Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interfaith-oriented Muslim

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
    Actually, you are avoiding the answer starting you in the face, but I'll give my opinion.
    If I wanted your opinion, I would have asked for it.

    I asked:

    If Christ DID NOT RISE from the dead, is christianity vain?

    You answered:

    Answer: Christianity is not vain, despite Christ not having died and resurrected.
    Then you are in conflict with the Bible on two points:

    The first is that if Christ did not rise, Christianity is vain.

    The second is that Christ DID rise from the dead, because he was, in fact killed, and there were plenty of witnesses to His death, and because of that, Christianity is TRUE, and all other religions, INCLUDING Islam, are false.

    The apostles were faithful to what they believed to be true. They could not conceive how it would be possible for Christ to survive the ordeal, and are blameless.
    Which has no bearing on whether Christ rose from the dead.

    The essential message of Christianity remains intact, despite the folly of its adherents.
    The essential message of Christianity is that Christ died, was buried, and raised Himself from the dead on the third day, to provide salvation to the whole world.

    Paul is an exception. He did not witness the alleged death or resurrection,
    So what?

    and is not a genuine apostle.
    Is he not a "genuine apostle" because he did not witness Christ's death or resurrection?

    What, if anything, qualifies someone to be a "genuine apostle"?

    He was mistaken to hinge the entire religion on the alleged death and resurrection,
    Why?

    and can only be, in my estimation, an imposter.
    Why? Why is he an imposter?

    That doesn't invalidate Christianity, but only the false philosophy of Paul.
    This is question begging.

    The onus is on you to prove that Paul's philosophy is false.

    You have not done so yet, only assuming it is false.

    God is able to accomplish His purposes desire all the scheming of men.
    Therefore, Paul is a false apostle?

    I disagree, it only means Paul's philosophy is incompatible with Islam.
    Paul's philosophy is in the Bible, which makes the Bible incompatible with Islam.

    You cannot get around that fact.

    Either Islam or Judeo-Christianity is true. It cannot be both, because the two teach completely contradictory things about fundamental tenets.

    It's demonstrably different from Christ's teachings (for who the religion is named).
    You recognize (rightly) that Paul's teaching is different than Christ's, where most Christians don't even realize it.

    But unfortunately for you, that does not make Paul's teachings wrong.

    As Stripe said earlier, the rules changed. There was a "plot twist" in the story of the Bible, which caused things to change, and which meant that there was a necessity for a new method of salvation, one that did not rely on things only taught to the Jews.

    It's not called "Paulianity" is it?
    Straw man. No one has claimed such.

    As such it is not a foundational truth,
    The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is true (and is foundational to Christianity as a whole) whether you want it to be true or not.

    or true at all.
    So what, if anything, of what Paul wrote IS true?

    If your answer is anything but "all of it" or "none of it", then I will accuse you of cherry picking scripture in order to reconcile your religion with the Bible.

    [QUOTE]This is like a whole new thread, but in short, no disciples were present at the alleged death of Christ as they had all fled the scene.[QUOTE]

    Wrong.

    John the Beloved, the author of the Gospel of John, was present.

    Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!”Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. - John 19:25-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...27&version=NIV

    Ergo their testimony doesn't stand up in court since it's second hand information--assumption. It's thrown out.
    As you were just shown, this based on the FALSE premise that there were no disciples present, and can be disregarded as it is false.

    Also, there were plenty of other witnesses at the Crucifixion.

    If he had died the Qur'an wouldn't have denied it.
    Why do you assume it would have said He died?

    The Quran is not the authority on Jesus' death, as it was written about 600 years after His crucifixion.

    The Bible is a much more accurate witness, as AT LEAST ONE author was present at Christ's crucifixion, and

    God cannot lie.
    Red herring. It's also based on a premise that I do not hold to. But again, red herring.

    But it is not a foundational teaching of Islam, it only seems so because it's been debated so much.
    Which just indicates that Islam is a phony religion. Christianity is based on the fact that Christ was crucified, was buried, and on the third day rose from the grave.

    No other religion makes that claim, especially not Islam.

    And like I said, Islam could be perfectly intact with or without this alleged event.
    If Christ died, and rose again, then all other religions, including Islam, are false, because that is the fundamental principle of Christianity. It is EXCLUSIVE to all other religions.

    The foundational teachings of Islam are encapsulated within the five pillars of faith:

    1. Shahada (testimony)
    2. Ritual prayer (salat)
    3. Charity (zakat)
    3. Fasting (Ramadan)
    4. Hajj (pilgrimage)

    Do you see anything about Jesus' alleged death & resurrection there?
    Which just goes to show that you're either not understanding what I'm saying, or you're deliberately ignoring it.

    The fundamental claim of Christianity is that Christ rose from the dead, and that if He did not die and rise again, then all of Christianity is vain, because our preaching is empty and our faith is also empty, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up, and our faith is futile, we are still in our sins, and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

    However, the reverse claim (which is inherently implied) is also made:

    That if Christ DID die and rise again, then all of Christianity is true, because our preaching is full, and our faith is also full, and we are found to be true witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, and our faith is fruitful, we are no longer in our sins, and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have NOT perished, but have eternal life, and if that is true, then Jesus was telling the truth when He said that He is the only way to God. Which means that Islam, which does not teach that Christ is the way to God, is a false religion.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
      It's not for me to define Christianity.
      Then why do you keep trying to do it? Why do you keep arguing with Christians that the Resurrection of Christ is immaterial to our faith? Troll.
      Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
      However, as I understand it
      You don't.
      Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
      , the apostles had believed that Christ had died, since they thought he was a ghost when he appeared in their midst. Thus, after realizing he was in the flesh, in order to be truthful they could only conclude he had resurrected. They must witness to the truth as they understand it. As a Christian you must be faithful to the truth as passed on to you from those who are authorized as witnesses, according to what you know. That said, Paul's teachings on salvation are very different from Christ's--which means something changed significantly in that span of time. Who do Christians follow, Jesus or Paul?
      There is no dispute between Paul's and all the other Apostles' authoritative teachings in all matters of faith, morals, and Church administration. Which includes that Jesus of Nazareth is risen from the dead.
      Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
      In Islam, we don't believe Christ ever died. Rather it was made to appear that he did. Thus, he never resurrected from the dead.
      Which means we have nothing in common with you, which is what I said.
      Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
      However he was raised bodily to heaven- that's in the Qur'an. If he had died and resurrected (and the Qur'an reflected this) it wouldn't invalidate our faith in the slightest.
      Of course it would. You'd be Christians. Your faith depends upon Christ's Resurrection being fictional. If instead it is real, then your faith is invalidated as a poor counterfeit of the true faith, which is Catholicism in its entirety, which is founded upon Christ's Resurrection as nonfiction historical fact, as a tree is founded upon its seed.
      Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
      We have no problem believing God is capable of doing this, and we do believe in the resurrection of all dead at the time of judgement.
      And nothing new here but I'll say it now: All you have to do to become a Christian, is believe in Christ, which is believing that He is risen. Romans 10:9 KJV
      "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

      @Nee_Nihilo

      Comment


      • #63
        Everything you have said about Christianity is Pauline, denoting that it is upon his authority alone that your version of Christianity stands or falls.

        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Is he not a "genuine apostle" because he did not witness Christ's death or resurrection? What, if anything, qualifies someone to be a "genuine apostle"?
        The onus is on you to prove that Paul's philosophy is false.
        Paul is not a genuine apostle because his teaching contradicts Christ's. An apostle is by definition a messenger of the one he represents. If Paul represents other than Christ's teachings he is not an Apostle of Christ, but of the devil.

        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Paul's philosophy is in the Bible, which makes the Bible incompatible with Islam.
        Islam recognizes the Torah, the Gospel, and the Psalms. Philosophy of Paul isn't included. It may be incompatible with Islam but it's also incompatible with the teaching of Christ.

        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Either Islam or Judeo-Christianity is true. It cannot be both, because the two teach completely contradictory things about fundamental tenets.
        In your definition of Christianity, yes. But Islam doesn't accept your definition. Also Islam is universalist, meaning it recognizes that some may be saved who practice Christianity and Judaism, and other religions, and that many do contain truth at the core.

        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        You recognize (rightly) that Paul's teaching is different than Christ's, where most Christians don't even realize it. But unfortunately for you, that does not make Paul's teachings wrong. As Stripe said earlier, the rules changed. There was a "plot twist" in the story of the Bible, which caused things to change, and which meant that there was a necessity for a new method of salvation, one that did not rely on things only taught to the Jews.
        I note that you use the same argument of necessity that @Idolator uses, in harmony with Paul's philosophy, e.g. that lying for a good cause is justifiable. The fact you need something to be true does not make it true.
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        So what, if anything, of what Paul wrote IS true? If your answer is anything but "all of it" or "none of it", then I will accuse you of cherry picking scripture in order to reconcile your religion with the Bible.
        Accuse away. [emoji9] There is much wisdom in Paul's writings, and some truths. I don't view him as an evil guy--his downfall? Overzealous love for God's people, the Jews. Hardly a mortal sin of you get my drift. Just do me a favor and include Paul on your naughty list as he himself cherry picks between revelation and his personal opinion when writing what you deem scripture.

        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        John the Beloved, the author of the Gospel of John, was present.

        Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!”Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. - John 19:25-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...27&version=NIV
        Ah yes of course, you must forgive me I'm a but rusty on my Bible knowledge it's been awhile. So then I assume you have written testimony from the Apostle John as to Jesus' death? Where would that be exactly?
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Also, there were plenty of other witnesses at the Crucifixion.
        And who would that be? Oh yes, of course, the ones most keenly interested in having him crucified--his mortal enemies who would love nothing better than to brag about having killed him! That's the Pharisees in case you forgot--which was the sect Paul was of. [emoji848] Are you starting to catch my drift?

        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Why do you assume it would have said He died? The Quran is not the authority on Jesus' death, as it was written about 600 years after His crucifixion. The Bible is a much more accurate witness, as AT LEAST ONE author was present at Christ's crucifixion, and
        Because the Qur'an is the Word of God, who is not bound by time or any human limitation, and who cannot lie.

        I understand your view that Christianity is exclusivist, and I have shared my views that Islam is universalist. I have enjoyed the discussion so far with you. I believe we are equally debited to or understanding of truth, which is fantastic, even though we don't interpret it identically.

        No doubt there was a necessity for the early Church to break of from the Jewish religion, being as they had been rejected by Judaism at large. This was no small trial of faith. I have a deep respect for the Christian tradition, including your take on it which I consider inaccurate though. I don't consider you to blame for your interpretations. Yet I remain form in my belief that Islam is the truth. "Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion."

        Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
        Last edited by JudgeRightly; July 31st, 2019, 11:57 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
          Everything you have said about Christianity is Pauline, denoting that it is upon his authority alone that your version of Christianity stands or falls.
          Did you get your logic degree out of a Weet-Bix packet?
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Idolater View Post
            Then why do you keep trying to do it? Why do you keep arguing with Christians that the Resurrection of Christ is immaterial to our faith? Troll.
            You don't.
            There is no dispute between Paul's and all the other Apostles' authoritative teachings in all matters of faith, morals, and Church administration. Which includes that Jesus of Nazareth is risen from the dead.
            Which means we have nothing in common with you, which is what I said.
            Of course it would. You'd be Christians. Your faith depends upon Christ's Resurrection being fictional. If instead it is real, then your faith is invalidated as a poor counterfeit of the true faith, which is Catholicism in its entirety, which is founded upon Christ's Resurrection as nonfiction historical fact, as a tree is founded upon its seed.
            And nothing new here but I'll say it now: All you have to do to become a Christian, is believe in Christ, which is believing that He is risen. Romans 10:9 KJV
            Originally posted by Idolater View Post

            There is no dispute between Paul's and all the other Apostles' authoritative teachings in all matters of faith, morals, and Church administration.
            Not according to [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION]. Maybe he's Protestant...


            Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              Did you get your logic degree out of a Weet-Bix packet?
              No. Cap'n Crunch.

              Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                No. Cap'n Crunch.
                I believe that.
                All of my ancestors are human.
                Originally posted by Squeaky
                That explains why your an idiot.
                Originally posted by God's Truth
                Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                  Everything you have said about Christianity is Pauline, denoting that it is upon his authority alone that your version of Christianity stands or falls.
                  Rather, Christianity stands or falls on whether Christ rose from the dead.

                  Paul is not a genuine apostle because his teaching contradicts Christ's.
                  Paul's teaching CAME from Christ.

                  But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. - Galatians 1:11-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2&version=NKJV

                  First witness: Paul

                  A apostle is by definition a messenger of the one he represents.
                  “Now it happened, when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I was in a tranceand saw Him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, for they will not receive your testimony concerning Me.’So I said, ‘Lord, they know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believe on You.And when the blood of Your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’Then He said to me, ‘Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.’ ” - Acts 22:17-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...21&version=NIV

                  Acts was written by Luke, not Paul.

                  Second witness: Luke.

                  If Paul represents other than Christ's teachings he is not an Apostle of Christ, but of the devil.
                  Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. - 2 Peter 3:14-16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6&version=NKJV

                  Third witness: Peter.

                  How many witnesses? 3. There are more, if necessary, but 3 is enough.

                  The reason I mention this is that God (not Allah, the false god) said that two or three witnesses establish a matter, and that if one person claims something, but has no other witnesses to back up his claim, his claim can be discarded. But if he has two or three witnesses backing up his claim, his claim can be established as fact.

                  Paul claimed to be sent by Jesus Christ.

                  Both Luke and Peter verified the accuracy of Paul's claim.

                  Islam recognizes the Torah, the Gospel, and the Psalms. Philosophy of Paul isn't included.
                  Of course it isn't, because it doesn't fit with your religion's narrative.

                  Yet for me, there is no conflict whatsoever between Paul, and Jesus (during His earthly ministry) and the Apostles.

                  Yet what Paul said is completely different than what the 12 taught, and what Jesus taught during His earthly ministry.

                  But it isn't in conflict.

                  It may be incompatible with Islam but it's also incompatible with the teaching of Christ.
                  Saying it doesn't make it so.

                  You have yet to show HOW it is incompatible with Christ's teachings.

                  In your definition of Christianity, yes.
                  Why are you personalizing this?

                  I'm simply presenting the facts, not stating my beliefs

                  But Islam doesn't accept your definition.
                  Good thing I don't rely on my opinion to determine truth.

                  Also Islam is universalist, meaning it recognizes that some may be saved who practice Christianity and Judaism, and other religions, and that many do contain truth at the core.
                  Which is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what the Bible says.

                  The Bible is not universalist. Which means it is incompatible with Islam.

                  Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO MAN comes to the Father BUT BY ME."

                  Which means that Islam is incompatible with Jesus' teachings.

                  I note that you use the same argument of necessity that @Idolator uses, in harmony with Paul's philosophy, e.g. that lying for a good cause is justifiable.
                  Are you accusing me of lying? or Paul?

                  Because Paul was not lying.

                  The fact you need something to be true does not make it true.
                  Good thing I don't rely on "what I need" to be true, and rather just rely on what the Bible says.

                  Accuse away. [emoji9] There is much wisdom in Paul's writings, and some truths. I don't view him as an evil guy--
                  You clearly do, because you've called him a liar, an imposter, an "apostle of the devil," illegitimate (as an apostle), a pretender, and more.

                  his downfall? Overzealous love for God's people, the Jews. Hardly a mortal sin if you get my drift. Just do me a favor and include Paul on your naughty list as he himself cherry picks between revelation and his personal opinion when writing what you deem scripture.
                  You seem to have forgotten that Christ gave Paul authority as an apostle.

                  Ah yes of course, you must forgive me I'm a but rusty on my Bible knowledge it's been awhile.
                  Maybe you should sit down and read through the Bible again. Maybe you'll be able to correct, in your mind, a lot of the errors you've made so far.

                  So then I assume you have written testimony from the Apostle John as to Jesus' death? Where would that be exactly?
                  Go back and reread what I wrote, carefully this time. I already answered you

                  And who would that be? Oh yes, of course, the ones most keenly interested in having him crucified--his mortal enemies who would love nothing better than to brag about having killed him! That's the Pharisees in case you forgot--which was the sect Paul was of.
                  There were more than just the Pharisees present at Christ's crucifixion.

                  There was:

                  1. Jesus' mother
                  2. His mother’s sister
                  3. Mary the wife of Clopas
                  4. Mary Magdalene
                  5. The disciple whom Jesus loved, John the Beloved
                  6. A great multitude of the people followed Him, and women who also mourned and lamented Him
                  7. Roman soldiers, including a Centurion
                  8. two criminals
                  9. the chief priests
                  10. the teachers of the law
                  11. the elders

                  So you see, it wasn't just "the ones most keenly interested in having him crucified--his mortal enemies who would love nothing better than to brag about having killed him."



                  Are you a revisionist historian or something?

                  [emoji848] Are you starting to catch my drift?


                  Because the Qur'an is the Word of God,
                  No, it's the recordings of the saying of a man who CLAIMED his message was from an idol he CLAIMED to be the one true God. He picked one god and made it the god of his religion.

                  who is not bound by time or any human limitation, and who cannot lie.
                  You claim your god cannot lie.

                  My God chooses not to lie, because the three Persons of the Trinity are committed to the good of both each other and the good of His creation.

                  YHWH mocked the stone and wood idols in the Old Testament because they could not do anything at all. Stone and wood idols don't do anything, because they're not real gods, but the Living God, YHWH, is not a stone idol, he's not a wood idol, he is living.

                  Your god is no god at all, he's a false idol, and Mohammad was a false prophet, a pedophile, and a liar, and he used his god to get what he wanted.

                  I understand your view that Christianity is exclusivist, and I have shared my views that Islam is universalist.
                  Which makes them inherently incompatible with each other, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

                  I have enjoyed the discussion so far with you. I believe we are equally debited to or understanding of truth, which is fantastic, even though we don't interpret it identically.
                  There is very little truth in Islam.

                  No doubt there was a necessity for the early Church to break of from the Jewish religion, being as they had been rejected by Judaism at large. This was no small trial of faith. I have a deep respect for the Christian tradition, including your take on it which I consider inaccurate though. I don't consider you to blame for your interpretations. Yet I remain form in my belief that Islam is the truth. "Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion."
                  In other words, you're saying we should just "agree to disagree"?

                  I hate that phrase, especially when it comes to matters that mean either eternal separation from God or eternally being with Him.

                  This is one of those matters, and I WILL NOT compromise on truth.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                    Rather, Christianity stands or falls on whether Christ rose from the dead.



                    Paul's teaching CAME from Christ.

                    But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. - Galatians 1:11-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2&version=NKJV

                    First witness: Paul



                    “Now it happened, when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I was in a tranceand saw Him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, for they will not receive your testimony concerning Me.’So I said, ‘Lord, they know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believe on You.And when the blood of Your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’Then He said to me, ‘Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.’ ” - Acts 22:17-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...21&version=NIV

                    Acts was written by Luke, not Paul.

                    Second witness: Luke.



                    Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. - 2 Peter 3:14-16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6&version=NKJV

                    Third witness: Peter.

                    How many witnesses? 3. There are more, if necessary, but 3 is enough.

                    The reason I mention this is that God (not Allah, the false god) said that two or three witnesses establish a matter, and that if one person claims something, but has no other witnesses to back up his claim, his claim can be discarded. But if he has two or three witnesses backing up his claim, his claim can be established as fact.

                    Paul claimed to be sent by Jesus Christ.

                    Both Luke and Peter verified the accuracy of Paul's claim.



                    Of course it isn't, because it doesn't fit with your religion's narrative.

                    Yet for me, there is no conflict whatsoever between Paul, and Jesus (during His earthly ministry) and the Apostles.

                    Yet what Paul said is completely different than what the 12 taught, and what Jesus taught during His earthly ministry.

                    But it isn't in conflict.



                    Saying it doesn't make it so.

                    You have yet to show HOW it is incompatible with Christ's teachings.



                    Why are you personalizing this?

                    I'm simply presenting the facts, not stating my beliefs



                    Good thing I don't rely on my opinion to determine truth.



                    Which is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what the Bible says.

                    The Bible is not universalist. Which means it is incompatible with Islam.

                    Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO MAN comes to the Father BUT BY ME."

                    Which means that Islam is incompatible with Jesus' teachings.



                    Are you accusing me of lying? or Paul?

                    Because Paul was not lying.



                    Good thing I don't rely on "what I need" to be true, and rather just rely on what the Bible says.



                    You clearly do, because you've called him a liar, an imposter, an "apostle of the devil," illegitimate (as an apostle), a pretender, and more.



                    You seem to have forgotten that Christ gave Paul authority as an apostle.



                    Maybe you should sit down and read through the Bible again. Maybe you'll be able to correct, in your mind, a lot of the errors you've made so far.



                    Go back and reread what I wrote, carefully this time. I already answered you



                    There were more than just the Pharisees present at Christ's crucifixion.

                    There was:

                    1. Jesus' mother
                    2. His mother’s sister
                    3. Mary the wife of Clopas
                    4. Mary Magdalene
                    5. The disciple whom Jesus loved, John the Beloved
                    6. A great multitude of the people followed Him, and women who also mourned and lamented Him
                    7. Roman soldiers, including a Centurion
                    8. two criminals
                    9. the chief priests
                    10. the teachers of the law
                    11. the elders

                    So you see, it wasn't just "the ones most keenly interested in having him crucified--his mortal enemies who would love nothing better than to brag about having killed him."



                    Are you a revisionist historian or something?







                    No, it's the recordings of the saying of a man who CLAIMED his message was from an idol he CLAIMED to be the one true God. He picked one god and made it the god of his religion.



                    You claim your god cannot lie.

                    My God chooses not to lie, because the three Persons of the Trinity are committed to the good of both each other and the good of His creation.

                    YHWH mocked the stone and wood idols in the Old Testament because they could not do anything at all. Stone and wood idols don't do anything, because they're not real gods, but the Living God, YHWH, is not a stone idol, he's not a wood idol, he is living.

                    Your god is no god at all, he's a false idol, and Mohammad was a false prophet, a pedophile, and a liar, and he used his god to get what he wanted.



                    Which makes them inherently incompatible with each other, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.



                    There is very little truth in Islam.



                    In other words, you're saying we should just "agree to disagree"?

                    I hate that phrase, especially when it comes to matters that mean either eternal separation from God or eternally being with Him.

                    This is one of those matters, and I WILL NOT compromise on truth.
                    You know your Bible well, and you're adamantly committed to the truth as you understand it. This is highly commendable! But if Christianity was really "Catholic" as [MENTION=15077]Idolater[/MENTION] claims, you wouldn't have thousands of denominations would you? At some point you gotta agree to disagree unless you want another round of burnings at the stake, Salem witch trials, and the like--now don't you? [emoji6]

                    Paul taught a different "gospel" than Christ, which is why I take issue with him. Whereas Christ taught salvation through good deeds and obedience to God, Paul proclaimed that good works and the law were irrelevant ([emoji47]) and salvation hinged on belief in an alleged HISTORICAL EVENT. That's contradictory my friend, no matter how you slice it. And I know you could look up the Bible verses just as well as I could. Your version of Christianity (and most Christians') is Pauls, not Christ's. Which means your version fails if Jesus never died.

                    Jesus never died. Rather, it was made to appear that he died, to those who were connected to the events of that day. Now if you see an anaconda in your closet and call the police, who, on arriving find that it's only a coil of electrical wires--that doesn't make you a liar, it just means you were mistaken. Thus, Paul and the disciples are not liars for reporting what seemed to them to be a real event. They were just misinformed. The problem with Paul, and where he becomes potentially dishonest, is in radically deforming the ways of God, by innovating a completely alien salvation theology out of his own human understanding. It doesn't help that he identified himself as a liar (Romans 3:7) and admits to mixing personal opinions with scripture.

                    Was Paul really authorized to do this? The evidence is scanty. He had some visions, some of the Apostles acknowledged him as a "dear brother". What does that mean? Many have visions of Christ speaking to them, but this is not a test of Apostleship. I'm sure the early Christians were all referred to as "brothers". Many followed Christ in his Earthly life, but only twelve were chosen as Apostles--authorized representatives. When one died, the replacement was chosen through consensus of the others in a meeting. This was a structured organization. There is no record of any formal ordination process for Paul. He has a vision, then self-proclaims as an Apostle.

                    Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      Are you a revisionist historian or something?
                      I'm firm believer that history books are written by the winners. If the British had won the revolutionary war, Washington and Jefferson would be "terrorists", "insurgents", "primary instigators of the revolt on the American continent", or the like.

                      Likewise, all Christians other than Roman Catholics professing the Nicene Creed became "heretics" when Christianity was formalized into a political entity. Yet it was NEVER meant to be a monolithic religion, or even a religion at all.

                      Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                        You know your Bible well, and you're adamantly committed to the truth as you understand it.
                        You should have stopped at "truth."

                        My understanding of reality has no bearing on it being truth.

                        This is highly commendable! But if Christianity was really "Catholic" as [MENTION=15077]Idolater[/MENTION] claims, you wouldn't have thousands of denominations would you?
                        As you've already guessed, I'm not Catholic.

                        In fact, I'm a non-denominational fundamentalist.

                        At some point you gotta agree to disagree unless you want another round of burnings at the stake, Salem witch trials, and the like--now don't you? [emoji6]
                        One can have conversation without witch trials.

                        Paul taught a different "gospel" than Christ,
                        So did Noah. Noah's gospel was "board the boat I'm building and you'll be saved from the coming flood.

                        Paul taught a different gospel than what Jesus taught during His (Jesus') earthly ministry.

                        That DOES NOT MEAN that Jesus Himself didn't change things up, which is something you apparently have never considered.

                        which is why I take issue with him.
                        Do you also take issue with Noah for having a different gospel than Christ?

                        Whereas Christ taught salvation through good deeds and obedience to God, Paul proclaimed that good works and the law were irrelevant
                        No, He didn't. He taught that good works and the law will not save you, not that the law was irrelevant. In fact, the law is VERY relevant. But that's meat, and you can't tolerate the milk yet.

                        and salvation hinged on belief in an alleged
                        In what way is the evidence for Christ's death, burial, and resurrection insufficient?

                        HISTORICAL EVENT.
                        Noah taught salvation by simply getting on a boat.

                        That's contradictory my friend, no matter how you slice it.
                        If I tell someone that in order for them to be able to come with me on a trip, they have to finish their work on a project I give them, and then later I do the work for them and then tell them they can come with me just by accepting that I've already done the work, did I contradict myself?

                        And I know you could look up the Bible verses just as well as I could.
                        I don't like getting into proof-texting battles, because it would be entirely one-sided in my favor, because I have no problem texts. And no, I'm not saying that because I simply ignore problem texts, or that I can explain them away. I literally have no problem texts, because my beliefs fit scripture perfectly.

                        In order for your religion to be correct, you have to deny:

                        The authority of Paul as an Apostle.
                        That Christ died (and then later rose from the dead)
                        That there are multiple gospels in the Bible
                        That Christianity is exclusive to all other religions
                        That the Twelve Apostles were not misled by Paul's gospel.

                        Your version of Christianity (and most Christians') is Pauls, not Christ's.
                        That's because Christianity (or rather, the Body of Christ) started with Paul. Jesus was the one who converted Paul first, and then used him as the template for all other Christians since Paul.

                        Christ didn't come to earth to make Christians. He came to seek and to save that which was lost, the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL.

                        Which means your version fails if Jesus never died.
                        And the inverse, which is that "my version" succeeds if Christ DID die, which makes all other religions, INCLUDING ISLAM, false.

                        So again, I ask, in what way is the evidence for Christ's death, burial, and resurrection insufficient?

                        Jesus never died.
                        Saying it doesn't make it so.

                        Do you know why the roman soldier pierced Jesus' side? And do you know why, when pierced, a mixture of water and blood came out, rather than just blood?

                        There's a medical explanation for it.

                        https://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html

                        You don't survive something like that, especially not in that time period, and you certainly wouldn't be able to get up and walk around after three days in a tomb.

                        Rather, it was made to appear that he died, to those who were connected to the events of that day.
                        So it was all just a giant fabrication, the hanging on the cross with spikes driven through his hands and feet, hoisted into the air so that His own body weight would suffocate Him, the spear piercing His side and water coming out from a burst heart, taking his body down and a man named Joseph of Arimathea (who is named in all four of the Gospels (four witnesses to his existence), and the city is an actual city of Judea) donating his brand new tomb outside of Jerusalem to bury Jesus, with a giant stone rolled in front of the entrance which was then sealed by the Romans, a guard was set around it, and even the Pharisees were satisfied that he was dead?

                        Just a huge play?



                        Spoiler
                        On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate,saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first.”Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.”So they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone and setting the guard. - Matthew 27:62-66 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6&version=NKJV


                        Now if you see an anaconda in your closet and call the police, who, on arriving find that it's only a coil of electrical wires--that doesn't make you a liar, it just means you were mistaken.
                        I'd like to see you try to explain away the spear through Jesus' side and water coming out without him actually dying.

                        Thus, Paul and the disciples are not liars for reporting what seemed to them to be a real event. They were just misinformed.
                        This is what I mean. You have to deny what was witnessed by a multitude of people to make your position true.

                        The problem with Paul, and where he becomes potentially dishonest, is in radically deforming the ways of God, by innovating a completely alien salvation theology out of his own human understanding.
                        Sorry, but almost everything Paul said was by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.

                        It doesn't help that he identified himself as a liar (Romans 3:7) and admits to mixing personal opinions with scripture.
                        This is what happens when you take things out of context.

                        Here's the full passage.

                        What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect?Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.)Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. - Romans 3:1-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=NKJV

                        Did you catch that?

                        Paul is speaking within the context of what he said in verse 4.

                        "Let God be true, and every man a liar."

                        Paul isn't calling himself a liar. That's just you taking things out of context.

                        Was Paul really authorized to do this?
                        Yes. Paul had the backing of Christ, who is God the Son.

                        The evidence is scanty.
                        Saying it doesn't make it so.

                        He had some visions, some of the Apostles acknowledged him as a "dear brother". What does that mean? Many have visions of Christ speaking to them, but this is not a test of Apostleship. I'm sure the early Christians were all referred to as "brothers". Many followed Christ in his Earthly life, but only twelve were chosen as Apostles--authorized representatives. When one died, the replacement was chosen through consensus of the others in a meeting. This was a structured organization. There is no record of any formal ordination process for Paul. He has a vision, then self-proclaims as an Apostle.
                        Your glossing over the crucial details means you aren't ready to discuss why and how Matthias was chosen, and why Paul was chosen.

                        Go read Matthew 19, from verse 23 onward, then the entire book of Acts (which again, was written by Luke, not Paul).

                        Read those a few times, in that order.

                        Maybe you'll get it.

                        If you don't, keep reading it. Read it until it's drilled into your head. Then come talk to me about Matthias replacing Judas and Paul's anointing as an Apostle.

                        Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                        I'm a firm believer that history books are written by the winners.
                        Were the Israelites always the "winners" in their recorded history?

                        If not, then would that not give credence to it's accuracy?

                        If the British had won the revolutionary war, Washington and Jefferson would be "terrorists", "insurgents", "primary instigators of the revolt on the American continent", or the like.

                        Likewise, all Christians other than Roman Catholics professing the Nicene Creed became "heretics" when Christianity was formalized into a political entity. Yet it was NEVER meant to be a monolithic religion, or even a religion at all.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

                          You should have stopped at "truth."

                          My understanding of reality has no bearing on it being truth.
                          Reality is interactive. Jews understood the but went overboard at times.

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          In fact, I'm a non-denominational fundamentalist.
                          Super!

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          So did Noah. Noah's gospel was "board the boat I'm building and you'll be saved from the coming flood.
                          I missed the scripture reference for that quote. Apparently your own understanding does have a lot to do with "truth", in your beliefs. All information is filtered through our understanding. That's the Achilles' heel of fundamentalism--you presume that you are directly perceiving truth, that it's all right there in the black and white.

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          Paul taught a different gospel than what Jesus taught during His (Jesus') earthly ministry.
                          This is where Paul comes in handy. Like all liars he is his own nemesis, and that of his adherents:

                          6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel[b] from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!" (Galatians 1:6-9)

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          That DOES NOT MEAN that Jesus Himself didn't change things up, which is something you apparently have never considered.
                          A nonsensical proposition...

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          Do you also take issue with Noah for having a different gospel than Christ?
                          A blatant assumption from your imagination with no evidence. There is no existing book written by Noah (AS)

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          No, He didn't. He taught that good works and the law will not save you, not that the law was irrelevant. In fact, the law is VERY relevant. But that's meat, and you can't tolerate the milk yet.
                          A useless qualification since, as we are speaking of salvation, it should have been obvious that I meant "irrelevant to salvation."

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          In what way is the evidence for Christ's death, burial, and resurrection insufficient?
                          There is as I previously said, no written testimony from anyone who was actually present at his alleged death.

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          Noah taught salvation by simply getting on a boat.
                          That's a preposterous misrepresentation and wild conjecture as you have no record of Noah's words. I on the other hand do, and most likely he never mentioned the boat publicly.

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          If I tell someone that in order for them to be able to come with me on a trip, they have to finish their work on a project I give them, and then later I do the work for them and then tell them they can come with me just by accepting that I've already done the work, did I contradict myself?
                          This is the first rational thing you've said so far, a valid argument. In some ways the whole "just believe Jesus died and resurrected" message WAS a practical necessity given the circumstances. The gateway slogan for gathering the gentiles. The problem comes when you turn this into the sum total of your doctrine. It's like feeding your kids with popsicles their whole life. The body needs proper nourishment, and the soul needs substantial detailed instructions about how to live our lives on Earth. Viola, along comes Islam!

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          I don't like getting into proof-texting battles, because it would be entirely one-sided in my favor, because I have no problem texts. And no, I'm not saying that because I simply ignore problem texts, or that I can explain them away. I literally have no problem texts, because my beliefs fit scripture perfectly.
                          Bwahahahahaha... Your beliefs fit what you're told by the minister.

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          In order for your religion to be correct, you have to deny:

                          The authority of Paul as an Apostle.
                          That Christ died (and then later rose from the dead)
                          That there are multiple gospels in the Bible
                          That Christianity is exclusive to all other religions
                          That the Twelve Apostles were not misled by Paul's gospel.
                          Then it should be an easy win for you, and yet with all my handicaps I reckon I could throw you for loops all day long.

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          That's because Christianity (or rather, the Body of Christ) started with Paul. Jesus was the one who converted Paul first, and then used him as the template for all other Christians since Paul.

                          Christ didn't come to earth to make Christians. He came to seek and to save that which was lost, the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL.
                          Very perceptive and honest of you.

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          And the inverse, which is that "my version" succeeds if Christ DID die, which makes all other religions, INCLUDING ISLAM, false.
                          That's logically impossible. Islam cannot fail.

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          Do you know why the roman soldier pierced Jesus' side? And do you know why, when pierced, a mixture of water and blood came out, rather than just blood?
                          Yeah, he was going to break Jesus' legs like he did for the other two because they WEREN'T DEAD YET. Crucifixion is a long slow process of death, as it was designed to be. It wasn't normal to die as quickly as it was assumed Jesus had. But the Jews couldn't leave him hanging over the Sabbath (I love these little inconvenient coincidences). In all probability he was only unconscious.

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          There's a medical explanation for it.

                          https://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html
                          There is no consensus about the medical implications. It is abnormal for blood to flow from a corpse, which explains all the speculation. The simplest explanation staring at you is that he wasn't dead.

                          https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...de/26933#26933

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          You don't survive something like that, especially not in that time period, and you certainly wouldn't be able to get up and walk around after three days in a tomb.
                          Poppycock.

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          Spoiler
                          On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate,saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first.”Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.”So they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone and setting the guard. - Matthew 27:62-66 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6&version=NKJV
                          Jesus did rise, from the tomb that is. But he had been alive the whole time in there. In the idiom of the time, "the dead" referred to the place of the dead, i.e. the graveyard, the tombs, etc. This no doubt contributes to the confusion in the minds of the Apostles and Paul.

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          Did you catch that?

                          Paul is speaking within the context of what he said in verse 4.

                          "Let God be true, and every man a liar."

                          Paul isn't calling himself a liar. That's just you taking things out of context.
                          Sounds like you are using your understanding to do some interpreting here.

                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          Go read Matthew 19, from verse 23 onward, then the entire book of Acts (which again, was written by Luke, not Paul).

                          Read those a few times, in that order.

                          Maybe you'll get it.

                          If you don't, keep reading it. Read it until it's drilled into your head. Then come talk to me about Matthias replacing Judas and Paul's anointing as an Apostle.
                          I don't read the Bible as a regular practice anymore. If you want me to read something you'll have to quote it.


                          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          Were the Israelites always the "winners" in their recorded history?

                          If not, then would that not give credence to it's accuracy?
                          Not at all. We can only conclude that their culture was militarily superior at the time. You have to be careful to avoid the "might is right" trap.

                          Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                            Reality is interactive.
                            But Jesus can't communicate a change to the gospel through Paul.
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                              This is where Paul comes in handy. Like all liars he is his own nemesis, and that of his adherents:

                              6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel[b] from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!" (Galatians 1:6-9)
                              Once again, taking scripture out of context.

                              Who is Paul talking to in that passage? Who is he talking about?

                              Do you know? If you don't, then you probably shouldn't use it as a proof-text for your position, as if it's a problem text for mine.

                              I told you, my systematic theology has no, repeat, NO problem texts.

                              What did Jesus say, regarding His own followers?

                              Did Muhammad ever say such a thing about his?

                              A nonsensical proposition...
                              Appeal to the stone. In case you're wondering, "appeal to the stone" is a logical fallacy where someone dismisses a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity, which is what you just did.

                              A blatant assumption from your imagination with no evidence.


                              There is no existing book written by Noah (AS)
                              Straw man (another logical fallacy), as I never indicated such.

                              There is as I previously said, no written testimony from anyone who was actually present at his alleged death.
                              Which just shows that you did not, in fact, go back and read what I wrote previously more carefully, because I already answered this challenge.

                              The one whom Jesus spoke to while on the cross and told him to take care of His mother, the beloved disciple, his name is John. John the Beloved.

                              Maybe you can figure out which gospel he wrote.



                              Oh, and let's not forget that the triune Godhead was present as well. You know, the One who authored the entire Bible?

                              ...most likely he never mentioned the boat publicly.
                              "Never mentioned the boat publicly"?



                              I think you need to go look up modern day conversions of the measurements of the ark. And then think about why I might be laughing at your comment.

                              This is the first rational thing you've said so far, a valid argument.
                              And for what I said, this is the only thing in your entire paragraph that had anything to do with what I said.

                              Viola,


                              along comes Islam!


                              Bwahahahahaha... Your beliefs fit what you're told by the minister.
                              Hypocrite.

                              That's logically impossible. Islam cannot fail.
                              It is that exact statement which shows it to be false.

                              First off, because you have to use a logical fallacy (another appeal to the stone) to assert it, and second, because if it cannot be falsified, then it is not testable, and therefore not in line with reality, because it cannot be verified with rational means.
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

                              Even Christianity is falsifiable. In fact, it's what we've been discussing this entire time.

                              Here is how Christianity can be falsified:

                              If Christ did not rise, then the faith of Christians is vain.

                              Yeah, he was going to break Jesus' legs like he did for the other two because they WEREN'T DEAD YET.
                              So?

                              Crucifixion is a long slow process of death, as it was designed to be.
                              Jesus was on the cross for about 6 hours.

                              It wasn't normal to die as quickly as it was assumed Jesus had.
                              Define "quickly" (in this context).

                              But the Jews couldn't leave him hanging over the Sabbath (I love these little inconvenient coincidences).
                              Why is that inconvenient?

                              And it's not a coincidence.

                              In all probability he was only unconscious.
                              Rather, Jesus was well and truly dead.

                              We know this because of the water (or watery-like fluid) that came out when the roman soldier pierced His side (in accordance with prophecy, mind you).

                              Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him.But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken.”And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.” - John 19:31-37 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...7&version=NKJV

                              Agent, do you know why the soldiers would break the legs of those who were hung on crosses?

                              There is no consensus about the medical implications. It is abnormal for blood to flow from a corpse, which explains all the speculation. The simplest explanation staring at you is that he wasn't dead.
                              Saying it doesn't make it so.

                              And?

                              They all seem to agree that the fluid that came out was pericardial fluid.

                              Poppycock.
                              Yet another appeal to the stone. Why am I not surprised.

                              Jesus did rise, from the tomb that is. But he had been alive the whole time in there. In the idiom of the time, "the dead" referred to the place of the dead, i.e. the graveyard, the tombs, etc. This no doubt contributes to the confusion in the minds of the Apostles and Paul.
                              This is simply rationalizing on your part.

                              I don't think you realize just how BRUTAL crucifixion was, let alone what Jesus was put through prior to being hung on the cross.

                              Here. Let me help you try to understand. (WARNING: Graphic Descriptions in the following link, not for the squeamish)

                              https://www.apu.edu/articles/15657/

                              Please tell me, after reading that article, how you think Jesus survived something like that.

                              I don't read the Bible as a regular practice anymore.
                              That's your problem. Not mine.

                              If you want me to read something you'll have to quote it.
                              If you're not willing to take the time to read a passage from the Bible on your own, then why should I be willing to assist you in your laziness?

                              Not at all. We can only conclude that their culture was militarily superior at the time. You have to be careful to avoid the "might is right" trap.
                              That's hilarious, coming from someone who jumps to inane conclusions.

                              You must not have paid much attention to or retained much knowledge of the history of the Jews recorded in the Old Testament.

                              And you don't seem interested in learning either.
                              Last edited by JudgeRightly; August 2nd, 2019, 08:45 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                Who is Paul talking to in that passage? Who is he talking about?
                                What difference does it make? He clearly states there is only one gospel--and curiously enough, he doesn't call it the Gospel of Christ. (And then contradicts himself in the next few sentences, as all liars do, by speaking as if there were more than one)
                                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                I told you, my systematic theology has no, repeat, NO problem texts.
                                I think what you mean is, ideally it shouldn't. Yet I'm easily demonstrating that a fantasy.
                                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                What did Jesus say, regarding His own followers?
                                Why are you asking me? It's your religion.
                                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                Did Muhammad ever say such a thing about his?
                                I know what Muhammad (SAW) said. One of the things he said is that [paraphrased] he and Jesus (AS) were [tight] like this (and he showed his two fingers touching).
                                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                Which just shows that you did not, in fact, go back and read what I wrote previously more carefully, because I already answered this challenge.

                                The one whom Jesus spoke to while on the cross and told him to take care of His mother, the beloved disciple, his name is John. John the Beloved.

                                Maybe you can figure out which gospel he wrote.
                                Ok, so, the "Gospel According to John" counts as written testimony of Jesus' death? Sorry, but that won't stand up in court. No self-respecting Bible scholar will claim that it was actually written by the Apostle John. Furthermore, it is nowhere to be found in the passage quoted, eyes to the effect that "I John saw that Jesus was dead.". The closest you come to that is that the Roman soldier saw that Jesus was dead. But Roman soldiers are busy guys. Can you assume he did a medical inspection to verify the absence of a pulse, or anything like that? No, he "saw"--meaning he looked, saw Jesus unconscious, and assumed death. In any case we don't have the testimony of the Roman soldier. It is STILL hearsay.
                                https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gos...ording-to-John
                                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                Oh, and let's not forget that the triune Godhead was present as well. You know, the One who authored the entire Bible?
                                You don't have the direct words of God anywhere stating "Thus saith the Lord," that Jesus died. Ironically the only place God directly speaks about the event is in the Holy Qur'an where He says:

                                "That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’; – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not." (Q4:157)
                                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                First off, because you have to use a logical fallacy (another appeal to the stone) to assert it, and second, because if it cannot be falsified, then it is not testable, and therefore not in line with reality, because it cannot be verified with rational means.
                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
                                You contradict yourself, in that you claimed if Jesus actually died, then all religions besides Christianity would be false--meaning you thought all religions are falsifiable.
                                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                We know this because of the water (or watery-like fluid) that came out when the roman soldier pierced His side (in accordance with prophecy, mind you).
                                You don't know this, it's a hotly debated theory attempting to explain the fact that CORPSES DON'T BLEED.
                                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                Please tell me, after reading that article, how you think Jesus survived something like that.
                                Easy, the other two crucified next to Jesus, WEREN'T DEAD YET, demonstrating that it's fully possible for him to still be alive.
                                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                If you're not willing to take the time to read a passage from the Bible on your own, then why should I be willing to assist you in your laziness?
                                Maybe you've forgotten I am a Muslim. I am not here to be converted to your beliefs--but to understand them. It is not my job to delve deeply into the Bible--that's yours, who claim that you have no "problem texts.". Also perhaps you forgot that it is you, not me who claimed Jesus died and that Christianity rises or falls on this one alleged fact. Since it is your claim, the responsibility to research and support the claim is yours, not mine. The fact that I happen to be very familiar with the Bible is my own business, and makes your job easier (and harder in some cases).

                                Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X