Is God 1 or 3? [Or] Is Jesus God or part of God? [Let the Gospel answer]

The God of the Bible has returned the Jews to your backyard knowing that the Islamic nations will attack them in force. The God of the Bible will destroy five sixths of this invading army. It will be Islamic armies that will be destroyed. God promised that the land belongs to the Jews, you do not care, or you do not believe this is true. The God of the Bible will deal with this invading army so the whole world will know why the Jews were kicked out of their land. If the God of the Bible was the same as your God he would not be protecting Jews and He would not be destroying Islamic armies. When Islamic nations try to force the Jews out of their land, you will be making the same mistake Pharoah did at the Red Sea crossing. If Islamics die because they are destroyed by Jehovah, then they will of died for a false belief. The prophecies of the Bible are detailed and they are telling you exactly what is going to happen. How can you ignore this?

Jesus physical body had a beginning, but His Spirit is eternal.

We are not talking about three Gods but one. Just as the Atom can be split, yet together it is only one atom. God is the same way, yes they can be seperated, but they exist as only one God.

 

My feeling about this-and this is purely from a devil's advocate position as I, too, question the trinity-is that because Jesus didn't come into being until after the OT was written that the model was not completed before that time. Some religious scholars argue that the angel who appeared in the firey furnace to protect the three who refused to bow to the Babylonian gods was the spirit of Jesus.



​

 

Hello!

Right, my friend, you’ve asked me to quote from the Bible, and that is just what I did! Paul was appointed as an apostle, and therefore had authority in such matters. Now, if you have a reason as to why Philippians isn’t part of the Bible, then show me, don’t just assert it! Until then, I will continue to quote from the whole Bible, not just the nine books you except.

For the first part, it plainly says that Jesus had the nature of God--Jesus is God. For your second question, however, I’m not sure what you mean. How many different types of equality are there? To me it seems pretty straight forward; it has to do with the humility of Christ. How even though He was by very nature God, He humbled Himself becoming just like us, and enduring the same struggles as us.

This seems to be a category error. Being in a “place” as you describe it here, is a property of physical entities. Something that is immaterial in nature, does not reside in a “place,” or at least not in any sense of the word how we know it. Both the Father and the Holy Spirit are immaterial by nature; however, Jesus is God invested with human flesh and nature--God incarnate. So to ask, say, whether The Father and the Son can exist in separate places, is to equivocate on the concept of existing in a place. On the one hand, you’re speaking of God’s presence, the quality of His omnipotent and omniscient to reach out and influence all areas of the universe, and indeed the whole of reality, while on the other hand, you are speaking of Jesus’ physical residence in a specific place. This makes your question, at least in my opinion, nonsensical. Like asking how to draw a square circle. But don’t feel bad, we are dealing with the Trinity which is no easy subject matter!

This appears to be a loaded question with perhaps some question begging. I notice how on the one hand, you speak of the manuscripts being different. This I can agree with. This happens with all ancient texts including the Qur’an. For example, before Uthman’s reign (the third successor to Muhammad) the people of Kufah used a Qur'an prepared by Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, a servant and Companion of Muhammad. During the reign of Uthman, however, he had a new rendition of the Qur'an prepared, and ordered that all other existing copies be destroyed. The people of Kufah refused since ibn Mas`ud was considered an authority on the Qur’an and claimed to have learned 70 Surahs directly from Muhammad. At anyrate, the modern Qur’an today depends on Uthman’s copy. So are there any differences between Uthman’s and ibn Mas`ud versions? You bet! Ibn Mas`ud's text, for example omits Surah 1, 113, and 114! Another pre-Uthman text has the addition of two extra Surahs which read:

O Allah, we seek your help and ask your forgiveness,
and we praise you and do not disbelieve in you.
We separate from and leave who sin against you.

O Allah, we worship you and to you we pray and prostrate
and to you we run and hasten to serve you.
We hope for your mercy and we fear your punishment.
Your punishment will certainly reach the unbelievers

Yusuf Ali's, refers to a variation of 33:6 found in Ubai ibn Ka`b's codex which reads:

The Prophet is closer
To the believers than
Their own selves,
And he is a father to them
And his wives are
Their mothers...

Given the level of secrecy, and the fact that many codices where destroyed, finding variants and what not, is no easy task. And even still there are many variants. One wonders what one would find if the Qur’an were even half as open to public criticism as the Bible is! Now do not misunderstand me, I do not say this in an attempt to degrade the Qur’an, only to show that the very problems you’re objecting to, are the very problems that exist in the Qur’an. And that if you are consistent with your assertions about the Bible, than you should be raising the same objections against the Qur’an. This, again, is the “naivety” I spoke of you having in this subject matter, in my last post.

Now, on the other hand you speak of the extent or the degree of difference between the manuscripts.

You imply that the difference is significant enough to warrant the claim that these are in fact different passages. When one speaks of manuscripts being different, there is a degree of difference to which he or she is referring. Differences can be anything from small letter and punctuation variants, to whole passages being overtly changed, added or omitted. You seem to be speaking of the latter here with regards to Matthew 19:17. But I think this claim is unwarranted. Recall, that in my last two posts I issued you several challenges that are relevant here. They were (A) Do you see a difference in the meaning between the two versions? (B) What is the meaning behind Matthew 19:17 in the NIV, and what is the meaning behind Matthew 19:17 in the KJV? (C ) If you do see a difference, is this difference significant enough to cause a doctrine change? and (D) Are you aware that the same story is told in Luke 18:18-23 and that Luke 18:19 in the NIV reads, “Why do you call me good?” Now, why is it that you neglect to answer these questions, yet you still go on to claim that the text has been corrupted? It would seem to me that if this passage really were corrupted, one would have no problem in answering these questions in such way that the corruption would be revealed.

And what did the originals say? What can you point me to that shows what the originals said? Where are the manuscripts? Also, what criteria do you use to determine if what is written in the Gospels is part of the original, or not? Now I’m sure you’ve realized that I don’t buy anything you’ve just said. In fact I’ve heard this time and time again. So, taking into consideration my skeptical nature on such things, how can you go about showing me otherwise--showing me that what you say is true?

…and…what? What’s the problem here?

But this really doesn’t draw any distinction from the Gospels. The teachings revealed to the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were available in written form in their lifetimes as well.

Let’s be consistent here. The accounts that take place in Genesis happen way before they are written down by Moses. So you do consider these accounts not to be the Word of God?

Set aside from that, you formulate this in “sound bite” form, as if stating it by itself reveals some sort of problem. Is it enough, for example, for me to glibly say that Muhammad was an illiterate who could neither read nor write what he dictated, and then go on to say, “So how can you consider a book written in such a fashion to be Allah‘s revelation to us?” This is very poor argumentation. (And indeed, most Muslims would try and use Muhammad’s illiteracy as an argument for not against Islam!)

Ok first off, by what right are you restricting the Word of God to the literal words of God only? Where is this found in the Bible? To the contrary, I see Hebrews 1:1 which says, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways…” But, is every Christian to go learn Hebrew, so that they can read the exact words of God, since God obviously didn’t speak English to Moses, which would make the English words not His literal words?

Second off, what are we to do with all the events that are recorded in the Torah, since these aren’t the literal words of God, but are records of events like the Gospels? We know the passages in which God speaks (“Thus says the LORD“) but what I am to do about passages which talk about the Israelites wondering in the desert? Or the recorded events of the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Moses? Am I to discard these events and the lessons learned in them?

And third, there is something called an inference. It is when you take what is explicitly written in a text and draw a conclusion that is not explicitly mentioned in the text. One can, for example, observe what God has said about lust and fornication, and make an inference about the sinfulness of masturbation. However, one could easily object, “Well, God never says, ‘masturbation is sin’!” That is, it is never explicitly mentioned by Him, e.g. “Thus says the LORD ‘masturbation is sin,’” but it is however an inference made by reading what is explicitly mentioned. At any rate, I would assume that you make inferences from the scriptures all the time. It is how you apply age-old teachings to modern life. Now, if you are consistent with the objections you‘ve made above (and below), then every time you go about making an inference and applying some part of scripture to your daily life, than you should reject it since God never explicitly told you to do such-and-such--or at least realize that God never said that you ought to do this or that in that particular situation. However, if you except inferences as a valid way of determining what God would have you do in a given situation, than you would admit that God can communicate by means other then just, “Thus says the Lord…” Which would mean that it is quite possible that He can and does communicate through the Gospels.

Ok, you seem to be a bit confused as to what the “inspiration” of the Bible means. Norman Geisler defines inspiration as such:

There are at least two important points that you should take from this. (1)The Bible is divine in origin. That is, the ultimate source of the Bible is God Himself, it is, “God breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) and (2) The Bible comes to us by way of human agency. That is, that save for a few examples--the finger or God inscribing the Ten Commandments for example (Deut 9:10)--God uses instruments (such as the prophets, and apostles) as means of commutating. And God’s way of communicating is not limited to “Thus says the Lord…” but He can and does communicate using different means.

Please, I beg you, BE CONSISTENT! Does Moses not belong in the category of “people?” What about the people who Muhammad dictated his supposed revelation to? Were they not “people” who wrote down what Muhammad told them to? Shouldn’t you be making the same complaint about them as well?

Did read what I said in my last post about my theory about the man’s belief simply being a by-product of me believing that Jesus in God? And that in fact, I wouldn’t expect you to believe as I do regarding the man’s belief, since you don’t believe Jesus is God? And that in fact, I said that this point was nonessential? Did you read that part? I know my last response was pretty long.

Alright I guess I could grant you this one luxury

What’s the wrong? The power to forgive sin is God’s and God’s only! Therefore, if someone claims to have the ability to forgive sins, he is either (1) A liar, that is, a deceiver (2) A lunatic who lacks the normal human faculties of reasoning, among other things, or (3) He really does have the ability to forgive sins. Now, if he really does have the ability to forgive sins, and the ability to forgive sins in God’s only, then this person must be God! There is no “prophet” choice here, as far as I can see. I mean, what if I were to claim that Jesus was just a mere prophet? What am I to make of His ability to forgive sin? Either I would (a) claim that He did have the ability to forgive sin, or (b) I would claim that He didn’t really have the ability to forgive sin. In regards to (a), I would have to either admit that Jesus was God, since only God can forgive sins, or I would have to say that he wasn’t God, in which case I would be going against the very Word of God since it says that only God has the power to forgive sins. If I believed (b), however, I would make Him out to be not only a liar, but also a blasphemer. Since forgiving sins is a prerogative of God’s only, and since Jesus claimed to have this ability, and since I wouldn’t believe He really had this ability, then I would be forced to believe that He was really lying. I would be making Jesus out to be a liar, a blasphemer, and a deceiver. Either that, or a lunatic, a real wacko. Now, does either of these sound like the qualities of a prophet to you? Would you want a lying, deceiving, blasphemer as a prophet? No? How about a raging lunatic? Didn’t think so? So what’s left? That Jesus was and is God!

Also, you seem to be saying that God somehow reveal to Jesus that He had forgiven the man’s sins, and that Jesus sorta passed this information on to the man. If this is the case, I want to know where you got this from. It certainly didn’t come from the Bible. In the passage, Jesus says, “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." He said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." The title “Son of Man” refers to Jesus alone, and notice that He says that he did what he did so that they would know that the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins. Nowhere in this passage do we see Him claiming it was revealed to Him that God had forgiven the man’s sins, to the contrary, we see that Jesus Himself forgave the man his sins, and that Jesus Himself claimed He had the authority to do so. He is here claiming a prerogative that only God has. If someone is able to do what only God can do, than that someone must be God!

In regards to Muhammad and the Qur’an. First off, I do not think that he was a prophet. Second off, I do not take the Qur’an to be a revelation from God. This is because many of the teachings of Islam and the Qur’an contradict the teachings found in the Bible. So since I take the Bible to be true, than I must take take the Qur’an to be false.

 

You’ve lost me here. I’m not sure what you are asking. Romans 6:23 “For wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Good, now what is the context of this verse, and does it have anything at all to do with our passage in which Jesus forgives the man his sins?…and likewise for the other three verses you mention. Let’s focus on the passages in question, and not make a habit of pulling up random verses out of context.

Except that there is no prophet who both claimed the prerogatives of God, and claimed to be God. We never see a passage in which Moses say’s “Before Abraham was, I AM,” or “I and the Father are one,” or “…so that you may know that I Moses have the power to forgive sin…” In fact, I challenge you to show me just one biblical prophet who made the same claims as Jesus did. Also, do me a favor, since you’re quoting Acts 2:22, go ahead and read that verse in it’s full context, Acts 2:14-41, then let me know if 2:14 still has the same meaning you’re trying to make have.

Set aside from the challenges above, You still haven’t answered A thru I yet. And there are also a few more challenges I would like to make given the nature of many of your responses; however, I will and see if you attempt to answer the questions I posed this posting. Anyway see ya for now my friend,

God Bless!

 

Jatom
​

Hi =)
​

How are you doing today, I hope you are fine and happy
​

Ok let's continue
​

!!!!!!
​

I don't think that Jesus was meaning this at all! Please read my five points fully firstly before giving any comments because they are correlated and interrelated.
​

​

Firstly: (KJV) John 8:58: “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Let's read this verse from other versions
​

1- (Worldwide English [New Testament])
​

Jesus answered, `I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.' Read this verse from this version by clicking here;
​

​

2- (New Living Translation)
​

Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!"
​

Read this verse from this version by clicking here
​

​

Consequently, ''I am'' couldn't be found in these two versions! Paul wrote his
​

Letters before the four gospels, which were later colored and influenced by Paul’s beliefs and teachings. Can I say that they wrote ''I am'' in some versions to reconcile it with the verse in Exodus?!
​

​

Secondly:
​

John8.56-57: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
​

!!!!! Jesus was saying that Abram saw him not he (Jesus) saw Abraham? Why did the Jews say in 57: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
​

Can you clarify this verse to me? Or it is an addition to write the verse 58 to reconcile it with Exodus? Clarify it, please. John8.56-57: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was gladè this verse is whether an addition by the hand of men because Abraham has died, or God let Abraham to see Jesus' day, God can give life to the dead creatures and he can do every thing.
​

​

Thirdly:
​

John8.55:
​

A- (New Living Translation)
​

…! But it is true--I know him and obey him. Click here to read this verse from this version
​

​

B- (Amplified Bible)
​

…. But I know Him and keep His word [obey His teachings, am faithful to His message] Click
​

​

​

C- (Contemporary English Version)
​

…. But I know him, and I do what he says. Click
​

​

D- (The Message)
​

... But I do know, and I am doing what he says. Click
​

​

​

E- (Worldwide English (New Testament))
​

…. But I know him and I obey his word. Click
​

​

​

F- (New Life Version)
​

…. But I do know the Father and obey His Word. Click
​

​

​

G- (New International Reader's Version)
​

…. But I do know him. And I obey his word. Click
​

​

Accordingly:
​

'' I obey him'' è obey: if Jesus is a God, why does he obey the God? God doesn't have to obey anyone! Others who aren't Gods should do so. Was he obeying himself [God is 3 but they are 1]? Or he was a messenger not a God so he was obeying his God as all the creatures and prophets should obey their God?
​

​

'' I do what he says '' è do: the employee does what his boss wants and orders and says? Was Jesus then a prophet? The God send someone as a messenger or a prophet to do what he says and wants? So Jesus is a messenger and a prophet of the God exactly as all the other prophets and the messengers who were before him Matthew 5.17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. He came to fulfill them, none of the former prophets talked about the trinity! Could the God liken himself to the prophets when he says that he came to fulfill which means to fulfill their job in conveying the message of God! Jesus himself described himself as a prophet in Matthew 13.57, John8.55: (Amplified Bible) …. But I know Him and keep His word [obey His teachings, am faithful to His message] Click
​

​

​

Fourthly:
​

Jesus was born later after Abraham at the time of King Herod! So, what did Jesus mean by (NLT) "I existed before Abraham was even born!''
​

I can give my opinion and clarification on this but it isn't what you are talking about I think. Do you think that he was born before the time of King Herod too? How did he exist or how was his born for the first time, please support it with a biblical verse.
​

​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens​

​

​

 

Jatom
​

nope, the Jews didn't recognized this, because
​

1- ''I am'' couldn't be found in some other versions, as I clarified that above. Paul wrote his Letters before the four gospels, which were later colored and influenced by Paul’s beliefs and teachings. Can I say that they wrote ''I am'' in some versions to reconcile it with the verse in Exodus?!
​

2- (NLT) "I existed before Abraham was even born!'' how could Jesus be exited before Abraham's birth? If the Jews didn't understand what Jesus meant by this basically, that's why they picked up stones to stone him =( and they didn't gave him the chance to clarify so, or they understood what Jesus was meaning but they didn't want to listen more from him =( oh dear Jesus. And as I said: Jesus was born later after Abraham at the time of King Herod! So, what did Jesus mean by (NLT) "I existed before Abraham was even born!'' I can give my opinion and clarification on this.
​

​

No; rather, someone who says something like this is either
​

1- A prophet from God and God was revealing, inspiring and supporting him with such things and miracles! Acts.2.22 (KJV+NIV): men of Israel listen to this; Jesus of Nazareth was a man approved by God to you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did through him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also, know:
​

​

2- Or we understand him in some intact verses wrongly
​

​

3- Or people uttered lies against Jesus by ascribing him with things and sayings and deeds to him, and that the Gospel has been corrupted.
​

Recommended Reading:
​

​

​

Click here to review this book online!
​

​

Pagan Roots of the Trinity Doctrine
​

​

The Apostle's Creed
​

​

The Nicene Creed
​

​

The Athanasian Creed
​

​

​

I already commented on this man! Do you still want me to do so after my comments on John 8.58 + Luke 5:18-26? Because you said: I translate Matthew 19:17 on the basis of this. For if Christ is God, then He would not deny His own divinity.
​

I will try to comment on the rest of your responses today or tomorrow, whenever I have the chance to do so, gotta go
​

​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

Dear mambers​

I am trying to write responses whenever I have the chance to do so, so please excuse me , what shall I do, I get too busy sometimes , I am not ignoring anyone, OK Dear members =)​

Peace and love​

YoursSincerely,​

CatStevens​

 

Alright, well I'll let you caught up before I post a response to your last post.

 

Genesis 3:22 "The man has now become like one of (US)."

 

Jatom
​

Hi =)
​

​

I explained that, how many times should I repeat and re-write?
​

(Matthew: 19.16-17) (NIV) “Why do you ask me about what is good?”
​

(KJV) Why callest thou me good?
​

Is it the same when I say:
​

* Why do you ask me about catstevense?
​

* Why do you call me catstevens?
​

I am talking about this (the 2 questions above). Here is the huge different in the meaning?!!! You get it now! Why there is such difference in some verses of the bible from a version to another! A difference which gives you another concept or meaning for the verse! When I see such differences I call it corruption.
​

I discussed Matthew: 19.16-17 enough.
​

​

I already wrote my understanding of Jesus response.
​

​

It depends on the verse.
​

​

Jesus remains the son of God (not literally) whether there are corrupted verses or not.
​

​

Nope, rather let's be in the frame of that corruption that I mentioned it,
​

Is it the same when I say:
​

* Why do you ask me about catstevense?
​

* Why do you call me catstevens?
​

I am talking about this (the 2 questions above). Here is the huge different in the meaning?!!! You get it now! Why there is such difference in some verses of the bible from a version to another! A difference which gives you another concept or meaning for the verse! When I see such differences I call it corruption.
​

I discussed Matthew: 19.16-17 enough.
​

​

Simply my dear,
​

If you want to talk about the reliability of the entire bible then this isn't our topic, but about that specific verse in Matthew then it is OK, when you see a totally different verse or word in its meaning for the same verse from a version to another what do you call this? Why do you ask me/ Why do you call me/.
​

​

Dear, myself I read about it (the authenticity of the bible), and yeah it isn't reliable that's what I found; I don't want to discuss this at least now and here. I don't mind to assume that it is a reliable and an authentic, nevertheless, I can't conclude that Jesus is the God from the bible! That's why I don't care to talk about its reliability, as long as the current Bible doesn't lead or point or evidence Jesus' divinity.
​

​

Did they forget to change it toè why do you ask me about good. Or then they understood it as you did, whatsoever, read my next comment
​

​

Yup, my point is the same verse from the same chapter should be one and the same in all the manuscripts and the current versions. Yeah, if there is a different words or wording of writing the verse from a manuscript to another but it gives the same meaning then this is very OK.
​

​

I don't accept Paul's sayings and statements. Sadly any discussion about Christianity and its beliefs and practices cannot be complete without an examination of the influence of Paul.
​

​

Numbers 23.19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
​

Isaiah 43.10-11: … ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
​

Isaiah 44.6: … I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
​

​

(KJV John 20:28)And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God
​

​

Let's read this verse from other versions
​

​

A- (The Message) Thomas said, "My Master! My God!" click
​

B- (New Living Translation) "My Lord and my God!" Thomas exclaimed. Click
​

​

Do you get what I mean? Oxford dictionaryèExclaim v. cry out suddenly, it is like when I see or hear about something which is stupendous or when I surprise and I didn't expect something I exclaim: My God! Or O My God! Read John 20.25: è But he said unto them, except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. These two versions didn't add ''Thomas said to''/ or ''said unto Jesus''!!
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

Jatom​

​

You know my comment on this I guess; Hebrew isn't a Gospel nor Torah.​

​

Yup, he is. It goes with out saying =) father and son are metaphors click1 & 2​

​

I don't mind you ignore my comments on this quote for these verses are from letters.​

Sinless!​

1- If he was god then it doesn’t need to describe him as a sinless!! Because God worship none so he will disobey whom to be a sinner or obey whom to be sinless?This adjective should refer only to the humans (creators who worship their creator the God) ​

2- you may tell me that while he is in the human figure then he isn't God or he is God and Human in the same time or sometimes he is human and sometimes he is God but he is God or whatsoever, if he is God but in the Human figure he still God anyway because if I am a male and my name is Stevens but I changed my gender to a female, I still Stevens even if I changed my gender, I still have the same soul, brain and thoughts, memories, blood etc KJVMatthew 15: 9; Jesus peace be upon him stated: but in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.​

3- 1 Pet. 2:22:Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth ,Heb. 4:15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities;but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.​

Concerning the above verses​

1-1 Peter and Hebrews are letters aren't one of the 4 gospels. ​

​

2-Who did no sinè you said:''But the point is these passages show the humanness of Christ--His human nature'' and you gave some examples of that human nature'' He wept He hungered, and the list goes on''​

You once said,​

Now do you honestly think this man never had a lustful thought, or spoken out in trivial anger against someone, or told a lie? ​

And​

Any honest seeker should have realized that keeping the law was impossible…The more one tries to keep the law; the more he realizes that he fails at it, and that he is therefore a sinner. As Paul said, “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” (Romans 3:20) And James said “For whoever keeps that whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it” (James 2:10) Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” And finally Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death,…So according to the scriptures, everybody sins, the wages of sin is death, and it is through the law that one is made aware of the fact that he is sinning.​

​

Accordingly, I ask you while Jesus was in the human nature, why he has never committed a sin? He became hungry, he wept etc but has he ever committed a sin? If no, why? You said it is impossible to keep the law, so we all commit sin then! ​

​

3-But was in all points tempted like as we areèMatthew 4: 1-2, 8-9.​

ThenJesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devilafter fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.Again,the devil took himto a very high mountainand showed himall the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.and he (the devil) said to him (Jesus), "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.”​

​

The devil (Satan) tempted Jesus.Could God be tempted? “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1: 13) if he is God but in the Human figure he still God anyway? clarify it if i understood it wrongly+ if you don't mind explain Matthew 8.4 since I read it for the first time until today I am not sure if I understood it correctly.​

​

To be continued​

See ya =)​

YoursSincerely,​

CatStevens​

 

By reading your replies to me so far, I’ve constructed a small guideline that you seem to follow in interpreting scripture. Granted, this isn’t complete, but it will suffice for your first point.

I. If a verse appears different in different versions of the modern English Bible then
i. The Bible was corrupted
ii. The passage(s) in question was corrupted by Paul (and/or others under the influence of Paul‘s teachings) in an attempt to reconcile the passage(s) with other passages in an attempt to make Jesus look like God, perhaps among other things.
iii. If any passage(s) does appear to make Jesus out to be God (e.g. John 8:58), and if an alternate modern English translation can be shown to at least appear not to be making the same claim, then it cannot be true that the passage makes Jesus out to be God. And (B) must be true of that passage.

I. This is a very weak starting point, since it relies purely on modern English translations. No scholars, be he Christian or non-Christina, would rely on such a weak foundation. This is because the English Bibles are translations of Greek and Hebrew. And not only that, but they are translations of the Greek and Hebrew of an ancient culture that no longer exists. Now anyone who is both bi-lingual and bi-cultured should realize the inherent problems of translation. Some, Metaphors, puns, and statements that have a certain cultural grounding, lose their intended effect when translated into another language and culture. Ever ask someone who speaks a different language what a particular phase or joke in his language means in your language, only to have him reply, “Well, it wouldn’t exactly make sense to you in your language”? Now if this happens with two cultures and languages that exist in the same timeframe, imagine how much more so this is a problem when translating from a culture of two to Five thousand years ago! So the problem translators run into is how exactly they should put a particular word, phase, metaphor, etc. So given this information alone, pointing out that different Bibles put different verses in different ways, only points out that some translators differ on how a verse should be put. It does not follow from this alone that the passage(s) in question is corrupted. This claims requires an extra bit of information that shows the claim to be true.

Second , set aside from what is mentioned above, we must also realize what the intentions of a particular translation are. Some translations (like the NASB) will offer more of a word for word translation. Some translate concept to concept. Some (like the NLT) merely paraphrase. We must know its intentions, so that we can know its limitations. For example, an obvious limitation of the KJV version is that is was written 400 years ago! Our culture is vastly different from the time that this version was written, and as a result, certain words do not have the same meaning as they did then. This is why there is a New King James version, and King James dictionaries!

i. Given the foundation, this is hard prove. As I said above, this requires more information than is given. As it stands now your argument goes something like this:

1. Different translations render the same information in different ways
2. Therefore the Bible has been corrupted

I will grant (1), but for the reasons I mentioned above (along with others that I have not mentioned for sake of space and time). However, how in the world does (2) follow from one? Are you aware that translations of other ancient literature are rendered in different ways as well? Are those plagued with corruption too? At any rate, until you show me how (2) follows from one, especially in light of the information given above, I will continue to label this as an empty an assertion.

ii. Given that (A) is an empty assertion, (B) is as well, since a more detailed empty assertion is still an empty assertion. Set aside from that, I think this shows, perhaps, some mis-education on your part, in regards to this matter. But maybe your answers to the following questions will clear up the matter for me:

(1) When was the Gospel of John written, (2) What were the pre-Pauline beliefs in regard to divinity of Christ, and what can you show me in support of this? (3) Around what time did this corruption take place and what can you show me in support of this? (4) What are some examples of verses that were corrupted by the “Pauline influence” and what can you show me in support of their corruption?

iii. Whether or not this is in fact what you believe remains to be seen (although you seem to have given clear indication that you do, or that you at least proceed in this fashion); however, the nature of this point reveals itself to be very biased. When given two translation of the same passage, one that appears to claim the divinity of Christ, and one that appears not to, you automatically choose the one that appears to deny the divinity of Christ without regard to anything else? On what basis do you , for example, decide that since the NLT (a paraphrase) and the Worldwide English New Testament, does not have “I AM” in John 8:58, that Jesus didn’t really say it--i.e. your reasoning goes as such:

1. John 8:58 says, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I AM.”
2. The NLT and Worldwide English New testament do not say “I AM”
3. Therefore Jesus didn’t really say “I AM”
(Nevermind that there are, I believe, at least 50 Translations that say, "I AM"!)

On what basis do you draw this conclusion? I’m puzzled. There must be some hidden logic somewhere that you are not revealing, Since (3) does not follow from (1) & (2), it appears to be a completely arbitrary conclusion. But at any rate, let’s look at the two version you offer. If you look up Exodus 3:14 in the NLT it will say “I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS.” Just tell them, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” Now why in the world does it render this verse this way instead of the traditional “I AM that I AM”? The “I AM” mentioned in Exodus 3:14 has to do with God’s existence, it denotes eternity, “I was, am, and always we be.” The NLT is paraphrased--to rephrase and simplify--edition of the Bible. It translates thought by thought and not word by word (This fact alone rules out using the NLT version in determining what Jesus, or anyone else for that matter, really said. Remember what I said about knowing a translations intentions so that you may know its limitations?). Since simply saying “I AM that I AM” will confuse most modern readers as to what the full meaning behind the passage is, i.e., since “I AM” denotes eternity, and since the average layman will not get this meaning from merely reading “I AM that I AM,” the NLT opts to translate the first part of this verse “ I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS,” even though this is found nowhere in the Hebrew text. That is, they translated the meaning rather than the words.

So what about John 8:58 which reads, “Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!"? The same thing here. Nowhere is this mentioned in the Greek, and instead the NLT offers a thought by thought, and not a word for word, translation.

I’ll actually have to research the Worldwide translation since I don’t know much about it. However, It appears to operate in much the same fashion.

Second point

No, I want you to try this again. Jesus does not say “Abraham saw me” but that he saw His day.

Third point

Remember that if God is a trinity, then there are three persons in the Godhead, and there is also what we call functional subornation within that Godhead. The Son obeys the Father, and the Holy Spirit obeys the Son. The Father sends the Son, the Son sends the Holy Spirit. But you’re equivocating on the word “God.” God (in the sense that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are “God”) is a nature, an essence. It is a “what.” “God” in the sense that you’re using it given the context of thepassage you‘ve chosen to quote from; however, means “the Father.” It is a “who.” So in essence, what you’ve ended up asking is “If Jesus is the Father, then why does He obey the Father?” Notice that neither I, nor Christianity ever make the claim that Jesus is the Father, so your fight is with a straw man here, not me. Now, if you intended to mean something else, then your choice of verse is incorrect, and you’re forcing a meaning on the passage that was never there to begin with. And this is a bit of a concern to me, because you do this quite often. If you want to at least attempt to argue cogently against Christianity, then you need to quote verses in their proper context, or at least give the meanings of the verses in their proper context.

Fourth point

Jesus was born later after Abraham at the time of King Herod! So, what did Jesus mean by (NLT) "I existed before Abraham was even born!''

I can give my opinion and clarification on this but it isn't what you are talking about I think. Do you think that he was born before the time of King Herod too? How did he exist or how was his born for the first time, please support it with a biblical verse.

Again, Jesus is here equating Himself with the YAHWEH of the Old Testament. As far as Bilical support, I have already given this, to which your only reply was “''I am'' couldn't be found in these two versions!” as if those two version were the standard by which every other passages must be judged. Also, if the Bible states that Jesus was born during the time of King Herod, why would I believe that Jesus was also born before then as well? Where do you get this from? You quote the NLT which says “I existed before Abraham was even born!” but nowhere in this verse does it mention anything about Christ being “born.” In fact, no where in this entire passages does Jesus talk about His birth. As far as Him already existing before Abraham was even born, obvious God existed before Abraham right? So if Jesus is God, then He existed before Abraham. So, what is the problem you’re trying to bring up?

…ok, and you get this all from the fact the “I AM” isn’t found in those two versions? catstevens, I have a very hard time believing that you actually believe some of the things you write. *sigh* anyway, refer back to my questions under the first point please.

Again, Jesus was equating Himself to the YAHWEH of the Old Testament. Refer back to my response to your first point under “iii” And why did the Jews pick up stones to stones Jesus? They did this because stoning was the punishment for blasphemy (Lev. 24:16), hence they thought Jesus was speaking blasphemy, hence the reason why they pick up stones to stone Him. You question whether the Jews misunderstood what He meant. That maybe they understood Him as saying “I was born before Abraham was born!” Why isn’t this the case? Because, stoning was the punishment for blasphemy, not insanity or stupidity. If they had understood Jesus as saying “I was born before Abraham was born,” then they wouldn’t have picked up stones to stone Him. Now before you pull the “Pauline influence” out of your ‘bag of tricks’ remember to first answer the questions I raise in my response to your first point. Until then, it will remains an empty assertion.

I’m not gonna even tough this one since it doesn’t even attempt to answer what I said in my last post, including my pointing out your erroneous quoting of Acts 2:22.

Granted, but merely pointing this out is not enough

Granted, but you’ve yet to show this. But you do assert it over and over again!

Secondly, unfortunately, I have neither the time nor inclination to offer books and site reviews on top replying to your post. If you have a specific argument from these sources, than please present it here (and indeed, I‘ve been waiting for quite sometime now for something from you to substantiate your “corruption” claims), otherwise I will just redirect you to other sites that answer the objections, and we’ll end up playing the “link game.” Which I’m in no mood to do since I’m far more interested in what you think.

Anyway, I gotta go for now, unfortunately I probably won’t back until Friday, so I’ll have to reply to rest of your responses then (as well as any other responses you happen to write between now and then.)

God Bless!

See ya.

 

Jatom
​

Hello =)
​

​

(KJV) Matt. 2.1-2, 2.11: Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him
​

​

First:
​

Let's read verse 2 and 11 from (NAB= New American Bible)
​

Saying, "Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star at its rising and have come to do him homage." and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage.
​

Click here to read this verse from (NAB)
​

Homage (Oxford Dictionary): n. tribute, expression of reverence (pay homage to). [Latin homo man]
​

​

Second:
​

An authority on the Bible and its original language, George M. Lamsa, explained the word "worship" as it occurs specifically in John 9:38 in his book GOSPEL LIGHT (1936 edition, p. 353):
​

The Aramaic word sagad, worship, also means to bend or to kneel down. Easterners in greeting each other generally bow the head or bend down. When a ruler or holy man is greeted, the people kneel before him. "He worshipped him" does not imply that he worshipped Jesus as one who worshipped God. Such an act would have been regarded as sacrilegious and a breach of the first commandment in the eyes of the Jews and the man might have been stoned. But he knelt before him in token of homage and gratitude. This is also a sign of self-surrender and loyalty. The blind man worshipped Jesus in acknowledgment of his divine power and in appreciation of his compassion on him in opening his eyes. He had no knowledge of the claims of Jesus nor was he interested in his teachings, but he was convinced by the miracle performed that he must be a holy man and one empowered by God.
​

To read more about the definitions of the word "worship" please click here and concentrate on number 4 under the section Definitions of WORSHIP in Hebrew (O.T)
​

​

Third:
​

Easterners in greeting each other generally bow the head or bend down. When a ruler or holy man is greeted, the people kneel before him.
​

For example: 1 Samuel 25.23: And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and bowed herself to the ground And fell at his feet, and said, Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be: and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the words of thine handmaid Let not my lord, I pray thee…
​

​

Forth:
​

as the member Speez stated =): When you read scripture, you must understand the original message as these passages were written thousands of years ago and that language changes meaning over time.
​

​

​

(KJV) Matt.14.33: Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, of a truth thou art the Son of God.
​

​

Well, my comment on this is the same on Matt.2.2-11, plus, let's read this verse from other versions:
​

A- (Young's Literal Translation)
​

And those in the boat having come, did bow to him, saying, `Truly -- God's Son art thou.' Click
​

​

B- (Darby Translation)
​

But those in the ship came and did homage to him, saying, Truly thou art God's Son. Click
​

​

C- (Worldwide English)
​

Then the men in the boat bowed down in front of Jesus. They said, `You really are the Son of God.' Click
​

​

​

Nope. I clarified the true meaning of the verses as I believe.
​

​

Wow =), I already stated: you can control yourself too as long as you have principles that you believe in
​

​

Yup, but the verse which you mentioned wasn't talking about the merely thoughts but with looks at the same time
​

​

With asking the help of the Almighty =) wow, I love you God deeply
​

​

Matthew: 12: 33:
​

Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34: you brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. 35: the good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36: but I tell you that men will have to give account on the Day of Judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37: for by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.
​

Wow, my beloved Jesus, =), I'm waiting your return.
​

​

Jewellee said: Following Gods direction (awkward to call it law because it's much more than that) =)
​

​

He says, “…has already committed adultery with her in his heart, yup, because I can't say he committed virtually as it is known, while you are thinking with such thoughts especially while you are looking as Jesus stated'' who looks at a woman lustfully" your heart beats, your blood heats etc. so you committed it with your heart.
​

​

Quraan… Allah knows what is in your hearts. And Allah is ever All-Knower…
​

​

!! Like what (sinful state)? More details please.
​

​

You lost me, you wrote this as a comment on:
​

​

I meant, you don't have the right to say ALL!! Perhaps he had never stolen for example? Yeah, maybe he hadn't kept some of them but not all of them. You said; he should have said: “All these I haven’t kept.”
​

To be continued
​

Peace =)
​

​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

Jatom
​

Hello =)
​

​

I think Jesus wasn't meaning this, he added another kind of adultery, because actually God knows every thing.
​

​

You wrote this as a comment on my questionè Do you mean I don't have to follow the law, commandments, and rules any more?çWhich was a comment on

​

I asked: Do you mean, I didn't say you said so! However, you are saying that everybody sins, and the wages of sin is death, so what now? What if I sinned and made a mistake? Is there a verse which says that the wages of sin is death?
​

​

I didn't say such thing, you can quote from Paul, but if you want to give me a biblical verse as an evidence which supports an issue or a concept of something which we are talking and discussing about, then, myself I don't believe that Paul was an apostle at all, so what is the use when you quote for me something that he stated it? I think that if I want to believe in Paul I should firstly believe that Jesus was God; Jesus was exited before Paul, Right? If I will believe that Jesus was God then I will believe Paul.
​

​

I meant by Exodus 34.6-7: And the LORD … proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.
​

That God forgive sin, the wage of sin isn't death, what do you think or do these verses mean something else?
​

​

??? Do you mean, that if somebody mmm for example committed adultery with someone, he thought that raping is a guilt and crime while if you will commit adultery with someone with her will then this isn't a guilt, that person didn't know that it is actually against the law, so do you consider him a sinner? Yeah he broke the law ignorantly, but do you consider him a sinner?
​

Peace
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

thespeez
​

Hello =), I am really so sorry to be so late to write a response
​

​

Thank you thank you very much =), may Allah grant you, all success in your every step Amen.
​

Once you saidè I'm also not a fan of the King James version on which a lot of these versions were based çso what is your best or favorite version, and it is available online, and what is your belief in Jesus and God, of course you can ignore any question that you don't want to answer it.
​

​

!
​

​

!
​

I saved the links and I will check them later, thank you very much =), really nice to meet you =)
​

Peace and love
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

Campbell34​

Hello =) dear beloved brother campbell34, I am really so sorry to be so late to write a response my dear brother​

​

But you said that this is a trap!! And you said: The God of the Bible has returned the Jews to your backyard knowing that the Islamic nations will attack them and you said: they will retake Jerusalem and He indicates that He is doing this not for the Jews because they profaned His name where ever they went. Yet, He will do this for His names sake. He will get the other nations to try a drive the Jews out of the land. And you said: God promised that the land belongs to the Jews​

I think this chapter concludes some corrupted words or some verse by changing them or we should read it very well to understand it, I find contradictions or maybe I didn't understand it very well, so I need to read it more and more with concentration, but this isn't our topic at all. I said previously:Muslims do not need any other scriptures tobasetheir faith on, either in full or in part.​

On the other hand, it is erroneous to think that Muslims reject the Bible in too and do not accept a single passage of it. Muslim has no reason to reject the essence of any passage in the Bible if such a passage is confirmed by the Qur’an.​

​

YoursSincerely,​

​

CatStevens​

​

 

Campbell34​

​

Jeremiah8. 4-8:1 " 'At that time, declares the LORD, the bones of the kings and officials of Judah, the bones of the priests and prophets, and the bones of the people of Jerusalem will be removed from their graves. 2 They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of the heavens, which they have loved and served and which they have followed and consulted and worshiped. They will not be gathered up or buried, but will be like refuse lying on the ground. 3 Wherever I banish them, all the survivors of this evil nationè (who is this evil nation?) will prefer death to life, declares the LORD Almighty.' 4 "Say to them, 'this is what the LORD says:" 'When men fall down, do they not get up? When a man turns away, does he not return? 5 Why then have these people turned away?Why does Jerusalem always turn away? They cling to deceit; they refuse to return.6 I have listened attentively, but they do not say what is right. No one repents of his wickedness, saying, "What have I done?" Each pursues his own course like a horse charging into battle. 7Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD. 8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?9 The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?​

*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah

Matthew; 21: 43:Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nationè(who is this nation?)bringing forth the fruits thereof.​

*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah​

John 4.21-34:(Jesus) saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Fatherè (see he said father not the son who you are worshipping?). Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worshipè you are worshipping Mithra the sun God… and now is, when thetrue worshippersè(who are they?)shall worship the Fatherè not the son! In spirit and in truth:for the Father seeketh such to worship him.​

*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah​

Jeremiah6. 10:To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? ​

Their ears are closed so they cannot hear. The word of the LORD is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it.

*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah​

Jeremiah14.14 Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusionsof their own minds.15 Therefore, this is what the LORD says about the prophets who are prophesying in my name: I did not send them​

*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah​

Jeremiah23.36 But you must not mention 'the oracle of the LORD ' again, because every man's own word becomes his oracle and so you distort the words of the living God, the LORD Almighty, our God.​

*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah​

Quraan: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, ''This is from Allah'' …Woe to them for what their hands have written​

Quraan: … Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest?​

*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah*Allah​

Deuteronomy 5.1, 6.4:And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel,the statutes and judgmentswhich I speak in your ears this day,that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart…And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers,to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;Then beware lest thou forget the LORD è if they didn't respect God as you said, they profaned his name then this land will be taken away from their!, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.Thou shalt fear the LORDthy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.Ye shall not go after other gods,of the gods of the people which are round about you;… lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.è Now do you think that he will destroy we who are respecting and worshipping him alone, would he destroy our army or the Jews? Was that a corruption in that verse regarding the army which will be destroyed or it indicates that there will be many of martyrs but some corruption sneaked into that verse and the verb wasn't destroy?Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.èWhat did Paul said about the law?And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORDè not in the sight of Paul??? that it may be well with thee è so God with those who are following him?and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the LORD sware unto thy fathersè so this land is for them as long as they will obey and follow the God! But they aren't as you yourself believe, so the land will be given to whom then...And it shall be our righteousness, IF we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us...Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant And the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:è and if they will not keep it then do you think that God will keep the land for them?And he will love thee, and bless thee...​

YoursSincerely,​

CatStevens​

​

 

Campbell34​

So according to the above verses did God say that he will destroy the Islamic army or it was an addition? Did God say there will be martyrs probably? Do you still believe that the bible isn't corrupted by the hand of men? What is Jews' interpretation regarding this prophecy? Do you want me to write more about the bible (about its authority from your scholars' testimonies) regardless of its authority even the current bible don't indicate Jesus' divinity at all.​

Why you beloved Campbell my dear brother don't believe in the prophesies regarding Muhammad in the bible?, God testify that I told him and clarify to him the true meaning of some biblical verses, yet he still worship your prophet Jesus, O my dear precious God, O my beloved Lord, I am sure that you are reading this, please God whom created me I am begging you to show us the true path always, facilitate it to us, help us, make us accept the truth whatever the truth is.​

Quraan:As for those who strive hard in me (my cause) I will surely guide them to my path, and verily, Allah with the good doers. ​

Quraan:O people of the scripture! Why do you mix truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?​

Quraan:O people of the scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah and his word (''Be!" -and he was) which he bestowed on Merry and a spirit created by him, so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not: "three (trinity)! Cause! (It is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) one god, glorified is He (far exalted is He) above having a son

Quraan:Look, how they invent a lie against Allah and enough is that as a manifest sin.​

Quraan:Say: O People of the Scripture! Exceed not the limits in your religion (by believing in something) other than the truth, and follow not the vain desires of​

a people who went astray before and who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the right path.​

Quraan:Is there any God beside Allah? Say: Bring your proof, if ye are truthful!​

Until now, after all these discussions I believe that the truth is with me, and I told you about it clearly, I clarify to you the biblical verses, I told you about Mithra, Christmas tree etc, Quraan:I never punish until I have sent an apostle (to give warnings etc) so the truth has come to you and it is up to you, except if you can still prove to me that Jesus is God from the current 4 Gospels or Torah. ​

Click​

​

 

It is all understandable. Thank you once again for your kind words! ​

This is something that I'm still trying to figure out myself! As far as my beliefs in Jesus and the Divine, I believe that Jesus was a very special person who had a great deal of wisdom and enlightenment. However, I question whether he was God incarnate. I also question the Nicene creed. I believe that many people who consider themselves to be christian as well as others have perverted his message to mean something that it is does not! I believe that the Bible needs to be translated contextually and not literally! I've made some of my views clear on this in previous posts. ​

​

YES! Two of Jesus' apostles committed adultery against him! To adulterize something was to alter it or to commit betrayal! As I see it, Judas committed adultery against Jesus for overtly betraying him and you could argue that Peter committed adultery for denying him. FTR, the clergy at the Council of Nicea arguably committed adultery for promoting an agenda that had questionable motives. For a more detailed definition of adultery, at least as it was defined in ancient times, check out this link:
http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/adultdefine.html
​

Peace be with you.

 

Jatom
​

​

Hi =)
​

​

OK, here is the reason, Jesus was exited and ascended before these letters, before Paul, and I believe that he wasn't saying that he is God or he is a divine and the like etc,I believe too that the four gospels, in some versions and verses were later colored and influenced by Paul’s beliefs and teachings by adding some words or changing them etc, Acts 17: 18 He (Paul) seems to be advocating foreign gods. Yet, I don't mind, if you can give me proofs from the 4 Gospels that Jesus was God, and if you will do so then Paul was truthful.
​

​

While he was in the human figure was he still God at the same time? And why (proof)?
​

​

​

It isn't that much hard! Answer with, Yes, or no or I don't know. Could they be separated but they remain one? It is a clear question.
​

​

I already studied this matter in details for months by the way =) and stop taking off the topic, if you want to discuss this matter or any other matters don't discuss it here; use the private messages or any other way. And if you want more information regarding this issue just write the collection of the Quraan in any search engine, but I don't think that you care about this issue because you said: you speak of the manuscripts being different. This I can agree with. This happens with all ancient texts, however, John Burton stated at the end of a voluminous work on the Quraan's collection, that the text of Quraan available today is '' the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the prophet … what we have today in our hands is the Mushaf of Muhammad.'' Mushaf: the Arabic term used to refer to the text of the Quraan. John's Burton book name is: the collection of the Quraan.
​

​

Come on! I answered them! I am not a parrot to repeat all the time.
​

​

OK, if this is bothering you too much ''corrupted'' I say in other words, we should understand the real and the true meaning of the verses, satisfied now =) plus regarding some verses we should understand it as the member Speez stated =): When you read scripture, you must understand the original message as these passages were written thousands of years ago and that language changes meaning over time.
​

​

​

​

How many times should I repeat! If you keep insisting on behaving in such way I will ignore such responses from you. How shall I know what was written in the original Gospel! The OT, The teachings revealed to Moses were available in a written form in his lifetime. The Gospel was written down after Jesus, how you consider the 4 Gospel as the word of God! I.e. the word of God= the wording and phrasing of God! You get what I mean? That's why the Gospels are like a story / a narrative or fictional book because it isn't the word of God (i.e. the wording of God) but the people like Matthew, John, and Luke etc wrote what happened, events etc. Example, do you believe that God stated this in: Matthew 28.15: … So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day! Or John 21.24-25: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. People wrote that! There are four Gospels which are similar in the most of the verses and chapters and that points to that there are four men who wrote what they heard or saw but each one with his own wording, style etc. while the OT isn't like this at all! There isn't Torah for Simon or Torah for Kevin!
​

​

Aha, You yourself, said The teachings revealed to the Matthew, Mark etc, I am talking about what has revealed to Jesus it isn't available =(
​

​

Dear let me tell you something:
​

Muslims do not need any other scriptures to base their faith on, either in full or in part. On the other hand, it is erroneous to think that Muslims reject the Bible in too and do not accept a single passage of it. A Muslim has no reason to reject the essence of any passage in the Bible if such a passage is confirmed by the Qur’an. For example, we read in the NT a reiteration of one of the Ten Commandments:
​

“And Jesus answered him. The first of all commandments is hear, 0 Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord” (Mark 12:29) A Muslim who reads this passage in the Qur’an can find no objection to its essence. After all the Qur’an confirms:
​

“Say He is Allah, the One and Only (God)” I believe that the Torah revealed to Moses were available in a written form in his lifetime, but after his death the Torah has been corrupted, by adding some verses, changing it etc.
​

Jeremiah8. 4-8: 4 "Say to them, 'this is what the LORD says:" 'When men fall down, do they not get up? When a man turns away, does he not return? 5 Why then have these people turned away? Why does Jerusalem always turn away? They cling to deceit; they refuse to return. 6 I have listened attentively, but they do not say what is right. No one repents of his wickedness, saying, "What have I done?" Each pursues his own course like a horse charging into battle. 7 Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD. 8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? 9 The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?


​

Jeremiah14. 14 Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds. 15 Therefore, this is what the LORD says about the prophets who are prophesying in my name: I did not send them
​

​

Jeremiah23.36 But you must not mention 'the oracle of the LORD ' again, because every man's own word becomes his oracle and so you distort the words of the living God, the LORD Almighty, our God.
​

​

Quraan: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, ''This is from Allah'' …Woe to them for what their hands have written
​

​

Quraan: … Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest?
​

​

Just forget or ignore that I am a Muslim, show me your proofs from the current Torah + 4 Gospels that Jesus is God (Trinity).
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​