|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 5, 2013 7:03:32 GMT -6
I wrote a page or two then was given a kid to hold... so I'll post this when I'm finished.
Basically there are two sides to every story, and Woodrow gives a very biased opinion...
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 5, 2013 8:28:20 GMT -6
I wrote a page or two then was given a kid to hold... so I'll post this when I'm finished. Basically there are two sides to every story, and Woodrow gives a very biased opinion... Agreed I am biased because if asked a question I will attempt to answer with the Islamic view. Being Muslim I am pro-Islam, since this is the Islamic section I am attempting to give the Islamic view as I understand it. I expect a Christian to be pro-Christianity and biased towards the Christian view. If I ask a question in the Christian section I expect to get the Christian view. |
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 5, 2013 9:33:01 GMT -6
I wrote a page or two then was given a kid to hold... so I'll post this when I'm finished. Basically there are two sides to every story, and Woodrow gives a very biased opinion... can you tell us who is Mark, Luke, Mat, and John according to Christian point of view, and will be really nice if supported with an authentic source |
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 8, 2013 8:44:18 GMT -6
Hey Nabilbb,
I appreciate your question. I've spent the last few nights doing some reading (dusting off old books). It's a sad consequence of an undisciplined mind that I often forget why I came to certain conclusions.
The short answer is that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John represent apostolic ministries which were surrounded with eye-witness communities. John Mark for instance represents Peter and other eye-witness testimony in the gospel of Mark. Luke represents Paul and the eyewitnesses Luke tracked down. There is disagreement over the gospel of John, as to whether it was written by John the Evangelist, or John the Elder (or if both are the same person, or if they were two Johns who worked together on the text). I don't think it matters too much which John wrote it, but I am restudying the issue. What is important is that all of the gospel authors were concerned with eyewitness testimony and the record of the gospel was kept because was faithful eyewitness testimony.
It should be pointed out, that the gospels are not about the authors, they are about Jesus. The fact that there are four gospels about a divine Messiah is a problem for Islam. The gospels were quoted and discussed in letters that date back to the 60s AD in the case of Paul, and the 90s and 100's AD in the case of extra-biblical authors. In order to be a Muslim I'd have to reject the Gospel of Jesus on the basis of thinking that someone fabricated it simultaneously in multiple locations and created Christian communities throughout the known world built on a false gospel.
Woodrow has one thing right, which we should keep in mind. The injil is not one of the four gospels, or 4 of the 10 gospels, there is only one gospel. All four of the gospels point to it, as do the letters of Paul.
What I find confounding is that faced with the dilemma of no evidence that there was a fabrication, Woodrow is willing to say that it was the meaning of the text which was corrupted and not the text itself. This is a more consistent view with the Quran which says that the word of Allah CANNOT be corrupted. So it solves a problem, by saying that Jesus' word wasn't actually changed it was just misunderstood.
So, how exactly can one read the New Testament and NOT believe that Jesus is risen from the dead? There's the problem for Muslims, and an insurmountable problem for me when I was thinking about whether to consider Islam. There's just no getting around it. Moses, David, and the New Testament all speak to the Kingdom of a dead and risen Messiah, God Himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 9, 2013 9:55:52 GMT -6
Hey Nabilbb, I appreciate your question. I've spent the last few nights doing some reading (dusting off old books). It's a sad consequence of an undisciplined mind that I often forget why I came to certain conclusions. Sorry for giving you this task  The short answer is that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John represent apostolic ministries which were surrounded with eye-witness communities. John Mark for instance represents Peter and other eye-witness testimony in the gospel of Mark. Luke represents Paul and the eyewitnesses Luke tracked down. There is disagreement over the gospel of John, as to whether it was written by John the Evangelist, or John the Elder (or if both are the same person, or if they were two Johns who worked together on the text). I don't think it matters too much which John wrote it, but I am restudying the issue. What is important is that all of the gospel authors were concerned with eyewitness testimony and the record of the gospel was kept because was faithful eyewitness testimony. I was hoping for something more than that, It's easy to say that but what is really the evidence of their existence? what is the evidence of their truthfulness? tell me a little about their lives. The Quran was revealed to Mohammed PBU and I can tell you the life of Mohammed since he was born until he died. my point is, how can we believe in something being from God while we don't know much about the person who informed us about it!! It should be pointed out, that the gospels are not about the authors, they are about Jesus. The fact that there are four gospels about a divine Messiah is a problem for Islam. The gospels were quoted and discussed in letters that date back to the 60s AD in the case of Paul, and the 90s and 100's AD in the case of extra-biblical authors. In order to be a Muslim I'd have to reject the Gospel of Jesus on the basis of thinking that someone fabricated it simultaneously in multiple locations and created Christian communities throughout the known world built on a false gospel. Muslims don't have a problem following the teachings of the Gospels, if they are shown to be the truth, but We have a problem with the Bible as a whole for the many holes in it, in matter of fact, Muslims are more Christians than the present Christians. We believe in Jesus and his teachings What I find confounding is that faced with the dilemma of no evidence that there was a fabrication, Woodrow is willing to say that it was the meaning of the text which was corrupted and not the text itself. This is a more consistent view with the Quran which says that the word of Allah CANNOT be corrupted. So it solves a problem, by saying that Jesus' word wasn't actually changed it was just misunderstood. it's true, in the Quran there is a verse that says the word of God can't be changed, but the verse is referring to the promise of God, and not the word as text So, how exactly can one read the New Testament and NOT believe that Jesus is risen from the dead? There's the problem for Muslims, and an insurmountable problem for me when I was thinking about whether to consider Islam. There's just no getting around it. Moses, David, and the New Testament all speak to the Kingdom of a dead and risen Messiah, God Himself. That's not not the only problem with Muslims, it's the Idea of God coming to earth as a human, God having a son, 3 entities in one. all these concepts, Muslims say Why, Why, and why???? |
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 10, 2013 2:19:46 GMT -6
Nabilbb,
I say why not... if God can speak to you through a prophet and you can understand His word, why should you be unable to see him? Of course, the hearing and the seeing are not the same as being God. So God does not communicate himself in letters or sounds. It's about immediacy. If God communicates through a book about a prophet who saw a revelation there are degrees of separation. If God communicates through a book about himself in the flesh that's one less degree of separation. He is then 'closer'. And at the same time in the gospel Jesus continually contends that though He is the eternal son of God, it is not the human flesh of him that makes him God. The flesh is human, the person is divine. And to this Muslims do not answer the question "Why not"?
The Quran is paper, but Allah is divine. The prophet is human, but Allah is divine. The words are Arabic, but Allah is divine. Why is it permissible that God be revealed in the Arabic words of the Quran according to Mohammed but not permitted that God be revealed by taking up human flesh?
The eternal person of the Son did not cease being divine when he took up flesh any more than an author ceases to be a man when he writes his story in ink. Does typing on a keyboard make you stop being a person? Of course not. So why should taking up flesh make Him stop being God? And why should setting down the pen make you the author cease to exist? So why should the death of Christ mean his end? And if you took the pen up again, have you died and been raised?
Muslims ask "Why, Why, Why" but there are answers.
So, I want you to understand something I've been personally remembering lately. If three people write a book, the book is not less true than if one person wrote a book. Especially if all three of them affirm the book. And if a hundred people write a paper saying that there was an eclipse on some day, all signing their names, the plurality of witnesses does not make it less true that there was an eclipse.
The New Testament makes the argument that a plurality of witnesses is important. Sometimes an account is written from the perspective of one witness with others affirming, and other times it is written from the perspective of multiple eye witnesses. Now, why should I believe that the gospel of Luke is LESS true because it is one man's account of many witnesses' testimony?
|
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 10, 2013 9:39:34 GMT -6
Nabilbb, I say why not... if God can speak to you through a prophet and you can understand His word, why should you be unable to see him? Of course, the hearing and the seeing are not the same as being God. So God does not communicate himself in letters or sounds. It's about immediacy. If God communicates through a book about a prophet who saw a revelation there are degrees of separation. If God communicates through a book about himself in the flesh that's one less degree of separation. He is then 'closer'. And at the same time in the gospel Jesus continually contends that though He is the eternal son of God, it is not the human flesh of him that makes him God. The flesh is human, the person is divine. And to this Muslims do not answer the question "Why not"? There is no much difference between me and you questionmark, aren't you communicating with God through a book too because someone told you they saw God and they wrote a book about him? if God would communicate with us directly without a Prophet or a book, why should be limited to 33 years! why it is not all the time! and why God is not communicating with you at this moment! Also in the Bible (correct me if I am wrong) there is a verse that says "No man shall see God" also it says there are men who saw God, how do you reconcile these? communicating with God is an honor that not everybody can get, God chooses from his creation, it doesn't make sense that the honor can be given to the Good and the bad of people The Quran is paper, but Allah is divine. The prophet is human, but Allah is divine. The words are Arabic, but Allah is divine. Why is it permissible that God be revealed in the Arabic words of the Quran according to Mohammed but not permitted that God be revealed by taking up human flesh?I don't see the connection here, are we talking about what can and can't God do? if so, We are on the same page that God can do everything and anything He wishes to do. the matter here is what is the purpose of God being a flesh and why, the Christians say to save people, can't God do that without him coming to Earth? also save them from what? is it the original Sin? that's is another topic that doesn't make sense to me. just try to picture that God having properties like humans, eating, drinking, getting tired, going to the wash room, feeling pain, being helpless,....etc. I don't think I want to worship a weak God like that. The eternal person of the Son did not cease being divine when he took up flesh any more than an author ceases to be a man when he writes his story in ink. Does typing on a keyboard make you stop being a person? Of course not. So why should taking up flesh make Him stop being God? And why should setting down the pen make you the author cease to exist? So why should the death of Christ mean his end? And if you took the pen up again, have you died and been raised? If I accept God being in flesh, I will accept his death too, but first thing is first. can you hear that in your mind "Death of God" Muslims ask "Why, Why, Why" but there are answers. So, I want you to understand something I've been personally remembering lately. If three people write a book, the book is not less true than if one person wrote a book. Especially if all three of them affirm the book. And if a hundred people write a paper saying that there was an eclipse on some day, all signing their names, the plurality of witnesses does not make it less true that there was an eclipse. The New Testament makes the argument that a plurality of witnesses is important. Sometimes an account is written from the perspective of one witness with others affirming, and other times it is written from the perspective of multiple eye witnesses. Now, why should I believe that the gospel of Luke is LESS true because it is one man's account of many witnesses' testimony? I agree with the bolded phrase, but the problem is and again, Who are these people! you don't even know when they were born, who are they,.....etc. you don't know anything about them. as I said, ask me about Mohammed PBU and I will narrate his life story in details |
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 10, 2013 9:58:48 GMT -6
Nabilbb,
We are more alike than I thought. You believe God can do anything He wants, whereas some people believe it is impossible for God to take up human flesh. You question why God would die when he could save us without dying. Well I think there are two good answers. God is demonstrating the greatness of His grace because the greatest person is the one who loves others even if it means their own suffering or shame. More than that, God in Christ is demonstrating that He is a father and knows our weaknesses, our suffering, He is intimately related to us.
This is how in Christ He is the mediator and also intimate.
More on the weakness of God. If I win a fight with a hand tied behind my back, is it to my shame or to my glory? Is it more difficult to serve others or to serve yourself? Is emotional and moral strength easier or harder to come by than physical strength? I think in every case you'll agree that the strength of Jesus is most clear because of the weakness of Jesus. He was born poor, yet his name is proclaimed in every nation. He died, yet was risen again defeating death. He served others, instead of serving himself. In every one of life's most difficult tests, he demonstrated his greatness.
Yet at the same time, the flesh that Jesus bore was not divine flesh, it was human flesh. It is possible to animate a human arm or heart with electrical impulses, but it is not the electricity that makes a person. The person of Jesus is God, but the body of Jesus is man. When you read the Quran are you reading the word of God or the word of man? Wouldn't you say that you are reading both the word of God and the word of man? It is men who wrote it down and copied it so that it can be read, yet it was God who authored the words given to Mohammed.
So you already believe that one can hear the word of God, though perhaps not with your ears (though a Muslim will hear prayer to Allah as their first sound). So which is it, can God be heard or not!
See, it's not so easy to speak about spiritual things, but a spiritual person will understand them. In Jesus you see God, because you see His person. But in Jesus you do not see God, because God is impossible to see. He made light by saying "Let there be light". He made all things, so what organ would you see him by? Even the ears could not sense God, because He made sound. That is, unless he wanted to be heard.
In every case of our becoming aware of God, it is a con-descension. That means that God comes down together with us in order for us to experience him. I am telling you there is no less glory for God to condescend as a man than there is for God to condescend in a book through a prophet. In fact, the great glory of God is that He is willing to appear as a sinful man yet live a perfectly righteous life for the benefit of others, not for himself. This glory is wonderful, because those who live in it have eternal joy out of the riches of his grace.
He has forgiven debts, which is the right of a rich man. He has given eternal life, which is the right of God. How did he do this? By satisfying the just requirements of the law, his own word. He said "In the day that you eat of it you will surely die". So why did God have to die? Because that is the penalty he prescribed in the first place for disobedience.
|
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 10, 2013 13:46:47 GMT -6
Nabilbb, We are more alike than I thought. You believe God can do anything He wants, whereas some people believe it is impossible for God to take up human flesh. Yes, I believe that God can do anything He wants, also I believe it's impossible for God to want to be in flesh You question why God would die when he could save us without dying. Well I think there are two good answers. God is demonstrating the greatness of His grace because the greatest person is the one who loves others even if it means their own suffering or shame. If God saved mankind without his death, still that shows his greatness, isn't it enough for him to tell you in his words that He loves us? More than that, God in Christ is demonstrating that He is a father and knows our weaknesses, our suffering, He is intimately related to us. again, isn't it enough for him to tell you that? don't you believe in his words? God doesn't have to feel our suffering, but he knows it because he is the all knowing. He gave us life, our senses, organs,......etc. and at the end, if We believe in him, He will reward us with Paradise. all that shows that He loves us and care for us. More on the weakness of God. If I win a fight with a hand tied behind my back, is it to my shame or to my glory? Is it more difficult to serve others or to serve yourself? Is emotional and moral strength easier or harder to come by than physical strength? I think in every case you'll agree that the strength of Jesus is most clear because of the weakness of Jesus. He was born poor, yet his name is proclaimed in every nation. He died, yet was risen again defeating death. He served others, instead of serving himself. In every one of life's most difficult tests, he demonstrated his greatness. Jesus was weak as any human is weak, Sleeping, eating, getting tired, going to the washroom, ...etc. and at the end facing death is a sign of weakness. and God is now weak, and He is not suppose to be weak. He is the most powerful, He is the all knowing. Yet at the same time, the flesh that Jesus bore was not divine flesh, it was human flesh. It is possible to animate a human arm or heart with electrical impulses, but it is not the electricity that makes a person. The person of Jesus is God, but the body of Jesus is man. When you read the Quran are you reading the word of God or the word of man? Wouldn't you say that you are reading both the word of God and the word of man? It is men who wrote it down and copied it so that it can be read, yet it was God who authored the words given to Mohammed. This is another concept that I highly disagree with, the 3 in 1 concept. When Jesus was praying, was He praying to himself! and how the father allows the suffering of himself! and when Jesus prayed to God, how can He refuse himself getting what he asked for! can you see my point? can you see how confusing is it! When I read the Quran, I read the words of God regardless who wrote it down in books So you already believe that one can hear the word of God, though perhaps not with your ears (though a Muslim will hear prayer to Allah as their first sound). So which is it, can God be heard or not! The words of God can be heard through ears, and feel it in your heart, and act upon it with your body See, it's not so easy to speak about spiritual things, but a spiritual person will understand them. In Jesus you see God, because you see His person. But in Jesus you do not see God, because God is impossible to see. He made light by saying "Let there be light". He made all things, so what organ would you see him by? Even the ears could not sense God, because He made sound. That is, unless he wanted to be heard. No, God can't be seen in life, it's only after death that one can see God, I don't know what is your point here but you didn't answer the question about seeing God and the contradiction in the bible In every case of our becoming aware of God, it is a con-descension. That means that God comes down together with us in order for us to experience him. I am telling you there is no less glory for God to condescend as a man than there is for God to condescend in a book through a prophet. In fact, the great glory of God is that He is willing to appear as a sinful man yet live a perfectly righteous life for the benefit of others, not for himself. This glory is wonderful, because those who live in it have eternal joy out of the riches of his grace. If God wants us to experience him in life, Why was it only 33 years? why we are not seeing him now? why was it for limited time? He has forgiven debts, which is the right of a rich man. He has given eternal life, which is the right of God. How did he do this? By satisfying the just requirements of the law, his own word. He said "In the day that you eat of it you will surely die". So why did God have to die? Because that is the penalty he prescribed in the first place for disobedience. So did God disobeyed himself in order for him to die? |
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 10, 2013 14:20:07 GMT -6
He has forgiven debts, which is the right of a rich man. He has given eternal life, which is the right of God. How did he do this? By satisfying the just requirements of the law, his own word. He said "In the day that you eat of it you will surely die". So why did God have to die? Because that is the penalty he prescribed in the first place for disobedience. Just addressing the last paragraph. This would be an understandable assumption, if an inheritable "Original Sin" existed and we were born on earth as a punishment for that sin. But there is no hereditary original sin and man was not born on earth as a punishment. |
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 10, 2013 22:19:59 GMT -6
Woodrow,
I haven't said anything about original sin. You're a sinner by yourself, you don't need to blame it on anyone else.
I said that Jesus died and you said that suffering and death are weaknesses, how could God allow himself to suffer. Yet you said that God is all-knowing. Which means God already knew suffering. God knows the suffering of every being ever made. God therefore has suffered more than anyone. To say otherwise would be to rob God of the knowledge of suffering and take away his partiality as a judge, after all how can he recompense men for their deeds or misdeeds if he has no ability to determine their value?
The Bible, starting in the beginning, shows a sacrificial system in which Adam was covered by the skin of an animal. Abraham sacrificed (almost his son, did he not), Moses taught the people to sacrifice. But the sacrifice was not for the benefit of the priest, it was for the benefit of those who needed forgiveness in the covenant. And what was the covenant? Do righteousness and live, but sin and die.
In order to satisfy this covenant, man (adamah) must die. That is why Jesus had to die, as a sacrifice, as fulfillment of God's own word. God did not speak in error, he didn't accidentally prescribe death for covenant breakers, because a man who murders deserves to die. A man who rapes deserves to die. A man who steals from God deserves to die. So he said "In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" and "The wages of sin is death".
It was God's plan regarding sin to die for us, having already experienced all of our grief and sorrow and shame he reconciled it to his glory. God is glorified by turning all the evil into glory, because if I sin and God forgives then He has saved me. And if he saves people from every nation tribe and tongue then He has demonstrated his power to save the entire broken race of Adam's children.
Speaking to this grand theme in all of history, it surprises me that anyone who once knew these things could suggest that it was a fabricated story and that the Scriptures were not themselves corrupted but someone misunderstood their meaning. The meaning is no different in Genesis from Revelation, there is no corruption.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodrow LI on Sept 10, 2013 22:45:42 GMT -6
Woodrow, I haven't said anything about original sin. You're a sinner by yourself, you don't need to blame it on anyone else. I said that Jesus died and you said that suffering and death are weaknesses, how could God allow himself to suffer. Yet you said that God is all-knowing. Which means God already knew suffering. God knows the suffering of every being ever made. God therefore has suffered more than anyone. To say otherwise would be to rob God of the knowledge of suffering and take away his partiality as a judge, after all how can he recompense men for their deeds or misdeeds if he has no ability to determine their value? The Bible, starting in the beginning, shows a sacrificial system in which Adam was covered by the skin of an animal. Abraham sacrificed (almost his son, did he not), Moses taught the people to sacrifice. But the sacrifice was not for the benefit of the priest, it was for the benefit of those who needed forgiveness in the covenant. And what was the covenant? Do righteousness and live, but sin and die. In order to satisfy this covenant, man (adamah) must die. That is why Jesus had to die, as a sacrifice, as fulfillment of God's own word. God did not speak in error, he didn't accidentally prescribe death for covenant breakers, because a man who murders deserves to die. A man who rapes deserves to die. A man who steals from God deserves to die. So he said "In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" and "The wages of sin is death". It was God's plan regarding sin to die for us, having already experienced all of our grief and sorrow and shame he reconciled it to his glory. God is glorified by turning all the evil into glory, because if I sin and God forgives then He has saved me. And if he saves people from every nation tribe and tongue then He has demonstrated his power to save the entire broken race of Adam's children. Speaking to this grand theme in all of history, it surprises me that anyone who once knew these things could suggest that it was a fabricated story and that the Scriptures were not themselves corrupted but someone misunderstood their meaning. The meaning is no different in Genesis from Revelation, there is no corruption. True you did not say anything about original sin which is why I said Now this brings up this part: Jesus(as) led a sinless life. He did not break the covenant, he did not eat of the "fruit". God had no need of any sacrifice. The question of why Jesus(as) died was a matter of deep concern for the early theologians and the earliest and strongest theory to come up was the "Ransom theory" which some denominations still believe. Quite an interesting read: SOURCEAn issue that seem to have plagued theologians is while there are several theories as to why Jesus(as) had to die, no one has yet presented any proof he had to. Just 2000 years of theories. No evidence or proof that Jesus(as) had to die for mankind to be saved. Read more: seekingthekingdom.freeforums.net/thread/73/strict-monotheism?page=2&scrollTo=711#ixzz2eYSkL861 |
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 10, 2013 23:42:39 GMT -6
There's more than one reason why Jesus died. But you have it right, God had no need of any sacrifice, I had need of a sacrifice.
|
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 11, 2013 9:25:53 GMT -6
I said that Jesus died and you said that suffering and death are weaknesses, how could God allow himself to suffer. Yet you said that God is all-knowing. Which means God already knew suffering. God knows the suffering of every being ever made. God therefore has suffered more than anyone. To say otherwise would be to rob God of the knowledge of suffering and take away his partiality as a judge, after all how can he recompense men for their deeds or misdeeds if he has no ability to determine their value? Knowing and experiencing something are two separate things, I know there is Paradise but didn't enter it, I know there is hell but didn't enter it yet, I know there is God but have not seen him yet. God knows everything including suffering, but that doesn't mean he suffered. one of the names and attributes of God is the most powerful, if we say he has weakness, there will be contradiction. the person can't be rich and poor at the same time The Bible, starting in the beginning, shows a sacrificial system in which Adam was covered by the skin of an animal. Abraham sacrificed (almost his son, did he not), Moses taught the people to sacrifice. But the sacrifice was not for the benefit of the priest, it was for the benefit of those who needed forgiveness in the covenant. And what was the covenant? Do righteousness and live, but sin and die. These were prophets, that was the order of God to them to guide people, no one can order God to do something also for the sake of it, if God wants to be in flesh, and act like a prophet/guidance among people, why he keeps sending prophets instead of him coming to earth? In order to satisfy this covenant, man (adamah) must die. That is why Jesus had to die, as a sacrifice, as fulfillment of God's own word. God did not speak in error, he didn't accidentally prescribe death for covenant breakers, because a man who murders deserves to die. A man who rapes deserves to die. A man who steals from God deserves to die. So he said "In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" and "The wages of sin is death". What is the covenant that Jesus broke? What is the sin that Jesus committed? It was God's plan regarding sin to die for us, having already experienced all of our grief and sorrow and shame he reconciled it to his glory. God is glorified by turning all the evil into glory, because if I sin and God forgives then He has saved me. And if he saves people from every nation tribe and tongue then He has demonstrated his power to save the entire broken race of Adam's children. AGAIN, WHAT IS THAT SIN? Speaking to this grand theme in all of history, it surprises me that anyone who once knew these things could suggest that it was a fabricated story and that the Scriptures were not themselves corrupted but someone misunderstood their meaning. The meaning is no different in Genesis from Revelation, there is no corruption. in order to believe anything, it must be coming from an authentic source, you don't know much about the authors of the bible, before talking about the Bible, let's see what you know about the authors |
|
|
|
Post by questionmark on Sept 12, 2013 8:32:44 GMT -6
Knowing and experiencing something are two separate things, and you are saying that God doesn't know what it's like to suffer. He knows that people suffer, but doesn't know what it's like to suffer. So you're saying God knows ABOUT a lot of things, but doesn't know them. That's really interesting. Does God know the future?
Why does God keep sending prophets instead of him coming to earth? He didn't, he sent John the Baptist and then came to earth in Jesus. Why send prophets at all? We are made in God's image, that is He wants us to be like him. So, he calls people to be like him in speaking the truth about Him.
Jesus committed no sin, he took the place of sinners. This repulses many Muslims, but then ask a man if he would allow someone to pay his debts. A debt is a sin, especially a debt that cannot be repaid.
In order to believe anything it must be coming from many authentic sources. The Bible says that a testimony is established by two or three witnesses in the case of a crime, but in the case of the Son of God there were hundreds of witnesses to his resurrection. So you are basically telling me that you would prefer to have 4 witnesses rather than 400. Why? If I could tell you the name of a writer of the Bible, would you then believe? I'll give you the name Luke. Luke wrote Acts and the gospel of Luke. And I'll give you the name Mark. Mark wrote the gospel of Mark. Luke tracked down eye-witnesses and worked with Paul. Mark was Peter's interpreter.
Though Luke wrote down the gospel, the eyewitness testimony is from many people. Though Mark wrote down the gospel, the eyewitness testimony is from Peter.
|
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 12, 2013 9:37:30 GMT -6
Knowing and experiencing something are two separate things, and you are saying that God doesn't know what it's like to suffer. He knows that people suffer, but doesn't know what it's like to suffer. So you're saying God knows ABOUT a lot of things, but doesn't know them. That's really interesting. Does God know the future? No, that's not what I am saying, what I am saying is God knows suffer but didn't experience it, God knows hell fire but never suffers in hell fire. and yes, God knows the future Why does God keep sending prophets instead of him coming to earth? He didn't, he sent John the Baptist and then came to earth in Jesus. Why send prophets at all? We are made in God's image, that is He wants us to be like him. So, he calls people to be like him in speaking the truth about Him. so don't you believe in Abraham and Moses as being the prophets of God? Jesus committed no sin, he took the place of sinners. This repulses many Muslims, but then ask a man if he would allow someone to pay his debts. A debt is a sin, especially a debt that cannot be repaid. No, a debt is not a sin. a debt is something you have to pay someone else. A sin is something that you have to pay to yourself because you oppressed yourself. What are the Sins that Jesus took over? In order to believe anything it must be coming from many authentic sources. The Bible says that a testimony is established by two or three witnesses in the case of a crime, but in the case of the Son of God there were hundreds of witnesses to his resurrection. So you are basically telling me that you would prefer to have 4 witnesses rather than 400. Why? If I could tell you the name of a writer of the Bible, would you then believe? I'll give you the name Luke. Luke wrote Acts and the gospel of Luke. And I'll give you the name Mark. Mark wrote the gospel of Mark. Luke tracked down eye-witnesses and worked with Paul. Mark was Peter's interpreter. When was Luke born? When did He die? What does He look like? Who is his father and grand father? in short, What else you know about Luke? if you don't know much more, how do you confirm He was not a liar? Though Luke wrote down the gospel, the eyewitness testimony is from many people. Though Mark wrote down the gospel, the eyewitness testimony is from Peter. We are talking about the Bible and the validity of it not how true is the death of Jesus also I am not against the eye witnesses, I believe they saw a man who looks like Jesus on the cross. I am against Jesus being God |
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Sept 13, 2013 3:26:02 GMT -6
No, God can't be seen in life, it's only after death that one can see God, I don't know what is your point here but you didn't answer the question about seeing God and the contradiction in the bible I do not believe the trinity doctrine is Biblical, however, I'd like to try and field this question. I'm not sure which parts in the Bible you are talking about exactly. The intances I can recall of someone in the Bible saying they saw God is when it was used as a figure of speech meaning they perceived God, that is, saw him with the mind's eye. There were also occasions that he sent a heavenly messenger. I believe there was a time or two when a heavenly messenger was referred to as actually being God, but it is understood, at least by the reader, it was a messenger. So in both cases it was a figure of speech. The Bible maintains throughout that "no man has seen God at any time" (John 1:18) Interestingly enough that was written after Jesus' death. Jehovah's Witnesses speak about the exclusive resurrection of those who evangelize most. You seem to know something I don't. Can you please provide a source? |
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 13, 2013 9:24:48 GMT -6
I do not believe the trinity doctrine is Biblical, however, I'd like to try and field this question. I'm not sure which parts in the Bible you are talking about exactly. The intances I can recall of someone in the Bible saying they saw God is when it was used as a figure of speech meaning they perceived God, that is, saw him with the mind's eye. There were also occasions that he sent a heavenly messenger. I believe there was a time or two when a heavenly messenger was referred to as actually being God, but it is understood, at least by the reader, it was a messenger. So in both cases it was a figure of speech. The Bible maintains throughout that "no man has seen God at any time" (John 1:18) Interestingly enough that was written after Jesus' death. "No man hath seen God at any time" JOHN 1:18 "(God) whom no man hath seen, nor can see ..." 1 TIMOTHY 6:16 "And he (God) said, Thou canst see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." EXODUS 33:20 Contradicted by"And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." EXODUS 33:11 "And they (Moses, Aaron and seventy others) saw the God of Israel . . ." EXODUS 24:10 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." GENESIS 32:30 "And I (God) will take away my hand and thou shalt see my back parts . . ." EXODUS 33:23 |
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Sept 13, 2013 10:25:17 GMT -6
This is one of those instances it is using a figure of speech.
"By faith he left Egypt, but not fearing the anger of the king, for he continued steadfast as seeing the One who is invisible.” -- Heb 11:27.
Jehovah told Moses, "You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live." (Ex 33:20)
The Bible also indicates it was an angel that was speaking to Moses. "This [Moses] is he that came to be among the congregation in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him on Mount Sinai." (Acts 7:38)
So while Moses saw some of God's glory, and was greater than any prophet before Christ, he did not actually see God's person. He spoke with an angel.
|
|
|
|
Post by nabilbb on Sept 13, 2013 10:33:42 GMT -6
This is one of those instances it is using a figure of speech. "By faith he left Egypt, but not fearing the anger of the king, for he continued steadfast as seeing the One who is invisible.” -- Heb 11:27. Jehovah told Moses, "You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live." (Ex 33:20) The Bible also indicates it was an angel that was speaking to Moses. "This [Moses] is he that came to be among the congregation in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him on Mount Sinai." (Acts 7:38) So while Moses saw some of God's glory, and was greater than any prophet before Christ, he did not actually see God's person. He spoke with an angel. Now this will take us to the topic of.... Is Jesus God? because he was seen by people, and no one is suppose to see God in life |
|
