionary.com it says this about Angels...
Bible Dictionary
Angel definition
"..............But its distinctive application is to certain heavenly intelligences whomGod employs in carrying on his government of the world. The name does not denote their nature but their office as messengers. The appearances to Abraham at Mamre (Gen. 18:2, 22. Comp. 19:1), to Jacob at Peniel (Gen. 32:24, 30), to Joshuaat Gilgal (Josh. 5:13, 15), of the Angel of the Lord, were doubtless manifestations of the Divine presence, "foreshadowings of the incarnation," revelations before the "fulness of the time" of the Son of God."

 

[A Thousand Suns]

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

Man is following Jesus as the messenger of God,cant you find one clear verse where Jesus himself says
1)Iam God
2)Worship Me

Or Jesus told us to believe in trinity

You'll not find a single , your whole belief is based on something imaginary , that isn't told by the Prophet of the religion himself

The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food. See how clear We make these signs for them; see how deluded they are." (Qur'an 5:72)

"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel."Quran - 5:47

 

[Pegg]

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.
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).

bingo! you win 10pts

Jesus is talking about 'unity'
You just said it because in reading the verse about the disciples coming 'in' each other you realize it does not mean that they will become 'one substance'.... 'one substance' is what the trinity says God and Jesus are

This is why the NWT translates this verse as 'in union' ' because Jesus says the disciples should be united together the way Jesus is united to God and in that way they will all be united.

And he uses the same greek word about his disciples being 'in' each other as he does when he says that he is 'in' the father and the father is 'in' him.

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

Yes i agree, the disciples have the holy spirit indwelling....but it doesnt mean that they are the holy spirit...or they are God...or they are Jesus.

Again this is what the trinitarians attempt to claim about Jesus. That this 'indwelling' makes Jesus God .... its completely illogical to tell the disciples that they too can become God and Jesus and Holy spirit... this is why these verses are not saying what trinitarians claim they are saying.

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,

Bingo again. You see that logically its impossible to accept that idea that this 'indwelling' has anything to do with substance.

They are 'united spiritually' ... not physically as one substance which is what trinitarians claim Jesus is with God and holy spirit.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The texts indicate that the Jews did not misunderstand what Jesus was claiming.

You gave me John 5:18 and 6:41-42 but I'm never satisfied with a quote here or there because to me they mean absolutely nothing and detracts from the context. He broke the law by working on the sabbath but I'm still looking for the law that said it was blasphemous to call yourself the (son of "God). I read beyond verse 42 and about verse 52 the Jews were asking silly questions because they didn't understand what the biblical Yeshua was saying. He was speaking metaphorically but they either were being sarcastic or took his message literally. That's why his disciples said to him that this would be a hard thing to hear...basically..(most will not get what you're trying to tell them).

Okay, this is why I think you don't understand the NT.
Mark 2:7 plainly says, "He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone." If only God can forgive sin, then anyone who forgives sin is claiming to be God.
It's as plain as the nose on your face.

It was an unfounded charge at this point. So what, they cried foul....he's blaspheming "God"..? What does the biblical Yeshua say after that and what happened or didn't happen to him? He explains what he means by "forgiving sins" and they were amazed and said...we never seen this done like this before...Was Yeshua arrested or stoned...? Nope...Why?...It's because they misunderstood him, he was able to clarify what he was doing and how he did it..and after that he moved on.... No arresting, no trial, and no death at this point.

To maintain your denial of the Trinity, you must deny that the Jews didn't "really understand" the implication of what Jesus said.

They obviously must not have because NO JEW today ascribes to the concept of the trinity unless he is a convert to christianity. Jews, Like the Muslims, believe "God" is one and is not (three persons...but one god). So they must not have understood because more than 2000 years later the Jews don't believe it.

Their effort to kill him is first reported in Jn 5:18.

Blasphemous for working on the sabbath...for sure...but so far no law against calling yourself (son Of God). Maybe it was a law they misinterpreted....

I included this passsage, Jn 6:41-42, in the list of verses (showing that the Jews were convinced that Jesus claimed to be equal with God, thereby making himself God) because it shows their grumbling against him and rejection of him, not because the Jews thought he claimed equality with God.

No they weren't. They grumbled because they knew him and had history with him. 6:41 tells you exactly why they grumbled....

John 6:41
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

They knew him..or at least..knew his family...

John 6:42
And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Even though they knew him and his family from right there in their area...They had no idea what he was talking about in his parable and took it literally and not symbolically....but even here there was no charge of blasphemy... and there is no indication they thought he was trying to be equal to his god.

Here again is why I don't think you understand the clear text of the NT, or more accurately, you deny its plain words for the sake of maintaining your denial of the Trinity.
Jn 10:30-37 -- "We are not stoning you for any of these (great miracles)," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Jesus answered them. . ."Why do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son?'"

And what I'm telling you is...Yes..they wanted to kill him because of John 10:30...but John 10:30 is not a statement tantamount to claiming to be "God". They misunderstood what he was saying and that's why he saw fit to try and explain it to them. Tensions are high and Yeshua is speaking in parables which is said early on in that chapter they didn't understand....They don't want parables. They wanted to know if he was the Messiah and to come straight out a say so because that's what their prophecy foretold. We have the benefit of understanding that when he says (I and my father are one)..we know it to be one in purpose but the Jews of the day were already short tempered with him. This is why we get clarification and confirmation in John 17:22 and 23. This is what he meant. One in purpose.

 

[Pegg]

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

Ok, can you tell me what Adam prophesied about?

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

It wasnt a debate for Jesus Apostles. They were witnessing to the fact that Jesus had been resurrected.
Acts 3:“Men of Israel, why are YOU wondering over this, ...13 The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom YOU, for YOUR part, delivered up and disowned...15 whereas YOU killed the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses"

And Jesus himself also spoke of his resurrection before he was killed
"Then he said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” Peter said in reply: “The Christ of God.” 21 Then in a stern talk to them he instructed them not to be telling this to anybody, 22 but said: “The Son of man must undergo many sufferings and be rejected by the older men and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised up.”

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

Nor do I. Not all christians teach the trinity. Many recognize it as a false teaching just as Mohammad did back in his day. But you have to admit that if christians can teach the scriptures without the trinity doctrine, then perhaps the scriptures are not in error afterall.

The trinity is only found in the 'interpretation' ... not in the scriptures themselves.
Just as im sure you'd agree that muslims who perform acts of terrorism such as blowing up buildings is not because they read it in the Quran...but because of the way they interpret some passages.

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

can you point out some areas of difference?

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

so how was he able to refute the bible if he could not even read his own language?
He must have only 'heard' about he bibles message verbally from a jew or a christian. In that case I can understand why he believed they were teaching falsehoods...the Jews were teaching falsehoods in Jesus day too. But Jesus was able to read from their own scriptures to show them where they were wrong and correct their mistakes.

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.

Your first scriptures contradicts Jesus advice to forgive "up to 77 times" which means that you do not keep account of how much you forgive someone. This verse says only 'until the expiration date' which implies that peace only lasts to a point.

Your second scripture tells worshipers that they can kill people who refuse to make peace. This contradicts Jesus words to "put your swords away, those who live by the sword will die by the sword" meaning Christians were not to kill or fight with anyone...even ones enemies Jesus said to 'love them'

These two verses alone show that the Quran does indeed contradict Gods word as revealed through Jesus.

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

Yes i agree, which is why I pointed out that Mohammad did not need to rewrite the scriptures. There is nothing said by Jesus that could be interpreted to fight your enemies. The only enemy we are clearly told to fight is Satan the Devil...and we fight him spiritually, not physically.

Lets see what Christian theologians say about bible

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

Do you also get your information about the Quran from critics of the Quran?

If we all listened to critics and did not bother to study the bible personally we might all think that the bible is not worth looking into.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is the Father's throne here, right? Where does it say that the rest of the gathered will be seated on the throne receiving praise?

What I said was at verse 4:9 we know the one on the throne is "God" because of verse 8 and we know that in chapter 5 Yeshua (The Lamb) isn't, rather he is (standing) amongst the elders around (near) the throne....He steps forward to retrieve the scroll from the hand of his god. So we can conclude that "God" is on the throne receiving praise and Yeshua (The Lamb) isn't....

But then the Lamb is on the throne (5:6,)

Nope...Yeshua (The Lamb) is standing at this point and this is right before he steps forward to retrieve the scroll from his god.

Rev. 5:6, 5:7
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb........And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne

7:17,

Nope. In the (midst)...meaning he was near the throne but not seated. At this point we only have "God" seated.

12:5, 22:1,3) and the elders, etc. worship before the throne. Are they not then worshiping the Lamb, who is on the throne?

Nope. But in those verses "God" (and) The Lamb are never viewed synonymously. They, while in heaven, are viewed and maintained separately.

 

[Pegg]

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.

I would direct your attention to John 10:34 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, ...36 do YOU say to me ... ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?

The greek word used here is the‧oi′ 'gods'
In latin, di′i e′stis; 'deity' and in Hebrew its ’elo‧him′ 'gods'

Im sure you'd have to acknowledge that obviously the word 'god' is not always pertaining to the Almighty God.

Angels have an angelic nature, not a 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.

Why are angels called 'holy' in many scriptures. Surely you would not deny that Gods nature is Holy?
And according to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the Greek word thei‧o′tes (which is closely related to the word above) means “divine nature, divinity.” (P. 788) So if humans can be called 'gods' in their unholy state of imperfection, surely the holy angels of God who are also called 'sons of God' must be of divine nature even moreso.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

bingo! you win 10pts

Jesus is talking about 'unity'
You just said it because in reading the verse about the disciples coming 'in' each other you realize it does not mean that they will become 'one substance'.... 'one substance' is what the trinity says God and Jesus are

This is why the NWT translates this verse as 'in union' ' because Jesus says the disciples should be united together the way Jesus is united to God and in that way they will all be united.

And he uses the same greek word about his disciples being 'in' each other as he does when he says that he is 'in' the father and the father is 'in' him.




Yes i agree, the disciples have the holy spirit indwelling....but it doesnt mean that they are the holy spirit...or they are God...or they are Jesus.

Again this is what the trinitarians attempt to claim about Jesus. That this 'indwelling' makes Jesus God .... its completely illogical to tell the disciples that they too can become God and Jesus and Holy spirit... this is why these verses are not saying what trinitarians claim they are saying.



Bingo again. You see that logically its impossible to accept that idea that this 'indwelling' has anything to do with substance.

They are 'united spiritually' ... not physically as one substance which is what trinitarians claim Jesus is with God and holy spirit.

Perfect exegesis of the meaning (one)..:clap

 

[smokydot]

bingo! you win 10pts

Jesus is talking about 'unity'
You just said it because in reading the verse about the disciples coming 'in' each other

Okay, Pegg, there's a problem here with the translation of Jn 17:21, which in the Greek is:
"that all of them may be one, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

As you can see, the phrase "in each other" is not in the verse above.
The Greek in this verse for "in" is en, with one diacritical mark, and the objects of the preposition "in" are Father and Son.
The Greek in this verse for "one" is en, with two diacritical marks, and no preposition (that they may be one).
There is no Greek in this verse for "in each other," so the verse does not translate "in each other."
It translates "in the Father," "in the Son," "in us" and "may be one."

There are two different realities being spoken of here.
One is the unity in mind and heart of the disciples--en, with two diacritical marks.
The other is the singleness of the Father and the Son in the deity--en, with one diacritical mark.
Jesus speaks of himself and the Father as two persons, but who are one, as no two human persons can be.
They are one in nature and essence, equal in power and glory, have the same attributes, properties and perfections.

The unity of the disciples in heart and mind, and the singleness of the Father and Son in the deity are different kinds of realities, indicated by the different forms of en.

And then the disciples are in them through the indwelling Holy Spirit in them, who is also the spirit of the Father and the spirit of the Son,
so that by way of the Holy Spirit they are in the Father and in the Son.

you realize it does not mean that they will become 'one substance'.... 'one substance' is what the trinity says God and Jesus are
This is why the NWT translates this verse as 'in union' ' because Jesus says the disciples should bee united together the way Jesus is united to God and in that way they will all be united.

Well. . .yes and no.
The disciples are to be united together in heart and mind,
but the way Jesus is united to the Father by being in the Father and the Father in him is a singleness of being which no two humans can be.

;And he uses the same greek word about his disciples being 'in' each other as he does when he says that he is 'in' the father and the father is 'in' him.

Well, actually it is not.
One form of en has one diacritical mark, meaning "in," and the other form of en has two diacritical marks, meaning "one."

Yes i agree, the disciples have the holy spirit indwelling....but it doesnt mean that they are the holy spirit...or they are God...or they are Jesus.

Agreed.

Again this is what the trinitarians attempt to claim about Jesus. That this 'indwelling' makes Jesus God .... its completely illogical to tell the disciples that they too can become God and Jesus and Holy spirit... this is why these verses are not saying what trinitarians claim they are saying.
Bingo again. You see that logically its impossible to accept that idea that this 'indwelling' has anything to do with substance.
They are 'united spiritually' ... not physically as one substance which is what trinitarians claim Jesus is with God and holy spirit.

The Holy Spirit doesn't "indwell" Jesus. The Holy Spirit indwells me. That's not the doctrine of the Trinity.
The Holy Spirit is Jesus' own spirit, as well as the Father's own spirit. . .no "indwelling" needed.
It is the Father who indwells the Son, and the Son who indwells the Father. And their own spirits are the same spirit, the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not based on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Father and the Son.

Jesus is God because he is begotten of God, which makes God his progenitor and gives him God's nature--divine (deity).

 

[Pegg]

... the way Jesus is united to the Father by being in the Father and the Father in him is a singleness of being which no two humans can be.

I agree.

One form of en has one diacritical mark, meaning "in," and the other form of en has two diacritical marks, meaning "one."

not according to my greek interlinear NT verse.

JOhn 17:26 is literally read as follows:

"That all may be one as you father in me and I in you that also they in us may be that that world may believe that you sent me "
all 3 occurences of in are from the greek word e'n

So is Jesus saying that the disciples can become like God and Jesus....one in substance?

Jesus is God because he is begotten of God, which makes God his progenitor and gives him God's nature--divine (deity).

yep i agree that Jesus has Gods nature... but so do all other spirit creatures who live with God and have spiritual bodies... they exist in Gods nature too.

 

[smokydot]

You gave me John 5:18 and 6:41-42 but I'm never satisfied with a quote here or there because to me they mean absolutely nothing and detracts from the context. He broke the law by working on the sabbath but I'm still looking for the law that said it was blasphemous to call yourself the (son of "God).

Okay, let's look at the verse: "So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, 'My father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.' For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
First of all, he had previously said he was Lord of the Sabbath (Lk 6:5)), with authority to overrule laws of the Sabbath. That was blasphemy to them.
Secondly, he said God is his own Father, which was a claim to standing in a special relationship to the Father--a relationship so close as to make him equal with God. That was blasphemy to them.
Thirdly, God being his Father made God his progenitor, and having the nature of God--divine (deity). That was blasphemy to them.
Why the Jews accused him of blasphemy is not a mystery.

I read beyond verse 42 and about verse 52 the Jews were asking silly questions because they didn't understand what the biblical Yeshua was saying. He was speaking metaphorically but they either were being sarcastic or took his message literally. That's why his disciples said to him that this would be a hard thing to hear...basically..(most will not get what you're trying to tell them).

You must have skimmed my explanation in post #105 of why I included Jn 6:41-42 in my list of verses in post #100. I clearly stated that it was because it showed the Jews grumbling and rejection of him because he said he came from heaven. I said my reason for including this verse in the list was not because the Jews thought he was claiming equality with God.

It was an unfounded charge at this point. So what, they cried foul....he's blaspheming "God"..?

Okay, this is why I don't think you understand the NT. Regarding Mk 2:5-12. . .
That he claimed to forgive sin is not unfounded. That forgiving sin is a prerogative of God alone is not unfounded. That in Jewish theology even the Messiah could not forgive sin is not unfounded. That his forgiveness of sin was a claim to deity is not unfounded.

What does the biblical Yeshua say after that and what happened or didn't happen to him? He explains what he means by "forgiving sins"

There is no explanation by him of "what he means". . .the meaning of what he said requires no explanation. . . "Your sins are forgiven" means. . .your sins are forgiven.

and they were amazed and said...we never seen this done like this before...

They were amazed by the proof he offered of his authority to forgive sin--he healed the paralytic, who got up, took his mat and walked home in full view of them all.

Was Yeshua arrested or stoned...? Nope...Why?...It's because they misunderstood him, he was able to clarify what he was doing and how he did it..and after that he moved on.... No arresting, no trial, and no death at this point.

They didn't "misunderstand" that he claimed authority to forgive sin.
He didn't "clarify" what he was doing.
He didn't "clarify" how he forgave sin.

On the contrary, he proved he had the authority to do just what he said--forgive sin. He proved it by healing the paralytic.
In Jewish theology, even the Messiah could not forgive sin. God alone forgives sin. He proved he had the same authority as God to forgive sin, thereby
making himself equal with God.
This kind of explanation of Mk 2:5-12, and others you've given similar to it, that wrestle and distort the plain meaning of the words, is why I don't think you understand
the NT.
And there was no arresting, no trial, and no death because of their amazement at the proof of his authority--healing the paralytic.

They obviously must not have because NO JEW today ascribes to the concept of the trinity unless he is a convert to christianity. Jews, Like the Muslims, believe "God" is one and is not (three persons...but one god). So they must not have understood because more than 2000 years later the Jews don't believe it.

My statement was not about the Jews not believing in the Trinity. It was about you not believing in the Trinity.
The Trinity is the least of the problems for the Jews, who don't believe Jesus is the Messiah, and thereby are barring the door to their salvation from
the wrath of God (Jn 3:18,36).

Blasphemous for working on the sabbath...for sure...but so far no law against calling yourself (son Of God). Maybe it was a law they misinterpreted....
No they weren't. They grumbled because they knew him and had history with him. 6:41 tells you exactly why they grumbled....
John 6:41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
They knew him..or at least..knew his family...
John 6:42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Even though they knew him and his family from right there in their area...They had no idea what he was talking about in his parable and took it literally and not symbolically....but even here there was no charge of blasphemy... and there is no indication they thought he was trying to be equal to his god.
And what I'm telling you is...Yes..they wanted to kill him because of John 10:30...but John 10:30 is not a statement tantamount to claiming to be "God".

If you understand its import, it is a claim to equality with God. Why do they so strongly object to him being God's Son? Isrealites were the sons of God.
What is the issue for them? Why do they want to kill him because of it? There is a whole lot more going on here for the Jews than Jesus just being God's Son.
They knew it meant that God was his progenitor, giving him God's nature--divine (deity). The Jews didn't "misunderstand," they understood clearly what he was saying,
and if it were not true, it was serious blasphemy.
What the Jews misunderstood was that the "blasphemous" claims of Jesus were true. Being true, they were not blasphemy, as they thought.
So that their charges of blasphemy really were "unfounded," untrue and false.

They misunderstood what he was saying and that's why he saw fit to try and explain it to them.

In Jn 10:36-39, he didn't "explain" it to them. He defended it to them: "Why do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son.'? Do not believe me (that I am God's Son) unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me (that I am God's Son), believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.' Again, they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp."

Tensions are high and Yeshua is speaking in parables which is said early on in that chapter they didn't understand....They don't want parables. They wanted to know if he was the Messiah and to come straight out a say so because that's what their prophecy foretold. We have the benefit of understanding that when he says (I and my father are one)..we know it to be one in purpose

How did we get that beneift? Christians do not understand "I and the Father are one" to mean "one in purpose." They understand it to mean "one in being."
It is those of the Quran who understand it to mean "one in purpose."

but the Jews of the day were already short tempered with him. This is why we get clarification and confirmation in John 17:22 and 23. This is what he meant. One in purpose.

He also said that he is "in the Father," and the Father "is in him." That is what he meant by "I and the Father are one." They are one in being.
"One in purpose" is the view of those of the Quran. It is not the Christian view.

 

[Muffled]

1)
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."

This is our starting point. If you don't accept the validity of the text there isn't any room for discussion.

I suppose one could construe the term "serious defects" as a depicton of the NT being distant from the truth but the reality is that once the revisions were made the central truths remained the same. I was brought up on the King James Version and now use the New American Standard. I have not seen a major difference between the two.

 

[Muffled]

Also two more Question some Christians Argue that Jesus(pbuh) is God---which isn't present in Bible either like i mentioned earlier Jesus(pbuh) clearly said God is One And he is the Messenger OF God

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know."

[The Bible, Acts 2:22]

So the Question is

Q-How can Mary(as) be a mother of God and at the same time a Daughter of God?

Also some Christian argue that Mary(as) wasn't married to anyone---so Jesus(pbuh) has to be BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD---My Question to them

Q)According to Bible and Quran Adam(pbuh) didn't have mother or father so he should be a bigger SON OF GOD then Jesus(pbuh) according to that logic

This is how Jesus(pbuh) will respond to these people according to Quran

[Quran5:116-118]

"And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.If You should punish them - indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them - indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise."[/quote]

I have a thread for that on religious debates (Did Jesus say He is God?) but it is extremely long. However the OP provides the scripture supporting the divinty of Jesus.

As a protestant I cringe whenever I hear the Catholics use the term "mother of God." Mary concevied in her womb, Jesus, who is God in the flesh. IMO that does not make her the mother of God. In the same manner of speaking God is not inhabiting a body to produce physical children. The children of God are so because of God indwelling them. This is a spiritual activity not a physical one.
As far as I know there is no reference saying that Mary was at the first meeting when the Spirit of God came upon the congregation and indwelled them but it would seem logical that she should have been there.

I agree with you on this point. Although a virgin giving birth is a sign of the Messiah it does not directly prove the divinty of Jesus. However in the Angel's answer to Mary's question: "How can this be?", we find that Jesus is God in the flesh because of the indwelling of God.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.

Obviously you missed this little word. There is no evidence that there are two Gods which is what that word is implying. The evidence is that there is one God who is Father and Son and Paraclete just as there is one God who is creator and judge and provider.

However there is no Biblical evidence that Mary was divine in any way.

 

[Islam432]

It is true that trinity is a doctrine from about the year 325 AD, It has its roots in polytheism, pagan religion, and pagan philosophy (most probably added to Christianity by humans to make it more acceptable to worshipers of more than one God). It is not in the bible unless you really, really stretch it to fit.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia , VOL. XIV, PAGE 299:

The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, PRIOR TO THE END OF THE 4TH CENTURY. But it is precisely this formulation that first claimed to title "The Trinitarian Dogma. AMONG THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, THERE HAD BEEN NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY APPROACHING SUCH A MENTALITY OR PERSPECTIVE.


You should not accept the word “son” literally . Word "son" was used in bible for general human beings and other prophets also. "we all are the children of father in heavens" indicates that word "son" was used in different meaning of love and care.

Mathew: 5:9. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.”

Exodus 4:22.
“And thou (Moses) shalt say unto Pharaoh, thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.”


Jesus, Moses, Mohammad (p.b.u.h), they all worshiped the same God, the God of Ibrahim. All prophets taught "surrendering one's will to God" that is the meaning of word "Islam". Word "christianity" did not exist at the time of Christ, but you will find Jesus teachings to be "surrender your will to God" in bible many times.

JAMES 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.


Mohammad (peace be upon him) was also a messenger of God, who never claimed to be God, the same way Jesus or Moses never claimed to be God, nor did they ever say worship me. There was just not one holy book sent by God on earth through His messengers. The last one had to be there to correct mistakes in the previous ones. The last testiment from the same source, with many similarities, but correcting mistakes in earlier ones made by humans.

If only the genuine followers of Jesus, who truly love him, read the Bible in context, and study the Qur’an, they will definitely reach the conclusion that GOD IS ONE, without any partners; and Jesus (pbuh) the son of Mary (pbuh) is a messenger of GOD!

Muslims love Jesus, they believe in his miraculous birth with the will of God without a father or sexual act (the way Adam was born without a mother and father), , they believe in miracles that Jesus performed with permission of God, muslims faith demands them to believe Jesus was a great prophet of God and belief in the original message of Jesus the massaya.

Qur’an, revealed to the Prophet Muhammed (an illiterate person, who didn't know how to read or write) some 600 years after Jesus, (pbut) corrects the errors that crept (knowingly or unknowingly) into the message that Jesus brought. This book should prove to be a very valuable asset to both Muslims and Christians


The Holy Qur’an warns in Surah 5:73& 74: “They do blaspheme who say, Allah is Christ the son of Mary. But said Christ: O’ Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever joins other gods with Allah- Allah will forbid him the garden, (i.e. paradise) and the fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong doers, be no one to help”. “Surely they are disbelievers, those who say: Allah is one of the three in a Trinity: But there is none who has the right to be worshiped but one God (i.e. Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them”.

Would you really believe in some twisted and vague words in Bible that people try to use divinity of Jesus.in Bible, written after 50-300 years after Jesus by people who never met him. Jesus spoke Armaic, not English or any other language. Just one word "Gay" has changed its meaning in just 50 years, what would happen to something written 50 years after Jesus and translated hundreds of times, and till now corrections happening? Will you go by just one unclear statement in Bible added by humans in it, and ignore clear commandments of Jesus.

Decide whether you love Jesus and want to follow his clear words and be saved, or love other human beings who gave different meaning to his original words. Reject any idea that makes you think of God in three distinct images or forms, follow Jesus and Mohammad p.b.u.h who said God is one, without any partner.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Okay, let's look at the verse: "So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them,'My father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.' For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

He was working on the Sabbath and the Jews sought to kill him because of that. While the biblical Yeshua said he was the (son of "God") it is not the same as saying (I am "God"). If it was to the Jews of the day it's a baseless claim that so far, from what I can tell, has no law forbidding one from calling themselves (son of "God"). If calling yourself (son of "God") is considered "equal" to "God" (by your understanding and by the understanding of the Jews of the day)..then when we look upon the title (sons of God) in the OT then we must also conclude they were considered, by the Jews of the day, to be equal to "God"...This is why I maintain divine does not mean by default one is "God". They didn't take Yeshua's statement to mean he was claiming to be "God" by claiming "God" was his father rather they charged him with being "equal with" (in conjunction)....Equal but separate basically. Additionally, their teachings do not insist the (sons of "God") are equal with "God". Equal to something does not mean you are that which you are equal to.

In doing comparative studies we find the views of the Jews and Muslims to be of the same thought on this subject. Please note once more that I'm not a Muslim and I'm not judging my understanding of the bible by using the Quran. These two ways of life are very similar as to how they view "God" so pointing out their similarities is not me endorsing the teachings of either. They all believe "God" has no physical son that he begat in the sense that he is a biological father of. And neither of them believe or believed anything or anyone is "equal with" "God". In this view it is understandable why Jews considered it blasphemy even though with the biblical Yeshua that was not his motivation for saying he was the (son of "God")...

You must have skimmed my explanation in post #105 of why I included Jn 6:41-42 in my list of verses in post #100. I clearly stated that it was because it showed the Jews grumbling and rejection of him because he said he came from heaven. I said my reason for including this verse in the list was not because the Jews thought he was claiming equality with God.

I highlighted why they grumbled and in all of chapter six there is no charge or even a mention that they thought he was trying to make himself equal with his god. He spoke a cryptic message they didn't understand. They took it literally. Moreover, they were grumbling because they knew he was from their own town, they knew him, they knew his father and his mother...so they had no idea why he said he came down from heaven.

Okay, this is why I don't think you understand the NT. Regarding Mk 2:5-12. . .
That he claimed to forgive sin is not unfounded. That forgiving sin is a prerogative of God alone is not unfounded. That in Jewish theology even the Messiah could not forgive sin is not unfounded.

After some more research you are correct that the Jews believed only "God" could forgive sins. The biblical Yeshua says he would prove to them he had power to forgive sins. What he didn't tell them was all the authority he had was "given" to him.

On the contrary, he proved he had the authority to do just what he said--forgive sin. He proved it by healing the paralytic.
In Jewish theology, even the Messiah could not forgive sin. God alone forgives sin. He proved he had the same authority as God to forgive sin, thereby
making himself equal with God.

But we know, by Yeshua's own words, the authority that he had was given to him by his god. He says this explicitly. Even those that knew him, said that if he asked "God".."God" would ("give") it to him. Just because certain people believed he was trying to be equal "with" his god doesn't mean that the biblical Yeshua ever claimed to be "God"...

It was about you not believing in the Trinity.

Because the 4 gospels do not reveal him as such...

If you understand its import, it is a claim to equality with God. Why do they so strongly object to him being God's Son? Isrealites were the sons of God.
What is the issue for them? Why do they want to kill him because of it? There is a whole lot more going on here for the Jews than Jesus just being God's Son.
They knew it meant that God was his progenitor, giving him God's nature--divine (deity).

I explained this above. For Jews it's blasphemy to associate any partners with "God" or to pass ones' self off as if he is a god. Additionally Jews do not believe their god had a son or children in the biological sense.

It is those of the Quran who understand it to mean "one in purpose." He also said that he is "in the Father," and the Father "is in him." That is what he meant by "I and the Father are one." They are one in being.
"One in purpose" is the view of those of the Quran. It is not the Christian view.

Actually it isn't solely Muslims who take this stance. Many christian denominations take this very stance as well. And it's without a doubt that Jews take this stance