IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Who is the comforter
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Who is the comforter

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8910
Author
Message
2Acts View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 22 March 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 2Acts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 August 2018 at 11:56pm
Originally posted by JerryMyers JerryMyers wrote:

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

Oh really, two reasons now for Muslims using the Bible ! First it was one, now its two. You like to move the goal posts don’t you ! My point stands ”. You using Christian scripture Is not valid due you not adequately determining criteria for “truth and lies.” And until Muslims or you, do so you have no authority to quote from the Bible by simply picking and choosing what suits. And no the circular argument logical fallacy of “truth being what lines up with the Quran is not good enough. You have not been able to prove differently.

Well, the number of reasons is not the objective here, BUT, its WHY a Muslim would quote a Biblical verse. Why do you think a Muslim would quote a Biblical verse ?? And what’s your criteria to determine “truth and lies” ?

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

You are wrong about John 10.30, 15.5 and 17.21. have a good read. Jesus says in 15.5 I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. Look at the imagery of the parable. A vine is a living substance or organism. A branch is a living extension of the same substance. Fruit is a further living extension of the same substance. Jesus tells his followers to “remain in me . To “remain in me”, means … to remain in ME. Not just simply remain in his purpose.
And yes in a way as his followers become one with the branch and the vine they also become one with God. In a way they will be come as like “Gods” too. That’s what the term “Born again “ means.
You have not even been able to refute or explain any of the verses I have quoted and please tell me exactly how could I take John 15.5 literally? It is obviously figurative. But the meaning is obvious – God The Father, Jesus Christ God The Son and his followers all become one in substance.

You would have taken John 15:5 literally IF you believe God Almighty and Jesus are one and same entity or they are equal.

“To remain in me” simply means to remain in the guidance circle of Jesus or in other words, to continue to be attached to the preaching of Jesus, or figuratively speaking, like a branch is attached to the vine – just as the branch which is attached to the vine will bear fruits, so will the disciple who remain attached to Jesus’ preaching will reap the reward in the afterlife.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

Matthew 13:13-15 “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand” applies to you. I will be interested to see how you try to weedle and riddle your way out of this.

A good example of “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand” will be when one read, say, John 10:30 or John 15:5, they understand those verses to mean that God Almighty and Jesus Christ are one and same person. If your understanding of those verses is such, then, you are said to be one of those who “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand” – are you one of those people ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

You claim it is my words in my mention of John 5.27. You are wrong again. Lets read from John 5.24 to John 5.30 -
“Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.
So as you can see these are the words of Jesus as detailed in the In-jeel. Not my words or the words of the church as you claim. So you tell me, which human “prophet” has the power to call the dead from their graves and to judge? There have and are no human beings with that ability.”

Well, you left out John 5:24 in your quote, despite writing “Lets read from John 5.24 to John 5.30”. I assume that’s unintentional, BUT, John 5:24 is key in understanding the following verses (John 5:25-30) which you quoted.

In John 5:24, Jesus said “Very truly I tell you, who-ever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life”. In other words, Jesus was saying that whoever listen to him and believe in God Almighty who sent him will have eternal life. The phrase ‘believe in him who sent me’ can only be a reference to God Almighty as Jesus could not be saying he sent himself!

So, when your understanding is based on what Jesus said (NOT on what other people said), then you should also understand that Jesus was also referring to the voice of God Almighty when he said “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out” – John 5:28-29, as Jesus clearly did not say “… when all who are in their graves will hear my voice and come out”.

So, to your question, ‘which human “prophet” has the power to call the dead from their graves and to judge?’, the answer is, no one, as only God Almighty has the power to do that.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

So continuing onto to John 11.25 obviously John 11.25 is also about this. And I must add you haven’t even been able to refute John 11.25. You need to just stop blindly accepting what your Imams and Mullahs tell you and read the whole Bible with an open mind.

John 11:25 reads ‘Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die”’. Yes, it did imply a resurrection, but, the question is - what was Jesus’ understanding when he said “I am the resurrection and the life”?? First of all, you should know that every Muslim and Christian believe in the Day of Judgment and anyone who believe in the Day of Judgment, will believe in the Day of the Resurrection, that is, the day when all the dead will be resurrected to be judged by God. So, every time Jesus spoke or implied a resurrection, it’s crucial that we know which resurrection was he referring to – was it a reference to his own ‘resurrection’ on earth as all Christians believed, or a reference to the resurrection at the Last Day before the Judgment ?? To know this, we need to go back to John 11 and understand WHY Jesus said “I am the resurrection” -

‘“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”’ – John 11:21-26

We can clearly see when Jesus said “I am the resurrection and the life”, he was responding to Martha who had said earlier she knew her brother will rise again at the last day, that is, the day of the Resurrection. This tell us that Jesus, in saying “I am the resurrection and the life” was also referring to the Day of the Resurrection of the last day as he was responding to Martha’s statement and NOT about himself rising from the dead on this earth. Now, you may say “Still that did not explain WHY Jesus said ‘I am the resurrection and the life”. The explanation is simple – the Day of the Resurrection also marks the coming of the Judgment Day - so, when Jesus said ‘I am the resurrection”, he’s saying he’s the Sign for the Day of Resurrection. In other words, when Martha said she knew her brother will rise again in the last day ie. in the Day of the Resurrection, Jesus informed her that he’s the Sign of the Resurrection that is, his second coming will mark the coming of the last day when the dead will be resurrected. Its like the Angel of Death saying “I am death” which would mean he’s the sign of death and if he comes calling on you, then, you knew death is not far away from you. This also explain why Jesus said “The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die” in the same breath as “I am the resurrection and life”. In other words, Jesus was telling Martha and those present not to fear for those who had died earlier for if they had died believing in him as the messiah and prophet of God, they will continue to live on in the kingdom of heaven, and those who are still living (a reference to Martha and those still living at that time) and these people believe in him as the messiah and prophet of God, will not die – which, of course, does not mean they will live forever in their earth life, but it means after their earthly death, they too will continue to live on in the kingdom of heaven, which Jesus often refers to as the ‘everlasting life’.

So really, you need to just stop blindly accepting what your church and your preachers tell you and read the whole Bible with an open mind to understand what Jesus really said and NOT what other people claimed what Jesus said.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

In my mentioning of John 17.21, Psalm 82.6 and John 10.34 there is no need to get upset over the use of a small ‘s’ or a capital ‘S’ as I simply made that distinction for your understanding. The actual scriptures I quoted are not effected by a small or capital ‘s’. So it’s a non issue.

I am not upset as whether you capitalized the ‘S’ in the phrase ‘S/son of God’ or not, it means the same, that is, it means ‘servant of God’, BUT, to you and the Christians, a capitalized ‘Son of God’ means God the Son, so, it’s an issue to you and the Christians if the translators of the English-translated Bibles did not capitalized the letter ‘s’ when referring to Jesus as the ‘son of God’.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

However when it comes to understanding the distinc-tion between a small ‘s’ or capital ‘S’ and any distinction made in either the Greek or Hebrew I understand it better than you.

For you to say “…. any distinction made in either the Greek or Hebrew I understand it better than you” only show that you knew nothing about Greek or Hebrew alphabets as, (again) there’s NO DISTINCTION of small and capital letters in Greek and Hebrew alphabets.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

Regarding the Injeel and Suras 5:46. S. 57:27, 10. 94, 5:48, 3:3 any contradiction between what the Injeel says and Muslim doctrine is your problem not mine. I have provided may verses that you have been unable to refute. The best you can do is resort to rid-dles.

What verses have you provided that I cannot refute ?? And what contradiction are there between what Jesus truly said and the Muslim doctrine ?? Fact is, any contradiction found between what the Bible said and the Muslim doctrine are NOT what of Jesus had said, but rather, those of what other people claimed of what Jesus said in the Bible, especially when Jesus himself NEVER made those claims himself and neither did God Almighty made those claims on Jesus' behalf.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

You ask if I am saying disobeying God is not a sin to the Christians ? of course disobeying God is a sin. However sin goes much deeper than mere disobedience.

Care to elaborate further, that is, if you can ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

And in terms of your point that “if Jesus is God the Son, so there must be 2 Gods, but Jesus saying God is one”… my advice to you is don’t make life difficulty for yourself. It is not hard to conceptualise One God with more than one aspect. I think you pur-posely make it hard for yourself as that’s what your Imams and Mul-lahs do.

Well, instead of just being good at giving ‘advice’, why don’t you, for once, address or try to refute – “if Jesus is God the Son, so there must be 2 Gods, but Jesus said God is one”, can you ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

Regarding Ephesians 2:2 once again you miss (or evade) the point. The point being the ruler of the kingdom of the air (Satan) is at work. It is not a 50 /50 playing field where simple choices determine righteousness.

Who’s talking about a 50/50 playing field ?? And once again you miss (or evade) the point. The point is NOT about “being the ruler of the kingdom of the air (Satan) is at work”, but the point is, original sin is NOT a divine teaching as no one is born with sin and that’s why Jesus, or any prophets of God, has ever preached original sin.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

And in terms of Luke 11.13 I never made a direct comparison with Ephesians 2.2. and what verses exactly do you recommend I read Luke 11.13 in context with? You are not clear. You need to stop being evasive and refute Luke 11.13 which you have not been able to do.

Try reading Luke 11 in total to understand Luke 11:13 in context and not just Luke 11:13 – that’s what I mean.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

I have broken down the Hebrew in Proverbs 22.15 and your only response is “rambling conjecture”. As well as provide you with relevant verses around the doctrine of original sin I have pro-vided a detailed explanation in the Greek terms of poneroi hyparchon-tes. You have not been able to refute what I have provided and simply make a pathetic response of “reading scriptures out of context”. You need to refute the verses and / or linguistic meaning I provide rather than make baseless claims. You need to do better than this.

Actually, your “explanation” of original sin IS rambling conjecture – heck, you cannot even prove Jesus, or any other prophets of God before him, ever preached original sin !! So, your so-called ‘detailed explanation’ is actually repetition of what other people preach to you and NOT what Jesus preach to you - you need to do better than this.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

And do I say to take all of Jesus words literally? Yes and no. It depends on the literary context. Let me define literary con-text for you. It consists of understanding the literary genre that the book of the Bible exists in. Why is Genre Important? Genre is the cov-enant between the author and the recipient. Surrounding Text. Sur-rounding text starts with the passage itself and slowly works outwards.

“Yes and no” ?? Exactly what I mean when I said the Bible is a Book of truth and lies !! If you can understand why Jesus’ words can be taken figuratively and some, literally, depending on the literary context, then why can’t you understand that the Bible can also be a book of truth and lies, depending on the context and whose sayings are being narrated ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

You are wrong about John 10:34. Read back a verse to John 10:33. The Jewish leaders accuse him of claiming to be God where they say - “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they re-plied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” John 10.33.
If you want more proof he was accused of blasphemy then read the following where it is clear the Jewish leaders were ac-cusing him of blasphemy –
(John 10:33) “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
(Luke 5:21) The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
(Mat 26:65) Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

Well, in the above verses you quoted, WHO exactly was making those claims (of Jesus claiming to be God) ?? Jesus himself ?? No, it was the people – the Jews, the chief priests, etc, NOT Jesus. Are you saying just because the Jews, who wanted to get rid of him, claimed that Jesus, a mere man, claimed to be God, therefore, it must be true ?? In other words, if people claim that you, a mere man, claimed to be Satan, therefore, it must be true that you are Satan ?? As I have said many times, listen to what Jesus claimed of himself and NOT of what other people claimed of him on his behalf.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

And then read on into John 10.36 where Jesus says -
“ what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy be-cause I said, ‘I am God’s SON?” In the Greek the word is “huios” meaning … Son … not servant ! So because you have your initial premise wrong the rest of your argument falls apart into riddles.

Well, capitalizing all the letters as ‘S-O-N’ don’t make Jesus God the Son – never did and never will.

Again, if you read John 10:36 in context, Jesus was asking the Jews why do they accuse him of blasphemy (claiming to be God the Son) when he said he’s God’s son when it’s was also written in their law that they are all ‘gods’ and yet none of them claimed to be God. So, if it was written in their law that they were all gods and none of them considered that as blasphemy, then, Jesus saying he’s ‘the son of God’ cannot be blasphemy too, but, yet, the Jews are accusing him of blasphemy ! That’s what John 10:36 in context was, but because you have your initial premise wrong (that Jesus is God the Son) the rest of your argument just falls apart, as always.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

Regarding the plurality of God in Isaiah 6.8 your ex-planation of it referring to the people of King Uzziah and not God does not make sense. The reason for this is that if you read on to Isaiah 6.9 you will see God is wanting Isaiah to go and preach to the people of King Uzziah. So why would the “us” be the people of King Uzziah when He is asking Isaiah to go and preach to people of King Uzziah ?

Well, ask yourself this - in Isaiah 6:8, who was ‘I’ and who was ‘the Lord’ ? In Isaiah 6:9, ‘the Lord’ was not a reference to God Almighty because, as I have told you before, in the OT, God Almighty is always referred to ‘L-O-R-D’ – all letters are capitalized (for example see Isaiah 6:3).

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

And its interesting that you are using capitals and lower case now! I have only ever used them to make a distinction to clarify understanding while you have contradicted yourself in using them to reference scripture. You are the one that says in Greek and Hebrew, there’s no such thing as small or capital letters. Like I say you have contradicted yourself and you need to keep better track on your previous posts.

Not really. I only use capital or upper and lower case to reflect your understanding in accordance to what the gospelists want you, as a Christian, to understand, that is, when they translate the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to English. Else how can I refute you or have a discussion with you if I do not know your ‘understanding’ of your Bible in the first place ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

I agree Isaiah 41 does not clearly define divine qualities. But it does fit with the life of Jesus. In terms of a ruler with divine eternal qualities you are better referring to Isaiah 53-

Well, Isaiah 53 is not a conclusive reference that it’s about Jesus, as even among the Christians, they seemed divided as who the ‘Suffering Servant’ was. One group said Isaiah 53 was about Jesus while the other group said its about the sufferings of the Jews seen collectively as one person or one nation, which is not uncommon in the Scripture - http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

So we finally agree in Mathew 3.17 it is not referring to a servant but so (Huios) and Im not disputing Isaiah 42:1 in that it refers to the Hebrew word ‘av-di’ which means “servant, slave’ . But your connecting Isaiah 42.1 with Mathew 3.27 is only indirect and tentative. What is your basis in stating Matthew 3:17 was a direct reference to Isaiah 42:1? You need to prove it.

Finally agree ?? Not really. I said Matthew 3:17 uses the word ‘son’ BUT it’s a reference to a servant (of God). It's like if I tell you to fly a kite, it's clear that I don't mean for you to really get a kite and fly it, but, I was asking you to go away. So, you can say 'go fly a kite' is synonymous with 'go away'. Likewise, 'son' in Matthew 3:17 is synonymous with 'servant' in Isaiah 42:1. You can prove this by reading Isaiah 42:1 and Matthew 3:17 side by side :
“Hre is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight” - (Isaiah 42:1) and
“This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17)

Swapping Isaiah 42:1 with Matthew 3:17 will not alter the meaning or the intention of the passages of Isaiah 42 and Matthew 3 respectively. For example, Isaiah 42:1 can be read as “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” and Matthew 3:17 can be “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight”. Did you see any difference in the meaning of those verses in their respective passages even when the verses are swapped ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

There is a closer connection between Isaiah 40.3 and Psalm 2.7 with Mathew 3.17 than Isaiah 42:1.

Isaiah 40:3 does not even come close to Matthew 3:17 and as for Psalm 2:7, what makes you think it was about Jesus and not David ?? Let’s see whether you understand your own Bible or you just rely on whatever your church and your preachers told you to believe. Heed Jesus’ advice – ‘test all spirits’, or in other words, do not simply believe everything your so-called preachers and scholars tell you to believe.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

You have no proof the NT gospelists wanted to project Jesus as God the Son so they replaced the word ‘servant’ with ‘Son’ in Matthew 3:17. Without proof all you have is a conspiracy theory. The other thing you need to know is that Christians have always referred to Jesus as The Messiah as both “Son” and “servant”.

Well, as they say – ‘the proof is in the pudding’, so, go and read TO UNDERSTAND what Jesus really said (and NOT what other people said) in your own scripture.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

….and as I have told you a few times now Jesus was God the Son, not God the Father. However I presume you are refer-ring to Luke 22.42. if you have a good read he was not asking to be saved from his accusers but rather he was asking to be removed from being the the suffering generally.

Again, your response only reflected your level of ‘understanding’ of your own Bible. Asking to be removed from the suffering IS asking to be saved. You must understand Jesus expected, as his enemies close in on him, that he will be captured and will be put on a false trial and put to death by crucifixion, which is, the capital punishment of the day. Thus, in this context, suffering is the ordeal of being persecuted, captured, being put to trial, abused and eventually, the crucifixion, which will lead to a very painful and slow death. So when Jesus prayed to God to remove the sufferings, he’s talking about the whole ordeal process of the predicament he’s in. Camprante ?

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

However you will also note he said “your will be done”. You like most Muslims don’t understand the idea of the hypo-static union which is the dynamic between the human and divine elements of Jesus. There were times when the human aspect of his nature were at the fore and other times when his divine nature were more evident.

Before you make any accusation on Muslims, perhaps, you should first explain your understanding of the phrase “yet not my will, but yours be done” as you quoted above, can you ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

Yes Luke 22.66 is clear however you have not been able to refute what I have presented. The understanding of Jesus being accused of blasphemy is clear, but you simply choose to cloud your own understanding. This is denial on your behalf. The suppositions are all yours. You have not been able to refute Luke 22.66

Are you telling me Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he’s God the Son ?? That’s your ‘clear understanding’ of Luke 22:66 ?? See what I mean when I said you cannot understand what you read in your own Bible. However, to be fair to you, why don’t you tell me what’s your understanding of Luke 22:66 and see whether I can refute your ‘explanation’ or not.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

….and in relation to Matthew 27:11-14 you are wrong in that Jesus had been attempting to explain to them who he was.

You should learn how to understand what you read as I never said, in Matthew 27:11-14, Jesus was attempting to explain to them who he was, BUT, I said “it’s obvious that Jesus was so frustrated with the Jews of not listening to him (of explaining of who he is) that he decided not to respond anymore to their questions”. How do I know this ? Simple – the fact that Jesus told the chief priests and the teachers of the law that they would not believe him if he said he is the Messiah (Luke 22:67), tells us Jesus was already frustrated of telling them that he’s the Messiah and NOT God the Son - a fact which they would not believe (“if I tell you, you will not believe me”). And how do I know Jesus said he’s NOT God the Son ?? Because when he was asked whether he’s the Son of God, Jesus told them, “You said that I am” (Luke 22:70). In other words, Jesus responded that it was them, not him, who said he’s the Son of God.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

If you knew the Gospels you would know Jesus never explained things clearly to the Jews (religious elders). You need to prove your claim that he did.

When did I claim Jesus’ explanations to the Jews are always clear to the Jews ?? I said (or to that effect) Jesus always, or at most of the times, spoke in parables and that’s why most of his words should not be taken literally, BUT, most Christians (like yourself)took his words literally and that’s why they think Jesus is literally the Son of God when he said 'the Father and I are one'.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

The verses are clear, the Chief Priests genuinely believed what they were doing was convicting a blasphemer. You need to prove differently from the scriptures as opposed to vague conjecture on your part.

Yes, the verses are clear (but obviously not to you) – the chief priests were trying to get rid of Jesus by falsely accusing him of blasphemy, that is, they persisted that Jesus had claimed to be God the Son, which Jesus never did and he denied that claim by saying it was only them who had said so (Luke 22:70).

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

Your attempt to refute my quote of John 6.38 and 8.23 by saying John is not Jesus is weak. John was a best friend of Jesus and an eye witness to the events. He was far more knowledge-able of what Jesus said and did than you.

When I said “John is not Jesus”, I was referring to the writer of gospel of John (that is, John ‘whoever’, as no one can be certain who really wrote the gospel of John), and not John the Baptist. Then again, even if John the Baptist or St. John, was the author of the gospel of John, they are still not Jesus, so, how can saying ‘John is not Jesus’ is weak ?? It's more likely it’s your logic that’s weak.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

And yes, yes, as established and well known by Christians before Islam ever came on the scene was that Jesus never directly said “I am God”. However as stated he always talked indirectly often through parables as a means of sifting out people who had the discernment of God. Obviously you are not one of those. You are of the same mind and spirit of the Jewish elders at the time.
As I have said and proven Jesus never directly said “I am God” but he implied it in his talking in parables, and he said enough to have him-self killed for blasphemy and as I have also displayed he often re-ferred to himself with divine and eternal qualities. You need to accept the Bible as it reads not try to weedle and riddle your way out of it.

Which sayings of Jesus, directly or indirectly, that you think implied he was claiming to be God ?? On the other hand, how can Jesus be killed for blasphemy if he’s God ?? Blasphemy simply means the act of someone claiming to be God or equal to God. So, if he’s killed for blasphemy then, he’s not God, but only someone who claimed to be God, which was what the Jews accused him of. Moreover, can you kill God ?? Let see how you try, to borrow your phrase - ‘to weedle and riddle your way out of this’.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

In terms of your claim the Jews and Romans wanted to kill Jesus for preaching to them to worship only the One true God whom he called ‘Father’ you have provided no proof and you have been unable to refute my evidence that it was because of blasphemy. Your position is Muslim wishful thinking and one that you parrot after listening to your Mullahs. Don’t make claims unless you provide proof.

Well, the proofs are in your own Bible, BUT, you cannot understand them as your mind have been ‘preconceived’ to believe Jesus is God. If you think Jesus was NOT preaching to them about God and to worship only the One true God, then, what was Jesus preaching to them ?? That he’s God and he came to die for your sins ?? Prove that’s what Jesus was preaching to them - I doubt it, but, you can try.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

And you haven’t even addressed the point I made about Jesus referring to himself as the figure of God who will return to judge the world in Daniel 7.13 -15. And your statement regarding Pi-late falls apart because you have not proven the above.

If you want me, or anyone, to address a point you made, first, make sure your point is correct in connection with the Biblical verse you quoted in making your point. Daniel 7:13-15 reads, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of point sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. “I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me.”” NIV.

It should be obvious to anyone (maybe other than you) reading Daniel 7 that it was about Daniel’s dreams and thus, it was Daniel’s words and NOT Jesus’ words that you're reading in Daniel 7. If it’s NOT Jesus’ words, then, it’s not Jesus who was “referring to himself as the figure of God who will return to judge the world” as you ignorantly claimed above. So, get your facts right first before asking anyone to comment on your ‘points’.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

You should know that Jesus said the sign of Jonah would be given and that the temple will be destroyed and restored in three days (meaning himself).

Again you made comments without elaborating further. So, what’s your understanding of ‘the sign of Jonah’ and the ‘the temple will be destroyed and restored in three days’ and who said Jesus was talking about himself when he said that ?? Did Jesus himself said that or was it the gospelists who planted that thought in your head ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

But if you want something less abstract read Mathew 20.19 –
As Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside and said, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes. They will con-demn Him to death and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life.”… Matthew 20:19
For someone who claims to know the Bible so well I thought you would know that.

If you are suggesting that Jesus here predicted his death, I will tell you that he did not predict his death BUT, under the circumstances he was in, he expected to be arrested and condemned to death. Matthew 20:19 you quoted tells us Jesus was fully aware of what his enemies had in store for him. If you want to refute that, you need to show that when Jesus said he will be betrayed and killed, he was totally unaware that the Jews hated him and wanted to capture and kill him.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

So your conclusion in Matthew 5:12 where Jesus said “Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” is obviously out of context. One again you pick and choose what you want without attending to the wider context of Mathew.

Not really. The fact that Jesus said “for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” clearly showed that Jesus understood that carrying the message of God to the people will be burdened with hardship and to some, will cost their lives and thus, his disciples can expect him, as their prophet, to go thru the same hard-ships and sufferings, just as all the prophets before them. If you disagree, then perhaps you can explain why Jesus said “for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you”.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

You say you have shown me that God has revealed in the Quran that Mohamad is the Comforter as referenced by Jesus. Firstly I don’t believe in the Quran, so there is no point in referencing it to me.

Well, because you don’t believe in the Quran, that’s why we Muslims quote the Bible when debating with Christians like you, unless they asked for proofs from the Quran. If you can recall, it was you who asked me for proofs in the Muslim Scripture that Muhammad said he is the Comforter as mentioned by Jesus. I said Muhammad need not said he was the Comforter as God Almighty Himself had said so in the Quran and I have provided the Quranic verses. Now, you said there is no point in referencing it to you because you don’t believe in the Quran ?? Then, why ask for proofs in the Quran ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

And where ever you have referenced Jesus I have refuted your points and all you have dome is reply with riddles or baseless accusations.

That’s really quite comical, especially coming from someone who hardly can understand what he read in his own scriptures !!

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

As you have not shown me where Mohmad directly said “I am the comforter” your position is hypocritical.
Ive already stated to you Jesus did not directly say “I am God” but I have provided ample evidence that he was crucified for blasphemy and that he made claims about himself that inferred divine and eternal qualities. You have not been able to provide any such evidence for Mohmad saying “ I am the comforter”.

As I said, Muhammad need not said he was the Comforter as God Almighty Himself had said so in the Quran. You can say you don’t believe the Quran, which is fine, but, the point is, despite conceding Jesus himself NEVER said he’s God, you cannot even show from the Bible, God Almighty saying Jesus is God or part of a triune God. So, your position on this is hypocritical as you are not able to show neither Jesus nor God have ever claimed Jesus is God.

BTW, Jesus being accused of blasphemy is not proof that he is God and when did Jesus “make claims about himself that inferred divine and eternal qualities” ?? I think you missed (or most likely, ignored) the fact that Jesus said, “By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me”.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

You ask how did you contradicted yourself in your quoting of Christian scripture. As I said you have contradicted yourself in that initially you said “ – Muslims only quote the Bible when we want to correct your lack of understanding to your own scripture.” However just like Truthnowcome you have used John 14:16 and John 16:13 to support an Islamic proposition. The explanation is clear. You are just being evasive.

You need to brush up on your logic and rationale when presenting your arguments. In correcting your lack of understanding to your own scripture like John 14:16, John 16:13, etc, it, obviously, will also support the Islamic proposition too, as we are Muslims. Likewise, for example, if someone come to you and said the 10 Commandment was given to Jesus Christ, not to Moses, you, of course, will correct his lack of understanding of the Torah and in doing so, you are also supporting your Christian’s proposition too. So, how can you say that’s contradicting and being evasive ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

In regards to your identification of truth and lies when it comes to your use of the Bible, as you seem to lose track, or are be-ing evasive of what you say let me remind you. Your rationale for truth and lies was the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, that if the Bible does not line up with the Quran then it is a lie. As already proven to you this in not a valid argument due its circular reasoning.

What ‘circular reasoning’ are you rambling about ?? I said, for the Muslims, the truths, irrespective from which source, must be in accordance with the Quran (which all Muslims took as the literal Words of God) and for the Christians, the truths must be in accordance with what Jesus himself said and NOT what other people said or claimed. So, which teaching of Jesus that you think are not in accordance with the Muslim doctrine ?? That Jesus is God and he died for the sins of mankind ?? Jesus NEVER preached those teachings and neither have any of the prophets before him.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

You claim I have not shown you the words of God saying He is a ‘3-in-1’ God, or the words of Jesus saying that. As I have just said in the light you have not done so with Mohamad saying he was the comforter, this is special pleading on your behalf.

It really does not matter whether you believe in the Quran or not, but the fact is, I have shown you that God Almighty, in the Quran, confirmed Muhammad is the Comforter as spoken by Jesus. Muhammad need not say that himself as God Almighty have said that. You, on the other hand, has NOT been able to show me that God is a '3-in-1' God, not only from Jesus but also not from God Himself in your own Bible ! So, what nonsense ‘special pleading on my behalf’ are you talking about ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

You ask which Old testament did Jesus refer to? THE Old Testament. The torah and tanakh.
How can you say the Bibles words are not the inspired Word of God when your Quran validates the truth of the Bible in Suras 5:46. S. 57:27, 10. 94, 5:48, 3:3.

The Quran only confirmed that God gave the Psalms to David, the To-rah to Moses and the Injil to Jesus, it DOES NOT confirm the Bible of today. 1400+ years ago, when the Quran was revealed to Muhammad, God Almighty confirmed in the Quran that He gave the Psalms to David, the Torah to Moses and the Injil to Jesus and thus, confirming the truths of those manuscripts given at that time. Today, no one can confirm that we still have the original Psalms, Torah and Injil. Even the oldest manuscripts found are said to be copies, not the original. So, as I've always said, what you have in the Bible today is a mixture of truths and lies.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

And in regards to the Bible being “influenced” the Bi-ble is the most reliable of all ancient manuscripts which I am happy to demonstrate if you require.

I am not saying the Bible is 100% corrupted, but, I am saying the Bible is a mixture of truths and lies, so, how can anyone say it’s reliable when one can question or dispute the credibility of some of its passages ? Take Matthew 28:19 for instance which reads, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. ‘Baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy spirit’ is, of course, a Trinitarian Baptismal formula. The problem here is that, this only happened in Matthew 28:19 and nowhere else. Jesus himself could not have given such instruction to his disciples after his supposedly ‘resurrection’ as the New Testament only knew one baptism which is only in the name of Jesus Christ as evidenced in the book of Acts and Paul’s epistles such as Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15.
In short, many Christian scholars believe Matthew 28:19 was added at a later stage. In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. James Orr)(1915) Vol. 4 at 2637, under “Baptism,” it says: “Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation,...and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus”.

Even Roman Catholicism’s Jerusalem Bible (N.Y.: 1966), a scholarly Catholic work, confesses at page 64 note g: “It may be that this formula, [i.e., the Trinitarian Baptismal Formula of Matthew 28:19] so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing ‘in the name of Jesus,'”.

So really, how reliable is the Bible of today when even the Christian scholars question some of what was in the Bible such as Matthew 28:19 ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

Regarding Mohamad torturing his enemies like I said the Hadith and Sahih hadith in particular have been a primary source of Islamic jurisprudence for centuries. So don’t try to evade the point by saying hadith is not reliable.

The primary source of Islamic jurisprudence is the Quran. Hadiths and other Islamic sources are secondary sources, and that too, must be in accordance with the Quran. The hadiths are documentations of the sayings and the practices of the Prophet and they are written by people said to be his close companions. You can say the hadiths are very much similar to the Bible, that is, they are written by men. There are thousands of hadiths written, some by his true close companions, some by other people who may not know the Prophet personally but heard of his stories and some by his enemies out to discredit him as a prophet of God. The moral characteristics of the Prophet is well documented in the Quran. For instance, the Prophet, among other things, is, gentle to the people (Quran 3:159), kind, merciful and concern for the people (Quran 9:128), etc. So, if I read a hadith that says the Prophet tortured his enemies, then, I will be wary of that hadith as it does not connect to the characters of the Prophet as described in the Quran. Likewise, the Christians believe the Bible portrays Jesus as a peace-loving man, so, if someone came to you and said Jesus demanded that those who opposed him as their king should be killed in front of him and he quoted Luke 19:27 to prove his point, then, you should be wary of that person’s claim as it does not connect to the characteristics of Jesus as a peace-loving man in the Bible. Can you understand what I am trying to tell you ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

But if as you say hadith must be in accordance with the Quran, im sure you are well aware of the dozens of violent verses in the Quran. For example -S 2:190,S2:191, 2:193, S2:216, S4:74, S4:89, S4:95, S 8:60,S 8:65,S 9:14.And don’t give me a defence that these should be viewed in the historical context of the day. Because if you do you that would be saying the Quran is not the absolute Word of God for all times to all people.

Not really, stories from the Quran, the Bible or any other holy scriptures of any faith, SHOULD be viewed in the context of the time, cultures, traditions and practices of the society of that time. If you do not consider these factors, then, you will not be able to spot reality from the perception. For example, Christians believe Jesus was born on December 25 or sometimes in winter time - that’s not a fact but more of a perception as the Bible NEVER stated Jesus was born on December 25 or in winter times. The Bible, however, did give a clue that it cannot be during winter times as the shepherds were out in the fields keeping watch of their flocks at the time Jesus was born (Luke 2:8). If you have considered the weather conditions at that time of the year in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born, then, you should know shepherds never went out to the fields in winter time, which tells us Jesus cannot be born in winter times or December 25. So, the question is, why do Christians still celebrate Christmas on Dec 25 as the birth of Jesus ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

Regarding the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament you are partly correct in saying the Old Tes-tament was about God and the New Testament was about Jesus. However what you should know is the link between them in that the Old Testament carried many prophetic verses about the coming Messiah which Jesus fulfilled.

Yes, about the coming Messiah, but NOT about God becoming a man or vice-versa. So, yes, Jesus fulfilled the prophetic verses of a coming prophet/Messiah. The NT, however, used most of the OT verses which only applied to God Almighty and apply them to Jesus too and in doing so, imply that Jesus is God too, which in it's true sense, is blasphemy.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

In regards to your quoting of Jeremiah your are actually referring to Jeremiah 8.8 which is a common and tired old Muslim argument. Let me explain it to you. It is clear Jeremiah was simply rebuking the scribes for their traditions that led people astray from the word of God.

Well, you can deny but you can’t ignore the significant prophetic meaning of that verse. Jeremiah 8:8 clearly said ““‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”. Likewise, the Christians today think they have the law of the LORD in the Bible, when the lying pen of the scribes (and the translators) has handled it falsely.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

The preservation of the Word was never at risk Con-sider these points -
1. Other godly men also had copies of the Torah in their possession. Eg. the prophet Daniel. Plus other prophets affirm that the book of Moses was still available during their day.eg. Nehemiah 8:13-14,18. This occurred approximately 430 B.C., nearly 180 years after Jeremi-ah.
2. The Lord Jesus and his followers quoted from the Torah as we know it today and never thought that it was corrupt (cf. Matthew 4:4,7,10; 22:31-32d.
3. Even Jeremiahs enemies knew that the Law could never disappear. Jeremiah 18:18.    
4. If you read Jeremiah 36: 1-7, 20-32, 27-32.You will see that If God was capable of restoring
the revelation given to Jeremiah after it had been destroyed, then God would also have been capable of restoring the original Torah.
5. Jeremiah said …“ If you do not listen to me and follow MY LAW …. So how could Israel follow the Law, i.e. the Torah, if it had been corrupted? Jeremiah 26:4-6

You seem to be confused between an original and a copy or copies of the original. There will always be one original (that is, it came direct from the divine source) which cannot be altered and there will always be copies of the original which can be altered, depending on the understanding and intention of the scribes tasked to copy the original. So, you are quite right when you said Jeremiah (in Jeremiah 8:8), rebuked, or rather God told Jeremiah, to remand the scribes of their traditions of copying the original and adding their own words to the copy, which was normally done based on their understanding of the original manuscripts or the scribes have other motives, and in doing so, they led the people astray from the true path of God. What we can learn from Jeremiah 8:8 is that, the tradition of editing the original (probably in parts and not in total) was already in practice by the scribes even in the times of Jeremiah. Although we can conclude Jeremiah did remand the scribes, the Bible made no mention that the scribes had truly abandoned their traditions of editing what they are copying from the original. If the scribes had truly abandoned their traditions of editing what they copied, then, today, there would not be questions on the integrity of some of what was in the Bible, such as Matthew 28:19 mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

And in your claim that Jesus knew it would be suicidal for only one man to fight a group of armed soldiers and that he ex-pected is nothing but pure conjecture.

You mean to say Jesus did not know that for one man to face a group of trained and armed soldiers would be suicidal ?? You must be thinking Jesus must be as naïve as you. Well, I don’t think Jesus was that naïve as you think he was.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

I have already proven to you Jesus said to love ones enemies and “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword”. My argument is supported by the words of Jesus. Your argument is nothing but hypothetical conjecture.

Yet he asked his followers to get swords ! Your argument is pretty contradicting, isn’t it ?? And your argument get sillier when you said the reason he asked his disciples to get swords was because he wanted to fulfill a prophecy !! If that’s not hypothetical conjecture, I don’t know what is.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

If you want conjecture maybe Jesus didn’t want them to pull a sword because he might have dropped it on his foot and they would have to go to hospital but they didn’t have ambulances back then … !

….AND your arguments get sillier by the minutes.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

Regarding Christian pacifism and the ethics of self defence what you need to realise is “loving ones neighbour” is an ide-al to strive for. Reality will always dictate a practical and reasonable response to aggression. But to have such a high ideal to strive for is honourable and has a moderating influence on society.

Sure. But Jesus considered ‘loving your neighbors’ only as the second important commandment. The first and most important commandment, according to Jesus is, God is One (Mark 12:28-31). If you cannot even get the first and most important commandment right, flapping your lips about ‘love thy neighbors’ really sounded hypocritical.
Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

That is something Muslim society would benefit from considering the Muslim world is in such a mess today.

Well, yes, not only the Muslims, but everyone can benefit by adhering to that second most important commandment. However, I don’t think the Muslim world is really in such a mess as in the Christian world involvement in sexual abuse. Here’s some of the recent reported cases:

-In May 2018, the archbishop of Adelaide, South Australia, became the most senior Catholic in the world to be convicted of concealing child sexual abuse

-A man considered the Church's third-ranked official, Vatican treasurer Cardinal George Pell, is due to go on trial in Australia on charges of historical sexual offences, which he denies

-Vatican police arrested a former Holy See diplomat in April 2018 for suspicion of possessing child pornography

-In Chile, 34 Roman Catholic bishops offered to resign in the wake of a child sex scandal and cover-up

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

That You ask what does it tell me when God created hell to put those who sin and transgress in, if they did not seek re-pentance over their sins ? I don’t know. What is it supposed to tell me ?

You don’t know ?? OK, I will tell you. It means God Almighty, although Loving and Merciful, will still punish His servants who sin and do not obey His Laws and who do not repent and seek forgiveness over their sins. It means God Almighty is very practical – He’s Loving, yet firm in His Judgment and punishment, He’s Merciful, yet strict to those who sin and break His Laws. As such, God Almighty would expect man to be practical too in their relationship with their fellow mankind. Yes, you should love and treat one another the same way you want to be loved and treated (love thy neighbors), but, that does not mean you should just smile and watch your loved ones be abused or that you should not defend yourself, even if you are capable to. Christians, in saying ‘Love thy neighbors’, in theory, seems to suggest that but, in practice, they do not practice what they preached. If they do, then, Christian nations such as the US should not have invaded Iraq or killed Ben Laden in retaliation of 9-11 attack. They should have invited Ben Laden and offered their other cheeks for Ben Laden to slapped them, which was what Jesus preached in Luke 6:29, but, that’s not what happened. So, what happen to the 'offer the other cheek' and ‘love thy neighbors’ which Christians love to brag about ??

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

You ask was Isaiah 53:12 prophesying Jesus as a transgressor and therefore to fulfil this prophesy, Jesus instructed his disciples to get swords. Yes that’s it exactly. What’s your problem here ?

Please, stop making yourself sillier than you already are with such comments. True prophesies are not fulfilled intentionally. What that means is that if Isaiah 53:12 was a true prophecy of Jesus Christ be-coming a transgressor, then, Jesus Christ will be a transgressor with-out him having to do anything to fulfill it, or in other words, Jesus be-came a transgressor, not because he planned or wanted to be a transgressor, but, unforseen circumstances will make him a transgressor, if that’s what Isaiah 53:12 had prophesized. If that happened, then, it’s said the prophecy (Isaiah 53:12) was a true prophecy. So, let me ask you this - did that happened ? Was Jesus Christ ever a transgressor in his lifetime on earth ?? If so, how was he a transgressor ?? Guess the problem is more of your problem rather than mine.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

You state Jesus did not say “My servants would not fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders as he never set an example of fighting to them”. Your use of double negatives and hypo-thetical conjecture doe nothing to mask your logical fallacy of a non Sequitur –(meaning literally, "It does not follow”). Your argument is clumsy and deviates from healthy logic and scripture.

Well, did Jesus say “My servants would not fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders as he never set an example of fighting to them” ?? Obviously, he did not, nor did he even imply that - I know that and you know that too. So, for once, please respond with ‘logical facts’, if you do have any, instead of masking your lack of logical facts by accusing others of “logical fallacy of a non Sequitur”.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

I have already proven to you through scripture Jesus said to love ones enemies and “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword”.

Are you implying Jesus is someone who would never ask his disciples to get swords as “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword” ?? Yet, not that long ago, you have said Jesus asked his disciples to get swords because he wanted to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12 !! Now, that’s a good example of an argument that is clumsy and deviates from healthy logic and scripture !

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

My argument is supported by scripture while your argument is nothing but hypothetical conjecture and logical fallacies.

You mean like when you claimed Jesus asked his disciples to get swords to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12 ?? I will say that’s the kind of argument which is nothing but hypothetical conjecture and logical fallacies.

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

In conclusion you have improved somewhat in not falling into the trap of logical fallacies but you still do however resort to convoluted riddles as a means of evasion. There is nothing new in what you have to say and my advice to you is don’t just rely on the in-terpretation of your Mullahs and Imams but approach the Bible with an open mind.


Since you are in the mood of giving advice, I hope, you are also in the mood of receiving advice too. So, my advice to you – approach the Bible with a clear mind and read to understand your own Bible without the preconceived mindset that Jesus is God and he came to die for your sins. If you still approach the Bible with that same mindset, then, you will NEVER be able to see that Jesus NEVER claimed nor did he ever imply he’s God or came to die for your sins and nether have God Almighty ever claimed that too on behalf of His servant, Jesus Christ, who is just a prophet – a great and unique prophet, but, nevertheless, still a prophet who only serve and worship the One and Only God Almighty.

Have you ever read the Bible from cover to cover? It doesn’t appear so, but If so, you need to read it again and that way you will begin to understand verses in their overall literary context. Rather than you wasting time choosing random verses that are easy to be viewed idiomatically, I suggest you spend your time applying your self to the discipline of hermeneutics, (definition- the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.). From this you will learn about the “canons of interpretation” which are essential to understand and apply if there is to be any hope of you getting to the truth if you ever read the Bible. You need to understand the Bible contains language used for every purpose for which language is designed. There is narration, lists, salutations, conversation, poetry, song, fiction, parable, allegory, history, prayer, etc. Principles of interpretation vary according to which of these literary forms a passage is written in.Anyway let me outline some canons of interpretation for you. Firstly there is the rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? 

Secondly the rule of USAGE or TARGET AUDIENCE.ie  who was it written for. Then there is the  rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense?

The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent.  The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).

The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. THE RULE OF INTERPRETING THE BIBLE LITERALLY (or normally) allowing for normal use of figurative language. Take the plain meaning of the text at face value. When the literal does not make sense you probably have a figure of speech. Use the Bible to help interpret itself. Interpret difficult passages with clear ones. This is sometimes called the law of non-contradiction. It will only be figurative if both the textual context and overall literary context indicates it.

In your posts you have demonstrated flaws in many of the above canons of interpretation .ie. context, usage / target audience, logic, precedent, unity, inference, literal interpretation and target audience. The Bible was not written for unbelievers, but for those willing to search diligently for the truth. Some of the language of Scripture is written with the specific intent of confounding those like yourself who either do not have ears willing to hear or who are unwilling to be diligent in their study (Prov. 2:1-5; 25:2; Matt. 13:10-13).


You ask why do I think a Muslim would quote a Biblical verse ? And what’s my criteria to determine “truth and lies” ? This is your problem not mine. As you have been the one quoting the Bible but you believe it is not reliable the onus is on you to explain what is “truth and what is lies”. And you don’t seem sure of yourself considering you have moved the goal posts for first saying there was only one reason and then contradicting yourself by trying to broaden your defence with a second reason. Like I say the onus of explanation is on you.

Are you saying that I only take John 15.5 because I have a biased interpretation? As I have demonstrated above I understand the ‘canons of interpretation’ better than you.

Because I have read the Bible from cover to cover in its total literary context I have a better understanding of what is literal or what is figurative than you. You do not have the overall literary context or see how adequately to apply the principles of usage, logic, precedent, unity, inference, literal interpretation and target audience.

As a result of the above your idiomatic interpretation of John 15.5 is faulty. To “remain in me”, means …. to remain in ME. If Jesus had meant to say “continue in my preaching” he would have said …  “continue in my preaching”.  But he didn’t. Just stick to how it reads and quit trying to reinterpret it. And “Guidance circle”? what on earth is a “guidance circle” .  Whats more you have not even addressed or refuted John 10.30 and 17.21.

John 5.24 cannot be read in isolation from the further verses as far as 5.30. Interesting you ignore or evade the point that Jesus refers to himself in the third person as the Son of God. Twice her refers to himself as Son of God. Pretty significant don’t you think? Not just a mere prophet obviously. And after that he refers to himself with the eternal and divine qualities as the Son of Man as prophesised by the Prophet Daniel where he will judge the world. By referring to himself as The Son of God and The Son of Man in these verses it is obvious he is referring to himself.

Regarding John 11.25 your explanation is rambling. Also read on to John 11:27 where Martha says -

“Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

What does this mean. It means Martha recognises Jesus as … The Son of God and the Messiah. And any one who knows the Jewish prophesies regarding the Messiah knows The Messiah has divine and eternal qualities. This is far more than just Jesus saying he is a “sign of the resurrection”.

You make the mistake of ignoring the canon of interpretation in viewing a verse in the context of its target audience. The target audience here is Jewish. Not Muslim or Christian and Martha knew exactly what Jesus was saying and that it was than just a “sign”.

You make further mistakes of interpretation by not ignoring the canons of unity and taking a verse literally at face value without cause to view it as a figure of speech. Jesus did not say “I am a prophet of God and a sign of the resurrection. He said I am The Son of God and The Resurrection and the Life. No matter how you try to ramble the clarity of this away, it doesn’t change what he said.

In regards to the rule of interpretation of unity cross reference to John 6:40, John 8.58 and Exodus 3.14. The "I am" reference in John's Gospel offer a clear look at Christ's identity.

For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” John 6.40.

In John 8:58, he answered the religious leaders, saying, "Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." This was a clear reference to Exodus 3:14, where God revealed His name to Moses as "I AM."

As stated earlier the reason the religious leaders wanted to kill Him was because Jesus claimed to be The Son of God.

In regards to the use of a small ‘s’ or a capital ‘S’ I have proven through the Greek I understand it better than you and the word is “huios” means … Son … not servant ! The large or small s in the English is irrelevant. You have not even referred to the original Greek or Hebrew in your arguments.

In regards to what verses you have been unable to refute, the answer is all of them. The best you have been able to do is resort to idiomatic convoluted riddles without adhering to the canons associated with scriptural interpretation.

You ask what contradictions exist between what Jesus said and Muslim doctrine. The answer being – Christ Jesus The Messiah as The Son of God was crucified and resurrected. This conflicts with Muslim doctrine.

You ask should I believe what other people claimed of what Jesus said in the Bible. The answer is yes. Of course. The writers of the Gospels were eye witnesses, or drew on eye witness accounts. Why would I believe a Muslim version of events that only came more than 600 years later.

You ask for my elaboration that sin goes deeper than mere disobedience. As already explained sin is actually a “state of being”. Ive already explained this to you with the relevant verses in depth in our discussions on the doctrine of original sin.

You ask about a seeming contradiction where you say  “if Jesus is God the Son, so there must be 2 Gods, but Jesus said God is one”. Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. Think of the sun in the sky. The sun has heat and light. Heat and light are different but come from the same source. They are different but One.

You asked who was talking about the world not being a 50/50 playing field. The answer being – me. As already explained the doctrine of original sin is only a … doctrine. And I have given many biblical verses where it is implicitly inferred. You have not even addressed them let alone refute them.

Regarding Luke 11.13 it was me that quoted it in the first place, so why are you asking me to read it in context with all of Luke 11 ? beside the context of Luke 11 doesn’t change Luke 11.13.

Regarding original sin and it never being preached by Jesus I have explained many times to you this is simply a doctrine based on implicit revelation, not explicit revelation.

I broke down the Hebrew in Proverbs 22.15 and your only response then was “rambling conjecture” rather than addressing the evidence. And as well as provide you with relevant verses around the doctrine of original sin I have provided a detailed explanation in the Greek terms of poneroi hyparchon-tes. You have not been able to refute what I have provided and simply made a pathetic response of “reading scriptures out of context” and now a response of repeating  what other people preach to me and not what Jesus preaches. Like I say you have not been able to refute Proverbs 22.15 or the Greek terms of poneroi hyparchon-tes. This is all in the Bible. Not what other “people have preached to me”. Besides this is hypocritical special pleading on your behalf as you have not proven to me where Mohamad said “I am the Comforter”.

You ask if I understand why Jesus’ words can be taken figuratively or literally, depending on the literary context, then why can’t I understand that Bible can also be a book of truth and lies, depending on the context and whose sayings are being narrated. That’s my point. If you were to take the time to read the Bible in its totality and apply canons of interpretation, understanding the Bible is straight forward. Besides you are confusing figurative truth with literal truth. They are both truth. No lies about it.

Regarding John 10.34 you ask exactly who was making the claims of Jesus claiming to be God? Jesus himself ? The answer is yes.  Jesus said it implicitly ( definition - suggested though not directly expressed) not explicitly. The Jewish elders simply confirmed what he was saying. So what Im saying is that if Jesus said it implicitly and the Jewish elders confirmed it in their response then your claim that Jesus never said it is not true.

And your point that if people claim that I claim to be Satan then it must be true, is ignorant of the fact that Jesus proved himself through miracles, wonders and signs and the fulfilment of prophesy. That’s the difference.

And as I have said should I believe what other people claimed of what Jesus said in the Bible. The answer is yes. The writers of the Gospels were eye witnesses, or drew on eye witness accounts. Why would I believe a Muslim version of events that only came more than 600 years later.

I have adequately proven that in the Greek the word is “huios” means Son … not servant. And all you can say is “capitalizing all the letters as ‘S-O-N’ don’t make Jesus God the Son – never did and never will.” You miss the point. Im not even talking about a capital S but the Greek word “huios”. Let me ask you a question. What does the Greek word ‘huios” mean. Does it mean son or servant ? Can you answer that ?

Your further elaboration on John 10.36 is based on a faulty premise. Jesus simply quoted Psalm 82.6 as a means of explaining his Sonship to the Jewish elders.  If you are wondering why the Jews accused him of blasphemy even though it is written in their law you need to remember that Jesus understood their law better than them, but also many of them who did know their law believed Jesus fulfilled their law. All of Jesus’s first believers were Jews.

My point about your hypocrisy in you using capitals in English stands.  Your attempt to discredit the “gospelists” influence on my understanding falls apart when one refers to the original languages of Hebrew and Greek.

I have explained many times you need to refer to the original Hebrew or Greek, not the English. Rather than referring to capitals you need to refer to the Hebrew term “Adonay” and you have not explained why would the “us” be the people of King Uzziah when He is asking Isaiah to go and preach to people of King Uzziah ?

Regarding Isaiah 53 the site you have linked to is a Jewish site and not a Christian site as you claim! Apart from stating Jesus first believers were Jews who fully understood Isaiah 53 I could explain Isaiah in more depth to you but Im not sure I can be bothered considering you cant even do your home work properly. You need to take better care in referencing your links!

As I have said while there is a link between Mathew 3.17 and Isaiah 42.1 the point of this discussion is whether the “ gospelists ” as you call them, have any Old Testament precedent to refer to Jesus as the Son of God. I take it you are arguing that the doctrine that Jesus was the Son of God was invented by the early Christians and that the God of the Old Testament had no Son ? If so you must understand there are a number of Old Testament verses that speak of God's Son. For example Isaiah 9:6-7, Micah 5:1-2, Isaiah 7:14, and Proverbs 30:4. And as much as you may wish to contend these verses they are indicative that Christian doctrine regarding the Sonship of Jesus has a basis ( contestable or not ) on the Old Testament and is more than just a theological bias of the “ gospelists”.

Also as I previously told you Christians have been well aware since the beginning of Christianity he is also a servant. Being a servant and being the "Son of God" are not mutually exclusive. The term "servant" does not mean that Jesus, who is God The Son cannot serve the people whom God the Father sent him to redeem. This is clarified further in Mathew 20.28 - "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many," (Mathew 20:28). The purpose of the Son of God is to serve. Interesting Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man here in reference to the Son of Man in Daniel 7.13.

Regarding Daniel 7 you don’t seem to understand the historical time difference between the Old Testament Book of Daniel and what Jesus was referring to in Daniel 7.13. If you knew that you would know Jesus could not possibly have been speaking in Daniel 7.13 because he wasn’t born until centuries later. And of course it as a dream. That is obvious. God often spoke to prophets through dreams. So the point being Jesus came to serve by being a ransom. Not just preaching like a normal prophet. And the human figure referred to in Daniels dream has eternal and divine qualities.

In my statement of Isaiah 40.3 and Psalm 2.7 being closer to Mathew 3.17 my point was about the Messianic theme not the actual text. Psalm 2.7 needs to be read in the context of the Davidic Covenant. Read on to Psalm 2:8 and you will note David never did receive the nations as an inheritance or the ends of the earth as a possession. That was and is reserved for the Messiah who is the line of David. This was further validated when Jesus confirmed his own status, even over that of King David, when he questioned the Pharisees saying “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is He?” (Matt 22.42 -45). Here Jesus answered His own question by quoting Psalm 110.1, and concluded “If David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how then can the Messiah be his Son?” (22.45); Jesus was David’s Son by lineage, and yet David’s Lord by position (Mathew 22.44). Jesus’ reasoning is this: “Son of David” is your title for the Messiah, yet David himself calls Him “Lord.” The Messiah, then, must be much more than just a son—a physical descendant—of David. So let me put the same question to you. If David calls Him ‘Lord,’ in Psalm 110.1 how then can the Messiah be his Son?

Anyway like I say as much as you may wish to contend these verses they are indicative that Christian doctrine regarding the Sonship of Jesus has a basis ( contestable or not ) in the Old Testament and is more than just a fanciful construction of the “ gospelists”.

Your response regarding Luke 22.42 only reflects your limited ability to read the Bible in context and interestingly it also displays an inability to understand Islam. You say Jesus expected  “to be put on a false trial and put to death by crucifixion”. You don’t seem to realise Muslims don’t even believe Jesus was crucified !

And yes sure Jesus prayed to God to remove the sufferings and about the whole ordeal of his predicament. However you need to remember the whole point to this in which you will grasp if you read the Book of Luke in its entirety, is the reason Jesus was crucified was due to the Chief Priests accusing him of blasphemy. You have provided no proof the Chief Priests did not believe this. 

Can I explain what Jesus meant by” not my will be done but your will be done”. Sure it demonstrates the dynamic between the human and divine elements of Jesus. The hypo -static union.

You ask if Im telling you Jesus was accused of blasphemy as the Son of God in Luke 22.66. Yip. That’s right. Read on to 22.71 and it obvious. Read it for yourself -

“At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. “If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer.

But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”

They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You say that I am.”

Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.” Luke 22:71

You say Jesus is not God the Son because he said in Luke 22.70 that it was them saying it and not him. Once again you demonstrate you have not read the Bible from cover to cover to appreciate the overall literary context. You need to cross reference to Mathew 22.42 – 45.-“He (Jesus) questioned the Pharisees saying “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is He?”  (Matt 22.42 -45).

Anyway  the point here being that both Pilate and the Sanhedrin all took it as a lack of denial from Jesus that he was making Himself equal to God. It was enough for them all to have him condemned.

You are wrong in saying Jesus most of the times spoke in parables. Obviously you haven’t read the Gospels. He often spoke in parables, and not just the Jewish elders, but mostly he did not speak in parables at all. You accuse Christians of always taking the Bible literally. As I explained at the start, there is a rule to interpret the Bible literally but allowing for normal use of figurative language. Take the plain meaning of the text at face value. When the literal does not make sense you probably have a figure of speech. It will only be figurative if both the textual context and overall literary context indicates it.

Most Muslims are just like New Age Pagans and mentally unwell people when they come to interpret the Bible. Their overly figurative approach is an attempt to forcibly twist it to fit their own ideas which only turns it into a fairy tale.

You have provided no scriptural evidence to prove the Chief Priests did not believe Jesus was guilty of blasphemy. I have however. All you have is a conspiracy theory.

As to who wrote the Gospel of John there is strong evidence John the disciple wrote the Gospel. But whether he did or not it was still based on eye witness accounts that go back to the ministry of Jesus. For you to even tentatively consider that John the Baptist may have written it betrays your ignorance. As I said these eye witness accounts have far my credibility than you.

You ask which sayings of Jesus, directly or indirectly  implied he was claiming to be God. Have you even be reading the posts I send ? Talk about “ always hearing but never perceiving ” (Mathew 13.14). Anyway, refer to John 6.35, Mathew 12.40, John 2.19, 6.40, 10.9, 11.25-27,14.6, 15.5, 8.58,5.24-30,10.34 – 36. Plus there were all the references Jesus made to Daniel 7.13 as the eternal Son of Man.

In regards to me missing the fact that Jesus said, “By myself I can do nothing … I think you missed the earlier outlined fact about the hypostatic Union.

You say if he’s killed for blasphemy then, he’s not God, but only someone who claimed to be God, which was what the Jews accused him of. So you agree then, he claimed to be God ? You ask can God be killed ? Jesus was God The Son in human form. The human form died but rose again.

You are the one making the claim the Jews and Romans wanted to kill Jesus for simply preaching to them to worship only the One true God whom he called ‘Father’. As you are the one making this claim, and that it is different from the Christian interpretation, then the onus is on you to provide the proof. Also your argument fails because you forget the Jews already did worship God The Father. So why would they accuse Jesus of blasphemy for preaching to worship God The Father?  You need to stop interpreting the Bible with your Muslim sunglasses on.

I would have thought that you as the Bible expert would know the story of Jonah and that the Jewish Temple was the centre of Jewish atonement rituals.

Jesus said in Mathew 12.40 – “ just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. “

And in John 2.19 he said –

"Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

And yes, it was Jesus that said that. In these two statements Jesus was alluding to his death and resurrection 3 days later. Again just take your Muslim sunglasses off.

And as you continue to argue against the validity of the “gospelists” lets return to this in the light of the Quran. As I have stated you have no basis to question the validity of the  Gospels / Injel due to your Quran stating the Gospels / Injel are truth.

You say regarding the New Testament that the Quran only confirms the Gospels / Injel but our current Gospels are not the reliable originals. What you don’t appear to realise is the modern Gospels we have today are exactly as they were before your “prophet” Mohamad was even born. Just look to the Diatessaron and Muratorian fragment if you want proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment

And its pretty rich of you to say the oldest Biblical manuscripts are copies not the originals when Muslims don’t have original copies of the Quran. Remember? Uthman burnt them all ! What exactly was Uthman hiding ? Evidence points to more than version of your Quran ‘miracle book’ that Uthman had to standardise. You may be interested to know the oldest and most comprehensive Quran found in Sanaa in the 1970s doesn’t line up with your standard modern version. Any way good luck in trying to twist and riddle around in explaining the “truth and lies” in the Injel.

In regards to your claim Mathew 28.19 is a verse that was added later there is no evidence for this either from the earliest manuscript evidence or from the writings of the early church leaders. The Bible is the most reliable of any ancient writing. There are more ancient copies in existence than any other ancient writing, for example the Roman history of Julius Caesar, and others. Plus these copies cover a huge and wide geographic area that prevents them from being gathered together and falsified. there are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity). There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.

In regards to any contradiction with Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15 it is not important. While baptism is a sacrament in many churchs it is not a core biblical doctrine for salvation. An interesting point around this is to ask in what name to John The Baptist baptised Jesus ? This is a mystery which only proves not to get too dogmatic about baptism.

While your borrowing from Christian theological and debate is interesting you would not even have this information if it were not for the transparency and robustness of Christian debate.  Compare this to Islam. In Islam if such debate were to occur then people would have been accused of apostasy and executed by now. This just shows the open mindedness of the Christian world compare to the closed and insecure Muslim world.

And like I said earlier regarding the unreliability of the Quran. Muslims don’t have original copies of the Quran due to Uthman burning them due to variances and the oldest and most comprehensive Quran found in Sanaa in the 1970s doesn’t line up with your standard modern version proving its unreliability.

Regarding Mathew 20.19 Jesus did more than just expect to be arrested and condemned to death. He explained it to them in depth to the point he even knew he would be raised again on the third day.

And tell me just what is the point in me needing to show you that when Jesus said he will be betrayed and killed, he was totally unaware that the Jews hated him and wanted to capture and kill him ? What on earth are you talking about ?

Quit your evasive quibbling and just admit You are wrong in saying Jesus meant he had to suffer, not about the crucifixion, but as all prophets endured sufferings, persecutions or death. Mathew 20.19 clearly proves you wrong. Mathew 5.12 simply adds a wider context to Mathew 20.19. Mathew 20.19 is far more precise and detailed than Mathew 5.12.

Regarding proof from the Quran where Mohamad himself said he was the Comforter. Its true. I don’t believe in the Quran. But that’s not the point. I challenged you for proof in terms of your own Muslim scriptures that Mohmad directly said “I am the comforter”. Where is it? Can you show it or not? If not your position is hypocritical special pleading in expecting the same from Christians. I’m waiting.

Your use of Christian scripture to correct a perceived lack of understanding implies a degree of objective integrity. However to use Christian scripture to support a Muslim proposition is circular reasoning as I have discussed above. Let me define circular reasoning for you. Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The point being here you analyse the Bible with the premise the Quran is true. So any analysis of the Bible must end with the Quran as true. You are unable to remove your Muslim bias to approach truth with an open mind.

Any analysis with integrity would not start with such a premise. It should begin with an objective open mind and focus on the textual integrity of a manuscript, the history associated with it, ethics and previous revealed truth. You are not doing this. Your whole argument from the beginning has been biased with your Muslim perspective.

And who are you to say  truth for Christians must be in accordance with what Jesus himself said and not what other people said. Who are you to tell Christians how to approach truth when you don’t even understand canons of interpretation ?

You ask which teachings of Jesus are not in accordance with Muslim doctrine. Yip that’s right that he (Jesus) as God the Son died for the sins of mankind. Refer to my points above.

Regarding Mohamad as a violent tribal war lord you need to know hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries. These works are referred to in matters of Islamic law and history to this day. Hadith are categorized as �£aḥīḥ (sound, authentic), ḍaʿīf (weak), or mawḍūʿ (fabricated). Other classifications used also include: ḥasan (good) and the science in categorising them is sound and sophisticated. Other  factors that contribute to the credibility of a piece of a hadith rather than just the chain of transmission (isnad) is the time line or timeliness of scholarly compilation of such writings is important as an example. So don’t try to minimise their importance Jerry. The hadith I quoted to you about Mohamad having his enemies tortured was Sahih Bukhari which is the most reliable of hadith.

I agree the moral characteristics of Mohamad are well documented in the Quran. For example his violence, his marriage to a 9 year old girl when he was in his 50s and his sanctioning his men to take women sex slaves ! the point being there was nothing special about Mohamad. There was nothing particularly Godly about him to give him the title ‘prophet’. He was simply a man of his times.

In saying the violent verses in the Quran should only be viewed in the historical context of the day is an admission from you that your Quran is not the absolute Word of God for all times to all people!

In regards to Jesus fulfilling the verses about the Messiah and God becoming man. Please refer to Daniel 7, Isaiah 53, Psalm 2.7-8, Isaiah 9:6-7, Micah 5:1-2, Isaiah 7:14, and Proverbs 30:4

Prophetic meaning regarding Jeremiah 8.8 ?! What are you talking about prophetic meaning ? There is no prophesy associated with Jeremiah 8.8

You say the Bible made no mention the scribes had truly abandoned their traditions of editing what they are copying from the original. What you fail to see is that it was only one group of scribes being referred to by Jeremiah. You need to know that other godly men also had copies of the Torah in their possession. Eg. the prophet Daniel. Plus other prophets affirm that the book of Moses was still available during their day.eg. Nehemiah 8:13-14,18. This occurred approximately 430 B.C., nearly 180 years after Jeremiah.

Also Jeremiah said …“ If you do not listen to me and follow MY LAW …. So how could Israel follow the Law, i.e. the Torah, if it had been corrupted? Jeremiah 26:4-6

Even Jeremiahs enemies knew that the Law could never disappear. Jeremiah 18:18. 

If you read Jeremiah 36: 1-7, 20-32, 27-32.You will see that If God was capable of restoring the revelation given to Jeremiah after it had been destroyed, then God would also have been capable of restoring the original Torah.

Finally Jesus / Isa (PBUH) quoted from the Torah as we know it today and never thought that it was corrupt (cf. Matthew 4:4,7,10; 22:31-32d.3.

And in terms of Matthew 28:19 I have already addressed this above. Plus I have adequately proven the transmission of the New Testament is incredible reliable as also mentioned above.

Also as mentioned if you want to make allegations against the Bible remember the Quran is not reliable. Muslims don’t have original copies of the Quran. Uthman burnt them all ! Evidence points to more than version of your Quran ‘miracle book’ that Uthman had to standardise. As I said the oldest in most comprehensive Quran found in Sanaa in the 1970s doesn’t line up with your standard modern version proving it is not reliable.

Your claim that Jesus was motivated not to fight as he knew it would be suicidal is nothing but pure conjecture. I have already proven to you Jesus said to love ones enemies and “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword” Mathew 26.52 . Also refer to Mathew 16.23 and 5.44. My argument is supported by scripture. Your response has no scriptural basis and as well as being hypothetical is defensive in tone which only proves you cannot refute it.

In terms of Jesus saying to “love ones enemies” and telling his disciples to get swords there is no contradiction. And I’ve already explained why Jesus asked his followers to get swords. Not for violent reasons.

Who are you to say true prophesies are not fulfilled intentionally? What’s your criteria for prophecy ? You thought Jeremiah 8. 8 is a prophecy when it obviously isn’t. Jesus is obviously more qualified than you to define what is and what is not prophecy. Also you forget Jesus said a number of times he would consciously fulfil prophecy. Take his baptism by John the Baptist for instance in Matthew 3:13-16.

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfil all righteousness.”

Obviously Jesus knew he had to consciously act in a way to “fulfil all righteousness.”

Anyway it is obvious Jesus was referring to the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12 when he instructed his disciples to get swords. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about Me is reaching its fulfilment.” So they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” He answered.  Luke 22.37 -38

Interesting he said two swords are enough. Not exactly enough for a revolution is it?  Also see he said “this scripture must be fulfilled in me “ Just because you don’t like the answer is no reason to keep quibbling about it. As I said Jesus is obviously more qualified than you to define what is and what is not prophecy. The hypothetical conjecture is all yours. I’ve provided the scriptural basis to my position. You have provided nothing!

So coming back to your question was Jesus ever a transgressor in his lifetime on earth and if so, how was he a transgressor? He was counted as a transgressor because he instructed his disciples to get swords (only two! ) to be classified as a law breaker, he was accused of blasphemy and he was crucified between two criminals.

Is my argument silly that maybe Jesus didn’t want them to pull a sword because he might have dropped it on his foot and they didn’t have ambulances back then? Sure its silly. As Im sure you are aware it is a simple illustration of how your idiomatic, figurative interpretation of the Bible just leads into a silly fairy tale in what ever direction a person wants to take it for their own purposes.

Am I saying Jesus who would never ask his disciples to get swords as “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword” ? Yes. And not just because of that Biblical verses but others as well.  And don’t play games with Isaiah 53.12 in him instructing his disciples to get swords. There is no contradiction her when you consider his motives. You are just quibbling and being evasive because you can’t refute it.

You are wrong in saying Jesus never set an example not to fight. He said it implicitly rather than explicitly in John 18.10 -11, Mathew 5.44 and Mathew 26.52.

Also please refer to Luke 22:49 -51 where Jesus demonstrated his pacificism by healing the servants ear. -  When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. Luke 22:49 -51.

Your use of non Sequitur is a fact. You have provided no scriptural basis to your position or refuted the verses I have provided. I have provided John 18.10,  Mathew 5.44, Luke 22:49 -51 and Mathew 26.52. Please refute them and provide your own alternative argument based on scripture. I await your response.

Regarding Christian pacificism and “loving ones neighbour”. Hey guess what I’m guilty of a typo!  It wasn’t love ones neighbour that he said. He said, “love ones enemy”. Extremely high ethics there. Can Mohamad match that? No.

And whether loving ones neighbours or ones enemy is the second most important commandment or not is not the point. The point being Jesus never had ideas of violent revolution as you try to claim.

And in regards to the Muslim world being in a mess, refer to below -

 “Cardiff imam jailed for 13 years after abusing girls during mosque Quran lessons. Mohammed Haji Saddique sexually touched the girls as they were reading from the holy book”.

Port Coquitlam imam convicted of sexual assault sentenced to three and a half years in jail. Saadeldin Bahr prohibited from owning firearms for 10 years, placed on Sex Offender Registry for 20 years.Roshini Nair · CBC News · Posted: May 22, 2017 12:16 PM PT | Last Updated: May 22, 2017.

 

Moroccan Imam Sexually Assaults Children in a Mosque By Morocco World News -  February 21, 2018. Moroccan Imam Sexually Assaults Children in a Mosque. By Hajare el Khaldi.

Rabat – An imam in the Temara region has been accused of raping six children inside of a mosque. Amid the parents’ outrage and the childrens despair, the authorities have little help to offer.

And besides, Muslims are falling over themselves to leave their failed Muslim countries and migrate to Western countries. Why is that? Because their Muslim countries have failed them!

You ask Christians should just smile and watch loved ones be abused and not defend ourselves if capable ? Much has been written on the ethics of self-defence for Christians and I could go on for years. However, what I will say is that the whole Christian life is based on conscience, not outward performance. We all fall short of the ideal. However the ideal still exists as a goal to work towards.

And should the “Christian nation” of the USA  not have defended itself from Bin Laden after 911 ? What you don’t understand is that the USA is not a Christian nation. It like all western nations is a secular nation. Unlike Islam, Christianity makes a separation from religion and state. Jesus never preached to establish a theocracy ( def - A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god). The only responsibility on a government is to maintain law and order and maintain justice. So my point being “ to turn the other cheek” is a directive for the individual Christian, not the state government.

Any way my advice to read the Bible from cover to cover and approach the Bible with a clear mind and read to understand it without the preconceived mindset of your Mullahs.

Educate yourself and follow the canons of interpretation particularly the canon of talking the Bible literary unless otherwise indicated by the literary or textual context. Your overly figurative and idiomatic interpretation is similar to psychiatric patients or New Age Pagans who just want to twist the Bible to suit their own views.

In your posts you have demonstrated flaws in many of the above canons of interpretation .ie. context, usage / target audience, logic, precedent, unity, inference, literal interpretation and target audience. Regarding usage / target audience particularly, the Bible was written for Christ believers, not for unbelievers such as yourself.  As a result you lack a scriptural perspective based on a Christ experience. However for those willing to search diligently for the truth you can gain understanding. Some of the language of Scripture is written with the specific intent of confounding those who either do not have ears willing to hear or who are unwilling to be diligent in their study. 

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
jp the unitarian View Drop Down
Starter.
Starter.


Joined: 25 May 2018
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jp the unitarian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2018 at 6:49am

Hi Jerry


there is a lot about the bible that has to be considered when giving a response , now what you have written I do not deny, but your eisegesis right now is a bit trinitarian as it does not consider all the Bible. I am not saying you are trnitarian, but that, as I am sure you would not argue, it is like trinitarians as it is lacking in proof from all the Bible. I do not deny, the verses you have put forth , but what is lacking is a basic understanding of why we die according to the Bible, this I want to explain without dragging it on for forty pages as you would become disinterested and may miss some of what I want to show. As it is clearly written in Hebrews 2:14, and this is what I mean about not considering all of the Bible, Hebrews is clear by his death he cleared us of death. The sin that cuased death to all creation was the sin of Adam .


1Cor 15:22 For AS ALL DIE IN AḎAM, so also all shall be made alive in Messiah . (TS98)



We all die as a result of the sin of Adam, Now while it is true that Yeshua came to die for our sins, it is actually for one sin the sin of Adam, because all sin came into the world by this single sin.


As it is clearly written as you posted


In Ezekiel 18:20, God told Ezekiel, “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

In Psalm 49:7, we are told “No man can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him”.

Still in Deuteronomy 24:16, we are told “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin”.


This is all true Each Man can only bear his own crookedness, the only way to clear sin is by the shedding of your blood.


Now let me explain this in the shortest terms possible. It all begins with Adam and Eve when they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they actually took upon themselves the decision of what is good and what is Evil. This is how all sin came into the world, consider it his way, when you make a decision for yourself you set off a chain reaction of decisions that may very well lead to someones death, or not but that is the problem, we do not know what our decision does to our all our brothers on the earth, and our small decision may have far reaching consequences. This is howYeshua differs from us, he did not make his life about his own decisions, but about the fathers guidance, he obeyed the father till death on a cross (Philippians 2:8). He obeyed all the Father's commands (John 12:49-50)


John 12:49 “Because I spoke not from Myself, but THE FATHER WHO SENT ME HAS GIVEN ME A COMMAND, what I should say and what I should speak. (TS98)

John 12:50 “And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, AS THE FATHER HAS SAID TO ME, SO I SPEAK. (TS98)


His actions and his words were guided by the father, in this way he remained completely innocent as the father (Yehovah Allah) knows all outcomes of our decisions he guided Yeshua to complete wisdom and righteousness. In this way, he was completely innocent and could ransom our sin, we cannot do this as we do not follow the commands of the father into all perfection, therefore we do not die sinless no matter how righteous we are. Our blood is tainted and cannot pay for any other sin but our own, Yeshua died sinless, innocent as a Lamb, this why his blood was payment for us, he did bear the sins of his decisions as he followed Yehovah Allah. This Jerry is the path to eternal life and only Yeshua can bring you to Yehovah Allah, not because he was God but Because as a man who could sin, he denide himself completely and submitted himself to the will of Allah Yehovah. This is how all the verses you posted are answered considering all Bible testimony.

Back to Top
JerryMyers View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 21 September 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 47
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JerryMyers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 August 2018 at 8:33am
2Acts,

Too bad you have to spend a lot of your quality time to rehash such a long and winded ‘explanation’, ONLY to explain NOTHING !! You claimed to have read the Bible cover to cover BUT what’s the use of reading cover to cover when you hardly can understand what Jesus was saying about himself in the scripture ??

You said to interpret the Bible correctly, one need to understand “the rule of DEFINITION, Secondly the rule of USAGE or TARGET AUDIENCE.ie who was it written for. Then there is the rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense?
The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is con-sistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Je-sus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).
The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. THE RULE OF INTERPRETING THE BIBLE LITERALLY (or normally) allowing for normal use of figurative language. Take the plain meaning of the text at face value. When the literal does not make sense you probably have a figure of speech. Use the Bible to help interpret itself. Interpret difficult passages with clear ones. This is sometimes called the law of non-contradiction. It will only be figurative if both the textual context and overall literary context indicates it
”.

That's all nice and dandy, yet, the fact that you still cannot understand what you read in the Bible, which is clearly evidenced when you cannot interpret Jesus’ words correctly, only proves that you did not apply those criteria you mentioned above in reading your own Bible. If you have done so, your understanding of who Jesus is, will NOT be highly dependent on other people’s perception of who Jesus is. So, educate yourself, read what Jesus said of who he is, and follow the canons of interpretation particularly the canon of talking the Bible literary unless otherwise indicated by the literary or textual context. Can ?
Back to Top
JerryMyers View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 21 September 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 47
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JerryMyers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 August 2018 at 8:52am
Hi jp the unitarian,

Sin simply means to do something against the Command of God. If you decided to abide by the Commands of God, that’s a choice you made and similarly, if you choose to go against God’s Command, that’s a choice you made too. Therefore, sin is a choice you made too. When God created the first man, Adam, God gave man the faculty of intelligence and with that came the power to choose. When Adam decided to eat the forbidden fruit, he made that choice, altho’ he was fully aware God had forbidden him from eating that fruit. That choice became a sin because God had forbidden Adam to eat from that forbidden tree. If God had not forbidden Adam, then, the choice he made (to eat the fruit) would not be a sin. If Adam had not sin (that is, if God did not forbid him from eating the fruit), does it mean mankind too would not have sin ?? Obviously mankind will still sin by going against other Commands of God, irrespective whether Adam had sin or not. In other words, man sin NOT because the first man, Adam had sin (that is, disobey God), but man will sin because of the choices (those which are against God’s Commands) man will and had made, and no man can redeem or die for another man’s sin as only God Almighty can forgive your sin. Like all the other prophets of God, Jesus fully understood this and that’s why he never preached original sin or said he came to literally die for mankind sin.
Back to Top
DavidC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 September 2001
Status: Online
Points: 2434
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DavidC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 August 2018 at 9:56am
Kinda drifting away from Islam here. I would like to know why Jesus is so important to Islam.

Why the Qu'ran says 8th Century Christianity was mistaken are secondary, comparative questions. I find lots of issues in the Nestorian and Ebionite Christianities of the Quraysh too.

The Qu'ran singles out Jesus as a unique prophet viv-a-vis his role in the final judgment and the end of the world, as well as his connection in the long line of prophecy. Or is that from Bukhari? I get confused. The question for me is, "Why is Jesus an indispensible figure in Islam?".
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.
Back to Top
JerryMyers View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 21 September 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 47
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JerryMyers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2018 at 4:47am
Originally posted by DavidC DavidC wrote:

Kinda drifting away from Islam here. I would like to know why Jesus is so important to Islam.

Why the Qu'ran says 8th Century Christianity was mistaken are secondary, comparative questions. I find lots of issues in the Nestorian and Ebionite Christianities of the Quraysh too.

The Qu'ran singles out Jesus as a unique prophet viv-a-vis his role in the final judgment and the end of the world, as well as his connection in the long line of prophecy. Or is that from Bukhari? I get confused. The question for me is, "Why is Jesus an indispensible figure in Islam?".


Islam does not distinguish between prophets as all known prophets of God are great in their own respective ways and they are all indispensable figures in Islam. They are like jigsaw pieces, without which, you would not be able to complete the final picture or see the final message.

Jesus is unique and special because of his virgin birth, that is, he was created without any intervention of a man or in other words, he was born without a biological father.

In Islam, Jesus’ virgin birth DOES NOT mean Jesus is literally THE Son of God and God is literally his biological Father, but it’s a testimony that we are witnesses to the Greatness of God in His Creations.

Consider this - God created Adam without the involvement of man and woman, He created Eve without the involvement of a woman, He created Jesus without the involvement of a man and He created mankind with the involvement of both man and woman. Thus, Jesus was the final piece in the Greatness of God’s Creative Mind in the creation of man – man was created WITHOUT man and woman (Adam), WITHOUT woman (Eve), WITH man and woman (mankind) and finally WITHOUT man (Jesus).

To say God literally had a Son or had fathered a Son is blasphemy as it equates God or compares God with the very nature of a man, when God Almighty is beyond comparison and had no equals (Isaiah 40:12-31).
Back to Top
DavidC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 September 2001
Status: Online
Points: 2434
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DavidC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 August 2018 at 7:01am
Jerry, I assume you are a Muslim. Somehow I thought you were not, but you proclaim Islamic doctrine with authority. Maybe my error. I wish the site would go back to putting religious identification in the id panel.
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.
Back to Top
JerryMyers View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 21 September 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 47
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JerryMyers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 August 2018 at 12:26am
Originally posted by DavidC DavidC wrote:

Jerry, I assume you are a Muslim. Somehow I thought you were not, but you proclaim Islamic doctrine with authority. Maybe my error. I wish the site would go back to putting religious identification in the id panel.


Yes, I am a Muslim, DavidC – a Muslim not by design but by personal choice. I assume you are a Christian by design, meaning, you are a Christian because you were born into a Christian family and thus, follows the faith of your parents - of course, I may be wrong on this.

Majority of Muslims worldwide are Muslims by design too and thus, their thoughts, actions, etc, may not reflect the true overall fundamental teaching of Islam. Thus, it’s not surprising (at least, to me) that a research survey on 'the most Islamic-compliant countries in the world' are NOT from Muslim-majority countries - https://www.sabrangindia.in/article/new-zealand-luxemburg-ireland-most-truly-islamic%E2%80%99-countries-world
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8910
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.