Allah is dead

[there4eyeM]

'Ad hoc' or sui generis?

 

[newpolitics]

Ah hoc. Christianity, in order to avoid contradicting itself, is forced to say Jesus was a god in order to avoid becoming an idolatrous religion. I would call that ad hoc.

 

[there4eyeM]

In fairness, I think we have to say Christianity has distorted over time the essence of the message, but Jesus made statements that don't leave much room for doubt that he considered himself one with 'the Father'. Not 'a' deity, one with 'the' deity. Again, that is not a defense of the religion of which I am not a part.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Still, the comment about Jesus preceding Abraham has not been thoroughly engaged. Even the excuse that the 'spirit' of prophets is created by God fails to address Jesus' assertion that he pre-existed all that. That cannot be if he is a prophet.

I asked for something in the Quran, you can ask Christians about the Bible. So what are you trying to say? You're a christian now?

One needn't be a Christian to know the history of the world. Knowledge of Christianity and the Bible are essential to understanding our milieu.

The spiritual part of that book doesn't have to be true for the historic records to be. That Jesus said this was recorded hundreds of years before Mohamed (who is dead so nothing can be conferred on him from this world). That's a little too early to believe it is some kind of anti-Islam revisionism.

This confronts Islam with an insoluble predicament. Either Jesus is a great man and a prophet who said something impossible and,thus, false ( 'incorrect prophet' being an oxymoron), as declared in the Koran, or he is a fraud for saying what he said, yet remains in the always-correct Koran.

That's the stupidest analogy I've ever seen in my life, you haven't even explained your analogy, you've just put together something really dumb. Citing a verse from the Bible and using that as a way to disprove any other religion. You make no sense, being a spirit doesn't make you God, everyone has a spirit and angels inform prophets of what God tells them of their spirit. So that made nonsense whatsoever. Pathetic.

 

[there4eyeM]

I asked for something in the Quran, you can ask Christians about the Bible. So what are you trying to say? You're a christian now?

One needn't be a Christian to know the history of the world. Knowledge of Christianity and the Bible are essential to understanding our milieu.

The spiritual part of that book doesn't have to be true for the historic records to be. That Jesus said this was recorded hundreds of years before Mohamed (who is dead so nothing can be conferred on him from this world). That's a little too early to believe it is some kind of anti-Islam revisionism.

This confronts Islam with an insoluble predicament. Either Jesus is a great man and a prophet who said something impossible and,thus, false ( 'incorrect prophet' being an oxymoron), as declared in the Koran, or he is a fraud for saying what he said, yet remains in the always-correct Koran.

That's the stupidest analogy I've ever seen in my life, you haven't even explained your analogy, you've just put together something really dumb. Citing a verse from the Bible and using that as a way to disprove any other religion. You make no sense, being a spirit doesn't make you God, everyone has a spirit and angels inform prophets of what God tells them of their spirit. So that made nonsense whatsoever. Pathetic.

Does anyone else see an analogy in my cited posts?

 

[there4eyeM]

One needn't be a Christian to know the history of the world. Knowledge of Christianity and the Bible are essential to understanding our milieu.

The spiritual part of that book doesn't have to be true for the historic records to be. That Jesus said this was recorded hundreds of years before Mohamed (who is dead so nothing can be conferred on him from this world). That's a little too early to believe it is some kind of anti-Islam revisionism.

This confronts Islam with an insoluble predicament. Either Jesus is a great man and a prophet who said something impossible and,thus, false ( 'incorrect prophet' being an oxymoron), as declared in the Koran, or he is a fraud for saying what he said, yet remains in the always-correct Koran.

That's the stupidest analogy I've ever seen in my life, you haven't even explained your analogy, you've just put together something really dumb. Citing a verse from the Bible and using that as a way to disprove any other religion. You make no sense, being a spirit doesn't make you God, everyone has a spirit and angels inform prophets of what God tells them of their spirit. So that made nonsense whatsoever. Pathetic.

Does anyone else see an analogy in my cited posts?

Where was anything stated about Jesus' 'spirit'?

 

[there4eyeM]

That's the stupidest analogy I've ever seen in my life, you haven't even explained your analogy, you've just put together something really dumb. Citing a verse from the Bible and using that as a way to disprove any other religion. You make no sense, being a spirit doesn't make you God, everyone has a spirit and angels inform prophets of what God tells them of their spirit. So that made nonsense whatsoever. Pathetic.

Does anyone else see an analogy in my cited posts?

Where was anything stated about Jesus' 'spirit'?

There is no analogy; there is the statement of the paradox Jesus presents Islam and the Koran.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

It seems like you're trying to say Islam is a lie because the Koran says Jesus isn't God but he said that the whole time of himself, well explain these then, go ahead.


"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 12:29)"

""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

Being a son of God in ancient times meant no more than righteous one or chosen one of God.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

There's also a verse in the Bible that says his offspring will be prolonged for days....since when does an immortal God prolong his days?

Look at Isaiah 53, bible scholars and Jewish scholars indicate that the verses is purposefully wrongly mistranslated to fit a Christian prophecy that Jesus was crucified, but many actually believe this servant to be 'Israel'.

Jesus presented in the Gospels simply do no fit who he was in the Bible.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ah hoc. Christianity, in order to avoid contradicting itself, is forced to say Jesus was a god in order to avoid becoming an idolatrous religion. I would call that ad hoc.

Your argument is false, a red herring. Jesus declared Himself to be the Savior, the only acceptable sacrifice for sin in mankind's stead. Hence, God. Period. He leaves no room for debate. You have absolutely no textual or historical basis on which to assert that Christians make Him out to be God for any other reason than the fact that that Who He declared Himself to be. After all, that is the reason the Sanhedrin condemned Him to death: blasphemy, idolatry and sorcery. The majority of the tribunal chose not to believe Him either.

 

[BreezeWood]

Ah hoc. Christianity, in order to avoid contradicting itself, is forced to say Jesus was a god in order to avoid becoming an idolatrous religion. I would call that ad hoc.

Your argument is false, a red herring. Jesus declared Himself to be the Savior, the only acceptable sacrifice for sin in mankind's stead. Hence, God. Period. He leaves no room for debate. You have absolutely no textual or historical basis on which to assert that Christians make Him out to be God for any other reason than the fact that is what He declared Himself. That is, after all, the reason the Sanhedrin condemned Him to death: blasphemy, idolatry and sorcery. The majority of the tribunal chose not to believe Him.

M.D. Rawlings: The future of human rebellion is not atheism, but religious apostasy as never before seen in history. Jesus Christ, the incarnate God Almighty, is the only way, the only truth and the only life, and He has absolutely nothing to do with the pagan lies and blasphemies of human history. He is the only true God and Savior of the world. All other doctrines are death and superstitious rot, including the silly nonsense of the new atheistic scientism nancing about as science.

Jesus Christ, the incarnate God Almighty, is the only way, the only truth and the only life ... He is the only true God and Savior of the world.


we do believe, as much from the Bible and more so from observation that Mankind is expelled (for obvious reasons) by God from the Everlasting and must attain Remission for reentry or perish. this is true whether or not JC ever existed, and remains so whatever developments occurred in the past to bring mankind to its present state.


is the only way, the only truth and the only life

the above may be descriptive of a path but is irrelevant if not followed by each "Individual" - of which they are responsible themselves for the same discovery that properly may be contributed to JC but is not an exclusive attribute for that one person but meant by God to be the same for everyone.


JC may have existed but Christianity only exists as long as there is a Bible to read - unlike the presence of God and the true source of knowledge, the Garden.

 

[newpolitics]

Ah hoc. Christianity, in order to avoid contradicting itself, is forced to say Jesus was a god in order to avoid becoming an idolatrous religion. I would call that ad hoc.

Your argument is false, a red herring. Jesus declared Himself to be the Savior, the only acceptable sacrifice for sin in mankind's stead. Hence, God. Period. He leaves no room for debate. You have absolutely no textual or historical basis on which to assert that Christians make Him out to be God for any other reason than the fact that is what He declared Himself. That is, after all, the reason the Sanhedrin condemned Him to death: blasphemy, idolatry and sorcery. The majority of the tribunal chose not to believe Him.

My argument would not be a red herring, even if false. It would just be false. You are misapplying this term. If Jesus claimed his own divinity, then my argument is false. However, did he supposedly claim this in the bible, and if so, was it the product of interpolation? This topic is an ongoing debate among theologians and historians. However, as all of this is stated in a book that is completely unreliable, it makes no difference to me what it says. Did Jesus say any of what is purported? are any of the events of the bible true? Did Jesus actually day those things? To me, the answer is no. As I have mentioned before, the bible is not true because it says it is true. That is circular. There is no outside corroboration of its tales, and it itself is internally contradictory, so please don't use to bible to prove itself. The bible is not proof of god, orJesus, which is why faith is required. You have to imbue the bible with divine importance in order for it to be true. It isn't by itself divine. People make it divine, and then it becomes true to them. My previous claims about authorship are all true: the bible was written anonymously, and we have no original copies, just copies lf translations handed down decades later. I will not have you gloss this over with mere assertion to the contrary. I would have thought these facts about bible were well understood by christians, but apparently not. it seems they don't want to know the truth about their books authorship. Anyhow,These are the facts. Lets at least agree on that. That doesn't mean you can't have faith, or that the bible isn't necessarily true (I don't believe for a second it is), but be honest about its authorship and the historicity of Jesus. Someone named Jesus may have existed and was killed by the Romans, but that's about all that is possibly true, given what extra-biblical evidence we have.

 

[there4eyeM]

It seems like you're trying to say Islam is a lie because the Koran says Jesus isn't God but he said that the whole time of himself, well explain these then, go ahead.


"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 12:29)"

""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

Being a son of God in ancient times meant no more than righteous one or chosen one of God.

I'm not saying the Koran says Jesus isn't God, I am pointing out an error in that book.

Your quotations do not negate the consequences of his statement of pre-dating Abraham. His stating that God is one does not exclude his being one with God. His question about being called 'good' is easily interpreted as 'so do you truly say that I am good with the consequences of such a statement?'

In any case, the Koran cannot have it both ways. He is either the person he claimed, not a prophet, or he is a prophet who said something untrue, which is an oxymoron.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ah hoc. Christianity, in order to avoid contradicting itself, is forced to say Jesus was a god in order to avoid becoming an idolatrous religion. I would call that ad hoc.

Your argument is false, a red herring. Jesus declared Himself to be the Savior, the only acceptable sacrifice for sin in mankind's stead. Hence, God. Period. He leaves no room for debate. You have absolutely no textual or historical basis on which to assert that Christians make Him out to be God for any other reason than the fact that He is Who He declared Himself to be. After all, that is the reason the Sanhedrin condemned Him to death: blasphemy, idolatry and sorcery. The majority of the tribunal chose not to believe Him either.

My argument would not be a red herring, even if false. It would just be false. You are misapplying this term. If Jesus claimed his own divinity, then my argument is false. However, did he supposedly claim this in the bible, and if so, was it the product of interpolation? This topic is an ongoing debate among theologians and historians. However, as all of this is stated in a book that is completely unreliable, it makes no difference to me what it says. Did Jesus say any of what is purported? are any of the events of the bible true? Did Jesus actually day those things? To me, the answer is no. As I have mentioned before, the bible is not true because it says it is true. That is circular. There is no outside corroboration of its tales, and it itself is internally contradictory, so please don't use to bible to prove itself. The bible is not proof of god, orJesus, which is why faith is required. You have to imbue the bible with divine importance in order for it to be true. It isn't by itself divine. People make it divine, and then it becomes true to them. My previous claims about authorship are all true: the bible was written anonymously, and we have no original copies, just copies lf translations handed down decades later. I will not have you gloss this over with mere assertion to the contrary. I would have thought these facts about bible were well understood by christians, but apparently not. it seems they don't want to know the truth about their books authorship. Anyhow,These are the facts. Lets at least agree on that. That doesn't mean you can't have faith, or that the bible isn't necessarily true (I don't believe for a second it is), but be honest about its authorship and the historicity of Jesus. Someone named Jesus may have existed and was killed by the Romans, but that's about all that is possibly true, given what extra-biblical evidence we have.

Wrong again. It is a red herring, for the term encompasses the connotation of a fallacy in which one misstates the issue at hand or attributes a false reason to any given conviction or conclusion

If Jesus were not divine, no more than just a mere man, worshiping Him would indeed be an idolatrous blasphemy. The issue is not whether or not Christians hold Jesus to be God because they wish to avoid idolatry in their worship. The testimony of the Apostles and that of the Holy Spirit are clear: Jesus is the incarnate God Almighty. Period. Christ’s sheep know the Good Sheppard’s voice and follow Him.

Your claims about authorship are nonsense. The Bible was written anonymously? We don’t know who the author’s were? One cannot know whether or not Jesus is God Almighty? The biblical testimony is unreliable because its contents were necessarily handed down via successive copies? Extra-biblical evidence? Of what exactly? The biases of those who do not hear His voice?

God is real, newpolitics. Jesus is the Christ. He loves you. Don’t listen to the world. It’s full of lies.

Btw, the Talmud records the reason the Sanhedrin condemned Him . . . and His “secret” followers among the Sanhedrin.

 

[newpolitics]

Your argument is false, a red herring. Jesus declared Himself to be the Savior, the only acceptable sacrifice for sin in mankind's stead. Hence, God. Period. He leaves no room for debate. You have absolutely no textual or historical basis on which to assert that Christians make Him out to be God for any other reason than the fact that He is Who He declared Himself to be. After all, that is the reason the Sanhedrin condemned Him to death: blasphemy, idolatry and sorcery. The majority of the tribunal chose not to believe Him either.

My argument would not be a red herring, even if false. It would just be false. You are misapplying this term. If Jesus claimed his own divinity, then my argument is false. However, did he supposedly claim this in the bible, and if so, was it the product of interpolation? This topic is an ongoing debate among theologians and historians. However, as all of this is stated in a book that is completely unreliable, it makes no difference to me what it says. Did Jesus say any of what is purported? are any of the events of the bible true? Did Jesus actually day those things? To me, the answer is no. As I have mentioned before, the bible is not true because it says it is true. That is circular. There is no outside corroboration of its tales, and it itself is internally contradictory, so please don't use to bible to prove itself. The bible is not proof of god, orJesus, which is why faith is required. You have to imbue the bible with divine importance in order for it to be true. It isn't by itself divine. People make it divine, and then it becomes true to them. My previous claims about authorship are all true: the bible was written anonymously, and we have no original copies, just copies lf translations handed down decades later. I will not have you gloss this over with mere assertion to the contrary. I would have thought these facts about bible were well understood by christians, but apparently not. it seems they don't want to know the truth about their books authorship. Anyhow,These are the facts. Lets at least agree on that. That doesn't mean you can't have faith, or that the bible isn't necessarily true (I don't believe for a second it is), but be honest about its authorship and the historicity of Jesus. Someone named Jesus may have existed and was killed by the Romans, but that's about all that is possibly true, given what extra-biblical evidence we have.

Wrong again. It is a red herring, for the term encompasses the connotation of a fallacy in which one misstates the issue at hand or attributes a false reason to any given conviction or conclusion

If Jesus were not divine, no more than just a mere man, worshiping Him would indeed be an idolatrous blasphemy. The issue is not whether or not Christians hold Jesus to be God because they wish to avoid idolatry in their worship. The testimony of the Apostles and that of the Holy Spirit are clear: Jesus is the incarnate God Almighty. Period. Christ’s sheep know the Good Sheppard’s voice and follow Him.

Your claims about authorship are nonsense. The Bible was written anonymously? We don’t know who the author’s were? One cannot know whether or not Jesus is God Almighty? The biblical testimony is unreliable because its contents were necessarily handed down via successive copies? Extra-biblical evidence? Of what exactly? The biases of those who do not hear His voice?

God is real, newpolitics. Jesus is the Christ. He loves you. Don’t listen to the world. It’s full of lies.

Btw, the Talmud records the reason the Sanhedrin condemned Him . . . and His “secret” followers among the Sanhedrin.

A red herring is a point that is laid down in order to distract from the course of discussion. The term originates from the idea that a red herring, a smelly fish, could be laid down across the path of a hunting dog to confuse his scent. That is not what I did, at least not intentionally.

I dont care for your proselytizing, although I guess I appreciate that in some strange way, you care about my welfare, even if it is predicated upon the existence of a place I don't believe in. I don't believe the bible to be true, in any respect, nor do I believe your god to exist. In fact I believe strongly that your gods existence is a logical and practical impossibly, so you can spare me the references to the bible as if they are going to be convincing. The bible is no more true than the Koran, or the bagavad Gita, etc... The facts about authorship I raised are well known within biblical scholarship. We don't have any signatures. The authors of the gospels are anonymous, and the names ascribed to the gospels are made up by the church. Luke and Mathew were largely copied from Mark. Christianity rests upon a document that does not attest reliably to the events it claims took place.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

My argument would not be a red herring, even if false. It would just be false. You are misapplying this term. If Jesus claimed his own divinity, then my argument is false. However, did he supposedly claim this in the bible, and if so, was it the product of interpolation? This topic is an ongoing debate among theologians and historians. However, as all of this is stated in a book that is completely unreliable, it makes no difference to me what it says. Did Jesus say any of what is purported? are any of the events of the bible true? Did Jesus actually day those things? To me, the answer is no. As I have mentioned before, the bible is not true because it says it is true. That is circular. There is no outside corroboration of its tales, and it itself is internally contradictory, so please don't use to bible to prove itself. The bible is not proof of god, orJesus, which is why faith is required. You have to imbue the bible with divine importance in order for it to be true. It isn't by itself divine. People make it divine, and then it becomes true to them. My previous claims about authorship are all true: the bible was written anonymously, and we have no original copies, just copies lf translations handed down decades later. I will not have you gloss this over with mere assertion to the contrary. I would have thought these facts about bible were well understood by christians, but apparently not. it seems they don't want to know the truth about their books authorship. Anyhow,These are the facts. Lets at least agree on that. That doesn't mean you can't have faith, or that the bible isn't necessarily true (I don't believe for a second it is), but be honest about its authorship and the historicity of Jesus. Someone named Jesus may have existed and was killed by the Romans, but that's about all that is possibly true, given what extra-biblical evidence we have.

Wrong again. It is a red herring, for the term encompasses the connotation of a fallacy in which one misstates the issue at hand or attributes a false reason to any given conviction or conclusion

If Jesus were not divine, no more than just a mere man, worshiping Him would indeed be an idolatrous blasphemy. The issue is not whether or not Christians hold Jesus to be God because they wish to avoid idolatry in their worship. The testimony of the Apostles and that of the Holy Spirit are clear: Jesus is the incarnate God Almighty. Period. Christ’s sheep know the Good Sheppard’s voice and follow Him.

Your claims about authorship are nonsense. The Bible was written anonymously? We don’t know who the author’s were? One cannot know whether or not Jesus is God Almighty? The biblical testimony is unreliable because its contents were necessarily handed down via successive copies? Extra-biblical evidence? Of what exactly? The biases of those who do not hear His voice?

God is real, newpolitics. Jesus is the Christ. He loves you. Don’t listen to the world. It’s full of lies.

Btw, the Talmud records the reason the Sanhedrin condemned Him . . . and His “secret” followers among the Sanhedrin.

A red herring is a point that is laid down in order to distract from the course of discussion. The term originates from the idea that a red herring, a smelly fish, could be laid down across the path of a hunting dog to confuse his scent. That is not what I did, at least not intentionally.

I dont care for your proselytizing, although I guess I appreciate that in some strange way, you care about my welfare, even if it is predicated upon the existence of a place I don't believe in. I don't believe the bible to be true, in any respect, nor do I believe your god to exist. In fact I believe strongly that your gods existence is a logical and practical impossibly, so you can spare me the references to the bible as if they are going to be convincing. The bible is no more true than the Koran, or the bagavad Gita, etc... The facts about authorship I raised are well known within biblical scholarship. We don't have any signatures. The authors of the gospels are anonymous, and the names ascribed to the gospels are made up by the church. Luke and Mathew were largely copied from Mark. Christianity rests upon a document that does not attest reliably to the events it claims took place.

I'm just letting you know that God is real and you can trust His Word. Jesus loves you.

 

[there4eyeM]

"I'm just letting you know that God is real and you can trust His Word. Jesus loves you."

Evidently, you are quite sincere. You can, however, understand that some ask why, if what you say is true, there is a need to say it. Shouldn't this be evident to everyone else?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"I'm just letting you know that God is real and you can trust His Word. Jesus loves you."

Evidently, you are quite sincere. You can, however, understand that some ask why, if what you say is true, there is a need to say it. Shouldn't this be evident to everyone else?

Yes. I understand that.

 

[BreezeWood]

If Jesus were not divine, no more than just a mere man, worshiping Him would indeed be an idolatrous blasphemy. The issue is not whether or not Christians hold Jesus to be God because they wish to avoid idolatry in their worship. The testimony of the Apostles and that of the Holy Spirit are clear: Jesus is the incarnate God Almighty. Period. Christ’s sheep know the Good Sheppard’s voice and follow Him.

Your claims about authorship are nonsense.

Btw, the Talmud records the reason the Sanhedrin condemned Him . . . and His “secret” followers among the Sanhedrin.

the reason Jesus was condemned was he claimed to be a Son of God (as are all living beings), not that he is / was God.

M.D. Rawlings: Jesus Christ, the incarnate God Almighty, is the only way, the only truth and the only life ...

Your claims about authorship are nonsense.

the above is not Idolatry ?

no less nonsense, that a physical proof of authenticity of the bible, the stone slabs chiseled by God - the Ten Commandments can not be provided by either of the 3 Desert Religions.


Allah is dead - not God but the True Religion of Remittance that is dying.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If Jesus were not divine, no more than just a mere man, worshiping Him would indeed be an idolatrous blasphemy. The issue is not whether or not Christians hold Jesus to be God because they wish to avoid idolatry in their worship. The testimony of the Apostles and that of the Holy Spirit are clear: Jesus is the incarnate God Almighty. Period. Christ’s sheep know the Good Sheppard’s voice and follow Him.

Your claims about authorship are nonsense.

Btw, the Talmud records the reason the Sanhedrin condemned Him . . . and His “secret” followers among the Sanhedrin.

the reason Jesus was condemned was he claimed to be a Son of God (as are all living beings), not that he is / was God.

M.D. Rawlings: Jesus Christ, the incarnate God Almighty, is the only way, the only truth and the only life ...

Your claims about authorship are nonsense.

the above is not Idolatry ?

no less nonsense, that a physical proof of authenticity of the bible, the stone slabs chiseled by God - the Ten Commandments can not be provided by either of the 3 Desert Religions.


Allah is dead - not God but the True Religion of Remittance that is dying.

Are you asking a question or making a statement? If a statement, why would the Sanhedrin condemn Him to death for claiming to be a son of God in the sense that you mean, i.e., a mere creature of God? No. Jesus claimed to be God, the Creator. Jesus is the Word of God. He is the divine Son of God. To worship God is not idolatry. To worship Jesus is not idolatry. Of course, we don't have the origin manuscripts or the stones, for example, in which the 10 commandments were written. These are material things that perish over time. The copies that have been handed down are reliable. But, ultimately, God's Word is a Living Being: Jesus Christ. The Word endures forever.