Judge a faith by its founder, not by its followers

ichephren

Peace Oneway,

icephren wrote
I agree with whoever said that "love thy neighbor as yourself" is a silly axiom. It doesn't really state anything specific nor does it tell you how to do so. It is also very subjective and impossible for human beings. The word "love" is subjective as is the method of "loving." Also, human beings are incapable of loving perfect strangers in any substantial manner, I am sorry to say. We are programmed to love those who we spend time with and who rub us the right way. That is sad, but true.

I disagree strongly with this and I think its a pedantic argument at best. Whenever we are charitable or kind to strangers we are expressing the love described by the golden rule. Selfishness is certainly something we have to learn to overcome, but that is a long way off from your view that humans are incapable of loving strangers. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary in spite of all the bad things that happen in the world.

There is a difference between being kind to your neighbor and "loving" your neighbor. I think kindness is an act of love, but it is not love. Love encompasses feelings that one cannot possibly have for a stranger.

That's not accurate. The gospel authors include disciples of Christ that lived and worked closely with him. Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, according to the Biblical account. I have read about some of the supposed contradictions in the New Testament or elsewhere in the Bible and I find most of them easy to explain when considered in the full context of the passages being challenged. I am sure you have read critiques of the Quran that seem similarly shallow to you -- that's what I want to avoid here and why I haven't been posting specific passages from websites slamming the Quran.

But, more importantly, no one claims the Bible is literally God's word, spoken verbatim by Him and written down by men, as is claimed for the Quran. So, to me, the Quran has to pass a more rigorous test for consistency and authenticity because it is claimed to be God's directly dictated word, not a collection of writings by men that are believed to be divinely inspired as in the case of the Bible, which is part of the reason I do not believe in literal interpretation of the Bible.

You said a lot here, so I'll break down my response.
1.Please provide evidence that the gospel writers knew or met Jesus. The idea that Paul met Jesus on the way to Damascus is not proven, it is just something he said so that he could put his own spin on whatever Jesus said. Also, he never went to the Disciples after he supposedly met Jesus. Why would he do that? If I met my teacher and he gave me an assigment, the first thing I would do is go to his original students to see if I was hallucinating and to get more information. He did none of this and instead began his own ministry, disregarding Jesus. But anyway, provide your proofs b/c there is a lot of proof to the contrary. For ex. the gospels do not agree on where the ascension of Jesus took place. If I were a Disciple, that would be something that I'd never forget. How can one person say that Jesus ascended in NY and one person say Florida? It doesn't make sense if they were Disciples writing the gospels.
2.Actually, Evangelical Christians do claim that the bible is the literal word of God. And if you do not agree, then what is the point of revelation? What is the point of going through the text for any information considering that it could be wrong, misconstrued, etc? Especially with the issues of today like homosexuality...if the Bible is not really the word of God then what's the debate about and why care about the text at all? It also doesn't make sense that the works were divinely inspired...why would God inspire a work that is internally contradictory? And if at some point it was not contradictory, then it has lost its value today. It doesn't matter how the Quran squares with the Bible on the issue of revelation since right now, I am asking you where the Gospels came from and who wrote them such that you would come to believe that they portray an accurate picture of Jesus' life. You also did not respond to the fact that the New Testament only records a fragment of Jesus' entire life and ministry.

oneway

Peace, and welcome Oneway,

You stated

I do not wish to offend, but to gain greater understanding, so I respectfully ask for your patience and consideration as I frame my thoughts in this post.

OK

I have read about the life of Mohammed. His actions, including all the violence, his relationship with Aisha, etc., persuade me that he could not possibly have been a messenger of God as surely God's messengers are held to higher standards of behavior.

As has been established, the alleged history of Muhammad is unreliable and not accepted as a true account by myself, and many here.

I have also studied the life of Jesus Christ. In Him I find no flaw. Yet, Mohammed asks us to believe that Jesus was a mere prophet and not the Son of God as Jesus himself claimed.

You say you are interested in the Muslim perspective, so here is one Muslim's perspective. It is well known that Jesus himself did not author the Bible. So, to say that "Jesus himself claimed" is moot, since it is not his words in the Bible but someone else's account.

Mohammed's position just doesn't hold up and it seems so obvious to me that I'm amazed any educated person with a desire to seek truth could remain a Muslim.

You have failed to explain what this position is.

I explained that the hadiths are a large source of my concerns about Mohammed. Thanks to you and others here I now understand that many in this forum reject the validity of the hadiths.

I will discuss problems from the Quran in another post later as I'm sure that will become a very lengthy discussion.

Those who claim Islam is a religion of peace must intentionally ignore very specific instructions in the Quran to the contrary

Yet, you yourself ask that we look at the "whole story" of the Bible. And you yourself say that you don't take the Bible literally. So, why the double standard? Do you intentionally ignore the specific instructions in the Bible that are contrary to Jesus' message of peace?

As I've mentioned in other posts, I want to focus on Islam, not Christianity, except where the Quran's discussion of Jesus is relevant to the discussion of the Quran's validity. Beyond that, as I've also mentioned, I believe the Quran must be subject to a more rigorous test of accuracy, authenticity, and truthfulness because it claims to be the verbatim word of God, dictated to Mohammed. The Bible makes no such claim. When Christians refer to the Bible as the "Word of God", most should understand that it is the "inspired" word of God, not the directly dictated word of God. So I don't take the Bible literally and I'm open to the possibility of error therein because, after all, imperfect men wrote and assembled and translated the books therein. That doesn't mean I don't think the Bible contains fundamental truths from and about God, just that I think there's room for interpretation and more room than in the Quran because it is basically claimed to be authored by God directly.

Of course, many devices are used to justify or rationalize such problems away, for example the concept that Mohammed's later revelations supercede his earlier ones.

This is unheard of. Please post a reference to this claim.

I will look it up and post it - please ping me again if I do not, but it sounds like this is not a widely held view, so it may be a moot point and a misconception on my part.

Surely both Christians and Muslims, like men of all faiths, have done and will continue to do much wrong in the world. That's part of the human condition. So I say judge a faith by its founder and his teachings, not solely by people who claim to be followers of the faith. And when that is applied to Islam, I cannot possibly conclude that there is even a remote chance that Islam is true.

What is true, is that humanity is flawed. So, while you seem to present a stance of objectivity, what shines through in your post is a biased view of Islam. No biggie, you are a human after all. For once, however, it would be nice to see someone looking for common ground, instead of "my religion is more true than yours".

As I've said repeatedly, my goal is not to play the "my faith is better than yours" game. I was challenged directly on some points in Christianity and I responded. Obviously I'm Christian and obviously that carries built-in biases. I don't pretend that isn't the case. All I ask is that those who contribute to this discussion recognize their built-in biases as well and try to state their case for Islam with reason, rather than with faith alone.

I encourage all on this board to do their homework and prayerfully seek God's guidance in their search for truth.

The fact that we're here, exchanging thoughts and ideas, should testify to the fact that most already do what you've asked. It is a bit insulting to assume otherwise.

You're right. I'm sorry. I'm used to much less civil religious discussions elsewhere on the web so I wanted to be clear that I wasn't too interested in entertaining that sort of discussion. I did a poor job of explaining that in my original post, along with my hasty assumption that all Muslims accept the sunnah/hadiths.

The bottom line, Oneway, is that every person on Earth has been indoctrinated in some shape or form. No one got the chance to choose their indoctrination. We believe what we were taught to believe. In my opinion, it takes courage and tremendous energy to deprogram that damage. That's what most here are trying to do. Have you ever called your own faith into question, or do you intellectually somersault through the gaping holes in your faith?

Instead of asking what religion is more true, perhaps you should be asking what truth spans all religions.

May peace be upon you,
Tay

As previously mentioned, I am here to better my understanding of truth. I've found that debating with people who think differently than I do is one of the best ways to sharpen my own beliefs and identify any problems therein. I have explored the Baha'i faith in the past, and I think they seek truths that span all religions, but ultimately I think that's too simplistic a view. So, I want know why you think Islam is true, regardless of what I think (or anyone else thinks) about Christianity or any other faith.

oneway

Peace Oneway,

There is a difference between being kind to your neighbor and "loving" your neighbor. I think kindness is an act of love, but it is not love. Love encompasses feelings that one cannot possibly have for a stranger.

Like I said, I think that's just a pedantic argument. A common understanding in Christian upbringing is that the English translations of the Bible lose the nuances of some words in the greek/hebrew/etc. texts from which they are derived. Love in the Bible might be eros (erotic, romantic love), philos (brotherly love), agape (God's love for us), etc. So you're just getting hung up in this conversation by applying an overly limited definition of the word "love". Besides, the actual verse in the Bible most often cited as the "golden rule" doesn not even include the word "love". It says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Now if you start a new debate on what "Do" means or what "as you would have them do" means, then you'll win a free scholarship to the Bill Clinton School of Pedantic Argument (as in, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."). smile

That's not accurate. The gospel authors include disciples of Christ that lived and worked closely with him. Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, according to the Biblical account. I have read about some of the supposed contradictions in the New Testament or elsewhere in the Bible and I find most of them easy to explain when considered in the full context of the passages being challenged. I am sure you have read critiques of the Quran that seem similarly shallow to you -- that's what I want to avoid here and why I haven't been posting specific passages from websites slamming the Quran.

But, more importantly, no one claims the Bible is literally God's word, spoken verbatim by Him and written down by men, as is claimed for the Quran. So, to me, the Quran has to pass a more rigorous test for consistency and authenticity because it is claimed to be God's directly dictated word, not a collection of writings by men that are believed to be divinely inspired as in the case of the Bible, which is part of the reason I do not believe in literal interpretation of the Bible.

You said a lot here, so I'll break down my response.
1.Please provide evidence that the gospel writers knew or met Jesus. The idea that Paul met Jesus on the way to Damascus is not proven, it is just something he said so that he could put his own spin on whatever Jesus said. Also, he never went to the Disciples after he supposedly met Jesus. Why would he do that? If I met my teacher and he gave me an assigment, the first thing I would do is go to his original students to see if I was hallucinating and to get more information. He did none of this and instead began his own ministry, disregarding Jesus. But anyway, provide your proofs b/c there is a lot of proof to the contrary. For ex. the gospels do not agree on where the ascension of Jesus took place. If I were a Disciple, that would be something that I'd never forget. How can one person say that Jesus ascended in NY and one person say Florida? It doesn't make sense if they were Disciples writing the gospels.
2.Actually, Evangelical Christians do claim that the bible is the literal word of God. And if you do not agree, then what is the point of revelation? What is the point of going through the text for any information considering that it could be wrong, misconstrued, etc? Especially with the issues of today like homosexuality...if the Bible is not really the word of God then what's the debate about and why care about the text at all? It also doesn't make sense that the works were divinely inspired...why would God inspire a work that is internally contradictory? And if at some point it was not contradictory, then it has lost its value today. It doesn't matter how the Quran squares with the Bible on the issue of revelation since right now, I am asking you where the Gospels came from and who wrote them such that you would come to believe that they portray an accurate picture of Jesus' life. You also did not respond to the fact that the New Testament only records a fragment of Jesus' entire life and ministry.

I'm not aware of any scholars that dispute the authorship of those books in the New Testament that are attributed to Jesus' disciples, so the burden of proof on that point is on you who made the claim that they are not in fact written by them (but see my caveat below).

As for the Bible being the literal word of God, you misunderstand the traditional fundamental evangelical Christian view, which is that the Bible should be taken literally as written (e.g. they believe the Earth was literally created in seven days). This is different from believing that the Bible is literally dictated by God, which no Christian I know of believes as we are taught that the Bible is written by men who are inspired by God, but not taking dictation from God, as is claimed for the Quran.

CAVEAT I really don't want to continue debating the merits of Christianity or the validity of the Bible except as required for specific points in the discussion regarding the truthfulness of Islam and of the Quran. I'm spending all my time in this discussion answering questions about the Bible and getting little feedback from Muslims on why they believe the Quran and Islam are true.

Fahad1

Later I explored the Baha'i faith and began to learn a bit about Islam there. Ultimately, the Baha'i faith just didn't ring true to me and I returned to my Christian roots. For a time I put forth little effort in growing in my faith. Recently I have begun to explore deeply once again and, as I said in a recent post, current events have led me to desire a greater understanding of Islam. So here I am.

welcome then . )

peace.

unknownuser

Peace

I found this in my archive that was sent to me by a muslim brother "his name is Usamah Abdullah"...

...What about John 81-11? Does it really justify fornication, adultery and pornography as many Christians believe?
Let us look at John 81-11 ...

Many Christians use these verses to justify fornication and pornography.

many Christians justify that with Bible?
what Christians? where? from which branch of Christianity?
did the person who sent you these words provide some proofs or he simply wrote that and you believed it?

I am not denying it, I can't know everything the millions of Christians in the world are doing but the ones I know never said there is the option of excusing that with Bible words , and without some kind of proofs it looks to me just gratuitous slander.

well, you can actualy ask him directly, and I'm sure he will post your questions on hyis web site, I actually have all his web site on my laptop

http//www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm

peace

unknownuser

Peace be with you oneway and all,

I'm still awaiting references (proof) pointing to all the claims in the original post. ~0

Thanks

I'm waiting with you still

thanks

Elena

Peace

well, you can actualy ask him directly, and I'm sure he will post your questions on hyis web site, I actually have all his web site on my laptop

http//www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm

thanks for the link

if you don't know the asnwers, why did you believe it and posted it here?

unknownuser

Peace

well, you can actualy ask him directly, and I'm sure he will post your questions on hyis web site, I actually have all his web site on my laptop

http//www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm

thanks for the link

if you don't know the asnwers, why did you believe it and posted it here?

no worries, i just thought your question is sarcastic, sorry

to answer it, a christian is anyone who say is following the bible, i don't care what sect they are from

i hope i answered your question and I do believe in what Usamah writes 100%, that is why i posted it here and i will post further info that will show that many of the christians themselves understand that the bible is corrupt

see if your house is made of glass, don't throw stones on others, they need to answer these questions as they require us to answer their questions, an eye for an eye, it is written in the bible actually

cheers

Elena

Peace

I do believe in what Usamah writes 100%,
why you do if he didn't gave you any proof? he simple wrote "Many Christians..." with no information.

to answer it, a christian is anyone who say is following the bible, i don't care what sect they are from

I didn't ask you what is a Christian, but what Christians are those who the author of the article mentions, how does he know, where did he read or heard about them, etc, any, a piece of info to support his assertion.

unknownuser

You are backing off, lol

I'm not backing off, I'm standing behind my original question and sticking to my original commitment not to debate matters that are purely matters of faith. You

good, but you failed so far to show us any verse from the Quran, forget the hadith, as any hadith you will bring I will throw in the rubbish bin, now I?m still waiting for the violent Quran verses

enjoy taking Bible passages out of context and denying Christ which really just helps to prove my earlier point.

there is no out of context here, we have a prophet who got drunk and slept with his own daughters as well a prophet who got horny and slept with his neighbour?s hot wife and killed her husband, how I bloody took it out of context? Do you care to elaborate?

You came here saying mohammad is encouraging violence, and so far we have seen the prophets in your bible are the ones who are encouraging violence and illegal sex, give it a break man, you have no point so far

In fact, much of that cut and paste reply you posted earlier I agree with,

good that you agree with but how then you say I took it out of context if you agree with?, see a clear cut conflict

now why cutting and pasting annoys you?, sorry, that was not cut and paste, that was copy and paste wink

but that's because most of it argues against ludicrous positions that no Christian actually holds,

so all Christians are hypocrites then?

which is a common strawman argument that people attacking Christianity like to construct. (Hint No Christian I know of has ever tried to claim that the story where Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," somehow means that there is no penalty for adultery.

sure, I know most Christians don?t uphold the bible they just say that they uphold it, in fact they mock Jesus themselves, how come they mock Jesus the god, is it the freedom of speech?

They sound very hypocrites to me, but hey I saw most porno stars wearing the cross while filming, did you see the movie ?Sex in the Bible??, a very good and arousing movie

That's just silliness and you know it. Likewise for the story of David and Bathsheba -- see my earlier reply -- you have to read the whole story to understand the lessons to be drawn from it and beyond lessons about forgiveness and grace the story is full of lessons about the consequences of sin.)

excuse me, I don?t care if he repented or learnt a lesson out of it, at a time the bible portrayed the GREAT PROPHET David as a pervert and a murderer for only personal gain not even for a bloody good cause

Simply put, again, the Quran says Christ is to be revered as a prophet of God (yet you mock him in this forum).

I don?t mock Jesus, because Jesus for me is exactly like Mohammad, it is the Christians who mock him for about 2000 years, come on bro they made him like a piece of crap that many humans at his time pissed on him before they killed him while he cried like a coward, and it suppose to be him knowing that he has to die for us, this is just a load of non sense, I don?t believe that Jesus died on the cross any way, so it is the Christians who mock him, not me, I?m defending him against that mocking by the Christians

The Quran also says that Christ was only a prophet and not the Son of God. Yet, in the Bible, which predates the Quran by a long shot, Jesus says He is the Son of God.

hehe, based on your flawed logic these people must also be gods

Jesus was calling his disciples as his children

?Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.?
John ; 1333]

Would that mean that the disciples are also gods? Because they were described as the children of Jesus ?The don of god?

In another location in John?s Gospel we see Jesus telling the Jews, that Satan is their father

?Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own for he is a liar, and the father of it.?

Would that mean that all the Jews are the sons od the devil ?Satan??

In Luke, we read that Adam was the son of god

?Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.?

Would that mean Adam is exactly like Jesus and both are sons of god and consequently gods?

In Mark describing the leader who cried then died as the son of god

?And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.?

Would that mean that this human also is like Jesus, i.e. another son of god?

However we see Luke talking about the same man but instead of describing him as son of god, Luke described him as ?Certainly this was a righteous man.?

?Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.?

Would that mean during this age, ?the son of god? really means ?a righteous man??

If you reject the Bible, you reject Jesus's teaching about the the truth of scripture.

I don?t reject the bible, I only reject the human corruption in it, in fact I hold some bible passages with the same respect as I hold the whole Quran

If you reject that Jesus is the Son of God, you either believe he is a liar or that he's crazy. If you subscribe to either view,

no no, I only believe that the bible human writers who revised it are the liars like the corrupt hadith writers exactly

He can't be a prophet of God.

Jesus only said that he is a messenger of God in the bible, but I hope you agree with this copy and paste job, it is not by Usamah though

None of the Bible's Writers Believed that Jesus is God
Christians and Muslims both believe in Jesus, love him, and honour him. They are, however, divided over the question of his divinity. Fortunately, this difference can be resolved if we refer the question to both the Bible and the Quran, because, both the Bible and the Quran teach that Jesus is not God.

It is clear enough to everyone that the Quran denies the divinity of Jesus, so we do not need to spend much time explaining that. On the other hand, many people misunderstand the Bible; they feel that the belief in Jesus as God is so widespread that it must have come from the Bible. The following evidences will show quite conclusively that the Bible does not teach that. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is not God. In the Bible God is always someone other than Jesus.

Some will say that something Jesus said or something he did while on the earth proves that he is God. The evidences will show that the disciples never came to the conclusion that Jesus is God. And these are people who lived and walked with Jesus and thus knew first hand what he said and did. Furthermore, we are told in the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible that the disciples were being guided by the Holy Spirit. If Jesus is God, surely they should know it. But they did not. They kept worshipping the one true God who was worshipped by Abraham, Moses and Jesus

?The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.?
(The Acts ; 313)

All of the writers of the Bible believed that God was not Jesus. The idea that Jesus is God did not become part of Christian belief until after the Bible was written, and took many centuries to become part of the faith of Christians.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God

?And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.?
(see Mark ; 101

?And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.?
(Matthew ; 1917)

They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person as I explained earlier. Many others too, are similarly called sons of God

?And call no man your father upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven.?
(Matthew ; 239}

Paul, believed to be the author of some thirteen or fourteen letters in the Bible, also believed that Jesus is not God. For Paul, God first created Jesus, then used Jesus as the agent by which to create the rest of creation

?Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature?
(Colossians ; 115)

?But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.?
(1Corinthians ; 86}

Similar ideas are found in the letter to the Hebrews, and also in the Gospel and Letters of John composed some seventy years after Jesus. In all of these writings, however, Jesus is still a creature of God and is therefore forever subservient to God

?And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.?
(1 Corinthians ; 1528}

Now, because Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews believed that Jesus was God?s first creature, some of what they wrote clearly show that Jesus was a pre-existent powerful being. This is often misunderstood to mean that he must have been God. But to say that Jesus was God is to go against what these very authors wrote. Although these authors had this later belief that Jesus is greater than all creatures, they also believed that he was still lesser than God. In fact, John quotes Jesus as saying

?The Father is greater than I?
(John ; 1428}

And Paul declares that the head of every woman is her husband, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God

?But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.?
(1 Corinthians ; 113}

Therefore, to find something in these writings and claim that these teach that Jesus is God is to misuse and misquote what those authors are saying. What they wrote must be understood in the context of their belief that Jesus is a creature of God as they have already clearly said.

So we see then, that some of the later writers had a higher view of Jesus, but none of the writers of the Bible believed that Jesus is God. The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one true God, the one whom Jesus worshipped

?And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.?
(John ; 173}

Evidence From Acts of the Apostles
Jesus performed many miraculous wonders, and he without doubt said a lot of wonderful things about himself. Some people use what he said and did as proof that he was God. But his original disciples who lived and walked with him, and were eyewitnesses to what he said and did, never reached this conclusion. The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after Jesus was lifted up to heaven. Throughout this period they never refer to Jesus as God. They continually and consistently use the title God to refer to someone other than Jesus.

Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed the crowd saying

?Men of Israel, listen to this Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited to you by God with miracles, wonders and signs which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know?
(Acts 222)

It was God, therefore, who did the miracles through Jesus to convince people that Jesus was backed by God. Peter did not see the miracles as proof that Jesus is God.

In fact, the way Peter refers to God and to Jesus makes it clear that Jesus is not God. For he always turns the title God away from Jesus. Take the following references for example

?God has raised this Jesus . . .?
(Acts 232)

?God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ?
(Acts 236)

In both passages, the title God is turned away from Jesus. Why? ?if Jesus is God.

To Peter, Jesus was a servant of God. Peter said

?God raised up his servant", where the title servant refers to Jesus?
(Acts 326)

This is clear from a previous passage where Peter declared

?The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus?
(Acts 313)

Peter must have known that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never spoke of a Triune God. They always spoke of Jehovah (i.e. Yahweh) as the only God. Here, as in Matthew Jesus is the servant of Yahweh

?Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles.?
(Matthew 121

If Matthew and Peter are right, then Jesus is not Yahweh, but Yahweh?s servant. This proves that Jesus is not God. The Old Testament repeatedly says that Yahweh is the only God

?I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me I girded thee, though thou hast not known me?
(Isaiah 45 5)

If Yahweh is the name of a triune God, then Jesus is excluded from the Godhead since in that case he would be the servant of the triune God. If, on the other hand, Yahweh is the name of the Father only, then the Father alone is God (since Yahweh alone is God) and Jesus is therefore not God. Either way, Jesus is not God. Peter and Matthew were both right about this.
All of the disciples of Jesus held this view. In Acts we are told that the believers prayed to God saying

?And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is?
(Acts 424)

And it is clear that the one they were praying to was not Jesus, because, three verses later, they referred to Jesus as

?For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed?
(Acts 427)

If Jesus was God, his disciples should have said this clearly. Instead, they kept preaching that Jesus was God?s Messiah. We are told in Acts

?Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah?
(Acts 541]

The Hebrew title Messiah (Christ in Greek) is a human title. It means ?Anointed.?, we see in Isaiah, Cyrus the Persian is called God?s Messiah

?Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;?
(Isaiah 451)

If Jesus was God, why would the disciples continually refer to him with human titles like servant and messiah of God, and consistently use the title God for the one who raised Jesus?

Did they fear men? No! They boldly preached the truth fearing neither imprisonment nor death. When they faced opposition from the authorities, Peter declared

?We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus . . .?
(Acts 529-30)

Were they lacking the Holy Spirit? No! They were supported by the Holy Spirit

?And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them??
(Acts 23)

?Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,??
(Acts 4

?And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.?
(Acts 532)

They were simply teaching what they had learnt from Jesus ? that Jesus was not God but, rather, God?s servant and Messiah.

The Quran confirms that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he was God?s servant

?(And remember ) when the angels said O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him , whose name is the Messiah , Jesus , son of Mary , illustrious in the world and the Hereafter , and one of those brought near ( unto Allah ) .?

?He spake Lo! I am the slave of Allah . He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet ,?

Jesus is Not All-Powerful, and Not All-Knowing
Christians and Muslims agree that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. The Gospels show that Jesus was not all-powerful, for he had some limitations. Mark tells us in his gospel that Jesus was unable to do any powerful work in his hometown (ch. 6, vv. 5-6}. Mark also tells us that when Jesus tried to heal a certain blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (see Mark ch. 8, v. 22-26}. Therefore, although we have the utmost love and respect for Jesus, we need to understand that he is not the all-powerful God.

Mark?s Gospel also reveals that Jesus had limitations in his knowledge. In Mark ch. 13, v. 32, Jesus declared that he himself does not know when the last day will occur, but the Father alone knows that (see also Matthew 2436}. Therefore he could not have been the all-knowing God.

Some will say that Jesus knew when the last day will occur, but he chose not to tell. But that complicates matters further. Jesus could have said that he knows but he does not wish to tell. Instead, he said that he does not know. We must believe him. Jesus was a man of truth.

The Gospel of Luke also reveals that Jesus had limited knowledge. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom (ch. 2, v. 52}. In Hebrews too (ch. 5, v. we read that Jesus learned obedience. But God?s knowledge is always perfect, and God does not learn new things. He knows everything always. If Jesus learned something new, that proves that he did not know everything before that, and he was not God. Can he become God later? No! Because there is only one God, and He is God from everlasting to everlasting (see Psalms 90, v. 2}.

Someone may say that Jesus was God but he took the form of a servant and therefore became limited. Well, that would mean that God changed. But God does not change. He said so Himself in Malachi ch. 3, v. 6. Jesus never was God, and never will be. In the Bible, Yahweh alone is God and Yahweh declares

?Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am Yahweh . . . ?
(Isaiah ch. 43 vv. 10-11}

Some will say that Jesus had two natures, that he was both man and God at the same time. They will say that the limitations we pointed out are limitations in the human nature of Jesus, but his God nature is still unlimited. Notice that the Bible never confirms that Jesus had these two natures. This is a desperate solution offered by those who do not wish to believe what the Bible plainly says. The plain teaching of the Bible, as we have shown, is that Jesus was not God.

This dual-nature solution complicates matters further still. Take for illustration the fig-tree episode in the Gospels (see Mark ch. 11, vv 12-25}. Mark tells us as follows

?Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs?
(Mark 1112-14}

Jesus then put a curse on the tree, so that no one could eat fruit from it again. The tree withered from the roots by next morning.

Now, it is clear from this passage that Jesus had a lot of power to curse the tree and make it wither from its roots. It is also clear that Jesus' knowledge was limited on two counts. First, he did not know that the tree had no fruit until he came to it. Second, he did not know that it was not the right season to expect figs on trees.

Proponents of the dual-nature theory will have to admit that the power to curse was in Jesus? God nature. They will have to also admit that his lack of knowledge was due to his human nature. They will have to then conclude that the God nature acted at the behest of the limited knowledge stemming from the human nature. But God does not act on ignorance. Surely He would know, as Mark knew, that it was not the season for figs, and that when fig season arrives that tree will provide fruit for God?s creatures. Why would God curse a good tree which he created? Some would like to believe that the tree was barren and therefore deserved to be destroyed. But, if Mark was right, the reason the tree had no fruit is

?because it was not the season for figs?
(Mark 12, v. 13}

These Bible references clearly show that Jesus was not the all-powerful, all-knowing God.

The Quran tries to have it both ways in order to elevate Mohammed to the same status as Christ, but it just doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.

show us any support from the Quran to the non sense you say above

So go ahead and keep posting your claims against Christianity.

I hope you enjoyed the above reading as I did, but of course I will continue rasing these arguments, aren?t we all looking for the truth?, however even if I?m not looking for the truth, as long as Christians keep posting non sense against mohammad and the Quran without any bloody proofs from the Quran I will keep doing as such.

As I said, I didn't come to this forum looking to convert Muslims to my beliefs, but only to see if Muslims could explain to me why they believe Islam is right and why they believe Mohammed is worthy of reverence.

when you put your argument in a reasonable and respectable manner, not with arrogance by bloody telling us that you will not respond to those who think Mohammad is a prophet, what non sense is that?, you actually exposed your true intentions by your own hand and in your first comment

I began with a question about Mohammed and his obvious evil nature as indicated in the hadiths. I realized that many on this forum reject the hadiths, and that's a fine response to that line of discussion.

excuse me, you said it is in the Quran, and I?m still waiting for you to post the violent Quran verses, I careless about the corrupt hadith, for me the corrupt hadith is exactly like the corrupt bible, both have been corrupted by sick humans to deceive humanity

But posting more and more against Christianity while challenging me to cut and paste verses from the Quran is just dodging my question.

excuse me, I don't listen to hearsay, bring the verses to support your arguments, I always say it, put up or shut up

And when I ask you direct questions, you ignore them.

no I did not ,but for you direct question about mohammad if he was violent or not?, here is a direct answer

NO

If you have truly sought truth, and you believe Islam is truth,

of course I?m seeking the truth, and I spent years seeking it until I found it, I?m not a type of guy who gets swayed or manipulated by an article by some one like Ali Sina or Usamah Ubdullah, I can only get swayed by the Quran and the Bible and possibly the Veda

then tell me what persuades you of that.

it is the truth as I said and also conveying the Quran message to my brothers and sisters in humanity

I have already explained some of the problems I see and all you've done is attack Christianity and ask me to post specific verses.

I don't attack Christianity, I?m using their own bible to expose their own flaws, and I guess this should be appreciated by the wise ones

That's fruitless.

for you, but not for the wise ones

Tell me why you believe Islam is true.

because of the Quran

Use verses if you wish,

no I didn?t use verses for the above question, I have given you a bold answer for a bold question

but it certainly isn't required.

I already realized that someone like you won?t give a fluke to understand the Quran anyway

Tell me what else you've explored and why it didn't ring true to you, and so on.

well, I read books with passion since I was 8 years old , now I?m 41, that?s a hell of 33 years of intense reading and still going strong, you know, reading is knowledge, but what I read is not only religious, it is maanly religious but I do read some other human mad stuff, like harry pottter

Otherwise I will be patient and wait for more responses from mature Muslims like some of the others who have replied here.

fine if you think I?m not mature, but I do believe I?m at 41 years old, how old are ya btw?

unknownuser

Peace

I do believe in what Usamah writes 100%,
why you do if he didn't gave you any proof? he simple wrote "Many Christians..." with no information.

to answer it, a christian is anyone who say is following the bible, i don't care what sect they are from

I didn't ask you what is a Christian, but what Christians are those who the author of the article mentions, how does he know, where did he read or heard about them, etc, any, a piece of info to support his assertion.

Peace

excuse me elena, what is the question exactly, proof that most christians has no problem with porno?

Elena

peace

excuse me elena, what is the question exactly

the author of that article asserts many Christians use John 81-11 to justify fornication and pornography.

the queston is what Christians?
the request is proofs, information about them, if not, just stating "many Christians..." is baseless, unfounded suspicion, even it could be a lie or an exaggeration to attack Christianity.
If it is true, please, info.

unknownuser

peace

Peace

excuse me elena, what is the question exactly

the author of that article asserts many Christians use John 81-11 to justify fornication and pornography.

the queston is what Christians?
the request is proofs, information about them, if not, just stating "many Christians..." is baseless, unfounded suspicion, even it could be a lie or an exaggeration to attack Christianity.
If it is true, please, info.

I believe he means the chrsitians who work in the porno and sex industry, i think they still visit churches, you know

but fine if it is proven a lie, i'm happy to drop it if proven a lie, i think the author added a note about the guest books in porno web sites where devote christians leave encouraging comments for them

but hey, many christians also rant about moahammad being a paedofile while they manipulate a proof of legal marriage blessed by her family, as well we have no evidence that he liked the company of children or
molested a few like we hear about the church leaders now days

please browase Usamah web site and leave a coment to him, he is very prompt and will reply to you

but for me yes I have seen many christians who woprks in the porno and sex industry and somehow still thinking that Jesus died for them lol and they will go to the Garden

Elena

Peace

I believe he means the chrsitians who work in the porno and sex industry, i think they still visit churches, you know
no, I don't know.
Did they say to Usamah they think it is ok in virtue of John 81-11?
If not, from where does he imply it?
Still, appart from if he answers my question if I decide to visit that web site, you posted it here addresing Oneway to show him "how confusing Christian you are" (sic) even when you 'believe' Usamah means...and you 'think' they visit...thus, you were not sure, you didn't know and still you used the article to defame Christians.

but fine if it is proven a lie, i'm happy to drop it if proven a lie
you were who stated it as truth by posting the article and believing it 100%. You are who has to prove it true.

please browase Usamah web site and leave a coment to him, he is very prompt and will reply to you
, yes, I will probably browse it, thanks.

My points are , please, check before asserting, and, there are some misconceptions about Christianity held by people who don't know it well, example, muslims who attack Christians using the Bible as weapon assuming the Bible is the same for Christians as the Quran is for them which it is not, e.g. Catholicism has several sources, all of them essential, not only the Bible, also the tradition and the adaptations to the new events in the world through encyclicals , pastoral letters, etc.

oneway

You are backing off, lol

I'm not backing off, I'm standing behind my original question and sticking to my original commitment not to debate matters that are purely matters of faith. You

good, but you failed so far to show us any verse from the Quran, forget the hadith, as any hadith you will bring I will throw in the rubbish bin, now I?m still waiting for the violent Quran verses

I said I'll get to that, and I will, but I have to squeeze in some work now and then, right? smile

enjoy taking Bible passages out of context and denying Christ which really just helps to prove my earlier point.

there is no out of context here, we have a prophet who got drunk and slept with his own daughters as well a prophet who got horny and slept with his neighbour?s hot wife and killed her husband, how I bloody took it out of context? Do you care to elaborate?

I have already explained to you the errors in the conclusions you draw from the third party material you are pasting here from web sites (Can you not reason for yourself?). I'm not sure how to make it any clearer to you Those stories about prophets and patriarchs in the Bible do indeed describe some very severe sins (by human standards) that they committed. I made it very clear in an earlier response to you that these stories show the hardships these people were made to suffer for their disobedience to God. You are ignoring my reply and just reasserting your nonsense.

You came here saying mohammad is encouraging violence, and so far we have seen the prophets in your bible are the ones who are encouraging violence and illegal sex, give it a break man, you have no point so far

All my conversation with you has proven is that you are far from open minded and you wish to beat me into submission with material you are copying from equally clueless third parties. I tried to reason with you earlier, but reason does not seem to appeal to you so this may well be my last reply to your messages as the discussions with others in this forum actual involve reason rather than dogma and propaganda, and , as I've said over and over again, I didn't come here to spend all my time defending the Bible and Christianity. I came here hoping to learn from open minded Muslims.

As I have stated repeatedly, my original post was made before I realized most in this forum reject the hadiths, which are, of course, the source of the most condemning information regarding Mohammed.

I will get to issues I have with the Quran in due time.

In fact, much of that cut and paste reply you posted earlier I agree with,

good that you agree with but how then you say I took it out of context if you agree with?, see a clear cut conflict

Now you are twisting my words intentionally. I agreed only that the facts in what you posted, e.g. the Bible's depictions of disobedience and sin by central figures like David, are correct. The conclusions you draw from those stories are wholly incorrect and contrived by you and others who wish to spread anti-Christian propaganda instead of having an intelligent dialogue.

but that's because most of it argues against ludicrous positions that no Christian actually holds,

so all Christians are hypocrites then?

which is a common strawman argument that people attacking Christianity like to construct. (Hint No Christian I know of has ever tried to claim that the story where Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," somehow means that there is no penalty for adultery.

sure, I know most Christians don?t uphold the bible they just say that they uphold it, in fact they mock Jesus themselves, how come they mock Jesus the god, is it the freedom of speech?

They sound very hypocrites to me, but hey I saw most porno stars wearing the cross while filming, did you see the movie ?Sex in the Bible??, a very good and arousing movie

There you go again. All your continued mocking and intentional misinterpretation is doing is proving that you are ignorant, closed minded, stubborn, and incapable of defending you own faith.

Newsflash Not everyone in the West is Christian and Christians certainly do not endorse pornography any more than the average Muslim endorses terrorism, though in your case I have to wonder...

That's just silliness and you know it. Likewise for the story of David and Bathsheba -- see my earlier reply -- you have to read the whole story to understand the lessons to be drawn from it and beyond lessons about forgiveness and grace the story is full of lessons about the consequences of sin.)

excuse me, I don?t care if he repented or learnt a lesson out of it, at a time the bible portrayed the GREAT PROPHET David as a pervert and a murderer for only personal gain not even for a bloody good cause

Yes, the Bible does relay those stories, but you are trying to say that the Bible, and hence Christians, endorses David's behavior as acceptable, which is completely false, just as your assertion that Christ's "...cast the first stone..." statement somehow indicates approval for adultery. I'm sorry, but that is simply an ignorant and obstinate position with which no reasonable person could agree.

Simply put, again, the Quran says Christ is to be revered as a prophet of God (yet you mock him in this forum).

I don?t mock Jesus, because Jesus for me is exactly like Mohammad, it is the Christians who mock him for about 2000 years, come on bro they made him like a piece of crap that many humans at his time pissed on him before they killed him while he cried like a coward, and it suppose to be him knowing that he has to die for us, this is just a load of non sense, I don?t believe that Jesus died on the cross any way, so it is the Christians who mock him, not me, I?m defending him against that mocking by the Christians

History does not support your assertions, but I understand there are huge differences between what Muslims believe about Jesus and what Christians believe about Jesus. Obviously I disagree with you and your spiteful chides about Christians mocking Christ are exactly the kind of hateful rhetoric I hoped I would not find in this forum.