The Prblem with Anti-Islamic Arguments

[micatala]

http://www.twincities.com/newsletter-mo ... ck_check=1

The article includes a short quiz on violent rhetoric, and asks the reader to choose where the rhetoric resides, Bible or Koran.



Questions for debate.

1) Is the author, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, correct? Do Christians, at leat in the U.S., tend to get the benefit of the doubt while Muslims are often condemned in a blanket fashion?


2) Is it fair to Christians who do not understand the context of the Koran to use the Koran to criticize modern Muslim's? Should we discount opinions on the Koran or Islam provided by individuals who show no understanding of Islam?


3) What benefit does the anti-Islamic rhetoric prevalent in today's U.S. society provide to that society? What detriments does it present?


Even if criticism of Islam in general, or particular Muslim or Muslim populations is justified, should we not ask what good or harm this criticism does? Of these three questions, 3 seems to be the most important. It also leads to the follow up.


4) To the extent that their are radical Muslims who practice violence, what is the most constructive way of dealing with those radical views?

[East of Eden]

Yes Jesus is the Messiah, we Muslims believe that too, he is the only Messiah in all of the Prophets. But Messiah does not equal God, it has never ment God, no Jew is expecting a "God Messiah".

Yes, Jews have a wrong view of the Messiah. Jesus tried to correct this in John 20 (another claim to His divinity) where he says, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:

"The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

David calls him 'Lord'. How then can he be his son?"

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’
(John 10:29-35)

So the Jews misunderstood Jesus and His claim to divinity?

Thank you very much for bringing this up, i almost forgot:
"Stop clinging to me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren (disciples), and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and MY GOD AND YOUR GOD.'
(John 20: 17)."
Do you have anything to say or is this another "Mystery" that falls under the Trinity & the Hypostatic Union?

It's another of your attempts to twist the NT. God is Father both of Christ and of believers, but in different senses. See John 1:12, 14, 18, 34.

So far you have provided virtually nothing, all i asked for was a SINGLE verse from the 4 canonical Gospels where Jesus makes himself God or God Almighty.

Because you choose to ignore evidence doesn't mean it hasn't been provided.

You would be surprised on how many Christians do not know the context of that verse, obviously you being one of them.
All Jesus is saying is that him & the Father are one in purpose not in essence.

If you want to know the truth on what Jesus said, read John 17:11 & do not twist his words:

"I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one."
(John 17:11)

Do you get the point? Oneness in PURPOSE.

Completely wrong. In John 10:30, for example, the Greed is neuter - "one thing", not "one person". The two are one in essence or nature, but they are not identical persons. This truth is what justifies Jesus' "I am" declarations, see John 8:24, 28, and 58.

* Jesus told the disciples, "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am." (Jn 13:13)

The term does not necessarily mean 'God'. Its used throughout the NT to imply "Teacher" or "Master".

An instructor would normally be called "Teacher", but "Lord" referred to one occupying the supreme place. Jesus accepted both titles.

Muslims have no problem in believing this, the one who gave the authority is GREATER (He is God). The one who gave the authority can TAKE the authority (He is God).

Again, spin aside, the Jews clearly saw this as Jesus making a claim to divinity.

* Jesus said that he had seen Abraham and that he is eternal: "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" (Jn 8:57-58)

Muslims believe everything existed in the foreknowledge of Allah(God). This is a very weak argument to prove Jesus' divinity because NO ONE knows what the Jewish pun means, Jesus being a Prophet of God understood what we do not.

Actually, we do. Jesus did not say "I was" but "I am", expressing the eternity of his being and his oneness with the Father. The Jews rightly saw this as a claim to divinity.

* Jesus said that he had seen God, which no one else could do (Jn 6:46)

Also read:

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father."
(John 16:25)


God makes it clear that "Seeing" God literally is impossible:

But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
(Exodus 33:20)

EXCEPT one who is divine.

Contradicted by:
"I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.
(Malachi 3:6)

You're again taking a verse out of context. This is referring to His character, and his faithfulness to His covenant, contrary to what many in Malachi's day were thinking. See James 1:17, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

It is also made very clear God is not a man in Hosea 11:9

I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man--the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.
(Hosea 11:9)

Like your previous attempt at this, Jesus had not yet been incarnated.

The chronological sequence of events are irrelevant, lets suppose for the sake of the argument, God Al-Mighty chose to become "Human" so that he could suicide & thus not punish you; why didn't he say anything about a "God Incarnate" in the OT ?

See my first part of this response, David called the Messiah both God and man. The OT is full of references to the coming Messiah, notably Isaiah 53. And please drop the silly 'suicide' phrase, Jesus didn't kill Himself, he submitted Himself to God the Father's plan of salvation.

Jesus makes it clear miracles are not a sign of divinity, or else almost all the prophets would be "Divine", Jesus elaborates on this:

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
(John 5:30)

but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me. "Come now; let us leave.
(John 14:31)

Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."
(Matthew 20:23)

Again, no contradiction of Jesus' divinity, but then we've been over that before.

The Quran tells us:

“…and We made her (Mary) and her son (Jesus) a sign for the worlds.�
(Quran 21:91)

“And We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear miracles�
(Quran 2:87)

But how did Jesus perform miracles?

“…by the permission of God�
(Quran 3:49; 5:10)

To conclude:

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a MAN ACCREDITED by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which GOD DID among you THROUGH him, as you yourselves know.
(Acts 2:22)

Just curious, as great a prophet as Muhammed supposedly was, why did he not perform miracles, or at least not anywhere on the scale Jesus did?

Justify your claim biblically or retract your statement. I have no intention of debating your "Pre-Conceived" beliefs, i only debate objectively.

There is nothing to retract, it is my opinion, and that of many Biblical scholars.

If you want to take it literally, you are contradicted by:

"And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form,
(John 5:37)"

Obviously its METAPHORICAL. You are not calling Jesus a liar are you?

No, I'm calling your interpretation screwy. This is probably a reference to their lack of spiritual perception of who Jesus really is.

Absolutely amazing, i have no idea on how any intellectual man can attribute such blasphemous attributes & ideas to God

Yes, the Bible says to those who are perishing the Gospel is foolishness.

God is not an idiot in Islam, he does not need to suicide in some magical ritual so that he does not get angry at you, this type of logic is both unacceptable & utterly ridiculous in Islamic Theology.

See my above quote.

God is the most merciful in Islam, through his mercy muslims attain paradise, without his mercy all the good works a man does is futile:

Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of God: for God forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

"Turn ye to our Lord (in repentance) and bow to His (Will), before the Penalty comes on you: after that ye shall not be helped.

"And follow the best of (the courses) revealed to you from your Lord, before the Penalty comes on you - of a sudden while ye perceive not!-
(Quran 39:53-55)

How do you know when you've been good enough and have earned God's mercy?

Im not going to report your last line, i hope you keep those one-liners for sometime else.

What's to report? Like the founders of many cults, (Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, David Koresh), one of the fringe benefits of being the 'prophet' was lots of women. Do you deny this?

Yes Jesus was miraculously born from a virgin, muslims believe this, but we do not believe God was born from a womans vagina,

How else is someone born?

Time is not a factor of debate, you need to understand that before you talk about tv channels.

It is ridiculous to equate the Crusades from centuries ago with today's constant suicide bombings and other mayhem from your coreligionists.

Really? Do you not believe in "Original Sin"? Augustine personally established that doctrine.

No, that started in Genesis.

Disregarding what you believe, many Christians believe in Augustine & his idea of "Just War" aka "Just War Theory" which echoes throughout history.

Yes, Christianity is not a pacifist religion.

No i cannot, but the Bible is there, & one can only speculate on how they justified their actions against "Infidels".

Self-defense?

Here is a Gospel rejected by the Council of Nicea for obvious reasons:
Jesus was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin? And Jesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation.
(Gospel of the Nazorenes H12:1-2)

And what does quoting a heretical book prove?

Also see, Jesus blatantly being called a "Worm" in the Bible:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=16766

Bildad the Shuhite is now supposed to be authoritative? What he and others of Job's friends said was wrong.

Here's a question for you: Why does Islam say Jesus never died on the cross when we have secular ancient contemporary accounts that He did die on the cross?

[Murad]

Delcoder i didn't say the mainstream translation is incorrect, i said it is possible to translate it into "Divine" or "a God" as done by Unitarian & JW's.

Yes Jesus is the Messiah, we Muslims believe that too, he is the only Messiah in all of the Prophets. But Messiah does not equal God, it has never ment God, no Jew is expecting a "God Messiah".

Yes, Jews have a wrong view of the Messiah. Jesus tried to correct this in John 20 (another claim to His divinity) where he says, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:

"The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

David calls him 'Lord'. How then can he be his son?"

The original herbrew of Psalms 110:1 translates into:

"Yahweh said to my Adoni"

The literal translation for the word "Adoni" is "Master" so its:
"God said to my Master"

Jesus as the Messiah, is the King of the Jews, so its nothing big that other Prophets refer to him with an exalted title. He is also the one & only "Messiah"(Translated Christ & anointed one) in Islam, that is definitely no title of divinity.

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’
(John 10:29-35)

So the Jews misunderstood Jesus and His claim to divinity?

No, the Jews had the same understanding as modern day Christians, that Jesus was making himself God, infact they tried to stone him for blasphemy:

“We are not stoning you for any of these,� replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.�
(John 10:33)

This is exactly what you believe, the same thing the pharisees believed, that Jesus claimed Divinity, but Jesus debunks their claims fantastically:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in YOUR Law, ‘I have said YOU ARE GODS’
(John 10:34)

Do you see the sarcasm Jesus is portraying when he says "Your Law". Jesus was debunking their claims with their scripture, how great was Jesus peace be upon him.

Thank you very much for bringing this up, i almost forgot:
"Stop clinging to me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren (disciples), and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and MY GOD AND YOUR GOD.'
(John 20: 17)."
Do you have anything to say or is this another "Mystery" that falls under the Trinity & the Hypostatic Union?

It's another of your attempts to twist the NT.

Please elaborate on how im "twisting" the NT.
Jesus calls God:
1) "My God and Your God"
2) "My Father and Your Father"

He is definitely not claiming divinity.

God is Father both of Christ and of believers, but in different senses. See John 1:12

Yes, those who follow Jesus become "Children of God" because Jesus preached the messege of God, earlier on you accused me of "twisting" the NT & it seems like you are the one twisting it, read Matthew 12:18

Here is my SERVANT whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
(Matthew 12:18)

Its the exact same teaching in Islam, those who follow the servants of God (Prophets) become "Sons of God" themselves (metaphorically ofcourse)


& please, id give more relevance to the words comming out of the mouth of Jesus rather than the opnions of an unknown fellow.

So far you have provided virtually nothing, all i asked for was a SINGLE verse from the 4 canonical Gospels where Jesus makes himself God or God Almighty.

Because you choose to ignore evidence doesn't mean it hasn't been provided.

Well i did say "unambiguous", meaning clear cut & undisputable.

You would be surprised on how many Christians do not know the context of that verse, obviously you being one of them.
All Jesus is saying is that him & the Father are one in purpose not in essence.

If you want to know the truth on what Jesus said, read John 17:11 & do not twist his words:

"I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one."
(John 17:11)

Do you get the point? Oneness in PURPOSE.

Completely wrong. In John 10:30, for example, the Greed is neuter - "one thing", not "one person".

Let me requote John 17:11 incase your eyes missed something:

"so that they may be one AS WE ARE ONE"

Was Jesus praying so that his disciples would become "one in essence"?

The two are one in essence or nature, but they are not identical persons.

Yes we all know the holy mystery of the trinity & the hypostatic union.

This truth is what justifies Jesus' "I am" declarations, see John 8:24, 28, and 58.

1) It's a snippet (Jesus did not utter the same words) of the full: "I am what I am"
2) It seems like the Jews interrupted Jesus exactly when he said "I am"

Trinitarians such as yourself believe the Greek words "ego eimi" (I am) which was spoken by Jesus in John 8:58, proves that Jesus was God Al-Mighty because Jesus made a partial quote of God in Exodus 3:14.

The Original Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 reads:

�ֶהְיֶה �ֲשֶ�ר �ֶהְיֶה

Which in english is pronounced as "Ehyeh asher ehyeh", & the literal translation is:

I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE
(Exodus 3:14)

You can confirm this with any hebrew speaking Jew, send a pm to Jrosemary to validate this.

Thus it cannot be assumed that John is referring to the words of Exodus 3:14. The only reason Christian bibles translate "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" into "I am what I am" is to accomodate for the Greek "ego eimi" used in John 8:58.

Dishonesty at its prime.

* Jesus told the disciples, "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am." (Jn 13:13)

The term does not necessarily mean 'God'. Its used throughout the NT to imply "Teacher" or "Master".

An instructor would normally be called "Teacher", but "Lord" referred to one occupying the supreme place. Jesus accepted both titles.

Yes but remember "Lord" & "Master" in hebrew is "Adoni", which was differentiated from "Yahweh"(God) in Psalms 110:1 when referring to the Messiah, thus in Greek it can also refer to an exalted title for the Messiah, not a title of Godhood or Divinity.

Muslims have no problem in believing this, the one who gave the authority is GREATER (He is God). The one who gave the authority can TAKE the authority (He is God).

Again, spin aside, the Jews clearly saw this as Jesus making a claim to divinity.

The Pharisee' misunderstood Jesus & so have you, John 10:34 is a prime example of Jesus debunking their false accusations.

* Jesus said that he had seen God, which no one else could do (Jn 6:46)

Also read:

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father."
(John 16:25)


God makes it clear that "Seeing" God literally is impossible:

But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
(Exodus 33:20)

EXCEPT one who is divine.

John 16:25 makes it clear Jesus was talking in Puns & Metaphores when talking about God, so it would be absolutely ridiculous to take Jesus' words literally.
For example, if you believe John 14:7 is Jesus claiming to be God, you are simultaneously contradicted by:

And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form,
(John 5:37)

Contradicted by:
"I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.
(Malachi 3:6)

You're again taking a verse out of context. This is referring to His character, and his faithfulness to His covenant, contrary to what many in Malachi's day were thinking.

Exactly my point, you have just refuted yourself; how can the character of God change from a fearless Al-Mighty to running & hiding away from Jews?

It is also made very clear God is not a man in Hosea 11:9

I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man--the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.
(Hosea 11:9)

Like your previous attempt at this, Jesus had not yet been incarnated.

So God in the Old Testament is repeatedly telling his followers: "I am God, and not Man" & "God is not a man", only to surprise humanity a few hundred years later. You sure portray God as a party pooper.

The chronological sequence of events are irrelevant, lets suppose for the sake of the argument, God Al-Mighty chose to become "Human" so that he could suicide & thus not punish you; why didn't he say anything about a "God Incarnate" in the OT ?

See my first part of this response, David called the Messiah both God and man.

Incorrect, Adonis means "Master" & not God.

The OT is full of references to the coming Messiah, notably Isaiah 53.

Isaiah 53 is dishonesty & mistranslation by Christendom.
See Truth about Isaiah 53 Part A
Also see Truth about Isaiah 53 Part B

And please drop the silly 'suicide' phrase, Jesus didn't kill Himself, he submitted Himself to God the Father's plan of salvation.

Im not the one claiming Jesus was God Al-Mighty incarnate, basic logic & rationale tells us God comitted suicide in Christendom.

Its like a robber comming into my house & killing my daughter, & when we take this to court the Judge decides that i should kill my Son & then we can all be "One happy family". & then to add fuel to the already existing illogical fire, we have the 'Mysterious' doctrines of Christianity such as the "Trinity & the Hypostatic Union" that attempt to conceal contradictions & discrepancies by putting the "Holy Mystery" & "Humans are too stupid to understand" stamp ontop of it.

Jesus makes it clear miracles are not a sign of divinity, or else almost all the prophets would be "Divine", Jesus elaborates on this:

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
(John 5:30)

but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me. "Come now; let us leave.
(John 14:31)

Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."
(Matthew 20:23)

Again, no contradiction of Jesus' divinity, but then we've been over that before.

It is a contradiction if you believe Jesus was "Fully God" (Which he apparently had to be to atone your sins on the cross)

The Quran tells us:

“…and We made her (Mary) and her son (Jesus) a sign for the worlds.�
(Quran 21:91)

“And We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear miracles�
(Quran 2:87)

But how did Jesus perform miracles?

“…by the permission of God�
(Quran 3:49; 5:10)

To conclude:

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a MAN ACCREDITED by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which GOD DID among you THROUGH him, as you yourselves know.
(Acts 2:22)

Just curious, as great a prophet as Muhammed supposedly was, why did he not perform miracles, or at least not anywhere on the scale Jesus did?

He did perform miracles, such as "The Wailing Tree Trunk, The Flowing of Water, Blessing of Food, Healing the Sick, Exorcising Devils" etc..., but by all means, he did not perform physical miracles on the magnitude of Moses.

Infact:

When Moses came to them with Our clear signs, they said: "This is nothing but sorcery faked up: never did we head the like among our fathers of old!"
[Quran 28:36]

Even Moses was called a "Sorcerer" & a "Liar" after performing numerous miracles.

Infact in the Gospel of Luke we find:

"For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."
(Luke 7:28)

John the Baptist who performed no miracles, was the "Greatest Prophet".

If you want to take it literally, you are contradicted by:

"And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form,
(John 5:37)"

Obviously its METAPHORICAL. You are not calling Jesus a liar are you?

No, I'm calling your interpretation screwy. This is probably a reference to their lack of spiritual perception of who Jesus really is.

Classic, when the Bible conflicts with your pre-conceived beliefs you just twist the words around. John 5:37 is unambiguous, sorry.

Absolutely amazing, i have no idea on how any intellectual man can attribute such blasphemous attributes & ideas to God

Yes, the Bible says to those who are perishing the Gospel is foolishness.

Which Gospel would that be? Is it written in Aramaic by any chance? Can we identify the authors? Are they written decades after Jesus' disappearance?

See my above quote.

God is the most merciful in Islam, through his mercy muslims attain paradise, without his mercy all the good works a man does is futile:

Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of God: for God forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

"Turn ye to our Lord (in repentance) and bow to His (Will), before the Penalty comes on you: after that ye shall not be helped.

"And follow the best of (the courses) revealed to you from your Lord, before the Penalty comes on you - of a sudden while ye perceive not!-
(Quran 39:53-55)

How do you know when you've been good enough and have earned God's mercy?

You do not know, you can never know, such knowledge only belongs to God, the one who does claim to know that "He will be saved" is a narcissist & is deceiving himself. There is no such thing as "Guaranteed" salvation in Islam, only guaranteed Justice, meaning you will be paid for in full for everything you do.

“I am the Messenger of God, yet I don’t know what will be done with me.�
- Muhammad (pbuh)

Im not going to report your last line, i hope you keep those one-liners for sometime else.

What's to report? Like the founders of many cults, (Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, David Koresh), one of the fringe benefits of being the 'prophet' was lots of women. Do you deny this?

That is like saying the Kingdom of Solomon was a cult because he had 1000 wives. Please stop making illogical arguments.

The only real cult is Pauline Christianity, we all know Paul was from the Tribe of Benjamin:

"Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; in the morning he devours the prey, in the evening he divides the plunder."
(Genesis 49:27)

Modern Christians are waiting for the Anti-Christ but for the early Christians he already came & done his damage

Yes Jesus was miraculously born from a virgin, muslims believe this, but we do not believe God was born from a womans vagina,

How else is someone born?

Jesus was born like a human (without the sperm), but he is a Prophet & Messenger not God incarnate. God does not get born, the whole concept of attributing human qualities such as "Being born from a woman, childhood etc" to God is blasphemous

Really? Do you not believe in "Original Sin"? Augustine personally established that doctrine.

No, that started in Genesis.

No it didn't start in Genesis, find me the verse that makes it clear "Sin is Inherited", that is a pseudo Christian interpretation made famous by Augustine. It is without a doubt inexistent within the Jewish scriptures.

No i cannot, but the Bible is there, & one can only speculate on how they justified their actions against "Infidels".

Self-defense?

There was no "Self Defence" just pure aggression.

The Muslim Empire (Khilafah) conquered Palestine from the Byzantine Empire, not the Spanish, French, Germans, British, Scottish, Irish etc..etc..

Also see, Jesus blatantly being called a "Worm" in the Bible:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=16766

Bildad the Shuhite is now supposed to be authoritative? What he and others of Job's friends said was wrong.

Ive given the rebuttal to that claim JehovahsWitness made, its nothing but cherry picking.

Here's a question for you: Why does Islam say Jesus never died on the cross when we have secular ancient contemporary accounts that He did die on the cross?

What would they be? Tacitus & Josephus?
Your own Bible says that all the disciples fled:

Then everyone deserted him and fled.
(Mark 14:50)

Tacitus & Josephus recorded down oral tradition, the same way the Gospels were written (From the sources Mark & Quella)


Jesus in the Bible tells us:

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
(Matthew 7:7-10)

According to Jesus, if you ask for Bread, God will not give you a stone, because its absolutely illogical for him to do so.

But what Christianity does, is portray Jesus as a hypocrite:

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
(Luke 22:42)

Here Jesus is praying to God not to die, instead God allows him to die a disgraceful death & instead gives him "Resurrection"...... now what happened to Jesus saying: "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone"
Jesus as the Son asked God not to die, but God gave him "Resurrection" instead.


What Islam teaches is, God saved Jesus on the cross thus he was not crucified ("Crucified" means dying on the cross).

“That they (Jews) said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, God raised him up unto the himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise.�
[Qur'an 4:157–158]


“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that God is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against God, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For God hath power over all things.�
[Qur'an 5:17]

[delcoder]

'The Word' in Greek has been described as "ton theos" (not ho theos) which can be read as "Divine" or "a God":

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine"

This is exactly how the New World Translation puts it.

In 2 Corinthians 4:4 for example, the exact same word that was used in John 1 (ho theos) is being used as an adjective for the devil:

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

If Saul of Tarsus was "Moved" or "Inspired" by the Holy Spirit & used the same word in John 1, why is "The God" (ho theos) translated to "the god" when referring to the devil, while "divine"(ton theos) is translated as the almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"?

In 2 Corinthians 6:16 "ho theos" is used with respect to "as God has said." And so it is with many scriptures. I suspect "ho" and "hon" have to do with sentence structure as they appear to be used indiscriminately in the greek. "ho" and "hon" are articles. As such they have no alternative meanings with respect to the devil or God.

Sentence structure? (Please Elaborate)
Both translations are plausible, but "The Word" in John 1 is solely being described as "ton theos" (Which means "Divine" or "a God") and not as being "ho theos" (Which means "The God" or possibly "The Divine").

I told you I was a little rusty with respect to Greek translations. Well, I am getting lubricated. "ho" and "ton" are declensions of the same word in Koine Greek. That my friend, means they mean exactly the same thing. When I said sentence structure determined which was to be used I was correct. It all has to do with nominative or subjective case and transitive and intransitive verbs. See:

http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/less ... n2dcl.html

So your arguments are with respect to changing the meaning of the words translated "God" are absolutely baseless. At this point I don't know if you were being deceitful or demonstrating your ignorance. In any case you have built an argument on nothing and John 1:1 is anything but ambiguous.

[micatala]

Now, let's be clear. Do I think Christians should offer interpretations of the Bible? Yes. Do I accept that others can have different interpretations than mine? Yes.

But to say that we must accept a sentence out of the Koran with no interpretation and then not say the same about the Bible is inconsistent. It is arguably a violation of the Golden Rule, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. You have illustrated this inconsistency very clearly.

I didn't attempt to interpret admonishments to Christians to be violent as anything because I can't find any. I only find admonishments to the Jews who are not Christians to be violent. Sorry, you can't equate what was said to the Jews as being said to Christians.

While I agree with your particular interpretive assumptions here, you miss the point.

I absolutley can equate them if I wish. And I can point to Biblical support for it. God does not change, and all that. Those commands were commands of God.

But again, the larger point is you are making an interpretive assumption about how Christians should read the Bible. You are basing these on a long history of theological writings.

You have not done the same for Islam and the Koran, and have in fact, dismissed any such possiblity that such interpretations need to be made.


Inconsistent as inconsistent can be.


This is compounded by the fact that you as a non-believer in their religion purport to be able to say what their religion means, what their Holy Book means, more than they do.


Blatant violation of the golden rule, given that you clearly believe, based on your statements, that your religious beliefs should be based on what you believe and how you understand the Bible, not how others do.


Inconsistent as inconsistent can be.

Christ, himself frequently changed the provisions of the Law with respect to His followers. Would you like me to post some of His changes or are you going to be consistent in equating Law provisions to Christians?

Not on point. WHether Christ changed some teachings or not (and I agree he did) is irrelevant. If someone else wants to ignore parts of the Bible like you have of the Koran, they are free to do so.

I note you did not address any of the other verses or opinions from actual Muslims from my recent post.

WHy not?

My references are the times it says, "Then shall ye fight." You interpret that as you will. I don't have to interpret it.

Apply this then to the Bible. No interpretation. The logical conclusion is that God commands at least some people to kill innocent children, that rapists can offer payment to the father of their victim and then marry them, that women should not be allowed to speak in church, that people who do not worship Yahweh should be killed, etc. etc.

The minute you say one word to "explain" these, you are illustrating the hypocrisy of your position on the Koran.

I don't need to explain what does not pertain to Christians. I am not at this time in this post defending what the Law had to say. You keep on attempting to equate the provisions of the Law to Christians and you will make your arguments look more and more ridiculous.

If you wish not to defend the Bible or your understanding of it versus what other might say, that is your choice. But again, if this is the case why should anyone put any credence in your understanding or statements about the Koran?

He feels free to cherry pick what he wants from both the Bible and the Koran, the good for the Bible and the negative for the Koran.

I pick provisions from the Koran and the New Testament which pertains to Christians that promote violence. The trouble is, I cannot find any passages in the New Testament that urge Christians to violence. Can you help me?

Not relevant. My claim that the OT is followed by Christians and has violent directives that Christians are obliged to follow is every bit as valid as your claims on the Koran and how they relate to current Muslims.

I again note you did not respond to any of the other allusions to the Koran or opinions of Muslims I provided.



WHy not?

The Old Testament is part of the Bible. It is considered Holy Scripture by nearly all Christians. By attempting to disassociate it from Christianity with the ridiculuous rationale that Christ is not mentioned, you are cherry-picking.

You certainly are consistent in your obfuscation. I have not said the Old Testament was not part of the Bible. I have not said it was not Holy Scripture. Do you attempt to put your words in my mouth and then debate your words. Most debaters call those arguments strawman arguments.

If you don't like people making claims about your beliefs that you do not share, stop doing it for Muslims. You reap what you sow.

Some passages in the OT that I find very informative and helpful, but only in a historical context. The creation account is one example. The book of Job which is pre Law is another. Many of the Psalms are beautiful poetry and have no Law admonishments. Prophesies are valuable. Killing adulterers are not. Christ changed that. Killing idolators are not as Christ changed that also. The Ten Commandments were all rolled together into two commandments in the New Testament. Instructions to the Israelites on how to conduct warfare are not applicable to me or the New Testament. Christ said I was to love my enemies. The laws governing sacrifices were done away with by Christ's sacrifice of Himself. Bottom line, all the OT scriptures urging violence have been done away with for Christians. Can you say that about the Koran?

Again, I largely agree with your understanding of the relationship between OT and NT for Christians, but this is an interpretive assumption we place on the Bible and is not a necessary one. Other CHristians could and in fact do differ with us. Some Christians, not a majority certainly, think we should still follow the law and the OT.

Would it be unfair for a person to equate your views with one of these OT believing Christians? Sure.

Now, apply the same standard to Muslims.

As far as the Koran, I am not saying I am an expert in the Koran. But I also see no evidence you are either. From what I can see, your use of the Koran is at least as ridiculous as the hypothetical theological positions I have been presenting you with, and yet you only point to problems with my characterizations of the Bible and not yours of the Koran.


And yes, I did, even through a cursory search, present you with verses and opinions which counter your claims regarding the Koran, and you ignored them.

You miss the point. You feel free to portray the Koran and therefore Muslims through your own understanding of Islam, but object when others do the same with respect to your understanding of the Bible. I am merely illustrating the inconsistency.

I don't have to understand Islam. I only have to read where it tells Muslims to fight to conclude it is a violent religion. How about you and I sit down and take out all the references to fighting from the Koran and the New Testament? I might have a whole different outlook towards the Koran and Muslims. Oh, I forgot you ignored that in my last post. I wonder why?

Answered above. You continue to apply an inconsistent yardstick in dealing with the two books. If you only have to read one verse of the KOran to reach a conclusion about the entire religion, or even any subset of verses cherry-picked to support your view, then it is every bit as fair for someone to do that regarding the Bible, and yes, that means applying OT verses to Christians. You don't get to plead "historical context" or " that Jesus changed some teachings" or that "no violent verses applying to Christians appear in the NT."


If we are to consistently apply your method for dealing with the Koran to Christianity and th Bible, ANY interpretive explanation you offer should be considered out of bounds. ANY selection of verses I or anyone else offer from the Bible should be taken at face value, just like you expect others to take your single quote from the Koran.

I point out it is unBiblical. Romans 14 says "who are you to judge another mans servant. It is to his own master that he stands or falls." Rather than respect the Muslims are responsible to God on their own, you seek to place your understanding of their Holy Books and their relationship to God.

ANd what is the purpose of such mischaracterization?

I don't mischaracterize. The Koran is so full of violence I don't need to elaborate on it.

YOu most certainly do mischaracterize. I again note you ignored any verses from the Koran that might counter your claims about it. How is it not mischaracterization to cherry pick and present that subset as representative of the book as a whole?

How is it not mischaracterization to apply your reading of the Koran to Muslims who do not share your misunderstanding of the Koran?

"Muslims and/or Islam is inherently violent." You betcha, podnuh. The Koran says it, the Prophet says it, and you can obfuscate, distort, redefine, or any other tactic you choose and it still comes out that "then shall ye fight." is violent.

The measure you measure will be measured back to you.

The Bible, as clearly shown by hundreds of verses is violent, and commands people to violence, even to kill their own children.

If you don't like that shoe, stop putting it on other people's feet.

I don't see even one verse that pertains to Christians commanding violence. If there is one, please post it.

Sorry podnuh. You have to live with the whole Bible. The measure you measure will be measured back to you.

See above. If you really want to claim that the OT is not a Christian sacred writing, then you have no grounds for considering Jesus the Messiah.

I made no claims the OT "is not a Christian sacred writing." Those are your words you attempt to put in my mouth because you have no argument to refute my real position. It would seem at this point in the debate that you would no longer demonstrate your arguments are without merit by continuing to put lies in my mouth.

I accept that your position is not what I am presenting.

Now, why don't you accept that what your are presenting is not what all Muslims believe or how they understand their scripture?

If you don't like people putting words in your mouth or mischaracterizing the Bible or your understanding of it, then don't do it to others.

I agree, people should be able to enjoy freedom of religion, and in many Muslim nations, that is not currently the case. But is that inherent in ISlam? Do all Islamic countries forbid freedom of religion now? And what about Christian areas where there is or has not been freedom of religion? Many people in the past died at the hands of Christians for not practicing Christianity or not practicing Christianity in a particular way.

You are correct about Christians being killed for not practicing Christianity in a particular way. The persecution of protestants by the Catholic church produced what is perhaps the greatest number of people killed in all of history. Some estimate as high as 27 million. Now do you understand why I am not a supporter of catholicism? For the most part they were killed not because of their scriptural beliefs, but rather because they did not recognize the authority of the catholic church.

Does this negate what the New Testament teaches? No. The Catholics and in some cases the protestants disobeyed what Christ taught. The debate is not about what Christians or Muslims do, it is about what Christ taught versus what the Prophet taught. Christ did not teach violence and the Prophet did.

See the Koran verses I pointed to above. You have not addressed those. Why?


Christ said "bring those enemies of mine before me and slay them in my presence." He said he did not come to bring peace but a sword.

So, in fact, yes, you can say Christ taught violence as well.

If such behavior was inherent in the religion then we would never have gotten past it. The fact that we have, despite the commands of our Bibles to kill apostates, indicates either that we are not really Christians since we are not following the Bible, or that one can be a Christian and not follow all Biblical teachings.

Now, be consistent and apply this to the Koran and Muslims.

I want to apply it only to what the Koran teaches and not what Muslims do. Some are strict adherents to the Prophets teachings and some are not. In a country controlled by Islamic clerics, however, you do what the Koran teaches or you die.

See the other verses of the Koran I posted. One could certainly make the case that those who do apply violent repression on apostates in Islamic areas are reading parts of the Koran and not other parts.







As a final general point, and not just to delcoder's post, I do not believe anyone on this thread has addressed this.

3) What benefit does the anti-Islamic rhetoric prevalent in today's U.S. society provide to that society?

How does pointing to violent verses in the Koran actually benefit U.S. society?

I frankly don't see much if any benefit. It certainly doesn't prevent terrorism. It is clearly not necessary to engage in anti-ISlamic rhetoric to prevent terrorism. In fact, it is pretty clearly true that anti-Islamic rhetoric can help institigate violence, as the recent Koran burning highlights.

[East of Eden]

Which Gospel would that be? Is it written in Aramaic by any chance? Can we identify the authors?

Yes.

Are they written decades after Jesus' disappearance?

An amazingly short time by ancient standards, and when the witnesses were still alive. By those hypercritical standards we can discard much of what we know of your holy book also. Look, I think decoder has done a good job exposing your either ignorance or dishonesty of the Greek meanings, and you continue to ignore the clear statements of Christ attesting to His divinity.

“I am the Messenger of God, yet I don’t know what will be done with me.�
- Muhammad (pbuh)

How pathetic, even the 'prophet' had no clue of his destiny. I think I have one.

The only real cult is Pauline Christianity, we all know Paul was from the Tribe of Benjamin:

"Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; in the morning he devours the prey, in the evening he divides the plunder."
(Genesis 49:27)

Modern Christians are waiting for the Anti-Christ but for the early Christians he already came & done his damage

That sounds like something from 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'

No it didn't start in Genesis, find me the verse that makes it clear "Sin is Inherited", that is a pseudo Christian interpretation made famous by Augustine. It is without a doubt inexistent within the Jewish scriptures.

Baloney. See Genesis 3. Even Muslims have to acknowledge that human beings are sinful. Otherwise, why do they need God's mercy? Why did God need to send prophets to warn them of their sin if men are not constant sinners? The fact unbelievers are sent to hell seems to imply great sinfulness to deserve such a severe penalty as suffering in hell. Ayatollah Khomeini even went so far as to say "that man's calamity is his carnal desires, and this exists in everybody, and is rooted in the nature of man." There is no reason to reject the Christian doctrine of the depravity of man. All we need to do to verify that is watch the news.

There was no "Self Defence" just pure aggression.

The Muslim Empire (Khilafah) conquered Palestine from the Byzantine Empire, not the Spanish, French, Germans, British, Scottish, Irish etc..etc..

The pure aggression is from Islam, which was mainly spread by the sword. What were they doing in Spain anyway?

Ive given the rebuttal to that claim JehovahsWitness made, its nothing but cherry picking.

A guy from what I consider a false religion quoting a cult doesn't mean much to me.

What would they be? Tacitus & Josephus?

Exactly. Tacitus was called Rome's greatest historian.

Your own Bible says that all the disciples fled:

Then everyone deserted him and fled.
(Mark 14:50)

So what? How does that negate the fact He died on the cross?

Tacitus & Josephus recorded down oral tradition, the same way the Gospels were written (From the sources Mark & Quella)

Do you disregard everything else those two great historians wrote? If not, why the double standard? It is only your biased assumption to say they didn't fact check what they wrote.

Here Jesus is praying to God not to die, instead God allows him to die a disgraceful death & instead gives him "Resurrection"...... now what happened to Jesus saying: "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone"
Jesus as the Son asked God not to die, but God gave him "Resurrection" instead.

Jesus asked the Father that if there was any other way whereby man could be saved, that he be allowed to avoid the cross. There wasn't. Another 'contradiction' that isn't.

What Islam teaches is, God saved Jesus on the cross thus he was not crucified ("Crucified" means dying on the cross).

“That they (Jews) said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, God raised him up unto the himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise.�
[Qur'an 4:157–158]


“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that God is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against God, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For God hath power over all things.�
[Qur'an 5:17]

It is just a humanly devised idea of what God would or would not do to say God would never allow His son to die an atoning death on the cross. It is presumptuous for mortal man to tell a sovereign God how he should or should not act. "My thoughs are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways." (Is. 55:8). Even Muslims believe that God is omnipotent and can do anything He pleases to do (Sura 30:5).

The concept of sovereignty held by Muslims is that God can do anything. Why then could God have not permitted Jesus to be crucified is He wanted? The prophet Isaiah tells us God did indeed approve of the humiliating death of His Servant, saying, "He has no form of comliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised, and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid as it were our faces from Him;.....Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted." "But, He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed." (Is. 53:2-5). So Jesus' crucifixion was not only approved by God, it was predicted (Zech. 12:10, Ps. 22:16).

Even the Koran gives an example of a substitutionary atonement in Abraham's sacrifice of his son on Mt. Moriah:

"He said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice...."So when they had both submitted their wills (to God), And he laid him prostrate on his forehead (For sacrifice), We [God] called out to him, "O Abraham!....And We ransomed him With a momentous sacrifice." (37:102-7)


Clearly, there is a lot of evidence that Jesus was crucified:

First of all, the OT predicted Christ would die (Isa. 53:5-10, Ps. 22:16, Dan. 9:26, Zech. 12-10). And Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies about the Messiah (Matt. 4:14, 5:17-18, 8:17, John 4:25-26, 5:39).

Second, Jesus announced many times during His ministry that he was going to die (John 2:19-21, 10:10-11, Matt. 12:40, Mark 8:31). Matt. 17:22-23 says, "The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised."

Third, all the predictions of His resurrection, both in the OT (Ps. 16:10, Isa. 26:19, Dan. 12:2), and in the NT (John 2:19-21, Matt. 12:40, and 17:22-23) are based on the fact that He would die. Only a dead body can be resurrected.

Fourth, the nature and extent of Jesus' injuries indicate that He must have died. He had no sleep the night before He was crucified, He was beaten severely, and He collapsed on the way to the crucifixion carrying His cross. As far as the crucifixion itself, I don't know of any historical record indicating anyone ever survived it.

Fifth, the piercing of Jesus' side with the spear, from which came 'blood and water' (John 19:34), is proof that He had physically died before the piercing. When this has happened, it is a medical proof that the person has already died.

Sixth, Jesus said He was in the act of dying on the cross when he declared, "Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit" (Luke 23:46). And "having said this, He breathed His last" (v. 46). John renders this, "He have up His spirit" (John 19:30). His death cry was heard by those who stood by (Luke 23:47-49).

Seventh, the Roman soldiers pronounced Jesus dead. Although it was a common practice to break the legs of the victim to speed death, they did not do this with Jesus as He was so obviously dead.

Eighth, Pilate double-checked to make sure Jesus was dead before he gave the corpse to Joseph to be buried. "Summoning the centurion, he asked him if He had been dead for some time. And when he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph" (Mark 15:44-45).

Ninth, Jesus was wrapped in about 75 pounds of cloth and spices and placed in a sealed tomb for 3 days (John 19:39-40, Matt. 27:60). If He was not dead by then, which He clearly was, He would have died from lack of food, water, and medical treatment.

Tenth, medical authorities who have examined the circumstances of Jesus' death have concluded that he actually died on the cross. An article in the 'Journal of the American Medical Association' (March 21, 1986) concludes:

"Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right rib, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge."

Eleventh, and as I've said before, non-Christian historians and writers from the first and second centuries recorded the death of Christ. Josephus believed that Jesus died on the cross, writing, "Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross." Cornelius Tacitus wrote, "A wise man who was called Jesus.....Pilate condemned him to be condemned and die." He also said that Jesus' disciples "reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive." According to Julius Africanus (AD 221), the first-century historian Thallus (AD 52), "when discussing the darkness which fell upon the land during the crucifixion of Christ," spoke of it as an eclipse. The second-century Greek writer Lucian spoke of Christ as "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced a new cult in the world." He calls him the "crucified sophist". The "letter of Mara Bar-Serapion" (AD 73), housed in the British Museum, speaks of Christ's death, asking: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?" Even the Jewish Talmud says, "on the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshua (of Nazareth)....Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover." The Roman writer Phlegon spoke of Christ's death and resurrection in his 'Chronicles', saying, "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails." Phlegon even mentioned "the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place."

Contrary to Islamic thought, there is overwhelming historical evidence that Jesus died on the cross. The evidence for Jesus' death is greater than for that of almost any event in the ancient world.

[Murad]

Which Gospel would that be? Is it written in Aramaic by any chance? Can we identify the authors?

Yes.

Yes for all? Nice...
Please dazzle me with your objective evidence.

Are they written decades after Jesus' disappearance?

An amazingly short time by ancient standards

Amazing? Absolutely, can you recall something you did 50 years ago with precise wording & crystal clear detail?

The Gospels are unreliable & highly doubtful, fact ( No "Tradition" is involved in this assertion ).

, and when the witnesses were still alive.

The "witnesses" spoke Aramaic, the Gospels were written in Greek. The authors of the 4 canonical Gospels cannot be objectively identified, its a Church Tradition that asserts [Insert Name Here] wrote the Gospel of [Insert Name Here].

By those hypercritical standards we can discard much of what we know of your holy book also.

Nope, Islam is pretty solid.

The Quran we have today is the copy of the manuscripts Hafsa(wife of the Prophet) had. That is close to the source as possible.

There have been numerous attempts to degrade the Quran, all those claims have been debunked by muslim apologetics.

Tashkent; this is one of the oldest Quran' in the world, written about 1400 years old, it was compiled in Medina during Uthman' time, the third caliph of islam, and one of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad.

“I am the Messenger of God, yet I don’t know what will be done with me.�
- Muhammad (pbuh)

How pathetic, even the 'prophet' had no clue of his destiny. I think I have one.

Pathetic? Absolutely, if Muslims & Jews are pathetic for not believing in a "God-Man" as their scapegoat & making a bunch of illogical doctrines to cover up their theological contradictions, yep, we are pretty pathetic.

Salvation is found only through repentance & mercy from God, never a magical blood sacrifice:

"And they say: 'None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.' Those are their vain desires. Say: 'Produce your proof if ye are truthful.'
(Quran 2:111)"

The only real cult is Pauline Christianity, we all know Paul was from the Tribe of Benjamin:

"Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; in the morning he devours the prey, in the evening he divides the plunder."
(Genesis 49:27)

Modern Christians are waiting for the Anti-Christ but for the early Christians he already came & done his damage

That sounds like something from 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'

Not really, its written by Bible believing Christians.

No it didn't start in Genesis, find me the verse that makes it clear "Sin is Inherited", that is a pseudo Christian interpretation made famous by Augustine. It is without a doubt inexistent within the Jewish scriptures.

Baloney. See Genesis 3.

Be more specific, Genesis what verse? The only thing Genesis asserts is that Adam & Eve were thrown out of Paradise, this is nothing special to Muslims or Jews, but Christians have interpreted this as "Inherited Sin" & "Original Sin" where we all burn in hell unless we testify God committed suicide for us; however, such a pseudo ideology did not exist until Augustine of Hippo invented it.

Even Muslims have to acknowledge that human beings are sinful. Otherwise, why do they need God's mercy?

Obviously mankind is sinful, there has not existed a single man from Adam to Muhammad that didn't commit sin (yep even Jesus).

Why did God need to send prophets to warn them of their sin if men are not constant sinners?

There never was a people without a Warner having lived among them
(Quran 35:24)

We never punish until We have sent a Messenger
(Quran 17:15).

The fact unbelievers are sent to hell seems to imply great sinfulness to deserve such a severe penalty as suffering in hell.

Exactly & this sin can be forgiven through God's love & mercy, not a blood sacrifice.

Ayatollah Khomeini even went so far as to say "that man's calamity is his carnal desires, and this exists in everybody, and is rooted in the nature of man."

You are mistaking me for a shia.

There is no reason to reject the Christian doctrine of the depravity of man. All we need to do to verify that is watch the news.

I do not reject "Depravity" of man, where did i ever say that?
I reject the Christian notion of "Original Sin" & i reject "Inherited Sin", such ideas are absolutely barbaric & a slap in the face to human reasoning. How/Why on earth does your "All Loving God" create humans with a hereditary magical stain that they have no control over? Did Adam ask you on whether he could eat that apple? He defintely did not ask me. Augustine your renowned Christian scholar who concocted the whole idea of "Original Sin" believed that babies would be thrown into hellfire because of this magical "Stain". & you expect me to believe in the doctrines of this man?

Islam teaches all humans, even psychopaths like hitler, are born beautiful pure, holy & absolutely sinless & it's their actions & deeds that corrupt their heart. While Christianity teaches humans are born with a hereditary magical stain.

Im sure you don't believe God is going to send Adam to hell for making millions of Gay children.

One of the most beautiful verses in the Bible is found in Ezekiel, & i have no problem in accepting this as the literal word of God:

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
(Ezekiel 18:20)

There was no "Self Defence" just pure aggression.

The Muslim Empire (Khilafah) conquered Palestine from the Byzantine Empire, not the Spanish, French, Germans, British, Scottish, Irish etc..etc..

The pure aggression is from Islam, which was mainly spread by the sword. What were they doing in Spain anyway?

The classic deviation when double standards are exposed. I never claimed any "Self Defence", it is you that made the claim, so tell me how invading the Islamic Empire was "Self Defence".

Ive given the rebuttal to that claim JehovahsWitness made, its nothing but cherry picking.

A guy from what I consider a false religion quoting a cult doesn't mean much to me.

Well the guy with the "False Religion" had the same argument you did.
Facts are, Jesus is called a worm in your Bible (in the original Hebrew), honest translation such as the RSV do not cover this fact up.

What would they be? Tacitus & Josephus?

Exactly. Tacitus was called Rome's greatest historian.

Regarding Christians, Tacitus in Annals writes:

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate"
(15.44)

It seems like Tacitus was repeating already known oral tradition, it is not an independent confirmation.

Also, Tacitus got it absolutely wrong when he referred to Pilate as "Procurator", his correct title is "Prefect".

I wont even get into Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum, we all know his works were later fabricated by Christians.

Your own Bible says that all the disciples fled:

Then everyone deserted him and fled.
(Mark 14:50)

So what? How does that negate the fact He died on the cross?

That means you rely on hearsay & oral tradition written in a foreign language decades after Jesus.

Tacitus & Josephus recorded down oral tradition, the same way the Gospels were written (From the sources Mark & Quella)

Do you disregard everything else those two great historians wrote?

Christians only fabricated the parts that dealt with Christianity in Josephus' works. Tacitus only repeats oral tradition & what is already known, & simultaneously he gets the title of Pilate wrong which allows us to assume he did not use official records.

If not, why the double standard? It is only your biased assumption to say they didn't fact check what they wrote.

Tacitus gives no source for his material & his elementary mistake proves he did not use official sources, the birth of Tacitus was around 20years after Jesus & he wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, so he can only provide us with hearsay accounts. Tacitus was reporting not recording, appealing to hearsay is not solid evidence.

Here Jesus is praying to God not to die, instead God allows him to die a disgraceful death & instead gives him "Resurrection"...... now what happened to Jesus saying: "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone"
Jesus as the Son asked God not to die, but God gave him "Resurrection" instead.

Jesus asked the Father that if there was any other way whereby man could be saved, that he be allowed to avoid the cross. There wasn't. Another 'contradiction' that isn't.

No, Jesus made no mention of your statement that i bolded, please justify it biblically in the same context.
Jesus asked not to die, and as a Prophet of God in Islam, God accepted his prayer.

It is just a humanly devised idea of what God would or would not do to say God would never allow His son to die an atoning death on the cross. It is presumptuous for mortal man to tell a sovereign God how he should or should not act. "My thoughs are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways." (Is. 55:8). Even Muslims believe that God is omnipotent and can do anything He pleases to do (Sura 30:5).

Agreed, no one is telling God how he should act, God speaks for himself.

Infact, out of the entire Quran which to muslims is the holiest book on earth, the most vilest & most horrendous lie attributed to God is the idea of him "begetting" a child:

They said, "The Most Gracious has begotten a son"!
You have uttered a gross blasphemy.
The heavens are about to shatter, the earth is about to tear asunder, and the mountains are about to crumble.
Because they claim that the Most Gracious has begotten a son.
It is not befitting the Most Gracious that He should beget a son.
Every single one in the heavens and the earth is a servant of the Most Gracious.
He has encompassed them, and has counted them one by one.
All of them will come before Him on the Day of Resurrection as individuals.
(Quran 19:88-95)

The concept of sovereignty held by Muslims is that God can do anything.

Not anything, God is restricted by his Godhood. God cannot lie, even your own scripture testifies to this fact:

God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.
(Hebrews 6:18)

"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began"
(Titus 1:2)

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
(Numbers 23:19)

The moment God lies, he ceases to be a God.

Why then could God have not permitted Jesus to be crucified is He wanted?

God loved Jesus, more than anyone on this earth, the Jews rejected him & mocked him, but God glorified & exalted him with miracles, the Jews thought they killed a false prophet, but God raised him alive into heaven.

It goes back to Jesus' "Sign of Jonah" miracle:

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

The question here is; was Jonah alive in the belly of the whale?
Yes he was. Jonah was alive; not only when he was thrown overboard; but when he was inside the belly of the whale. The sign of Jonah is survival against all odds with the prayer of God, & this is exactly what Islam teaches. Jesus' prayer & faith in God kept him alive.

The prophet Isaiah tells us God did indeed approve of the humiliating death of His Servant, saying, "He has no form of comliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised, and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid as it were our faces from Him;.....Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted."

All the servants of God face trial, the Jihad of the Prophets are greater than our Jihad, there have been prophets & believers that were sawed in half upside down, there have been those believers that were peeled alive for not rejecting the worship of the God of Abraham, for the unbelievers these men look like fools, for God, these men are the best of his creation, & Allah loves those that suffer for his cause.

And btw, Isaiah 53 refers to Israel not the Messiah. Jews see Christians as highly dishonest for misinterpreting Jewish scripture. Even if you insist Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah, you are nullified by Isaiah 53:7: "he did not open his mouth"

"But, He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed." (Is. 53:2-5). So Jesus' crucifixion was not only approved by God, it was predicted (Zech. 12:10, Ps. 22:16).

Regarding the Messianic prophecies, its only a matter of Christian cherry picking of Jewish scripture.

then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent.
(Psalm 91:10)

Contradicts the core teaching of Christianity. It even contradicts Jesus getting beaten up.

He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
(Psalm 91:4)

Did the Jews break through God's shield?

You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day,
(Psalm 91:5)

Why did Jesus pray not to die?

The LORD protects the simplehearted; when I was in great need, he saved me.
(Psalm 116:6)

Perfectly compliments Islam.

For you, O LORD, have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling,
(Psalm 116:8)

Yes, according to Islam, not according to Christianity.

In my anguish I cried to the LORD, and he answered by setting me free.
The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?
(Psalm 118:5-6)

According to Christianity, kill you & torture you.

Even the Koran gives an example of a substitutionary atonement in Abraham's sacrifice of his son on Mt. Moriah:

"He said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice...."So when they had both submitted their wills (to God), And he laid him prostrate on his forehead (For sacrifice), We [God] called out to him, "O Abraham!....And We ransomed him With a momentous sacrifice." (37:102-7)

It was God testing the faith of Abraham, not for any type of 'atonement':

Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe," without being put to the test?

We have tested those before them, for GOD must distinguish those who are truthful, and He must expose the liars.
(Quran 29:2-3)

Clearly, there is a lot of evidence that Jesus was crucified:

Also vice versa.

Second, Jesus announced many times during His ministry that he was going to die (John 2:19-21, 10:10-11, Matt. 12:40, Mark 8:31). Matt. 17:22-23 says, "The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised."

Also read Mark 9:32

But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.

Do you see how the disciples never acknowledged the prophecy as messianic.

& Just to set the facts straight, it was one day (Saturday) and two nights (Friday and Saturday); so as you can see; the biblical inconsistency is very blatent & evident.
No matter what verbal gymnastics you try to do; this prophecy was left unfulfilled: "and the third day He will be raised"

Continued reading from Wikipedia:

Internal consistency

Biblical scholar Bruce M. Metzger makes mention of several internal inconsistencies within the New Testament in earlier manuscripts in which later scribes attempted to correct:[26]
“

In the earlier manuscripts of Mark 1:2, the composite quotation from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 is introduced by the formula "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet". Later scribes, sensing this involves a difficulty replaced "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet" with the general statement "As it is written in the prophets". Since the quotation which Matthew(27:9) attributes to the prophet Jeremiah actually comes from Zechariah(11:12f), it is not surprising that some scribes sought to mend the error either by substituting the correct name or by omitting the name altogether. A few scribes attempted to harmonize the Johannine account of the chronology of the Passion with that in Mark by changing ’sixth hour’ of John 19:14 to ‘third hour’ (which appears in Mark 15:25). At John 1:28, Origen altered Bethany to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in MSS. 33 69 and many others, including those which lie behind the King James version. The statement in Mark 8:31, that ‘the Son of man must suffer many things…and be killed and after three days rise again’, seems to involve a chronological difficulty, and some copyists changed the phrase to the more familiar expression, ‘on the third day’. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews places the golden altar of incense in the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9:4), which is contrary to the Old Testament description of the Tabernacle (Exod. 30:1-6). The scribe of Codex Vaticanus and the translator of the Ethiopic version correct the account by transferring the words to 9:2, where the furniture of the Holy Place is itemized.

�

In the 2nd century CE, Tatian, produced a gospel text called Diatessaron by weaving together all four gospels into one. The gospel compilation eliminated all the discrepancies that exist between the four gospels.[27] For example, it omits the conflicting genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. In order to fit all the canonical material in, Tatian created his own narrative sequence, which is different from both the synoptic sequence and John's sequence.

Third, all the predictions of His resurrection, both in the OT (Ps. 16:10, Isa. 26:19, Dan. 12:2), and in the NT (John 2:19-21, Matt. 12:40, and 17:22-23) are based on the fact that He would die. Only a dead body can be resurrected.

I do not see how the Old Testament predicts a "Resurrection" of the Messiah & if you believe there are blatant verses without the Christian seasoning, please dazzle me with them.

You quoted Matt. 12:40, which clearly shows Jesus will experience the same hardships as Jonah, the only difference being is Jesus would be in the heart of the earth not the whale. Was Jonah "Resurrected"? No. But you see the symbolic connotations the word "Resurrection" holds.

Fourth, the nature and extent of Jesus' injuries indicate that He must have died. He had no sleep the night before He was crucified, He was beaten severely, and He collapsed on the way to the crucifixion carrying His cross. As far as the crucifixion itself, I don't know of any historical record indicating anyone ever survived it.

Fifth, the piercing of Jesus' side with the spear, from which came 'blood and water' (John 19:34), is proof that He had physically died before the piercing. When this has happened, it is a medical proof that the person has already died.

The Gospel of John also claims:

When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.� With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.

The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other.

But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,
(John 19:30-40)

Point number:
1) You rely on the testimony of an unidentified man, he could be satan incarnate for all i care.
2) Why did the Gospel writer need a "Testimony" when he could just be "Inspired" & write everything truthfully from God?
3) The Gospel of John makes the absurd claim that: "Not one of his bones will be broken"
* Can you believe this man that was beaten up & barbarically tortured did not get a SINGLE broken bone?
* HOW ON EARTH can you be nailed to the cross without any penetration to the bones?

Sixth, Jesus said He was in the act of dying on the cross when he declared, "Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit" (Luke 23:46). And "having said this, He breathed His last" (v. 46). John renders this, "He have up His spirit" (John 19:30). His death cry was heard by those who stood by (Luke 23:47-49).

This did not happen if Jesus' prayers were accepted, which in Islam they were.
Again, you are reporting a hearsay account, the facts are:

Then everyone deserted him and fled.
(Mark 14:50)

But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.
(Matthew 26:56)

How do you expect the disciples of Jesus writing in a foreign language decades later without being eye-witnesses, telling exactly word for word what Jesus said?

Seventh, the Roman soldiers pronounced Jesus dead. Although it was a common practice to break the legs of the victim to speed death, they did not do this with Jesus as He was so obviously dead.

This goes back to my point about Jesus not breaking a single bone & how it is illogical if we take into account Jesus' torture & crucifixion

Eighth, Pilate double-checked to make sure Jesus was dead before he gave the corpse to Joseph to be buried. "Summoning the centurion, he asked him if He had been dead for some time. And when he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph" (Mark 15:44-45).


Ninth, Jesus was wrapped in about 75 pounds of cloth and spices and placed in a sealed tomb for 3 days (John 19:39-40, Matt. 27:60). If He was not dead by then, which He clearly was, He would have died from lack of food, water, and medical treatment.

If Jonah did not die when he was thrown overboard, he would have died from suffocation & the acidic burn inside the whale' belly. But he did not, because God can do wonderful things.

Please read my post that dwells deeply into the biblical resurrection events:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4&start=30

Tenth, medical authorities who have examined the circumstances of Jesus' death have concluded that he actually died on the cross.

Reading the New Testament at first glance will make anyone conclude Jesus died.

But analysing the discrepencies & analysing the authenticity & credibility of the canonical Gospels themselves, will make anyone conclude that the source is highly doubtful. There are great Biblical Scholars with PhD' such as Bart Ehrman who was a former Fundamentalist Christian, whom now claims the entire biblical recount of Jesus is a mythological story & historically unreliable. Clearly satan has deceived him with logic & reasoning.

Bart Ehrman sums it up

Contrary to Islamic thought, there is overwhelming historical evidence that Jesus died on the cross.

"Overwhelming Historical Evidence"?
Please, incite & dazzle me, not a single Christian so far in my life has shown me any solid "evidence" not to mention "overwhelming" evidence as you put it, maybe you can be the first?


I conclude with a text that was rejected by the Council of Nicea:

"After my departure there will arise the ignorant and the crafty, and many things will they ascribe unto Me that I never spake, and many things which I did speak will they withhold.
(Gospel of the Nazorenes)

[delcoder]

Which Gospel would that be? Is it written in Aramaic by any chance? Can we identify the authors?

Yes.

Yes for all? Nice...
Please dazzle me with your objective evidence.

Obfuscation, obfuscation, and more obfuscation. This is the summation of all your arguments.

You made a really big deal of the use of "ho" and "ton" in John 1:1. Then I posted this:

I told you I was a little rusty with respect to Greek translations. Well, I am getting lubricated. "ho" and "ton" are declensions of the same word in Koine Greek. That my friend, means they mean exactly the same thing. When I said sentence structure determined which was to be used I was correct. It all has to do with nominative or subjective case and transitive and intransitive verbs. See:

http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/less ... n2dcl.html

So your arguments are with respect to changing the meaning of the words translated "God" are absolutely baseless. At this point I don't know if you were being deceitful or demonstrating your ignorance. In any case you have built an argument on nothing and John 1:1 is anything but ambiguous.

Which you have ignored. You have been exposed. Your argument has been reduced to the ridiculous. You know nothing of Koine Greek.

Now you want to build upon your obfuscation by attempting to make some weird point about the authors of the NT not speaking Greek and requiring gospels to be written in Aramaic. What? Because you make it abundantly clear you do not understand the Greek and do understand Aramaic you want to pervert the facts so your understanding will have some bearing on the argument?

Do you think it was an accident the gospels are in Greek? Koine Greek is an extremely accurate language especially with respect to written text. It is far more accurate than English. English has no declensions. Does Aramaic?

It all boils down to the fact you have no argument, just obfuscation.

[Murad]

Which Gospel would that be? Is it written in Aramaic by any chance? Can we identify the authors?

Yes.

Yes for all? Nice...
Please dazzle me with your objective evidence.

Obfuscation, obfuscation, and more obfuscation. This is the summation of all your arguments.

You made a really big deal of the use of "ho" and "ton" in John 1:1. Then I posted this:

I told you I was a little rusty with respect to Greek translations. Well, I am getting lubricated. "ho" and "ton" are declensions of the same word in Koine Greek. That my friend, means they mean exactly the same thing. When I said sentence structure determined which was to be used I was correct. It all has to do with nominative or subjective case and transitive and intransitive verbs. See:

http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/less ... n2dcl.html

So your arguments are with respect to changing the meaning of the words translated "God" are absolutely baseless. At this point I don't know if you were being deceitful or demonstrating your ignorance. In any case you have built an argument on nothing and John 1:1 is anything but ambiguous.

Which you have ignored. You have been exposed. Your argument has been reduced to the ridiculous. You know nothing of Koine Greek.

Now you want to build upon your obfuscation by attempting to make some weird point about the authors of the NT not speaking Greek and requiring gospels to be written in Aramaic. What? Because you make it abundantly clear you do not understand the Greek and do understand Aramaic you want to pervert the facts so your understanding will have some bearing on the argument?

Do you think it was an accident the gospels are in Greek? Koine Greek is an extremely accurate language especially with respect to written text. It is far more accurate than English. English has no declensions. Does Aramaic?

It all boils down to the fact you have no argument, just obfuscation.

My whole argument was "The Word" only gets described as "ton theos", so you have biblical translations such as:

"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."
(The New Testament, An American Translation)

"John 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God, and the word was a divine being.'"
(Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173)

"The Logos existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"
(The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt)
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317

Then you have:

"and the Word was a god" - The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

"and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

"and the Word was divine" - The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

"so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

"and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

“and the Word was a divine being.� La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

“and the Word was divine.� The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

“and of a divine kind was the Word.� Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

“and the Word was a God.� The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.� Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

These are Christians BTW, not atheists or muslims.

Then we have Greek speaking renowned Christian scholars:

"the Word [logos] was a god".
- "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.

Even the coptic text puts it as:

Ϩ� ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ �ЄϤϢΟΟΠ �ϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ �ЄϤϢΟΟΠ ��ΑϨΡΜ Π�ΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ �ЄΥ�ΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ

In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God.
(John 1:1)

There is no indefinite article, i am not trying to prove the mainstream translation is incorrect, but the Unitarian & JW translations are plausible & there are Greek scholars that believe this.

The only real "Obfuscation" here is the Christian mistranslation of Exodus 3:14 "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" into "I AM what I AM" to suit the Greek "ego eimi" used in John 8:58, a prime example of a Trinitarian concoction to make Jesus appear as God.

Then we have the Christian translation of Psalms 110:1 where it reads:

"Yahweh said to my Adoni(Master/Lord)"

Fabricated into:

The Lord said to my Lord

(In the desperate attempt to make Jesus & Yahweh the same thing.)

& then we have Christians fabricating the literal translation of Job 25:6
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=16766

The list of Christian mistranslations go on (& they are done purposely), infact i can create a whole thread listing the weird Christian translations of Hebrew scripture to suit their pre-conceived Christian beliefs.

Just because i disagree with mainstream bibles over John 1:1 does not make me wrong & other notable Christians such as Edgar Goodspeed and J.M. Powis Smith disagree with you. You have not "Exposed" anyone & the opinions of an anonymous author written 50-60years later in a foreign language does not hold much weight to me.

So tell me, how can you BE GOD & be WITH GOD at the same time? Its like saying Im God & im also with God, absolute baloney that survives thanks to your "mysterious" doctrines

Also could you please elaborate your earlier comment regarding the "Ignorance" in my claims:

The christian notion of Jesus is:
1) Hypostatically Unified as a Fully Man & a Fully God because according to mainstream Christians, the doctrine of Kenosis is insufficient; because a "Partial God" cannot atone for all humanity meaning Jesus had to be "Fully God" when he was "crucified" (The Hypostatic Union is still contradicted by Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32)
2) Was one with God & was God at the same time. (Aka "Holy Mystery" aka baloney)
3) Is 1 in essence with God but has a different mind of his own & a different personhood. (Another great "Mystery" we blindly have to believe)
4) The Triune God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) can pray to itself (To a different person within itself).

Part of this is true and part is pure ignorance.

[delcoder]

Which Gospel would that be? Is it written in Aramaic by any chance? Can we identify the authors?

Yes.

Yes for all? Nice...
Please dazzle me with your objective evidence.

Obfuscation, obfuscation, and more obfuscation. This is the summation of all your arguments.

You made a really big deal of the use of "ho" and "ton" in John 1:1. Then I posted this:

I told you I was a little rusty with respect to Greek translations. Well, I am getting lubricated. "ho" and "ton" are declensions of the same word in Koine Greek. That my friend, means they mean exactly the same thing. When I said sentence structure determined which was to be used I was correct. It all has to do with nominative or subjective case and transitive and intransitive verbs. See:

http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/less ... n2dcl.html

So your arguments are with respect to changing the meaning of the words translated "God" are absolutely baseless. At this point I don't know if you were being deceitful or demonstrating your ignorance. In any case you have built an argument on nothing and John 1:1 is anything but ambiguous.

Which you have ignored. You have been exposed. Your argument has been reduced to the ridiculous. You know nothing of Koine Greek.

Now you want to build upon your obfuscation by attempting to make some weird point about the authors of the NT not speaking Greek and requiring gospels to be written in Aramaic. What? Because you make it abundantly clear you do not understand the Greek and do understand Aramaic you want to pervert the facts so your understanding will have some bearing on the argument?

Do you think it was an accident the gospels are in Greek? Koine Greek is an extremely accurate language especially with respect to written text. It is far more accurate than English. English has no declensions. Does Aramaic?

It all boils down to the fact you have no argument, just obfuscation.

My whole argument was "The Word" only gets described as "ton theos",...

Your argument was actually based upon the use of two articles translated "ho" and "ton". You attempted to show "ton" modified "God" when the scripture said "the Word was with God" and that "ho" modified "God" when the scripture said, "and was God." You then attempted to draw from this observation that when the scripture said "and was God" it should have said, "was divine."

I have now revealed your error based upon your ignorance of Greek declensions and the fact that "ho" and "ton" are declensions of the same word. I furnished a link as proof of that claim. Now that your ridiculous argument with respect to translation of John 1:1 has been exposed you post several obscure and incorrect translations where you find "was divine."

I will answer this diversion in a later post.

[delcoder]

My whole argument was "The Word" only gets described as "ton theos", so you have biblical translations such as:

"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."
(The New Testament, An American Translation)

"John 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God, and the word was a divine being.'"
(Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173)

"The Logos existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"
(The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt)
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317

Then you have:

"and the Word was a god" - The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

"and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

"and the Word was divine" - The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

"so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

"and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

“and the Word was a divine being.� La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

“and the Word was divine.� The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

“and of a divine kind was the Word.� Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

“and the Word was a God.� The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.� Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

These are Christians BTW, not atheists or muslims.

Then we have Greek speaking renowned Christian scholars:

"the Word [logos] was a god".
- "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.

Even the coptic text puts it as:

Ϩ� ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ �ЄϤϢΟΟΠ �ϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ �ЄϤϢΟΟΠ ��ΑϨΡΜ Π�ΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ �ЄΥ�ΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ

In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God.
(John 1:1)

There is no indefinite article, i am not trying to prove the mainstream translation is incorrect, but the Unitarian & JW translations are plausible & there are Greek scholars that believe this.

I complement you on your diligent research. If not all, you have certainly found most of the errors in translation and thought that exist. Now consider what the mainstream versions and scholars have to say. The following are the translations of John 1:1 justifying the text, "and the Word was God."

New International version
New Living Translation
New American Standard Bible
International Standard Version
GOD'S WORD Translation
King James Bible
American King James Bible
American Standard Version
Bible in Basic English
Douay-Rheims Bible
Darby Bible Translation
English Revised Version
Weymouth New Testament
World English Bible
Young's Literal Translation

http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm

Of all these the one that stands out is "The New American Standard Bible" which is considered the most accurate and faithful to the original text of all translations. When taking New Testament Greek in college our professor recommended we all purchase it to use as a guide in our personal translations.

The only real "Obfuscation" here is the Christian mistranslation of Exodus 3:14 "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" into "I AM what I AM" to suit the Greek "ego eimi" used in John 8:58, a prime example of a Trinitarian concoction to make Jesus appear as God.

I find it strange you offer no corrected version of this translation. Since this verse is not part of my argument your objection to its translation seems to serve as a red herring.

Then we have the Christian translation of Psalms 110:1 where it reads:

"Yahweh said to my Adoni(Master/Lord)"

Fabricated into:

The Lord said to my Lord

(In the desperate attempt to make Jesus & Yahweh the same thing.)

Again, not part of my argument so I find no need to defend any specific translation. See above.

& then we have Christians fabricating the literal translation of Job 25:6
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=16766

The list of Christian mistranslations go on (& they are done purposely), infact i can create a whole thread listing the weird Christian translations of Hebrew scripture to suit their pre-conceived Christian beliefs.

See my reply above. It seems since your position on John 1:1 has been exposed to be ridiculous you seek to divert the argument away from your error.

Just because i disagree with mainstream bibles over John 1:1 does not make me wrong & other notable Christians such as Edgar Goodspeed and J.M. Powis Smith disagree with you. You have not "Exposed" anyone & the opinions of an anonymous author written 50-60years later in a foreign language does not hold much weight to me.

You offer what you consider to be perversions of some scriptures based upon what you call Christian attempts to equate Christ (Word) with God and then expose your own bias in mistranslating John 1:1??? Do you not realize what you are doing here?

So tell me, how can you BE GOD & be WITH GOD at the same time? Its like saying Im God & im also with God, absolute baloney that survives thanks to your "mysterious" doctrines

I will do that right after you explain to me how Allah always existed.

Also could you please elaborate your earlier comment regarding the "Ignorance" in my claims:

The christian notion of Jesus is:
1) Hypostatically Unified as a Fully Man & a Fully God because according to mainstream Christians, the doctrine of Kenosis is insufficient; because a "Partial God" cannot atone for all humanity meaning Jesus had to be "Fully God" when he was "crucified" (The Hypostatic Union is still contradicted by Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32)
2) Was one with God & was God at the same time. (Aka "Holy Mystery" aka baloney)
3) Is 1 in essence with God but has a different mind of his own & a different personhood. (Another great "Mystery" we blindly have to believe)
4) The Triune God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) can pray to itself (To a different person within itself).

Part of this is true and part is pure ignorance.

1 & 2 are basically the same thing stated differently.
3 "has a different mind of his own..." Baloney. Christ could not be fully God and yet have a different mind. "a different personhood" is part of 1 & 2.
4. Only the fully man Christ Jesus prayed to God. He had to be fully human for His sinless life to have meaning. God cannot sin neither be tempted to sin. From birth to death Jesus was fully a man and fully God. An equating of praying to the Father, asking "the cup to pass from him," being weary, and any other actions or feelings of humans attributed to him refer to His being fully man. In a sense an understanding of 1 & 2 explain all your objections.

Since you have failed to understand what you call the "Holy Mystery" it renders your objections to the humanity of Christ meaningless.