hebrews(in the bible) this is my begotten son i begot again,,,, john 3:16 for God so loved the world he sent his only begotten son into the world not to condem the world but that it may be saved threw him...
Jesus was fully man when He so desired to appear so, and in the Act of God, Jesus was completely appearing as God. That makes Jesus a transformative being, able to appear as the Father , at will, able to appear and act as the Son of God, at will and able to appear and act as the Holy Ghost, at will. Jesus in Matthew 17 changed, transfigured from being appearing as a man to appearing as an unapproachable light , so Jesus was not a mix of two but appearing as any of three persons.
Good set up sons of cain, putting your own against each other in public like this to make it seem you don't "believe in Jesus" as the "Jewish Messiah." Your lie will not stand forever & His People are waking up to you & Seeing the Truth. Jesus was no Jew. The Jews are the Pharisees of Jesus' (Yahshua's) day and nothing has changed. You are of your father the devil! and the lusts of your father you will do! JESUS IS AN ISRAELITE! You have no home you vegabond Jews, sons of cain! Jn8:44,Acts19:13
if anyone can put their emotions to the side and scrutinize the gospels / lips the the KING OF THE JEWS ( yeshua), one can clearly see that yeshua was a mighty prophet -- human.
@omenone2000 I would have to agree with you on that. Although I am a follower of Yahshua and believe he is the Messiah, the Muslim won this hands down. Christians do contradict themselves to say that Yahshua is God when clearly he is not. I would like to debate him because I do not hold that view.
If you truly look at the scriptures you can see that Jesus is the first of creation and the Son of God. Also that the Father is the only One called Almighty God and Jesus is called mighty god. There is a big distinction there. Almighty means all powerful while mighty just means powerful. And thats true Jeseus is powerful but the Father is all powerful.
Do not believe what Shabir Ally has written in the book entitled "Is Jesus God? The Bible Says No." The Bible makes it very clear that whoever acknowledges that Jesus Christ is God Almighty manifested in the flesh has the spirit of truth which is from God, and whoever denies this does not have the spirit of truth which is from God but the spirit of the Anti-Christ.
@attitudeblack=Yeshua (JESUS) did not say this words "I am God, worship me". However when He was asked if he is the Messiah the Son of God by the High Priest Caiaphas He says "I am, and you shall all see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Almighty God and coming on the clouds of heaven." Yeshua HaMashiach says in John 10:30 "I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE", in John 8:58 "BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS BORN, I AM", and in John 10:38 "THE FATHER IS IN ME AND I AM IN THE FATHER."
@knightsofstjoan2004 3 versions of bible Hebrew (Original Context) Greek (2nd context) English (3rd context) the word "Son of God" has a special name in Greek Language which was understood as the chosen 1 so "Son of God = The chosen" i have no problem on TECHNICAL basis if u claim Jesus(pbuh) is Son of God because in Christianity Bible has Sons by tons as mentioned in Book of Romans chapter 8 "who so ever is led by the Spirit of God is Son of God" so no problem here on technical terms
@knightsofstjoan2004 suppose if u and i live in Austria either u or me can say king and attitude are 1 what does it mean? that u and i are one body one spirit? NO it means that we live in the same country so we are one it is an understood fact that every group of people living in a nation is ONE. so yes u are right Jesus (pbuh) and God are one i have no problem with THAT as well cuz God says He is one and the msg is brought by His Prophets and Messengers is that He(God) is ONE
@knightsofstjoan2004 ofcourse Jesus (pbuh) was nothing without God ( The Father) cuz God choosed Jesus(pbuh) to bring His words to the people since God had appointed Jesus(pbuh) to spread the words. some of u also say quote I AM the way to the truth and life saying he claimed divinity read the whole verse starting from 1 if that is the case who was the way to the truth and life at the time of Moses(pbuh) etc? when Moses said I AM has sent me did he claim divinity? NO
@knightsofstjoan2004 as mentioned in ur very own book of Acts 3:26 tern used is HIS (God) SERVANT JESUS (NKJV) Jeremiah 1:4-5 I ordained thee a "prophet" unto the nations also mentioned in
@attitudeblack=Read Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called WONDERFUL, COUNSELLOR, THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, THE PRINCE OF PEACE.
How can someone be a SON and THE EVERLASTING FATHER at the same time? Why is he called THE MIGHTY GOD? The one spoken of being born as a male child has to be at the same time an eternal person. In fact he has to be God.
@knightsofstjoan2004 i told u already if u say jesus(pbuh) is son of God i have no problem cuz according to Bible God has SONS BY TONS. thats not a very much problem. try to reason with me on the basis of LOGIC yesh u are right NO ONE CAN BE THAT if u say that it is then does it mean Jesus(pbuh) is a FATHER to HIMSELF as HE(Jesus) is said to be a GOD AS WELL? logically it cant happen u cant be two things at one time unless u have dual personalities. Cuz if u say God came in human form-
@knightsofstjoan2004 -that limits his power and if He is wat He is then his powers can not be limited this fact cannot take place at once. $5000 reward for u if u prove it to me Jesus(pbuh) claimed divinity. as he himself said MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN ALL. I OF MYSELF CANNOT DO NOTHING. I CASTE OUT DEVILS WITH THE FINGER OF GOD. who is he sayng that to? to himself according to ur claim since he is God? think logically
@knightsofstjoan2004 thirdly Isaiah 9:6 CONTRADICTS with Numbers 23:19 one time its sayng God is no man other time trying to say it is possible. as they say there is no mistake in the bible UNLESS the bible CONTRADICTS intself and here is a perfect example to prove it.
@attitudeblack=OVERRATED, actually Numbers 23:19 means that God cannot speak of lies like ordinary men on earth do. Yeshua HaMashiach is God manifested in the flesh (see John 1:1-14 and Timothy 3:16) and He never lied. God is not consigned nor limited to the flesh, but He can manifest in whatever form He pleases in order to accomplish His task. God incarnated and manifested Himself in the flesh (in the form of a man) but it never annulled His divinity. For you information Yeshua HaMashiach
@knightsofstjoan2004 MISUNDERSTOOD if that is the case then who is Jesus(pbuh) refering to as FATHER? Himself since he is the God? comon man be logical state ur reasons explain them i already said one verse where Jesus (pbuh) says I AM GOD WORSHIP ME one verse can u not do me this favor? i knw who Yeshua is mate dont get me started on that as well lets stick to what we are talking now :)
(continued) posseses attributes that only God could have; eternality (see John 8:58), omnipresence (see Matthew 18:20), omniscience (see John 16:30), omnipotence (see Revelation 1:8) and immutability (see Hebrews 1:12). He does what only God can do: forgives sin (see Mark 2:1-12), gives life (see John 5:21), raises the dead (see John 6:39-40 & 54 and John 11:38-44) and executes judgement (see John 5:22 & 27). He was given names and titles of God: Immanuel which means "God with us"
@knightsofstjoan2004 u are tellng me Gods attributes like i dont knw :)) i can quote u more than u can budy but yet again thats not what i am talking about :)
(continued) (see Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23), King of Kings and Lord of Lords (see Revelation 19:16) and Son of God (see Matthew 26:63-65). Yeshua HaMashiach, the Son of the Living God is part of the echad (unity) nature of God.
@knightsofstjoan2004 he is not my concern bible says that alright just for the sake of argument i do agree with u now tell me Where did Jesus said that?? did he not say No one knows the Time of Hour But My Father? If he is God why does not he knw the time of Hour? prety simple question :) My Father is Greater than I. Jesus(pbuh) is greater than himself since he is God? logic use logic be logical if u quote something prove it
Allah cannot have a son. It is true. But, why Allah should be God. Can Prophet Mohammed ever say that he and Allah are same. JESUS CLAIMED that they are one. He claimed that He was before Abraham. People worshipped Him and He received the worship ispite of Jews' objection. So, one need to understand the meaning of Son. Unfortunately, the Quran's understanding of son is like God producing a son through Mary. What a shame? If God is one, why do you respect the Black stone at Mecca?
There are MANY places where people CALLED him God and he never even in the slightest count, said, "Don't say that!" He is given reverance, homage, and called God and Jesus never rebuked them, Either Jesus was who He said he was, or he was a total LUNATICK. For LOVE, Jesus left the halls of heaven to redeam mankind back to himself.
There is only one God, THREE personalities. Forget trying to figure out the 3 in 1, the mind cannot compute this & overloads. You take it by FAITH
There are MANY places where people CALLED him God and he never even in the slightest count, said, "Don't say that!" He is given reverance, homage, and called God and Jesus never rebuked them, Either Jesus was who He said he was, or he was a total LUNATICK. For LOVE, Jesus left the halls of heaven to redeam mankind back to himself.
There is only one God, THREE personalities. Forget trying to figure out the 3 in 1, the mind cannot compute this & overloads. You take it by FAITH.
Mat. 26:64 says, "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." The word 'nevertheless' is translated from the greek work plhn, which is a greek work used to confirm something. Yeshua confirmed their accusation and then said he was the Son of Man. This is not a contradiction. Shabir Ally is using modern grammar & a bad translation to interpret 2000 year old words.
@dktrnobody , to understand the truth one should come to Jesus and His disciples. If you go to somebody who was born after 500 years of Jesus' death, you will only learn some lies and distortion of facts. My question is this. Why do you want to talk about a person whom millions of people consider as their God? Why dont you talk about your Allah and the benefits he offers? The reality is that there is nothing much you can claim about Allah or your last prophet. So you want to keep nailing Jesus.
He is the Son of God and the Son of Man! How can anyone think they can say they understand God enough to say this is impossible.He is far beyond ANY of our thinking-we who are His will spend all eternity learning about Him and STILL not learn all there is to know about Him-and you think you know it all about Him on THIS EARTH?In THIS MORTAL BODY?I don't think so,O prideful man.
God taking on the form of man or taking on the body of man or becoming like man is not the same as being Man & God at the same time...Jesus had the attributes of God without question...he said "before Abraham was I'AM" John 8:58 Its an indirect way of saying it but he said it...he was there even before Abraham Genesis 1:26 Let "US" make man in our Image
I have to say that Satan is good at lying and decieving to Shabir Ally and humanity for he is the father of lies. Yeah Islam and the Koran is like/simular to Christianity and the Holy Bible, but in a twisted way that Satan uses to lure people away from the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ and who Jesus really is. Muslims are spiritual blind to see that Allah is Satan. Satan is behind all religion except 4 Christianity and all the other gazilion false gods who can't save you only soul from hell.
When Jesus says "You have said it", it is Hebrew Idiom for "You have spoken the truth" it does NOT mean "You said it, I didn't". When he responds "you have said it" or "you said it" it is a Jewish expression meaning "You have spoken the truth" Also God certainly can choose to become human & choose to limit himself. If you say he can not then YOU are limiting God & what he can & can't do. Also the Hebrew word used for "ONE" can refer to to a unit not just a numerical singular.
if any man preach a different gospel of Jesus let him be accursed. Jesus is the Son of God but this guy Shabir schooled this white guy. What was Allah doing in heaven that was so important that it took him 600 years to refute the claim early Christians made? Can we get a Christian who knows what he is talking about?
@ADAJ3 Allah does what He wants. Who are you to question the Creator of the heavens and the earth? Know your place. Allah could've taken 1 Billion years. It's His choice. After all, He's God.
@tadpoleposition Ok then if he chooses ()wants) to beccome a man and limit himself in his humanity in order to reveal himself and show his love for us who are you to say he CAN''T CHOOSE to do that. A God who truly loved us certainly could! I see NO logical problem with a God who demonstrates his love for us by choosing to enter onto his own creation and become one of us.
@EquineDreams God can't choose to limit Himself and become a man. It fits the Christian's creed, but doesn't fit the rationale and logic Jesus and other Prophets spoke about. If we accept this irrational notion, then the sky's the limit with regards to what we can belief about God. Establishing specified parameters is a must when discussing the do's and don't's of belief in God. God displays His love for us everyday and we're not returning the favor by demeaning His status.
@tadpoleposition Your comment divorced itself from truth on the second word. God can't? When you begin by stating that an infinite & sovereign God "can't" do something you've begun to limit God to YOUR own conceptions. The idea that God is required to fit & be limited to some human linguistic constructs named "rationale" or "logic" is itself a limitation conceptually imposed by man on God. Thereby, demeaning His status, so in actuality you have gotten it backwards.
@tadpoleposition Rational logic is something God created to limit man, not Himself. God is not bound by His own creation. Just as a computer programmer writes a backdoor code to allow himself free access to the system he creates where others are restricted, so to is it with God & His creation.
@Texcentric OK, so God can. God can create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it. If yes, then something is greater than God. If no, then God's ability is impaired. You see the quandary were left with if we don't qualify what is purposely left in it's absolute sense? God is able to do all things as long as all those things are consistent with His Sublime nature. Once we delve into a bit, we can quickly see how God wouldn't be able to do certain things because it contradicts His Sublime nature.
@Texcentric Rational logic is something God created to limit man. Exactly! It would be absurd for God to reveal a message to mankind that they couldn't grasp rationally. To say the Prophets and Messengers conveyed an illogical and irrational message would be ridiculous. God, being our Creator, knows our limitations. If we say God is not bound by His creation, then explain the belief of those who claim Jesus was god.
@tadpoleposition "It would be absurd for God to reveal a message to mankind that they couldn't grasp rationally."
I disagree. You're assuming that reason is the solution. In the Book of Genesis it is reason that the serpent used to deceive Eve into partaking of the forbidden fruit. The serpent's rationale reasoned Adam & Eve right out of the Garden of Eden. Faith is the key to salvation, not reason. Many have faith without the aid of reason.
@Texcentric All one has to do is look at the atheist to smell the fruit of reason & logic (totalitarian communism i.e. Lenin, Stalin, Mao). Because of our sin nature we cannot experience the totality of God's presence because the purity of His holiness would burn us into ashes. In His mercy God extended just enough of Himself into the body of Jesus to be able to communicate His message without incinerating us. He subjected Himself to His creation to teach love thru humility by example.
@Texcentric By becoming the sacrificial lamb of God the blood of Christ freed us once & for all from the Abrahamic Covenant of animal sacrifice for purification. His ultimate sacrifice purifies & cleans us (if we accept & live by His ordinances) so that we become fit to enter into God's Kingdom.
"If we say God is not bound by His creation..." If God is not able to subject Himself to His creation then why do we refer to God as He, Him or His as if God were a man? Wouldn't that be blasphemous?
@Texcentric God extended just enough of Himself into the body of Jesus? I mean, come on. The atheist has a more reasonable, logical, and rational argument then that. The Christian's creed necessitates irrationalities. How can one establish faith in irrationalities? Blind (fake) faith, maybe. Real faith based is not only on belief in the unseen, but rational proof. What the Prophets and Messengers delivered is just that. The "He" is out of respect and doesn't denote gender. "It' is demeaning.
@tadpoleposition Is calling a premise irrational without an explanation of "why" it is irrational considered a solid argument where you are live? Because where I live it is not. Anyone can place a label on something, but what does a mere label prove? Nothing.
Also, I never suggested calling God "it." Simply referring to God as "God" works just fine for me if one is opposed to thinking of "Him" as capable of person-hood. For myself that's not a problem since we are created in His image.
@Texcentric So, it's OK to assume the Prophets and Messengers delivered an irrational and illogical message? Jesus spoke ambiguously, without the ability to clarify the truth to what was, for the most part, illiterate fishermen and the like? Paul's teaching the "original sin" theory is proof he lacked divine guidance. To claim we are responsible or guilty or born into a sin committed by Adam is unjust. God is just and would never make us bear the sins of another. It's a gross misrepresentation.
@tadpoleposition Q: If you have a container of water that is contaminated & you pour some of that water into a second container along with some water from a third container which has NOT been contaminated, but instead is pure, will the water in the second container be pure, or contaminated? A: Contaminated.
If Adam & Eve's nature has been contaminated by sin how is it that they are to be able to produce offspring of a pure nature free of sin. See the logic? This is why we are all born into sin.
@Texcentric Ezekiel 18:20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Paul's teaching is illogical and unbiblical. He played the "according to the scriptures" card without citing his reference. Nothing at all can be proven from Adam and Eve's story that their children inherited their sin.
@tadpoleposition You conveniently avoided the previous passage Ezekiel 18:19 "doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful & right & hath kept my statutes & hath done them he shall surely live." The passage to which you refer merely states that one is not locked into sin without an escape avenue. It however does not refute being born into sin. Paul's teaching is solid. Paul warned of false teachers who would try to pervert biblical doctrine.
@Texcentric So, the passage means that one is not locked into sin without an escape avenue? Where'd you get that interpretation from? God, a Prophet, a follower of a Prophet, or from the dictates of your own soul? That whole "Paul warned of teachers..." argument is futile. He, himself, is guilty of that very warning. I conveniently avoided passage 19 since the first part is a question and the second has to do with good deeds, not sins. Self-interpretation is tantamount to self-worship.
@tadpoleposition When the passage states "he shall surely live" it is an indication of an escape avenue. To be born into sin is to exist in a process of decay which ends in death. We commonly refer to this process as aging. To "surely live" is to be regenerated by the grace of God at the end of that process & inherit a place in His Kingdom. Sin does not dwell in the Kingdom of God, hence eternal life.
@tadpoleposition However, it is not deeds that save us, but God's grace. Good deeds are merely the fruit of an inner surrender to God's will & help to inspire others to seek the Kingdom of God. Good deeds can be performed with malicious intent & are not sufficient for inheritance. That requires surrender of one's heart & soul to God's will which He communicated to the world as Jesus Christ.
@Texcentric "He shall surely live" is an indication of an escape avenue? This passage is from Ezekiel. Ezekiel is a book in the Old Testament. So, Ezekiel taught eternal salvation long before the alleged crucifixion of Jesus? If it was possible to achieve Kingdom inheritance before Jesus, why would what Jesus brought be considered new? It seems He only reiterated what the Prophets before Him taught. Islam means surrender and a Muslim is a surrenderer. You basically defined Islam unconsciously.
@tadpoleposition Surrender is a precept common to most religions. The difference is in what it is to which they are surrendering. Eternal life is what was lost in the fall of man. God wants us to have it again, but we must be cleansed of our sin nature that pollutes us from birth. The covenant that God made with Abraham involved purification thru the use of circumcision & animal sacrifice. What Christ did that was new was to free us from these physical rituals & replace them with faith.
@tadpoleposition More specifically, faith in God incarnate as Jesus Christ our Lord & Savior. As for eternal life in the OT here are some references:
Psalms 133:3 "...for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore."
Genesis 5:24 "Enoch walked with God: & he was not; for God took him."
Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; & was not found, because God has translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."
@Texcentric Over 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus render the word "alleged" in reference to the crucifixion as inapplicable. There is more written evidence for the crucifixion & resurrection than there is for the existence of Julius Ceasar. Since the Qu'ran does not acknowledge the crucifixion & divinity of Jesus it can only be regarded as a false teaching to Christians. I only state that as an observation & not as an insult.
@Texcentric Over 500 witnesses? Look, we both know there were many more than 500 people witnessing the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. The fact is any Biblical account is unreliable since the authors never referenced their sources. Aside from unknown authors, the Books themselves are dated far after the event. Without a link between a author and a known eye-witness the account is rendered unreliable at best. Paul and Luke never met Jesus or claimed to be eye-witnesses of the event.
@Texcentric Over 500 witnesses? Look, we both know there were many more than 500 people witnessing the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. The fact is any Biblical account is unreliable since the authors never referenced their sources. Aside from unknown authors, the Books themselves are dated far after the event. Without a link between a author and a known eye-witness the account is rendered unreliable at best. Paul and Luke never met Jesus or claimed to be eye-witnesses of the event.
@Texcentric Can you to link an author wit his source (eye-witness). It's impossible since the majority of Books of the Bible's authors are unknown. Sure, writing that there were witnesses is easy. Referencing those who witnessed the event is another. Paul and Luke never met Jesus and never referenced their sources. For example, Mark wrote about the alleged crucifixion. Between Mark and Jesus there should be a source or reference since Mark was not an eye-witness. There is none.
@tadpoleposition The Book of James not mentioning the crucifixion is something quite different than an outright denial of the crucifixion such as found in the Qu'ran as follows: "In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did." Sura 4:157. It is not necessary for James to mention the crucifixion. With no denial of the event there is no contradiction of the event.
@Texcentric James wasn't in a position to accept or deny the crucifixion. It would've been a waste of time to mention something that didn't happen. Hence, the aforementioned omission. The crucifixion is the pillar of Christianity. For any Gospel writer to omit it would be tantamount to denying it. Even the story in Mark 16:9-20 was added way after the original Gospel was written. The earliest manuscripts don't include it. To fabricate and include it in Mark's Gospel way later is insidious.
@Texcentric In fact, the story in Mark is considered an addition to the earliest manuscripts which creates more speculation about the event. James' writing doesn't acknowledge the alleged crucifixion or divinity of Jesus. Does that make it a false teaching also? The Ebionites didn't believe in the alleged crucifixion or divinity of Jesus. James was among them. For the earliest known written Gospel's, Mark 16:9-20, claim of the crucifixion to be added way later is very deceiving.
@tadpoleposition Jesus was cruxified, even Shabir ally makes that statement in a debate with william lane craig. Don't misunderstand, but I am just telling you its basically a fact among most credible honest historians, that Jesus died at the cross, and that he was placed in a tomb by Joseph of Arimethea, and three days after his death, his tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. So all the nonsense about which gospel you think has a false teaching, consider the Quran.
@mirrormoveuchiha Shabir Ally is not an Islamic authority. I know which debate you're referring to, where Dr. Craig used a commentary from a verse translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Abdullah's translation and commentary is riddled with mistakes. Missionaries enjoy referencing His translation without realizing the fallacies it contains. The Quran explicitly states Jesus was not killed or crucified. Please reply to whatever nonsensical claims I made in a non-non-sensical manner.
@tadpoleposition Lets start over, I will retract my earlier statement, because i reread what you said and I overspoke(typed* lol). But do you take the Islamic perspective, or christian? What is your position? Do you believe that the Quranic statements about Jesus cruxifiction and the lack of a cruxification is true, or is in direct denial of historical facts concering the death of Jesus?
@mirrormoveuchiha The Islamic perspective happens to be the perspective of early Christians including the Ebionites. In fact, James' writings don't acknowledge Jesus' crucifixion or divinity. For Muhammad (peace be upon Him), an illiterate Arab caravan merchant living in the desert of Arabia over 1,400 years ago, to unequivocally claim what many unearthed manuscripts nowadays are claiming is amazing. He didn't study historical textual criticism. He simply received the truth from His Creator.
@tadpoleposition I understand that you don't believe what im saying, but thats why "James" writings can't be used, they are false if they disagree with Jesus being cruxified. If we don't know the writers of certain gospels in the new testament, we don't know the writer of those other gospels not included in the canon. Just think about it like this... IT IS A FACT that JESUS died, he was CRUXIFIED, it is more or less absolute based on logic and reason concerning the evidence presented.
@tadpoleposition The point is, you don't really know what the disciples believed. The new testament provides that testimony. Those other texts found, they may have had snippits of truth, but just as i said, it can't clearly contradict the new testament writings. They are all established as consistent with the historical data. So if Muhammad(God have mercy) said "they didn't cruxify him, they didn't kill him", that, to me now, sounds like false informatino based on the evidence.
@mirrormoveuchiha The point is you or I will never know what the disciples believed since there is a broken chain of transmission between them and anyone referencing them as a source of information. Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John never referenced their sources. To claim it is a fact Jesus died and was crucified is a fallacy. An authentic chain of narrators between an author and his source or sources are necessary to make such claims. Simply writing He died is not enough.
@tadpoleposition What are you talking about, THEY are the SOURCES. These were written within a generation after Jesus death', while the eye witness, who talked with Jesus, walked with Jesus, saw Jesus after his death, died for that belief. They are recorded in the new testament. In order to recognize an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. These are documents written down within the lifetime of eyewitnesses of Jesus.
@mirrormoveuchiha They? Who? Mark is the earliest known written Gospel with some 40 years between it's writing and Jesus' ascension. Again, who wrote Mark? Who did he reference as a source for his writing? There are no answers for these simple questions. Someone writing all scripture is God-breathed is one thing. Proving that writing is in fact God-inspired is another. Greek manuscripts prove nothing and Paul doesn't help by not being an eye-witness or a chosen disciple of Jesus.
@tadpoleposition The point is that the statement "Jesus was cruxified and died and his tomb was found empty" is certainly accurate and correct. Now, I see these documents as verifying that, and having such information concludes that the SOURCE that the author of Mark(If it wasn't Mark) must have been in contact with the eye witnesses, seeing this is all still within their lifetimes. We don't have anything but the greek manuscripts because it wasn't recorded in Hebrew, or it was copied to greek
@mirrormoveuchiha Please look at what you're saying. The author of Mark, whoever he was, must have been in contact with the eye-witnesses? Who? First of all, who authored Mark? Secondly, where did he get his information from? How can the statement "Jesus was crucified and died and His tomb was found empty" be valid without such crucial information? There is no doubt Aramaic/Hebrew manuscripts existed. History proves Constantine ordered them destroyed and anyone caught possessing one be killed.
@tadpoleposition He got it from eye witness accounts of actual historical events(Jesus being cruxified, jesus being laid in a tomb of Joseph of Arimathea by Joseph of Arimathea, Jesus tomb was found empty, the disciples did experience appearances of Jesus after his death, after the tomb was found empty, which were so convincing, they were willing to die for this truth. Now that doesn't prove its true, just because they were willing to die for it. But it does prove that they BELIEVED it to be.
@tadpoleposition We don't know exactly who authored mark, nor do I think that it effects the outcome in this case. Would you throw away evidence of Caesar just because you don't know the author of his biography? Say a man wrote down his whole life, we just don't know who he is, what then?
@mirrormoveuchiha Plus the obvious addition of Mark 16:9-20. Whoever the original author of Mark was didn't write it. So, now there are two unknown authors. It just keep getting worse.
@tadpoleposition The addition can probably be attributed to the copiest, the person who is interpreting the text as he sees what the author is trying to express. Whoever the author of Mark is, he has information dating back very close to the events.
@mirrormoveuchiha OK, now we have another problem. Not only is Mark 16:9-20 an addition, who authorized the interpreter to go ahead and add what he felt was a correct interpretation of an unfinished work. I'm telling you, it just keeps getting worse. Look, it's easy to claim there were eye-witnesses, but who? The author of Mark got his information from eye-witness accounts. Who? Actual historical events must be coupled with actual people's testimonies. There is absolutely nothing.
@tadpoleposition I just don't see your conclusions from your premise. First, the eye witnesses are who else probably but the disciples and apostles, the eye witnesses. Peter perhaps, whatever the case may be. But why did you say "who? actual historical events must be coupled with actual people's testimonies. There is absolutely nothing."? What do you think the info in the gospels are? You assume already i guess that you have proven they aren't eye witness testimony.
@mirrormoveuchiha The information is definitely stories that were circulated shortly after Jesus' ascension. Whether or not the narrations are true or not is the issue. Jesus had many enemies who would've been more then willing to assassinate His character and spread false information about Him. To prove where the information in the Bible came from requires names, biographies, times, and places. "Perhaps" and "probably" isn't enough. There are no real answers. Only biased opinions.
@mirrormoveuchiha Look, the simple fact is the evidence would be thrown out of court. We can't accept or deny anything because we don't really know. Whether it damages Jesus or not is impossible to prove. The Bible and the Church can make all the claims they want, but until they provide textual authenticity all an objective, unbiased individual can do is continue searching for the truth. Most Christians ignore these issues and pass them off as having demonic influence.
@mirrormoveuchiha A matter of blind faith to be exact. Prophets of God performed miracles and through these miracles the faith they called to was substantiated. Their faith was coupled with proofs and evidences so as to remove all doubts who they were and that there faith was the true faith and not a hoax. Faith with proof is a strange phenomena since most Christians have learned to put on the blinders and are not encouraged to ask pressing questions or bring up some issues we've spoken about.
@tadpoleposition Muslims claim to believe in Jesus. Why don't they believe what he says. He said "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except by me". So unless you believe Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, or you'll be separated from God and go to hell.
@mirrormoveuchiha The only way to establish trust would be for another Messenger to come and make clear what men had made confusing . No way God would leave us grasping at straws attempting to find out life's purpose. God sent Messengers in succession and revealed more than one revelation since previous scriptures would wind up being corrupted or not preserved. The succession has to lead to and end with Muhammad (peace be upon Him) since the Quran is free from corruption and preserved.
@tadpoleposition God has given his message, Jesus has given his message, it is the gospel of Jesus, which is the message that Jesus gave the disciples concerning the kingdom. Remember, before anything was written down about Jesus, the early Christians still believed in the resurrection, in his cruxifiction, and it was the disciples and there being brought to remembrance of the things that Jesus said to them, that at that time they might not have completely understood, but then did.
@mirrormoveuchiha I would like sources please. It's real easy to claim early Christians believed this or that and the Bible is "God-breathed". Jesus' Gospel doesn't exist. All we have is the Gospel according to people we don't even know. I don't know if you've read the run-ins Paul had with the hand-picked Disciples of Jesus. It's recorded in the Bible and enough to make one very skeptical of Paul's claims. Early Christians, like the Ebionites, didn't believe in today's mainstream Christianity.
@tadpoleposition Yes, like Paul and Peter disputing whether Gentile believers had to convert and be circumcised. So what? Can't people have disagreements? Don't they come to the same conclusion or right decision? Wasn't it decided that the yoke of the law wasn't to be put on the gentiles, seeing that neither Jew nor Gentile was able to truly bear the law.
@tadpoleposition When i say Gospel of Jesus, i don't mean something written down by Jesus, i mean Jesus message which he preached and which the disciples kept and which the early church was founded upon, even those things which conclude with Jesus death and ressurection and the message of salvation. Like i said, if you are still skeptical of the Bible, which is God breathed, and Jesus message will not pass away until it is fulfilled. But what knowledge do you want so that i may give it?
@mirrormoveuchiha A simple connection between an author of a Gospel and Jesus is what I want. Those parroted slogans the Church is famous for is never substantiated with authentic text. For example, the author of Mark. Where did he get his information from? Did he ever reference the disciple or follower of a disciple or is there a broken chain of transmission between his Gospel and Jesus' blessed tongue? There should be a link between Mark's author and Jesus, but there isn't.
@tadpoleposition Obviously Mark is an early gospel, and so was written in a time when the eye witnesses were alive, thats the only way he could have the information, accurate information, that he has. There are certain historical facts which the new testament records, for which we have other evidence to substantiate. So why can't we just have some faith. You cannot please God without it. There are things i may not be able to prove to you, just saying, even if it wasn't Mark who wrote it down
@mirrormoveuchiha Actually, there are thousands of historical manuscripts dating somewhere between 20 to 100 years after Jesus' ascension. The problem is no two manuscripts agree with one another. There are discrepancies across the board. Even within the 4 Gospels you will find blatant contradictions. God's Word would be free from any of these problems. Just having faith is not enough since there is no solid textual foundation for which to establish faith. I encourage you to read the Quran.
@tadpoleposition I can show you 2 scriptures talking about one event in the old testament, and it seems contradictory, like "the wrath of the Lord stirred up David" and then another one says "Satan stirred up David". Now, someone could stop there and be ignorant that its not a contradiction, that you can figure around certain contradictions and not give up so easily. The Gospels can be reconciled in this way. Like when one says there was 1 angel which she saw and one says 2, it's not big man.
@mirrormoveuchiha John 19:14 states Jesus was crucified the day of preparation of the Passover and Mark 14:12, 15:25 state it was the day after the Passover. Jesus couldn't die both days. It is impossible to reconcile between the two. It's a huger than big deal since the crux of Christianity is the crucifixion. For Gospel writers to agree on, among other things, the time of Jesus' death is crucial. God is pleased with pure faith. A pure message is necessary for pure faith. The Quran is unchanged
@tadpoleposition Right, so Jesus was having the Passover, and then after that die in one, and the other says that Jesus has the passover with his disciples, and then Jesus dies. See, just because maybe John wrote it in a confusing way, or even there is some mistype, or mistranslation, or mess up on the part of the writer, doesn't mean you discount EVERYTHING in the document. Obviously that may be an important fact about Jesus, but it doesn't undermine the Christian faith.
@tadpoleposition Look, find the passage that states that Jesus wasn't cruxified of killed, im not telling you its a theory, im telling you that Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross, under the order of Pontias Pilate on the charges of blasphemy which he was accused of His own people. He died, and HE WAS put in a tomb by Joseph of Arimethea, and it WAS found empty first by a group of his women followers, and the disciple DID experience appearances of Jesus which DID lead to the belief of the church.
@tifforo1 OK, forget about the chronological issues. Mark 16:9-20 has been found to be an addition to the original. Why would someone want to fabricate the story of the resurrection and add it to Mark? And, who took it upon himself to do so? For there to even exist a dispute as to whether or not these verses should or should not be included in the Bible puts the authenticity of the entire Bible in jeopardy. Of course, there are other issues like this, i.e., added and/or removed verses.
@tadpoleposition Well although i agree that a person then might question the authenticity, they don't have to conclude that the information is false. If it being added after a certain point, that may prove that its not original, but it doesn't prove its false information, or doesn't bring clarity to the bible.
@mirrormoveuchiha Fabricated information isn't false? I really get upset about that type of double talk since we are dealing with what is supposed to be a divinely inspired book, not some comic book. Add to that the fact that the story of the resurrection is under discussion and we have a serious problem. I know some early Christians, namely the Ebionites, didn't believe Jesus was crucified. Could it be the correct belief was suppressed and the incorrect belief was given precedence?
@tadpoleposition Jesus was cruxified, have plenty of evidence for that, at least sufficent for disposing of reasonable doubt. But who said its fabricated? man or God? man. Who says that the information is false information, or trying to decieve people? Now the resurrection is up for discussion simply because i would like you to give a reasonable unobjectional naturalistic arguement of how the empty tomb came to be, and why the disciples would lie about seeing appearances of Jesus after death
@mirrormoveuchiha . 1 Cor. 15:5 and John 20:24 state twelve disciples saw Jesus. Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:33 state eleven disciples saw Jesus. I'm not focused on the discrepancy. I want a quote from any one of them. The four Gospel's authors are all questionable. I mean whether or not they are the actual authors of the Gospels. Even Paul claims 500+ saw Jesus. Who? Paul couldn't reference one person out of the twelve disciples or the 500+ that saw Jesus? No chain of transmission.
@tadpoleposition Well we know at most it was ten disciples, unless acts starts before the end of whats in the gospels. But I think thats really minor, because in John 20:24, it actually doesn't say he met twelve, because Thomas isn't there, but especially because Judas, one of the twelve, was dead. So at most, that first time Jesus was seen was by 10 people.
John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
@tadpoleposition Well he mention that Thomas was one of the twelve, the twelve referring to the 12 disciples who followed Jesus while he was alive. But also, remember, Judas is dead, there can only be eleven at most. Take that statement in and we will talk again.
@mirrormoveuchiha That's another apologetic fallacy. Paul's reference is even more explicit. 1 Cor. 15:5, ...and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
@tadpoleposition Paul is referencing when Jesus appeared to the ELEVEN. The point is, there is no longer a twelve at this point, they are just still referred to as the "twelve". But Judas is dead, Paul is aware of this. Not only by testimony from the disciple probably but also the witness of God's Spirit.
@mirrormoveuchiha The witness of God's Spirit apparently didn't inform Paul of that. The disciple or disciple's testimonies? Which one/s? Who did Paul reference?
@tadpoleposition No seriously, don't you think the earliest believers of Jesus that were still alive wouldv'e easily procalimed the truth of who they proclaimed was their messiah raised from the dead? The book of Acts tells us that Paul even met with the disciples. Its not double talk, its just talk.
@mirrormoveuchiha OK, so who exactly did he reference as his source. Writing a story and actually referencing your sources are not the same. Rather than; this is what what happened, it would be like; so and so told me this is what happened. There in nothing. The only book which may be used is James', and even he doesn't go trinity, crucifixion, or resurrection.
@tadpoleposition Not trying to double talk, but these people, monethesitic Jews had no reason to lie about such things and couldv'e easily been quelled by them back then, and also by the Jews. Yet how did the Ebionites not believe in the cruxifiction, which shows that this is all an attempt to distract from what even the best historical evidence we have says that he was cruxified.
@tadpoleposition What im saying is, lets not just go back to the new testament, since its clear you probably don't find it reliable, although i do. Lets go back to the original disciples and the gospel that they preached and i believe we will find that it is the same that Paul preached and that was recorded in the new testament and that it is reliable. Just because some people can't understand, thats because they are relying on their own understanding, and not believing God's written word.
@Texcentric You see, when I claim God can't do something, I am maintaining God's infinite, eternal, absolute, and perfect status by doing away with those beliefs that are inconsistent with God being who He is. When others say God can, they do this not knowing they have limited God to the qualities of the creation and have invented a false god. Yes, God can do all things, excluding all those nonsensical, self-contradictory, absurdities that are no longer consistent with who God is.
@tadpoleposition Bible quote from Phillipians:"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, & being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross... (con't )
@tadpoleposition ...For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, & bestowed on Him the name which is above every name so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those in heaven & on earth & under the earth, & that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Philipians 2:5-11
this is where Christians are wrong for thousands of years. Jesus is Son of God Son of Mary . He is not God but he is a God himself because his father is God.He Jesus was with God in Heaven through Mary and came to Earth to die and on the third day rise and sit at the right hand side of God. this that he is God is not true ..............
Jesus never claimed divinity ,but the people of grain head r saying no u r divine ,never his associate ever said that ,these people r take by missionary who r on rong path n samely leading these herd mentality christian ,y dont u read bible and quran urself
Michale licona or I must say he is 'divine' as he is also a 'SON OF MAN'
god is not something which can no nothing he is the knower of everything ,he dont have to send there children if he can work out by their messenger ,there r so many world so in every world he must hv send jesus ,.r there any logics associated ,or r u insuslting name 'logic'.grow UP it something which is told to kids .there is only one god and prophet muhammad is his final messenger ,and jesus the second last
nowhere is bible written ,only written is son of man .mean son of human being thats it
michael liona when asked of proof ,yes their r proof ,that jessus is said is god in gospel ,what.....????? this is debate all about we want proof out of it ,dont u get it red hat ,proof is examined on the basis of cross check ,not that bible say this ,we know bible has mans word .
where as jews even said there is one and only one god , can there be two president in the word .or I have to becoem a DVD player in order to know how DVD works
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and PAUL-the inventor of christianity. On the day of judgement People will come to Jesus and ask to go to Heaven but Jesus will not let them. In 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?
7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Satan was the Deceiver, the proud one in the Bible, In the Quran Allah is the deceiver the most proud one. Shabir wants to deceive us, he is a follower of Satan. Muslims praise Muhammad a man who killed Thousands, lied and had sex slaves. You think our God will choose Muhammad to be his Last Prophet? NO, only Satan will want him to spread these lies. One day Islam will conquer the world but have faith, Jesus will destroy this Cult.
1. Am I missing something, or wasn't there a particular group of leaders of a particular religion that Jesus condemned as being, among other things, a brood of vipers? I don't think it was the Moslems, guy.
2. How is it that particular religion, which not only denies Jesus divinity and treats Jesus not even as a prophet as Islam does, always gets a free pass from Catholic and Evangelical apologists "defending the faith"?
All things are possible with God. He does not need to move according to the laws He made. He speaks and things come in to being. Where as humans until do it so than things happen. He opens the eyes of the blind. Humans only through operations, that also in some cases can bring back the sight. But doctors fail in many cases. So God can come in Human Form to earth. God created man. Man can't become God. But God can go above is law. He is not limited to is law. He is God.
What a ridiculous debate. They might as well debate about whether jesus could fly or not, or that the mormon's book acount for jesus is also valid. Deluded people, evolve!
The Trinity is indeed a mistery but not an invention as it is being suggested by this moslem. Logics is a philosophical argumentative tool but not a way to the truth itself.
hebrews(in the bible) this is my begotten son i begot again,,,, john 3:16 for God so loved the world he sent his only begotten son into the world not to condem the world but that it may be saved threw him...
chozen0018 2 weeks ago
Jesus was fully man when He so desired to appear so, and in the Act of God, Jesus was completely appearing as God. That makes Jesus a transformative being, able to appear as the Father , at will, able to appear and act as the Son of God, at will and able to appear and act as the Holy Ghost, at will. Jesus in Matthew 17 changed, transfigured from being appearing as a man to appearing as an unapproachable light , so Jesus was not a mix of two but appearing as any of three persons.
CarmineFragione 3 weeks ago
Muslim fellow won the debate.
HazardExtreme 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good set up sons of cain, putting your own against each other in public like this to make it seem you don't "believe in Jesus" as the "Jewish Messiah." Your lie will not stand forever & His People are waking up to you & Seeing the Truth. Jesus was no Jew. The Jews are the Pharisees of Jesus' (Yahshua's) day and nothing has changed. You are of your father the devil! and the lusts of your father you will do! JESUS IS AN ISRAELITE! You have no home you vegabond Jews, sons of cain! Jn8:44,Acts19:13
JewsWant2KillJesus 1 month ago
Jesus wouldn't touch Muhammad with a 10 foot pole!
TheDajjal1 1 month ago
Mike got KO'd in the first round by Shabir.
66ott7 1 month ago
if anyone can put their emotions to the side and scrutinize the gospels / lips the the KING OF THE JEWS ( yeshua), one can clearly see that yeshua was a mighty prophet -- human.
great exchange of knowledge recoding.
peace to all of the holy prophets.
peace to the christians / muslims.
afterray 1 month ago
The muslim fellow won that debate in my eyes.
omenone2000 1 month ago
@omenone2000 I would have to agree with you on that. Although I am a follower of Yahshua and believe he is the Messiah, the Muslim won this hands down. Christians do contradict themselves to say that Yahshua is God when clearly he is not. I would like to debate him because I do not hold that view.
jdb0905 1 month ago
If you truly look at the scriptures you can see that Jesus is the first of creation and the Son of God. Also that the Father is the only One called Almighty God and Jesus is called mighty god. There is a big distinction there. Almighty means all powerful while mighty just means powerful. And thats true Jeseus is powerful but the Father is all powerful.
xKnightTemplarx 2 months ago
Do not believe what Shabir Ally has written in the book entitled "Is Jesus God? The Bible Says No." The Bible makes it very clear that whoever acknowledges that Jesus Christ is God Almighty manifested in the flesh has the spirit of truth which is from God, and whoever denies this does not have the spirit of truth which is from God but the spirit of the Anti-Christ.
knightsofstjoan2004 5 months ago
@knightsofstjoan2004 bible tries to make it clear but where did Jesus(pbuh) made it clear? where did he say i am God worship :D
attitudeblack 3 months ago
@attitudeblack=Yeshua (JESUS) did not say this words "I am God, worship me". However when He was asked if he is the Messiah the Son of God by the High Priest Caiaphas He says "I am, and you shall all see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Almighty God and coming on the clouds of heaven." Yeshua HaMashiach says in John 10:30 "I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE", in John 8:58 "BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS BORN, I AM", and in John 10:38 "THE FATHER IS IN ME AND I AM IN THE FATHER."
knightsofstjoan2004 3 months ago
@knightsofstjoan2004 3 versions of bible Hebrew (Original Context) Greek (2nd context) English (3rd context) the word "Son of God" has a special name in Greek Language which was understood as the chosen 1 so "Son of God = The chosen" i have no problem on TECHNICAL basis if u claim Jesus(pbuh) is Son of God because in Christianity Bible has Sons by tons as mentioned in Book of Romans chapter 8 "who so ever is led by the Spirit of God is Son of God" so no problem here on technical terms
attitudeblack 3 months ago
@knightsofstjoan2004 suppose if u and i live in Austria either u or me can say king and attitude are 1 what does it mean? that u and i are one body one spirit? NO it means that we live in the same country so we are one it is an understood fact that every group of people living in a nation is ONE. so yes u are right Jesus (pbuh) and God are one i have no problem with THAT as well cuz God says He is one and the msg is brought by His Prophets and Messengers is that He(God) is ONE
attitudeblack 3 months ago
@knightsofstjoan2004 ofcourse Jesus (pbuh) was nothing without God ( The Father) cuz God choosed Jesus(pbuh) to bring His words to the people since God had appointed Jesus(pbuh) to spread the words. some of u also say quote I AM the way to the truth and life saying he claimed divinity read the whole verse starting from 1 if that is the case who was the way to the truth and life at the time of Moses(pbuh) etc? when Moses said I AM has sent me did he claim divinity? NO
attitudeblack 3 months ago
@knightsofstjoan2004 as mentioned in ur very own book of Acts 3:26 tern used is HIS (God) SERVANT JESUS (NKJV) Jeremiah 1:4-5 I ordained thee a "prophet" unto the nations also mentioned in
Book of Numbers 23:19
"God IS NOT A MAN, that he should lie, nor a SON OF MAN"
attitudeblack 3 months ago
@attitudeblack=Read Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called WONDERFUL, COUNSELLOR, THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, THE PRINCE OF PEACE.
How can someone be a SON and THE EVERLASTING FATHER at the same time? Why is he called THE MIGHTY GOD? The one spoken of being born as a male child has to be at the same time an eternal person. In fact he has to be God.
knightsofstjoan2004 3 months ago
@knightsofstjoan2004 i told u already if u say jesus(pbuh) is son of God i have no problem cuz according to Bible God has SONS BY TONS. thats not a very much problem. try to reason with me on the basis of LOGIC yesh u are right NO ONE CAN BE THAT if u say that it is then does it mean Jesus(pbuh) is a FATHER to HIMSELF as HE(Jesus) is said to be a GOD AS WELL? logically it cant happen u cant be two things at one time unless u have dual personalities. Cuz if u say God came in human form-
attitudeblack 3 months ago
@knightsofstjoan2004 -that limits his power and if He is wat He is then his powers can not be limited this fact cannot take place at once. $5000 reward for u if u prove it to me Jesus(pbuh) claimed divinity. as he himself said MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN ALL. I OF MYSELF CANNOT DO NOTHING. I CASTE OUT DEVILS WITH THE FINGER OF GOD. who is he sayng that to? to himself according to ur claim since he is God? think logically
attitudeblack 3 months ago
@knightsofstjoan2004 thirdly Isaiah 9:6 CONTRADICTS with Numbers 23:19 one time its sayng God is no man other time trying to say it is possible. as they say there is no mistake in the bible UNLESS the bible CONTRADICTS intself and here is a perfect example to prove it.
attitudeblack 3 months ago
@attitudeblack=OVERRATED, actually Numbers 23:19 means that God cannot speak of lies like ordinary men on earth do. Yeshua HaMashiach is God manifested in the flesh (see John 1:1-14 and Timothy 3:16) and He never lied. God is not consigned nor limited to the flesh, but He can manifest in whatever form He pleases in order to accomplish His task. God incarnated and manifested Himself in the flesh (in the form of a man) but it never annulled His divinity. For you information Yeshua HaMashiach
knightsofstjoan2004 3 months ago
@knightsofstjoan2004 MISUNDERSTOOD if that is the case then who is Jesus(pbuh) refering to as FATHER? Himself since he is the God? comon man be logical state ur reasons explain them i already said one verse where Jesus (pbuh) says I AM GOD WORSHIP ME one verse can u not do me this favor? i knw who Yeshua is mate dont get me started on that as well lets stick to what we are talking now :)
attitudeblack 3 months ago
(continued) posseses attributes that only God could have; eternality (see John 8:58), omnipresence (see Matthew 18:20), omniscience (see John 16:30), omnipotence (see Revelation 1:8) and immutability (see Hebrews 1:12). He does what only God can do: forgives sin (see Mark 2:1-12), gives life (see John 5:21), raises the dead (see John 6:39-40 & 54 and John 11:38-44) and executes judgement (see John 5:22 & 27). He was given names and titles of God: Immanuel which means "God with us"
knightsofstjoan2004 3 months ago
@knightsofstjoan2004 u are tellng me Gods attributes like i dont knw :)) i can quote u more than u can budy but yet again thats not what i am talking about :)
attitudeblack 3 months ago
(continued) (see Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23), King of Kings and Lord of Lords (see Revelation 19:16) and Son of God (see Matthew 26:63-65). Yeshua HaMashiach, the Son of the Living God is part of the echad (unity) nature of God.
knightsofstjoan2004 3 months ago
@knightsofstjoan2004 he is not my concern bible says that alright just for the sake of argument i do agree with u now tell me Where did Jesus said that?? did he not say No one knows the Time of Hour But My Father? If he is God why does not he knw the time of Hour? prety simple question :) My Father is Greater than I. Jesus(pbuh) is greater than himself since he is God? logic use logic be logical if u quote something prove it
attitudeblack 3 months ago
LET SEE WHAT QURAN TEACH US
quran teach us to close women in house until she die see in sura [4:15]
quran teach us to beat women sura [4:34]
quran teach us to kill and to ,cut body [5:33]
quran teach us to cut hands [5:38]
quran teach us hell for disbelieve [2:39]
quran teach us to burn disbelieve [4:56]
and much more evil things.
ISEL333 6 months ago
@ISEL333 Yes...the Quran does teach those things yet the Old Testament is just as bad.
2003SCT 5 months ago
@2003SCT by the law of the holy Torah ,no one can take innocent life theses days .
ISEL333 5 months ago
Allah cannot have a son. It is true. But, why Allah should be God. Can Prophet Mohammed ever say that he and Allah are same. JESUS CLAIMED that they are one. He claimed that He was before Abraham. People worshipped Him and He received the worship ispite of Jews' objection. So, one need to understand the meaning of Son. Unfortunately, the Quran's understanding of son is like God producing a son through Mary. What a shame? If God is one, why do you respect the Black stone at Mecca?
Saji131 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Trinity? Is Jesus his own father? XD
kadafi150 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are MANY places where people CALLED him God and he never even in the slightest count, said, "Don't say that!" He is given reverance, homage, and called God and Jesus never rebuked them, Either Jesus was who He said he was, or he was a total LUNATICK. For LOVE, Jesus left the halls of heaven to redeam mankind back to himself.
There is only one God, THREE personalities. Forget trying to figure out the 3 in 1, the mind cannot compute this & overloads. You take it by FAITH
PalmSpringsMassage 8 months ago
There are MANY places where people CALLED him God and he never even in the slightest count, said, "Don't say that!" He is given reverance, homage, and called God and Jesus never rebuked them, Either Jesus was who He said he was, or he was a total LUNATICK. For LOVE, Jesus left the halls of heaven to redeam mankind back to himself.
There is only one God, THREE personalities. Forget trying to figure out the 3 in 1, the mind cannot compute this & overloads. You take it by FAITH.
PalmSpringsMassage 8 months ago
Mat. 26:64 says, "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." The word 'nevertheless' is translated from the greek work plhn, which is a greek work used to confirm something. Yeshua confirmed their accusation and then said he was the Son of Man. This is not a contradiction. Shabir Ally is using modern grammar & a bad translation to interpret 2000 year old words.
MAJ061785 9 months ago
wow how come all these white people have to talk down like they are better, YOU ARE ARROGANT AND IGNORANT
dktrnobody 10 months ago
shabir ally speaks the truth
dktrnobody 10 months ago
@dktrnobody , to understand the truth one should come to Jesus and His disciples. If you go to somebody who was born after 500 years of Jesus' death, you will only learn some lies and distortion of facts. My question is this. Why do you want to talk about a person whom millions of people consider as their God? Why dont you talk about your Allah and the benefits he offers? The reality is that there is nothing much you can claim about Allah or your last prophet. So you want to keep nailing Jesus.
Saji131 7 months ago
I believe he is...sort of like a pop star...PRICELESS!
DaYungGuy 10 months ago
He is the Son of God and the Son of Man! How can anyone think they can say they understand God enough to say this is impossible.He is far beyond ANY of our thinking-we who are His will spend all eternity learning about Him and STILL not learn all there is to know about Him-and you think you know it all about Him on THIS EARTH?In THIS MORTAL BODY?I don't think so,O prideful man.
titus11234 11 months ago
"When someone claims to be divine and rise from the dead, we should believe them."
Laughing my fucking ass off!
DaYungGuy 10 months ago
@DaYungGuy I rest God's case.
titus11234 10 months ago
God taking on the form of man or taking on the body of man or becoming like man is not the same as being Man & God at the same time...Jesus had the attributes of God without question...he said "before Abraham was I'AM" John 8:58 Its an indirect way of saying it but he said it...he was there even before Abraham Genesis 1:26 Let "US" make man in our Image
Law19157 11 months ago
I have to say that Satan is good at lying and decieving to Shabir Ally and humanity for he is the father of lies. Yeah Islam and the Koran is like/simular to Christianity and the Holy Bible, but in a twisted way that Satan uses to lure people away from the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ and who Jesus really is. Muslims are spiritual blind to see that Allah is Satan. Satan is behind all religion except 4 Christianity and all the other gazilion false gods who can't save you only soul from hell.
JazzyXEdward 1 year ago
When Jesus says "You have said it", it is Hebrew Idiom for "You have spoken the truth" it does NOT mean "You said it, I didn't". When he responds "you have said it" or "you said it" it is a Jewish expression meaning "You have spoken the truth" Also God certainly can choose to become human & choose to limit himself. If you say he can not then YOU are limiting God & what he can & can't do. Also the Hebrew word used for "ONE" can refer to to a unit not just a numerical singular.
EquineDreams 1 year ago
shabir is a terminator, please christians do not even step up to shabir he is lethal
hudfadz 1 year ago
if any man preach a different gospel of Jesus let him be accursed. Jesus is the Son of God but this guy Shabir schooled this white guy. What was Allah doing in heaven that was so important that it took him 600 years to refute the claim early Christians made? Can we get a Christian who knows what he is talking about?
ADAJ3 1 year ago
@ADAJ3 Allah does what He wants. Who are you to question the Creator of the heavens and the earth? Know your place. Allah could've taken 1 Billion years. It's His choice. After all, He's God.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
Comment removed
34craigjan 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Ok then if he chooses ()wants) to beccome a man and limit himself in his humanity in order to reveal himself and show his love for us who are you to say he CAN''T CHOOSE to do that. A God who truly loved us certainly could! I see NO logical problem with a God who demonstrates his love for us by choosing to enter onto his own creation and become one of us.
EquineDreams 1 year ago
@EquineDreams God can't choose to limit Himself and become a man. It fits the Christian's creed, but doesn't fit the rationale and logic Jesus and other Prophets spoke about. If we accept this irrational notion, then the sky's the limit with regards to what we can belief about God. Establishing specified parameters is a must when discussing the do's and don't's of belief in God. God displays His love for us everyday and we're not returning the favor by demeaning His status.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Your comment divorced itself from truth on the second word. God can't? When you begin by stating that an infinite & sovereign God "can't" do something you've begun to limit God to YOUR own conceptions. The idea that God is required to fit & be limited to some human linguistic constructs named "rationale" or "logic" is itself a limitation conceptually imposed by man on God. Thereby, demeaning His status, so in actuality you have gotten it backwards.
Texcentric 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Rational logic is something God created to limit man, not Himself. God is not bound by His own creation. Just as a computer programmer writes a backdoor code to allow himself free access to the system he creates where others are restricted, so to is it with God & His creation.
Texcentric 1 year ago
@Texcentric OK, so God can. God can create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it. If yes, then something is greater than God. If no, then God's ability is impaired. You see the quandary were left with if we don't qualify what is purposely left in it's absolute sense? God is able to do all things as long as all those things are consistent with His Sublime nature. Once we delve into a bit, we can quickly see how God wouldn't be able to do certain things because it contradicts His Sublime nature.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@Texcentric Rational logic is something God created to limit man. Exactly! It would be absurd for God to reveal a message to mankind that they couldn't grasp rationally. To say the Prophets and Messengers conveyed an illogical and irrational message would be ridiculous. God, being our Creator, knows our limitations. If we say God is not bound by His creation, then explain the belief of those who claim Jesus was god.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition "It would be absurd for God to reveal a message to mankind that they couldn't grasp rationally."
I disagree. You're assuming that reason is the solution. In the Book of Genesis it is reason that the serpent used to deceive Eve into partaking of the forbidden fruit. The serpent's rationale reasoned Adam & Eve right out of the Garden of Eden. Faith is the key to salvation, not reason. Many have faith without the aid of reason.
Texcentric 1 year ago
@Texcentric All one has to do is look at the atheist to smell the fruit of reason & logic (totalitarian communism i.e. Lenin, Stalin, Mao). Because of our sin nature we cannot experience the totality of God's presence because the purity of His holiness would burn us into ashes. In His mercy God extended just enough of Himself into the body of Jesus to be able to communicate His message without incinerating us. He subjected Himself to His creation to teach love thru humility by example.
Texcentric 1 year ago
@Texcentric By becoming the sacrificial lamb of God the blood of Christ freed us once & for all from the Abrahamic Covenant of animal sacrifice for purification. His ultimate sacrifice purifies & cleans us (if we accept & live by His ordinances) so that we become fit to enter into God's Kingdom.
"If we say God is not bound by His creation..." If God is not able to subject Himself to His creation then why do we refer to God as He, Him or His as if God were a man? Wouldn't that be blasphemous?
Texcentric 1 year ago
@Texcentric God extended just enough of Himself into the body of Jesus? I mean, come on. The atheist has a more reasonable, logical, and rational argument then that. The Christian's creed necessitates irrationalities. How can one establish faith in irrationalities? Blind (fake) faith, maybe. Real faith based is not only on belief in the unseen, but rational proof. What the Prophets and Messengers delivered is just that. The "He" is out of respect and doesn't denote gender. "It' is demeaning.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Is calling a premise irrational without an explanation of "why" it is irrational considered a solid argument where you are live? Because where I live it is not. Anyone can place a label on something, but what does a mere label prove? Nothing.
Also, I never suggested calling God "it." Simply referring to God as "God" works just fine for me if one is opposed to thinking of "Him" as capable of person-hood. For myself that's not a problem since we are created in His image.
Texcentric 1 year ago
@Texcentric So, it's OK to assume the Prophets and Messengers delivered an irrational and illogical message? Jesus spoke ambiguously, without the ability to clarify the truth to what was, for the most part, illiterate fishermen and the like? Paul's teaching the "original sin" theory is proof he lacked divine guidance. To claim we are responsible or guilty or born into a sin committed by Adam is unjust. God is just and would never make us bear the sins of another. It's a gross misrepresentation.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Q: If you have a container of water that is contaminated & you pour some of that water into a second container along with some water from a third container which has NOT been contaminated, but instead is pure, will the water in the second container be pure, or contaminated? A: Contaminated.
If Adam & Eve's nature has been contaminated by sin how is it that they are to be able to produce offspring of a pure nature free of sin. See the logic? This is why we are all born into sin.
Texcentric 1 year ago
@Texcentric Ezekiel 18:20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Paul's teaching is illogical and unbiblical. He played the "according to the scriptures" card without citing his reference. Nothing at all can be proven from Adam and Eve's story that their children inherited their sin.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition You conveniently avoided the previous passage Ezekiel 18:19 "doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful & right & hath kept my statutes & hath done them he shall surely live." The passage to which you refer merely states that one is not locked into sin without an escape avenue. It however does not refute being born into sin. Paul's teaching is solid. Paul warned of false teachers who would try to pervert biblical doctrine.
Texcentric 1 year ago
@Texcentric So, the passage means that one is not locked into sin without an escape avenue? Where'd you get that interpretation from? God, a Prophet, a follower of a Prophet, or from the dictates of your own soul? That whole "Paul warned of teachers..." argument is futile. He, himself, is guilty of that very warning. I conveniently avoided passage 19 since the first part is a question and the second has to do with good deeds, not sins. Self-interpretation is tantamount to self-worship.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition When the passage states "he shall surely live" it is an indication of an escape avenue. To be born into sin is to exist in a process of decay which ends in death. We commonly refer to this process as aging. To "surely live" is to be regenerated by the grace of God at the end of that process & inherit a place in His Kingdom. Sin does not dwell in the Kingdom of God, hence eternal life.
Texcentric 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition However, it is not deeds that save us, but God's grace. Good deeds are merely the fruit of an inner surrender to God's will & help to inspire others to seek the Kingdom of God. Good deeds can be performed with malicious intent & are not sufficient for inheritance. That requires surrender of one's heart & soul to God's will which He communicated to the world as Jesus Christ.
Texcentric 1 year ago
@Texcentric "He shall surely live" is an indication of an escape avenue? This passage is from Ezekiel. Ezekiel is a book in the Old Testament. So, Ezekiel taught eternal salvation long before the alleged crucifixion of Jesus? If it was possible to achieve Kingdom inheritance before Jesus, why would what Jesus brought be considered new? It seems He only reiterated what the Prophets before Him taught. Islam means surrender and a Muslim is a surrenderer. You basically defined Islam unconsciously.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Surrender is a precept common to most religions. The difference is in what it is to which they are surrendering. Eternal life is what was lost in the fall of man. God wants us to have it again, but we must be cleansed of our sin nature that pollutes us from birth. The covenant that God made with Abraham involved purification thru the use of circumcision & animal sacrifice. What Christ did that was new was to free us from these physical rituals & replace them with faith.
Texcentric 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition More specifically, faith in God incarnate as Jesus Christ our Lord & Savior. As for eternal life in the OT here are some references:
Psalms 133:3 "...for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore."
Genesis 5:24 "Enoch walked with God: & he was not; for God took him."
Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; & was not found, because God has translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."
Texcentric 1 year ago
@Texcentric Over 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus render the word "alleged" in reference to the crucifixion as inapplicable. There is more written evidence for the crucifixion & resurrection than there is for the existence of Julius Ceasar. Since the Qu'ran does not acknowledge the crucifixion & divinity of Jesus it can only be regarded as a false teaching to Christians. I only state that as an observation & not as an insult.
Texcentric 1 year ago
Comment removed
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Texcentric Over 500 witnesses? Look, we both know there were many more than 500 people witnessing the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. The fact is any Biblical account is unreliable since the authors never referenced their sources. Aside from unknown authors, the Books themselves are dated far after the event. Without a link between a author and a known eye-witness the account is rendered unreliable at best. Paul and Luke never met Jesus or claimed to be eye-witnesses of the event.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Texcentric Over 500 witnesses? Look, we both know there were many more than 500 people witnessing the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. The fact is any Biblical account is unreliable since the authors never referenced their sources. Aside from unknown authors, the Books themselves are dated far after the event. Without a link between a author and a known eye-witness the account is rendered unreliable at best. Paul and Luke never met Jesus or claimed to be eye-witnesses of the event.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@Texcentric Can you to link an author wit his source (eye-witness). It's impossible since the majority of Books of the Bible's authors are unknown. Sure, writing that there were witnesses is easy. Referencing those who witnessed the event is another. Paul and Luke never met Jesus and never referenced their sources. For example, Mark wrote about the alleged crucifixion. Between Mark and Jesus there should be a source or reference since Mark was not an eye-witness. There is none.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition The Book of James not mentioning the crucifixion is something quite different than an outright denial of the crucifixion such as found in the Qu'ran as follows: "In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did." Sura 4:157. It is not necessary for James to mention the crucifixion. With no denial of the event there is no contradiction of the event.
Texcentric 1 year ago
@Texcentric James wasn't in a position to accept or deny the crucifixion. It would've been a waste of time to mention something that didn't happen. Hence, the aforementioned omission. The crucifixion is the pillar of Christianity. For any Gospel writer to omit it would be tantamount to denying it. Even the story in Mark 16:9-20 was added way after the original Gospel was written. The earliest manuscripts don't include it. To fabricate and include it in Mark's Gospel way later is insidious.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition The cruxifiction is a fact tadpole. We have other sources than the gospels to confirm it..
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@Texcentric In fact, the story in Mark is considered an addition to the earliest manuscripts which creates more speculation about the event. James' writing doesn't acknowledge the alleged crucifixion or divinity of Jesus. Does that make it a false teaching also? The Ebionites didn't believe in the alleged crucifixion or divinity of Jesus. James was among them. For the earliest known written Gospel's, Mark 16:9-20, claim of the crucifixion to be added way later is very deceiving.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Jesus was cruxified, even Shabir ally makes that statement in a debate with william lane craig. Don't misunderstand, but I am just telling you its basically a fact among most credible honest historians, that Jesus died at the cross, and that he was placed in a tomb by Joseph of Arimethea, and three days after his death, his tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. So all the nonsense about which gospel you think has a false teaching, consider the Quran.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha Shabir Ally is not an Islamic authority. I know which debate you're referring to, where Dr. Craig used a commentary from a verse translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Abdullah's translation and commentary is riddled with mistakes. Missionaries enjoy referencing His translation without realizing the fallacies it contains. The Quran explicitly states Jesus was not killed or crucified. Please reply to whatever nonsensical claims I made in a non-non-sensical manner.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Lets start over, I will retract my earlier statement, because i reread what you said and I overspoke(typed* lol). But do you take the Islamic perspective, or christian? What is your position? Do you believe that the Quranic statements about Jesus cruxifiction and the lack of a cruxification is true, or is in direct denial of historical facts concering the death of Jesus?
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha The Islamic perspective happens to be the perspective of early Christians including the Ebionites. In fact, James' writings don't acknowledge Jesus' crucifixion or divinity. For Muhammad (peace be upon Him), an illiterate Arab caravan merchant living in the desert of Arabia over 1,400 years ago, to unequivocally claim what many unearthed manuscripts nowadays are claiming is amazing. He didn't study historical textual criticism. He simply received the truth from His Creator.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition I understand that you don't believe what im saying, but thats why "James" writings can't be used, they are false if they disagree with Jesus being cruxified. If we don't know the writers of certain gospels in the new testament, we don't know the writer of those other gospels not included in the canon. Just think about it like this... IT IS A FACT that JESUS died, he was CRUXIFIED, it is more or less absolute based on logic and reason concerning the evidence presented.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition The point is, you don't really know what the disciples believed. The new testament provides that testimony. Those other texts found, they may have had snippits of truth, but just as i said, it can't clearly contradict the new testament writings. They are all established as consistent with the historical data. So if Muhammad(God have mercy) said "they didn't cruxify him, they didn't kill him", that, to me now, sounds like false informatino based on the evidence.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha The point is you or I will never know what the disciples believed since there is a broken chain of transmission between them and anyone referencing them as a source of information. Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John never referenced their sources. To claim it is a fact Jesus died and was crucified is a fallacy. An authentic chain of narrators between an author and his source or sources are necessary to make such claims. Simply writing He died is not enough.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition What are you talking about, THEY are the SOURCES. These were written within a generation after Jesus death', while the eye witness, who talked with Jesus, walked with Jesus, saw Jesus after his death, died for that belief. They are recorded in the new testament. In order to recognize an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. These are documents written down within the lifetime of eyewitnesses of Jesus.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha They? Who? Mark is the earliest known written Gospel with some 40 years between it's writing and Jesus' ascension. Again, who wrote Mark? Who did he reference as a source for his writing? There are no answers for these simple questions. Someone writing all scripture is God-breathed is one thing. Proving that writing is in fact God-inspired is another. Greek manuscripts prove nothing and Paul doesn't help by not being an eye-witness or a chosen disciple of Jesus.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition The point is that the statement "Jesus was cruxified and died and his tomb was found empty" is certainly accurate and correct. Now, I see these documents as verifying that, and having such information concludes that the SOURCE that the author of Mark(If it wasn't Mark) must have been in contact with the eye witnesses, seeing this is all still within their lifetimes. We don't have anything but the greek manuscripts because it wasn't recorded in Hebrew, or it was copied to greek
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha Please look at what you're saying. The author of Mark, whoever he was, must have been in contact with the eye-witnesses? Who? First of all, who authored Mark? Secondly, where did he get his information from? How can the statement "Jesus was crucified and died and His tomb was found empty" be valid without such crucial information? There is no doubt Aramaic/Hebrew manuscripts existed. History proves Constantine ordered them destroyed and anyone caught possessing one be killed.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition He got it from eye witness accounts of actual historical events(Jesus being cruxified, jesus being laid in a tomb of Joseph of Arimathea by Joseph of Arimathea, Jesus tomb was found empty, the disciples did experience appearances of Jesus after his death, after the tomb was found empty, which were so convincing, they were willing to die for this truth. Now that doesn't prove its true, just because they were willing to die for it. But it does prove that they BELIEVED it to be.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition We don't know exactly who authored mark, nor do I think that it effects the outcome in this case. Would you throw away evidence of Caesar just because you don't know the author of his biography? Say a man wrote down his whole life, we just don't know who he is, what then?
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha Plus the obvious addition of Mark 16:9-20. Whoever the original author of Mark was didn't write it. So, now there are two unknown authors. It just keep getting worse.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition The addition can probably be attributed to the copiest, the person who is interpreting the text as he sees what the author is trying to express. Whoever the author of Mark is, he has information dating back very close to the events.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha OK, now we have another problem. Not only is Mark 16:9-20 an addition, who authorized the interpreter to go ahead and add what he felt was a correct interpretation of an unfinished work. I'm telling you, it just keeps getting worse. Look, it's easy to claim there were eye-witnesses, but who? The author of Mark got his information from eye-witness accounts. Who? Actual historical events must be coupled with actual people's testimonies. There is absolutely nothing.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition I just don't see your conclusions from your premise. First, the eye witnesses are who else probably but the disciples and apostles, the eye witnesses. Peter perhaps, whatever the case may be. But why did you say "who? actual historical events must be coupled with actual people's testimonies. There is absolutely nothing."? What do you think the info in the gospels are? You assume already i guess that you have proven they aren't eye witness testimony.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha The information is definitely stories that were circulated shortly after Jesus' ascension. Whether or not the narrations are true or not is the issue. Jesus had many enemies who would've been more then willing to assassinate His character and spread false information about Him. To prove where the information in the Bible came from requires names, biographies, times, and places. "Perhaps" and "probably" isn't enough. There are no real answers. Only biased opinions.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition But this doesn't damage Jesus at all.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha Look, the simple fact is the evidence would be thrown out of court. We can't accept or deny anything because we don't really know. Whether it damages Jesus or not is impossible to prove. The Bible and the Church can make all the claims they want, but until they provide textual authenticity all an objective, unbiased individual can do is continue searching for the truth. Most Christians ignore these issues and pass them off as having demonic influence.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition So you would agree that this might be a faith matter?
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition So you would agree that this might be a faith matter?
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha A matter of blind faith to be exact. Prophets of God performed miracles and through these miracles the faith they called to was substantiated. Their faith was coupled with proofs and evidences so as to remove all doubts who they were and that there faith was the true faith and not a hoax. Faith with proof is a strange phenomena since most Christians have learned to put on the blinders and are not encouraged to ask pressing questions or bring up some issues we've spoken about.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tadpoleposition Muslims claim to believe in Jesus. Why don't they believe what he says. He said "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except by me". So unless you believe Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, or you'll be separated from God and go to hell.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition but do you know what i mean by faith? i mean trust.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha The only way to establish trust would be for another Messenger to come and make clear what men had made confusing . No way God would leave us grasping at straws attempting to find out life's purpose. God sent Messengers in succession and revealed more than one revelation since previous scriptures would wind up being corrupted or not preserved. The succession has to lead to and end with Muhammad (peace be upon Him) since the Quran is free from corruption and preserved.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition God has given his message, Jesus has given his message, it is the gospel of Jesus, which is the message that Jesus gave the disciples concerning the kingdom. Remember, before anything was written down about Jesus, the early Christians still believed in the resurrection, in his cruxifiction, and it was the disciples and there being brought to remembrance of the things that Jesus said to them, that at that time they might not have completely understood, but then did.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha I would like sources please. It's real easy to claim early Christians believed this or that and the Bible is "God-breathed". Jesus' Gospel doesn't exist. All we have is the Gospel according to people we don't even know. I don't know if you've read the run-ins Paul had with the hand-picked Disciples of Jesus. It's recorded in the Bible and enough to make one very skeptical of Paul's claims. Early Christians, like the Ebionites, didn't believe in today's mainstream Christianity.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Yes, like Paul and Peter disputing whether Gentile believers had to convert and be circumcised. So what? Can't people have disagreements? Don't they come to the same conclusion or right decision? Wasn't it decided that the yoke of the law wasn't to be put on the gentiles, seeing that neither Jew nor Gentile was able to truly bear the law.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition When i say Gospel of Jesus, i don't mean something written down by Jesus, i mean Jesus message which he preached and which the disciples kept and which the early church was founded upon, even those things which conclude with Jesus death and ressurection and the message of salvation. Like i said, if you are still skeptical of the Bible, which is God breathed, and Jesus message will not pass away until it is fulfilled. But what knowledge do you want so that i may give it?
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha A simple connection between an author of a Gospel and Jesus is what I want. Those parroted slogans the Church is famous for is never substantiated with authentic text. For example, the author of Mark. Where did he get his information from? Did he ever reference the disciple or follower of a disciple or is there a broken chain of transmission between his Gospel and Jesus' blessed tongue? There should be a link between Mark's author and Jesus, but there isn't.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Obviously Mark is an early gospel, and so was written in a time when the eye witnesses were alive, thats the only way he could have the information, accurate information, that he has. There are certain historical facts which the new testament records, for which we have other evidence to substantiate. So why can't we just have some faith. You cannot please God without it. There are things i may not be able to prove to you, just saying, even if it wasn't Mark who wrote it down
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha Actually, there are thousands of historical manuscripts dating somewhere between 20 to 100 years after Jesus' ascension. The problem is no two manuscripts agree with one another. There are discrepancies across the board. Even within the 4 Gospels you will find blatant contradictions. God's Word would be free from any of these problems. Just having faith is not enough since there is no solid textual foundation for which to establish faith. I encourage you to read the Quran.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition I can show you 2 scriptures talking about one event in the old testament, and it seems contradictory, like "the wrath of the Lord stirred up David" and then another one says "Satan stirred up David". Now, someone could stop there and be ignorant that its not a contradiction, that you can figure around certain contradictions and not give up so easily. The Gospels can be reconciled in this way. Like when one says there was 1 angel which she saw and one says 2, it's not big man.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha John 19:14 states Jesus was crucified the day of preparation of the Passover and Mark 14:12, 15:25 state it was the day after the Passover. Jesus couldn't die both days. It is impossible to reconcile between the two. It's a huger than big deal since the crux of Christianity is the crucifixion. For Gospel writers to agree on, among other things, the time of Jesus' death is crucial. God is pleased with pure faith. A pure message is necessary for pure faith. The Quran is unchanged
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Right, so Jesus was having the Passover, and then after that die in one, and the other says that Jesus has the passover with his disciples, and then Jesus dies. See, just because maybe John wrote it in a confusing way, or even there is some mistype, or mistranslation, or mess up on the part of the writer, doesn't mean you discount EVERYTHING in the document. Obviously that may be an important fact about Jesus, but it doesn't undermine the Christian faith.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Look, find the passage that states that Jesus wasn't cruxified of killed, im not telling you its a theory, im telling you that Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross, under the order of Pontias Pilate on the charges of blasphemy which he was accused of His own people. He died, and HE WAS put in a tomb by Joseph of Arimethea, and it WAS found empty first by a group of his women followers, and the disciple DID experience appearances of Jesus which DID lead to the belief of the church.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition
In Israel, Passover lasts seven days, with special Sabbaths on the first and last days.
I don't think that resolves the chronological issues, but it's worth considering when talking about it.
tifforo1 1 year ago
@tifforo1 OK, forget about the chronological issues. Mark 16:9-20 has been found to be an addition to the original. Why would someone want to fabricate the story of the resurrection and add it to Mark? And, who took it upon himself to do so? For there to even exist a dispute as to whether or not these verses should or should not be included in the Bible puts the authenticity of the entire Bible in jeopardy. Of course, there are other issues like this, i.e., added and/or removed verses.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Well although i agree that a person then might question the authenticity, they don't have to conclude that the information is false. If it being added after a certain point, that may prove that its not original, but it doesn't prove its false information, or doesn't bring clarity to the bible.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha Fabricated information isn't false? I really get upset about that type of double talk since we are dealing with what is supposed to be a divinely inspired book, not some comic book. Add to that the fact that the story of the resurrection is under discussion and we have a serious problem. I know some early Christians, namely the Ebionites, didn't believe Jesus was crucified. Could it be the correct belief was suppressed and the incorrect belief was given precedence?
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Jesus was cruxified, have plenty of evidence for that, at least sufficent for disposing of reasonable doubt. But who said its fabricated? man or God? man. Who says that the information is false information, or trying to decieve people? Now the resurrection is up for discussion simply because i would like you to give a reasonable unobjectional naturalistic arguement of how the empty tomb came to be, and why the disciples would lie about seeing appearances of Jesus after death
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha . 1 Cor. 15:5 and John 20:24 state twelve disciples saw Jesus. Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:1, and Luke 24:33 state eleven disciples saw Jesus. I'm not focused on the discrepancy. I want a quote from any one of them. The four Gospel's authors are all questionable. I mean whether or not they are the actual authors of the Gospels. Even Paul claims 500+ saw Jesus. Who? Paul couldn't reference one person out of the twelve disciples or the 500+ that saw Jesus? No chain of transmission.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Well we know at most it was ten disciples, unless acts starts before the end of whats in the gospels. But I think thats really minor, because in John 20:24, it actually doesn't say he met twelve, because Thomas isn't there, but especially because Judas, one of the twelve, was dead. So at most, that first time Jesus was seen was by 10 people.
John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
So don't get upset, just believe.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha John later mentions Thomas saw him- John 20:27. My point was John mentioned the twelve.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Well he mention that Thomas was one of the twelve, the twelve referring to the 12 disciples who followed Jesus while he was alive. But also, remember, Judas is dead, there can only be eleven at most. Take that statement in and we will talk again.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha That's another apologetic fallacy. Paul's reference is even more explicit. 1 Cor. 15:5, ...and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Paul is referencing when Jesus appeared to the ELEVEN. The point is, there is no longer a twelve at this point, they are just still referred to as the "twelve". But Judas is dead, Paul is aware of this. Not only by testimony from the disciple probably but also the witness of God's Spirit.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha Huh?
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mirrormoveuchiha Huh?
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha Huh?
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha The witness of God's Spirit apparently didn't inform Paul of that. The disciple or disciple's testimonies? Which one/s? Who did Paul reference?
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Paul's writings are early enough to have been in contact with the disciples, what they believed and so on. Read the book of Acts.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha That's more double talk.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition No seriously, don't you think the earliest believers of Jesus that were still alive wouldv'e easily procalimed the truth of who they proclaimed was their messiah raised from the dead? The book of Acts tells us that Paul even met with the disciples. Its not double talk, its just talk.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha OK, so who exactly did he reference as his source. Writing a story and actually referencing your sources are not the same. Rather than; this is what what happened, it would be like; so and so told me this is what happened. There in nothing. The only book which may be used is James', and even he doesn't go trinity, crucifixion, or resurrection.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Not trying to double talk, but these people, monethesitic Jews had no reason to lie about such things and couldv'e easily been quelled by them back then, and also by the Jews. Yet how did the Ebionites not believe in the cruxifiction, which shows that this is all an attempt to distract from what even the best historical evidence we have says that he was cruxified.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Faith is necessary to please God. Did you know that? "For it is impossible to please God without faith."
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition What im saying is, lets not just go back to the new testament, since its clear you probably don't find it reliable, although i do. Lets go back to the original disciples and the gospel that they preached and i believe we will find that it is the same that Paul preached and that was recorded in the new testament and that it is reliable. Just because some people can't understand, thats because they are relying on their own understanding, and not believing God's written word.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
Comment removed
Texcentric 1 year ago
@Texcentric You see, when I claim God can't do something, I am maintaining God's infinite, eternal, absolute, and perfect status by doing away with those beliefs that are inconsistent with God being who He is. When others say God can, they do this not knowing they have limited God to the qualities of the creation and have invented a false god. Yes, God can do all things, excluding all those nonsensical, self-contradictory, absurdities that are no longer consistent with who God is.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Bible quote from Phillipians:"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, & being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross... (con't )
EquineDreams 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition ...For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, & bestowed on Him the name which is above every name so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those in heaven & on earth & under the earth, & that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Philipians 2:5-11
EquineDreams 1 year ago
the white man is rude.......not nice
trex457 1 year ago
this is where Christians are wrong for thousands of years. Jesus is Son of God Son of Mary . He is not God but he is a God himself because his father is God.He Jesus was with God in Heaven through Mary and came to Earth to die and on the third day rise and sit at the right hand side of God. this that he is God is not true ..............
trex457 1 year ago
He was neither. He was just a guy, if he even existed.
spottywolf 1 year ago
Who cares...
coppens 1 year ago
@coppens I do.
alouch27 1 year ago
damn! Shabir is good
halakukhan 1 year ago
neither does theology, WHAT ?
j400wel 1 year ago
Jesus never claimed divinity ,but the people of grain head r saying no u r divine ,never his associate ever said that ,these people r take by missionary who r on rong path n samely leading these herd mentality christian ,y dont u read bible and quran urself
Michale licona or I must say he is 'divine' as he is also a 'SON OF MAN'
sigma1o1 1 year ago
god is not something which can no nothing he is the knower of everything ,he dont have to send there children if he can work out by their messenger ,there r so many world so in every world he must hv send jesus ,.r there any logics associated ,or r u insuslting name 'logic'.grow UP it something which is told to kids .there is only one god and prophet muhammad is his final messenger ,and jesus the second last
nowhere is bible written ,only written is son of man .mean son of human being thats it
sigma1o1 1 year ago
michael liona when asked of proof ,yes their r proof ,that jessus is said is god in gospel ,what.....????? this is debate all about we want proof out of it ,dont u get it red hat ,proof is examined on the basis of cross check ,not that bible say this ,we know bible has mans word .
where as jews even said there is one and only one god , can there be two president in the word .or I have to becoem a DVD player in order to know how DVD works
sigma1o1 1 year ago
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and PAUL-the inventor of christianity. On the day of judgement People will come to Jesus and ask to go to Heaven but Jesus will not let them. In 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?
7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
FUS10N1 1 year ago
Satan was the Deceiver, the proud one in the Bible, In the Quran Allah is the deceiver the most proud one. Shabir wants to deceive us, he is a follower of Satan. Muslims praise Muhammad a man who killed Thousands, lied and had sex slaves. You think our God will choose Muhammad to be his Last Prophet? NO, only Satan will want him to spread these lies. One day Islam will conquer the world but have faith, Jesus will destroy this Cult.
REELISTICLY 1 year ago
@REELISTICLY
Get real:
1. Am I missing something, or wasn't there a particular group of leaders of a particular religion that Jesus condemned as being, among other things, a brood of vipers? I don't think it was the Moslems, guy.
2. How is it that particular religion, which not only denies Jesus divinity and treats Jesus not even as a prophet as Islam does, always gets a free pass from Catholic and Evangelical apologists "defending the faith"?
RPenta 1 year ago
All things are possible with God. He does not need to move according to the laws He made. He speaks and things come in to being. Where as humans until do it so than things happen. He opens the eyes of the blind. Humans only through operations, that also in some cases can bring back the sight. But doctors fail in many cases. So God can come in Human Form to earth. God created man. Man can't become God. But God can go above is law. He is not limited to is law. He is God.
TheE5426 1 year ago
Jesus did say,"You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds." All died and are buried. But The Messiah Jesus is alive.
TheE5426 1 year ago
Comment removed
MoeChosenSaxPlaya 1 year ago
Comment removed
MoeChosenSaxPlaya 1 year ago
Watching a debate between a christian and a muslim is like watching the special olympics; whoever the winner is, he is still a retard.
0HI0STATE18 1 year ago
It;s also quite funny that a christian uploaded a video where the muslim completely destroys the christian in the debate.
0HI0STATE18 1 year ago 2
Viva Shabbir!
Sncc1 2 years ago
What a ridiculous debate. They might as well debate about whether jesus could fly or not, or that the mormon's book acount for jesus is also valid. Deluded people, evolve!
uncypaolo 2 years ago
The blonde girl being interviewed. So hott and beautiful, but yet a foolish girl.
SideBurnFilmz 2 years ago
The Trinity is indeed a mistery but not an invention as it is being suggested by this moslem. Logics is a philosophical argumentative tool but not a way to the truth itself.