Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Ask me anything about Islam and I'll try to answer it as well as I can.

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

  • Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
    In you is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah and the futility of casting pearls to swine. Whenever you demand Christians provide 100 % proof around the trinity, Jesus being worshipped or original sin you can count on the same level of proof of Mohamad as the counsellor demanded of you.
    It is what it is – the ‘ANOTHER’ Comforter Jesus spoke of IS of another prophet of God who is to come AFTER Jesus, NOT ANOTHER Holy Spirit.

    Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
    Clearly you are wrong. You need to read the Bible in its total literary context and not just cherry pick verses that fit your Muslim bias. By doing so you will see how Mathew 26.28 fits with Jeremiah 31 .
    Yes, now that you mention it, I can see how Matthew 26:28 fits with Jeremiah 31. Jeremiah 31 was talking about a NEW profound commitment and devotion to God, and Jesus in Matthew 26:28 was speaking of committing his whole life on earth towards achieving this goal which was never achieved in his lifetime, even till today.

    Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
    And in your regards to is there another Holy Spirit. The answer is no. There has always been only one Holy Spirit. What you need to know however is that The Holy Spirit was to come in a new and powerful manifestation and available to all people not just a Levitic priesthood.
    Nonsense. You are like a man drowning and trying to grab anything to stay afloat. Your assumption do NOT even have any support from your own Scripture ….. AND the Holy Spirit is NOT available, or to be more precise, present in ALL people, but only to those who have turn to God and sincerely submit to the Will of God.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Acts2 View Post

      You are obviously confused in referring this to the NT when it was only about the OT Tanakh.

      So what are you trying to say? Are you saying the OT Tanakh has been altered ? Regarding the Tanakh it is clear Jeremiah was simply rebuking the scribes for their traditions that led people astray from the word of God. The Word of God in the OT Tanakh has been preserved and Gods Word and truth won out as evidenced by the prophet Jeremiah.
      Consider these points -

      1. Other godly men also had copies of the Torah in their possession. eg. the prophet Daniel. Plus other prophets affirm that the book of Moses was still available during their day.eg. Nehemiah 8:13-14,18. This occurred approximately 430 B.C., nearly 180 years after Jeremiah.

      2. The Lord Jesus and his followers quoted from the Torah and Tanakh as we know it today and never thought that it was corrupt (cf. Matthew 4:4,7,10; 22:31-32d

      3. Even Jeremiahs enemies knew that the Law could never disappear. Jeremiah 18:18

      4. If you read Jeremiah 36: 1-7, 20-32, 27-32.You will see that If God was capable of restoring the revelation given to Jeremiah after it had been destroyed, then God would also have been capable of restoring the original Torah.

      5. Jeremiah said …“ If you do not listen to me and follow MY LAW …. So how could Israel follow the Law, i.e. the Torah, if it had been corrupted? Jeremiah 26:4-6.

      You have been led astray by your Mullahs and are under the slavery of Hagars curse.
      You are obviously confused. You perceived that the Muslims are saying “the lying pen of the scribes has turn it into lies” to mean the Law of God has been literally changed. No, the Law of God or His Words cannot be changed, BUT, the understanding of the people on the Law of God and/or His Words, can be manipulated by those who are highly respected and seen as teachers of the Law. This was what happened to the people of Jeremiah and God remanded them and told Jeremiah to tell his people “'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”. Once you understand what the Muslims was actually saying on Jeremiah 8:8, then, you should understand why all your points above are non-issues to the Muslims.

      Today, I can ask the same thing to the Christians, “'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the gospels’ scribes and the lying tongue of the preachers/scholars has handled it falsely?”’.

      You have been led astray by your church preachers and scholars and are under the slavery of Satan’s rule, and you don't even realize it !!.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Acts2 View Post


        Common sense tells us the Comforter is The Holy Spirit and NOT a man.

        And in your regards to is there another Holy Spirit. The answer is no. There has always been only one Holy Spirit. What you need to know however is that The Holy Spirit was to come in a new and powerful manifestation and available to all people not just a Levitic priesthood.

        Muslims are so full of bias from their Mullahs . And I repeat Where did Mohamad ever say he is the comforter !?
        On the contrary, common sense tells us the ‘ANOTHER Comforter’ is a man, ANOTHER prophet of God to come after Jesus departure. Common sense should also tell us, the Comforter cannot be the Holy Spirit per se, as the Holy Spirit has been with us since the beginning of time and does NOT have to wait for Jesus to depart for him to come.

        Christians are so full of bias from their church preachers and scholars. And I repeat, your assumption (the Holy Spirit was to come in a new and powerful manifestation and available to all people) do NOT even have any support from your own Scripture. If you do, I like to see them.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          What do you mean what is this so-called New Covenant that Jesus heralded in? Read Mathew 26.28.
          I mean EXACTLY that - what is this so-called New Covenant to you and you have not answer that.
          Matthew 26:28 simply means Jesus has committed his whole life to free and show people out of their sinning ways. What do you think it means ???
          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          And yes he came as the Lamb of Atonement that paid for the sin of mankind through his blood. And how will this relationship / friendship be established. Jesus as The Messiah was the scape goat /lamb which is central to the Mosaic law.
          That’s the lies your church preachers and scholars preached to you. Where in the whole Bible did Jesus said he came to die for the sin of all man ??

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          There is no contradiction between Jeremiah 31 and Jesus being the door. As stated in Mathew, Jesus said he heralded in the New Covenant. He is the door in which God will place his laws and the heart and minds of believers.
          When Jesus said he’s the door/gate/the way, he’s actually claiming total monopoly for people in his time, to know God. And he’s right, as in his time, who else can the people turn to if they want to know God or learn to do the works of God other than Jesus ?? Likewise, Moses, Noah, Abraham are the doors/gates/the ways, for the people to know God in their respective times, as who else can the people turn to if they want to know God or learn to do the works of God other than Moses, Noah, Abraham in their respective lifetime ??

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          And you are wrong in the covenant being only with Israel and Judah as the OT / Tenakh is clear that through Israel the non Jewish peoples will be blessed. There are many verses in the OT that state this. For example Hosea 26.
          You need to quote Scripture to support what you said. And is there really a Hosea 26 ?? I though Hosea ended at Hosea 13. I may be wrong, so, can you quote Hosea 26 ??

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          And you are wrong in your assumption that I believe it is an abrogation of the law. It is not an abrogation, rather it is a fulfillment of the law. Abrogation is a convenient and clumsy Muslim technique to explain contradictions in the Quran. It is not relevant regarding Jeremiah 31.
          When did I say you believe in the abrogation of the Law ?? I was explaining to you what Jeremiah 31:34 is !! Go and read back what I wrote instead of making assumptions.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          You seem to be saying it is only through the legal devotion of the Jews that Israels sins will be forgiven.? If so you are not correct as it will not be through the Mosaic law that the sins will be forgiven as Verse 32 makes this clear -
          32 "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt."
          Rather it implies it through a loving relationship / friendship that people will be made clean and holy.
          And in which Law is a loving relationship/friendship being preached ??

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          Doing silly requirements for the law like walking around a building cube in Mecca is not required.
          Being sarcastic does NOT make you right, it just shows how arrogant and ignorant you are on topics you are not well-versed with. You know like asking me to prove how do I know the priests are in cahoots to kill Jesus when it’s right there in your own Scripture !!

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          And how will this relationship / friendship be established. It will be through the atoning blood of the scape goat /lamb which is central to the Mosaic law.
          As I said above you are wrong to say the redemption of Jesus blood is not in the Law.
          Well, then, show me which Law instead of just making assumptions of Jesus blood is in the Law!!

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          You need to familiarise yourself with the blood sacrifice requirement central to the Mosaic law which the most two important Jewish festivals celebrate. These being Yom Kippur / Day of Atonement and Passover.
          Jesus was not merely allegorising his blood as a reference to his life that he committed to bring people out of sinning as you claim. What Jesus was offering was His life as the sacrifice as per the Yom Kippur / Day of Atonement Mosaic law requirement.
          You need to learn to back up what you said with what God Almighty or/and His prophets said in your own Scripture, NOT by the sayings or the traditions of Man.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          You say Nobody, NOT even a prophet of God, can be righteous and holy before God Almighty FOR you or on your behalf, you have to be righteous and holy before God Almighty by yourself. So how will you be able to be holy to even approach the feet of God Almighty JM. No matter how many good deeds you do. No matter how many salahs you parrot or dead rituals such as your Haj you perform it will never be enough.
          Well, that does NOT mean you should ignore God’s Command on the basis of no matter what good deeds you do, it will never be enough. Is that what your church preached to you ??
          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          I agree that no prophet can provide the way to the ‘living law’. However Jesus Christ as The Messiah was not a mere prophet. He was and is the human radiance of The Almighty God The Father was the Son and atoning lamb of atonement. He is the door to the ‘living law’ in our hearts and minds.
          That’s what your preachers preached to you, NOT what Jesus preached, as he never said he came to die for all man’s sin.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          You asked me which Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms that Jesus said is written about him must be fulfilled. Where the Law talked about sacrifices and requirement of shedding of blood for forgiveness of sins, Jesus was the high priest as per the Mosaic law. Where the Law talked about the coming Messiah, Jesus was that Messiah,
          Jesus said in John 5:39, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me." The Old Testament Scriptures were about Jesus who came to fulfil all the prophecies and requirements that the Old Testament law stipulated that was necessary for him to be the Messiah and the fulfilment of the sacrificial lamb as per Yom Kippur.
          Well, you STILL have NOT told me which Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms that Jesus said is written about him must be fulfilled.
          And Yom Kippur is a Jewish tradition where they believe it’s the day when God decides the fate of every man.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          In saying Jesus was a sign or a symbol of righteousness, once again you have not followed the Biblical rule of interpretation by not considering the textual and literary context of the Bible as a whole.
          You mean Jesus is NOT a symbol of righteousness ??!

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          Yes Jesus said that only those who listen to him and believe in Him (that is, God Almighty) will inherit the eternal life. However he said a lot more than that alone. Please don’t just cherry pick verses outside the literary context of the Bible as a whole.
          Only those who listen to him and believe in God Almighty will inherit the eternal life IS the basic foundation of Jesus’ preaching to the people he was sent to. Without these basic principles, his other preaching would be meaningless. It’s because the Christians cannot understand these basic principles of Jesus’ preaching, that they now worship him as God when they should be worshipping and serving only the One God Almighty who sent Jesus to the Israelites.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          You are wrong in saying S/son of God’ simply means servant of God. The fact remains the Jews were familiar with the title "Son of God", as they were familiar with the title "Messiah" in the OT. There are numerous instances of The Son of God with a Mesianic meaning. You are wrong in saying its only in the NT that we see people trying to translate S/son of God (as applied to Jesus) as God the Son. The fact is there are a number of Old Testament verses that do speak of God's only begotten Son. For example Isaiah 9:6 – 7 and Proverbs 30:4.
          Yes, ‘S/son of God’ is synonymous with ‘S/servant of God’ in the Scripture and it’s only in the NT, that the church preachers try to give a new meaning to ‘S/son of God’ as applied to Jesus Christ. And what about Isaiah 9:6-7 ??

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          Your stating Jesus is not God the Son because the Holy Spirit descended on him or that he called God ‘Father’ is a simple ‘straw man argument’ ie. (A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent).

          If that’s the definition of a straw man, then, you are the one who’s giving a straw man’s argument as you STILL have NOT proven Jesus is God the Son from the Words of God Almighty or His prophet, Jesus, other than just the words of other people. Surely, you cannot believe Jesus call God “Father” because he believe he’s God the Son ??? In you Scripture, Jesus calls God “Father” and God allows that because both see it figuratively, NOT literally, that is, nothing more than just a loving ‘father-son’ relationship.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          Why would I explain Daniel 7 to you when you admit to having a preconceived closed mind set ? ! If you cant keep an open mind you have no credibility on this forum and are behaving like a troll.
          Tsk, tsk… that’s no way to treat someone who was just asking your understanding of Daniel 7. I have many Christian friends who came to me wanting to know more about the Quran and I have NEVER said to them “Why would I explain the Quran to you when you admit to having a preconceived closed mind set ?!”
          But I do understand if you are not able to explain Daniel 7 to me. So, don’t worry about it, mate !

          By the way, when and where did I ever admit I have a preconceived closed mindset ??! I guess, that’s normal for a Christian like you to twist and turn people’s words into something else.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          Regarding the Gospels / Injeel, as I said where is this lost record of “The sayings of Jesus” The lost Injeel / Gospels ? and if even they existed what happened to these “saying of Jesus”. How would they have been lost, who was responsible for losing them and when approximately would this have occurred. All you have provided is a ‘conspiracy theory’ based on your own Muslim doctrinal bias.
          Why do you keep repeating your questions which I have responded to ?? No wonder your post can be very looong !! Do you even read my responses to you ??

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          Let me repeat the eye witness Gospel accounts we have today are exactly the same as in Mohamads day and for centuries before Mohamad was even born. It is a historical fact. Hence your theory of some ‘ mysterious lost Injeel’ has no basis. In you, is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah.
          Maybe, but that only showed and proved the Scripture had been corrupted by the time Muhammad received his Revelation and that’s why God told him to tell the ‘People of the Book’ to revert back to the original teaching of Jesus and Moses instead of following the lies of the early church.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          You state it’s not God who was not able to keep His Words in preserving the Injeel but its man. What you fail to realise is it amounts to the same thing. Answer the question please! If God was either unable or unwilling to keep his word from being lost or corrupted then he is not God. If He was not able to keep his word from being lost or corrupted then he is not Omnipotent. And if that’s the case how do you know the original Quran has not been lost ?
          Your questions have no basis when you have already stated that I said its NOT God who was unable to keep His Words, its Man who was unable to hold on to His Words.

          And how do I know the preaching of the original Quran has not been lost ?? That’s because the basic preaching of the Quran today about who God Almighty is, IS still the same since the time of Adam, and sure is the same as the true preaching of Jesus in his lifetime, and that is, God is ONLY One and we should ONLY serve and worship Him.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          In regards to the Gospel of Thomas you have added nothing to your argument apart from repeat the same tired old line of … “those are the preaching of other people, not Jesus”
          I don’t know why you even mentioned the Gospel of Thomas at all? So until you can explain why you did, the whole question around its reliability is irrelevant.
          Why are you spinning this out of proportions ?? You said the Gospel of Thomas lacked integrity/reliability and that’s why it was not canonized. So, I was merely asking you what integrity/reliability that you think was lacking from the Gospel of Thomas that it was rejected by early church ??

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          Regarding the priest being in “cahoots” with those who wanted to kill Jesus. You seem to be losing track of your argument. Your original point was about the priests wanting to kill Jesus, not for blasphemy as I claimed, but rather for some other unclear and unarticulated reason. So please try to articulate your reason and then support it from the text.
          You are breaking apart, my friend, and desperately trying to change the argument. Here’s exactly what you wrote on this matter – “As I said What proof do you have to prove the priests were in cahoots with those who wanted to kill Jesus. You have provided no proof from the text apart from some Muslim constructed ‘conspiracy theory’. Stick to the text and cease trying to obscure it with figurative ‘ readings. You need to put your Muslim bias aside. The onus is on you to prove it from the text.”
          The subject matter here is you’re seeking proof from the (Scripture) text. Nothing on blasphemy, etc, etc. You asked for proof from the text and I have provided you the proof from the Scripture text. So, stop spinning and twisting your way out when proven you are wrong.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          You are wrong about the Quran being for all times in that if it only narrates the past in a specific context then it cannot be relevant to the present or future. Hence it is not the literal and absolute Word of God Almighty.
          I said the Quran ALSO narrates the past…, meaning it’s more than just narrating the past. I NEVER said it ONLY narrates the past. Again, stop twisting and spinning my words.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          And your explanation of the ‘well guarded tablets” refutes nothing I have stated. Are you saying that by nothing is unchangeable and imperishable, means the commands to violence found in it are also unchangeable and imperishable ? Besides it’s a fact the Quran is not unchangeable and imperishable. The oldest Quran found in Sanaa in the 1970s prove it has been changed and is not what Muslims have today !
          The violence commands in the Quran is only confined to the situations and circumstances of the time. It’s not for all times. You do NOT want to believe that because you, like the religious extremists, want all Muslims in the world to go around killing all non-Muslims just to prove you are right, well, that’s not going to happen !!

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          You state we can find variances or contradictions among the 4 Gospels so ‘the broad principle of truth’ on some of the key events, are questionable. You are wrong. While there are variance in detail between the Gospels the broad principles exist. Your example of the angels in the empty tomb is an example of variances in the detail but the broad principle of truth exists in that they all attest to the empty tomb. The fact that they differ slightly actually confirms their reliability as it indicates there was not a conspiracy between the writers to fabricate.
          No, it makes the stories leading to the empty tomb questionable. John, in his gospel, could not have missed the angels/men at the tomb. Everyone should have felt a violent earthquake…. AND an empty tomb is no proof of a resurrection.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          Regarding how Christians today refer to the OT you need to read my replies properly. What I said was the Messiah Jesus Christ fits with the OT Messianic prophecies AND broad principles of truth that can be found in the OT. Not just about the Messiah.
          Well, quote the OT verses and let’s talk about them.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          Regarding Christians that have cut their hands off or plucked their eyes out. It is obviously figurative. I know far more about the principles of Biblical interpretation than you. Shall I recap the principles for you.
          Sure, it’s figuratively, but still considered violent.
          And what’s the use of the Biblical interpretation principles, when clearly you have ignored them most of the time in understanding your own Bible ??
          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          You ask which Quranic verse I am referring to as violent directives from God and you will explain them to me in the context and historical background. You miss the point JM. As I said by doing this you will limit the Quran to those specific contextual and historical events, thus proving the Quran is not the literal, absolute Word of God to all people for all times. You will be saying the divine miracle of the Quran is limited by time and place. So I will not be supplying you with the violent verses in the Quran for you to explain contextually as that is a distraction from the above fundamental point that you still need to address.
          Then, don’t bring up violent verses in the Quran if you are not prepared or want to make an effort to understand them.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          And you ask me to explain the violent verses in the Bible. As already stated. The Bible is different from the Quran in that the Bible is more similar to your hadith than the Quan. The Bible is written by men but inspired by God. Because it is written by man it needs to be viewed through them lens of the context and historical situation at the time. This however is not this case with Allahs ‘divine absolute, literal recitation’ of the Quran.
          Yes, the Bible is like the hadiths as they are both written by men.

          ‘Inspired by God’ does NOT mean everything written is guaranteed true. It’s just an initiation to do something. When someone said he’s inspired by God to write a book, say, on Trump, it means he suddenly has this impulse (which he claimed ‘inspiration from God’) to start a project of writing a book on Trump. He, however, still need to do a lot of researches and talk to those who knew and to those who knew those who knew Trump to complete his book. That does not mean his researches will be 100 per cent accurate or those who he spoke to will not add their own ‘flavor’, for good or bad, on Trump. The finished book, of course, will be something that can be taken as truth and others may need further validation. Likewise, the Bible and hadiths went through the same process.

          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          In regards to ISIS and Boko Haram my point stands. ISIS understand your Quran and hadith very well and probably better than you. They understand them because they know from your Quan and hadith that there are dozens of directives to violence and that Mohmad himself was a violent War Lord. And in terms whether this makes Christianity true or not, that is not the point. Islam invalidates itself on moral grounds.
          As I said earlier, you want to believe all the negative comments about Islam because you, like the religious extremists, want all Muslims in the world to go around killing all non-Muslims just to prove you are right, well, that’s not going to happen !!


          Originally posted by Acts2 View Post
          Finally JM I just need to mention that the tone of your posts are becoming more sarcastic. If you could tone that down a bit it would be appreciated. Thanks.
          If you are very familiar with my writings, you should know I am only sarcastic (that too, not all the time) to those who are arrogant and sarcastic to me. If you choose to debate in a respectful and amicable manner, then I will respond similarly.

          So, Acts2, if you feel I am being sarcastic to you, then, perhaps, you should first check the tone of your postings to me.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Acts2 View Post

            Yes thanks George. I have known of Muslims desperately clutching at it in the hope it being evidence of "Jesus true Injeel" .... but no
            …… And was that the reason Gospel of Thomas was rejected ?? Because according to George’s ‘research’, Bart Erhman said something that sounded similar to what Paul said ?? Bart Erhman ?? The same man who, in his best-selling book “Misquoting Jesus”, claimed the NT is a corrupt document changed through the evolutionary process of scribal alteration, early Christian theological apologetics, and poor scholarship ??

            Yup, I have known of Christians desperately clutching at anything in the hope of proving Jesus is God .... but no , not even in the Gospel of Thomas.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post

              Not really. Take the book “James Cameroon ‘s Titanic”, which became a blockbuster movie. Well, that book contains truth and lies – the vessel ship ‘Titanic’ is written truth and that it hit an iceberg and sank in the icy water is also the written truth. However, the love story between the 2 main characters is the written lies – a work of fiction to spice up the story. Likewise, the Law (that is, as what God had said and/or what His prophets had said) is in the written truth of the Bible and what other people interpret is in the written lies of the Bible.
              That’s why people take the book Titianic as a fictional account not as an actual one. If law if it is mixed in with fiction then it becomes obsolete and nonexistent.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post

                The disciples of Jesus, or for that matter, the companions of Muhammad, are not prophets of God, although they are blessed by God. A prophet of God is someone who’s chosen by God and given the full authority to speak in His Name and to convey His Message to the people they were sent to. The disciples and the companions are not directly authorized by God to speak in His Name nor were they authorized to convey His Message to the people, but they were authorized by their prophet of the time to spread the Message of God as what they have accepted and learned from their prophet of the day.

                In Matthew 16:15-20, Jesus was not making a personal promise to guard the church, but, he was speaking figuratively that the church which he will initiate to be built at that very spot, will be a place free of evil temptations and corruptions.

                Biblical history is not a revelation, it is a record of what happened as understood by Man through the ages of time. A revelation does not progress/develop according to the progress of time nor can it deviate from its original ‘statement’ - it is what it is, just as God is He Who He Is. So, if you say a revelation can progress/develop, then, you need to show biblical verses that state God or His prophets said so.

                How do you come to the conclusion that Matthew 12:8 fits a divine title on Christ ??

                And which passage are you referring to when you said “John specifically said what Jesus meant by claiming Sonship, Jesus literally meant he was a real Son of God literally begotten of God as John the beloved of disciple Christ said he made himself equal to God by claiming to be his begotten Son” ???
                Jesus who is divine chose his disciples to be his messengers. The Apostles aren’t like the companions of Mohammed becomes the Apostles spoke to God and did get revelations. The book of revelation is the best example of Apostle John giving a revelation and prophecising from a vision God gave him. We see the Apostles getting prophecies in Acts of the Apostles aswell. Actually Jesus was telling Peter that he would be the Church and that nothing not even hell will ever prevail against him, this Church was initialed at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit touched the Apostles. The following is how ancient Christians and Church fathers interpreted the verse:


                ​​​Tatian the Syrian



                "Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).



                Tertullian



                "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

                "[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).



                The Letter of Clement to James



                "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).



                The Clementine Homilies



                "[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).



                Origen



                "Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).



                Cyprian of Carthage



                "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

                "There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

                "There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
                secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).



                Firmilian



                "But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

                "[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).



                Ephraim the Syrian



                "[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).



                Optatus



                "You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. ***]).



                Ambrose of Milan



                "[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

                "It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).



                Pope Damasus I



                "Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).



                Jerome



                "‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

                "I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).



                Augustine



                "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).



                Council of Ephesus



                "Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).



                Sechnall of Ireland



                "Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).



                Pope Leo I



                "Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).



                Council of Chalcedon



                "Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

                Biblical history is a revelation it’s not just history. Revelation doesn’t deviate from its original teaching it reflects upon past teaching and develops, it doesn’t not change. And this is something that obviusly takes place in the Bible. The example is the mosaic law which at one point did not exist, then did exist, then was ended with the coming of the Messiah and finally put to rest. Matthew 12:8 calls Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath day, and we know who that is. John 5:18 says the Jews tried to kill Jesus for calling himself God’s Son thus making himself equal to God.

                Comment


                • And since your probably going to argue with me on the meaning of Jesus claiming to be the Lord of the Sabbath and Matthew 12:8 then know that answering Islam already refuted the argument:

                  I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:6-8)

                  Here Jesus demonstrates his Deity by affirming that he is distinct from all creation and greater than the temple of God - the place that housed the glory of God. No creature can claim to be greater than God’s abode. He also states that he is Lord of the Sabbath, a glorious divine title which is very similar to how Yahweh is described in the Old Testament. Only God deserves these titles and this appears to be one of the reasons why the Jews wanted to kill him in Matthew 12:14.

                  Muslim Objection:

                  Typically Muslims will raise five objections to these passages. 1. They will say that in Matthew 12 Jesus allowed the disciples to pick some heads of grain and eat on the Sabbath when they were hungry and therefore since they violated the Sabbath along with Jesus in a sense this is nothing special. 2. They will say in Matthew 12 Jesus talks about David and his companions entering the temple on the Sabbath in the Old Testament where they consecrated bread which was not lawful for them to do. From that they will conclude that Jesus’ statements are nothing special. 3. They will cite John 7:23 where circumcision was practiced on the Sabbath – thus, it is not so uncommon and does not prove Jesus is God. 4. They will claim that when Mark 2:27-28 says the following; it means that everyone is Lord of the Sabbath: “Then he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.’” 5. They will say that the titles “Lord of the Sabbath” and “Greater than the temple” are just titles and honours that were given to him by God in John 13:3, therefore they do not imply that Jesus is God.

                  Christian Response:

                  On point 1 and 2, Christ, being God and heir of all creation (Hebrews 1:2), had the power and authority to explain the Sabbath, redefine it, and to allow his disciples to do what they did, thus proving a very important point about who Jesus is and what unique authority he has. The Sabbath was created by God for man so he can rest. It is supposed to help man but if man is hungry on the Sabbath and has to work for his food then he should be able to do so. This is what is indicated here. This is why Christ referenced the OT story of David and his companions eating consecrated bread on the Sabbath. It is because the Sabbath is meant to help man, and since food helps to sustain man, there is no point in going hungry on the Sabbath. If Sabbath rest benefits the people with the rest it provides, going hungry defeats the purpose. Yes, breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death but there were some cases where it was allowed and was not considered breaking the Sabbath at all. Other people like David “breaking the Sabbath” before Christ doesn’t take anything away from Christ being called “greater than the temple” or “Lord of the Sabbath.” The titles bestowed upon him are not simply due to these Matthew 12 teachings and actions regarding the Sabbath. The titles belong to him because of his nature. The context answers point 1 and 2 and the Muslim argumentation is shown to be problematic and irrelevant.

                  With respect to point 3, Church Father Augustine provides the commentary: “Because circumcision refers to a particular sign of salvation, and people should not give themselves a rest from salvation on the Sabbath. ‘So then, do not be angry with me, because I have saved the whole man on the Sabbath. (John 7:23).’”(5) This is what Christ was communicating to his Jewish audience. This takes nothing away from the glorious titles of Jesus either.

                  Regarding point 4, the Muslims read too much into Mark 2 when they conclude that this means all men are Lord of the Sabbath. Mark 2:27-28 states:

                  Then he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.’

                  This verse declares that the Son of Man is Lord even over the Sabbath – not all men or mankind. This would be offensive to God, as God is the true creator and Lord of the Sabbath. Just because there were exceptions to the rule that were not really considered as breaking Sabbath, that does not mean that man is Lord of the Sabbath either; he was still strictly subject to it. The Sabbath day is the Lord’s Day. Only God is truly sovereign or Lord over the Sabbath with the power to overrule it completely – as Jesus did by becoming our Sabbath rest.

                  Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. (Matthew 11:28)

                  There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. (Hebrews 4:9-10)

                  We are no longer bound to works of the law. We are set free and as such Jesus Christ is indeed Lord of the Sabbath. It is in him where we have rest. He becomes our Sabbath and thus the title ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ is very appropriate because it not only shows his divine authority and deity but it also shows how he is now our rest in place of the Sabbath day.

                  The scholar and former president of Columbia International University, J. Robertson McQuilkin explains why Mark 2:27-28 has it so that Jesus alone is Lord of the Sabbath as opposed to all mankind:

                  “Some interpret this to mean that all sons of men (mankind) are lord of the Sabbath and can do as they please on this day. But it is impossible to interpret the passage this way because “Son of Man” is a technical term that Christ uses in referring to himself as the Messiah. In the parallel passage in Matthew 12, immediately before he says “the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath,” he identifies the Son of Man as “greater than the temple,” a clear reference to himself. Christ is speaking of himself as being lord of the Sabbath.” (6)

                  Moreover, just a few verses before this statement, Jesus declared that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mark 2:10). There cannot be any doubt that “the Son of Man” in this context does not refer to “man” in general.

                  Now, with respect to point five which is that according to John 13:3 Jesus was given the titles “greater than the temple” and “Lord of the Sabbath” by the Father (7), Muslims seem to think that because the Father gave Jesus those titles of honour and glory that therefore Jesus isn’t God. The whole crux of the argument is that according to Old Testament passages such as Leviticus 23:3, God is the Lord of the Sabbath because it is His. He created it and it therefore belongs to Him.

                  … It is the LORD's Sabbath day … (Leviticus 23:3)

                  … For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:8)

                  Secondly, only God Almighty is greater than the temple because it belongs to him and it is where God’s glory is contained.

                  … Solomon also made all the furnishings that were in the LORD's temple. (1 Kings 7:48)

                  I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. (Matthew 12:6)

                  Since Jesus is Lord, we are told in Malachi 3:1 that Yahweh’s temple is “his temple”:

                  Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lordwhom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.

                  The reason why the Father gave the Son these glorious titles and honours is because they rightly belong to the Son and they demonstrate who he really is - God. He is the incarnate Son of God – the second person of the tri-personal God-head. Isaiah 42:8 tells us that God’s glory belongs to no one but him. It states:

                  I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.

                  The reason the Father could give Jesus this glory in the form of titles – the same Glory he says only belongs to him, is because Jesus is also fully God so there is no contradiction – he is giving the glory to himself in a sense. The Father, Son and Spirit are one being and three persons. Jesus was not simply given these titles because he is an exalted prophet. This would go against the Father’s previous exhortation in Isaiah 42:8. It would go against the clear Old Testament teachings that have God as Lord of the Sabbath and temple. Thus it is quite clear that after one assesses both the Muslim and the Christian point of view on Matthew 12:6-8, Jesus declares himself God by identifying himself as greater than the temple and Lord of the Sabbath.

                  As Dr. Frederick Dale Bruner remarks:

                  … For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.’ Therefore what Jesus, the Son of Man, says about Sabbath observance is decisive. According to the law of God (Exod 20:10; Lev 23:3, Deut 5:14), the Sabbath day is “for” and “to” Yahweh; he is Lord of the Sabbath. Hence Jesus is making a second indirect reference, after his “a greater than the temple is here,” to what the later church rightly called Jesus’ deity. (8)

                  https://www.answering-islam.org/auth...for_deity.html

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Al Masihi View Post

                    That’s why people take the book Titianic as a fictional account not as an actual one. If law if it is mixed in with fiction then it becomes obsolete and nonexistent.
                    Not really, as not everyone takes the book or the movie ‘Titanic’ as a work of fictions. There are many people today who would argue that the characters as played by DeCaprio and Kate Winslet in the movie, were real characters and the love story between these 2 main characters is also true. The reason they believe so, was because the fiction is so well blended with the truth, that some people just cannot tell them apart… and that can also be said of the Christians and the Bible today.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Al Masihi View Post
                      Jesus who is divine chose his disciples to be his messengers. The Apostles aren’t like the companions of Mohammed becomes the Apostles spoke to God and did get revelations. The book of revelation is the best example of Apostle John giving a revelation and prophecising from a vision God gave him. We see the Apostles getting prophecies in Acts of the Apostles aswell. Actually Jesus was telling Peter that he would be the Church and that nothing not even hell will ever prevail against him, this Church was initialed at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit touched the Apostles. The following is how ancient Christians and Church fathers interpreted the verse:


                      ​​​Tatian the Syrian



                      "Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).



                      Tertullian



                      "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

                      "[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).



                      The Letter of Clement to James



                      "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).



                      The Clementine Homilies



                      "[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).



                      Origen



                      "Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).



                      Cyprian of Carthage



                      "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

                      "There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

                      "There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
                      secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).



                      Firmilian



                      "But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

                      "[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).



                      Ephraim the Syrian



                      "[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).



                      Optatus



                      "You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. ***]).



                      Ambrose of Milan



                      "[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

                      "It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).



                      Pope Damasus I



                      "Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).



                      Jerome



                      "‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

                      "I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).



                      Augustine



                      "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).



                      Council of Ephesus



                      "Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).



                      Sechnall of Ireland



                      "Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).



                      Pope Leo I



                      "Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).



                      Council of Chalcedon



                      "Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

                      Biblical history is a revelation it’s not just history. Revelation doesn’t deviate from its original teaching it reflects upon past teaching and develops, it doesn’t not change. And this is something that obviusly takes place in the Bible. The example is the mosaic law which at one point did not exist, then did exist, then was ended with the coming of the Messiah and finally put to rest. Matthew 12:8 calls Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath day, and we know who that is. John 5:18 says the Jews tried to kill Jesus for calling himself God’s Son thus making himself equal to God.
                      Well, how is all this, from your own words, “ancient Christians and Church fathers interpreted the verse” going to prove Jesus is divine when Jesus have NEVER said, implied or inferred that he’s divine??

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Al Masihi View Post
                        And since your probably going to argue with me on the meaning of Jesus claiming to be the Lord of the Sabbath and Matthew 12:8 then know that answering Islam already refuted the argument:

                        I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:6-8)

                        Here Jesus demonstrates his Deity by affirming that he is distinct from all creation and greater than the temple of God - the place that housed the glory of God. No creature can claim to be greater than God’s abode. He also states that he is Lord of the Sabbath, a glorious divine title which is very similar to how Yahweh is described in the Old Testament. Only God deserves these titles and this appears to be one of the reasons why the Jews wanted to kill him in Matthew 12:14.

                        Muslim Objection:

                        Typically Muslims will raise five objections to these passages. 1. They will say that in Matthew 12 Jesus allowed the disciples to pick some heads of grain and eat on the Sabbath when they were hungry and therefore since they violated the Sabbath along with Jesus in a sense this is nothing special. 2. They will say in Matthew 12 Jesus talks about David and his companions entering the temple on the Sabbath in the Old Testament where they consecrated bread which was not lawful for them to do. From that they will conclude that Jesus’ statements are nothing special. 3. They will cite John 7:23 where circumcision was practiced on the Sabbath – thus, it is not so uncommon and does not prove Jesus is God. 4. They will claim that when Mark 2:27-28 says the following; it means that everyone is Lord of the Sabbath: “Then he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.’” 5. They will say that the titles “Lord of the Sabbath” and “Greater than the temple” are just titles and honours that were given to him by God in John 13:3, therefore they do not imply that Jesus is God.

                        Christian Response:

                        On point 1 and 2, Christ, being God and heir of all creation (Hebrews 1:2), had the power and authority to explain the Sabbath, redefine it, and to allow his disciples to do what they did, thus proving a very important point about who Jesus is and what unique authority he has. The Sabbath was created by God for man so he can rest. It is supposed to help man but if man is hungry on the Sabbath and has to work for his food then he should be able to do so. This is what is indicated here. This is why Christ referenced the OT story of David and his companions eating consecrated bread on the Sabbath. It is because the Sabbath is meant to help man, and since food helps to sustain man, there is no point in going hungry on the Sabbath. If Sabbath rest benefits the people with the rest it provides, going hungry defeats the purpose. Yes, breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death but there were some cases where it was allowed and was not considered breaking the Sabbath at all. Other people like David “breaking the Sabbath” before Christ doesn’t take anything away from Christ being called “greater than the temple” or “Lord of the Sabbath.” The titles bestowed upon him are not simply due to these Matthew 12 teachings and actions regarding the Sabbath. The titles belong to him because of his nature. The context answers point 1 and 2 and the Muslim argumentation is shown to be problematic and irrelevant.

                        With respect to point 3, Church Father Augustine provides the commentary: “Because circumcision refers to a particular sign of salvation, and people should not give themselves a rest from salvation on the Sabbath. ‘So then, do not be angry with me, because I have saved the whole man on the Sabbath. (John 7:23).’”(5) This is what Christ was communicating to his Jewish audience. This takes nothing away from the glorious titles of Jesus either.

                        Regarding point 4, the Muslims read too much into Mark 2 when they conclude that this means all men are Lord of the Sabbath. Mark 2:27-28 states:

                        Then he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.’

                        This verse declares that the Son of Man is Lord even over the Sabbath – not all men or mankind. This would be offensive to God, as God is the true creator and Lord of the Sabbath. Just because there were exceptions to the rule that were not really considered as breaking Sabbath, that does not mean that man is Lord of the Sabbath either; he was still strictly subject to it. The Sabbath day is the Lord’s Day. Only God is truly sovereign or Lord over the Sabbath with the power to overrule it completely – as Jesus did by becoming our Sabbath rest.

                        Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. (Matthew 11:28)

                        There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. (Hebrews 4:9-10)

                        We are no longer bound to works of the law. We are set free and as such Jesus Christ is indeed Lord of the Sabbath. It is in him where we have rest. He becomes our Sabbath and thus the title ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ is very appropriate because it not only shows his divine authority and deity but it also shows how he is now our rest in place of the Sabbath day.

                        The scholar and former president of Columbia International University, J. Robertson McQuilkin explains why Mark 2:27-28 has it so that Jesus alone is Lord of the Sabbath as opposed to all mankind:

                        “Some interpret this to mean that all sons of men (mankind) are lord of the Sabbath and can do as they please on this day. But it is impossible to interpret the passage this way because “Son of Man” is a technical term that Christ uses in referring to himself as the Messiah. In the parallel passage in Matthew 12, immediately before he says “the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath,” he identifies the Son of Man as “greater than the temple,” a clear reference to himself. Christ is speaking of himself as being lord of the Sabbath.” (6)

                        Moreover, just a few verses before this statement, Jesus declared that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mark 2:10). There cannot be any doubt that “the Son of Man” in this context does not refer to “man” in general.

                        Now, with respect to point five which is that according to John 13:3 Jesus was given the titles “greater than the temple” and “Lord of the Sabbath” by the Father (7), Muslims seem to think that because the Father gave Jesus those titles of honour and glory that therefore Jesus isn’t God. The whole crux of the argument is that according to Old Testament passages such as Leviticus 23:3, God is the Lord of the Sabbath because it is His. He created it and it therefore belongs to Him.

                        … It is the LORD's Sabbath day … (Leviticus 23:3)

                        … For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:8)

                        Secondly, only God Almighty is greater than the temple because it belongs to him and it is where God’s glory is contained.

                        … Solomon also made all the furnishings that were in the LORD's temple. (1 Kings 7:48)

                        I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. (Matthew 12:6)

                        Since Jesus is Lord, we are told in Malachi 3:1 that Yahweh’s temple is “his temple”:

                        Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lordwhom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.

                        The reason why the Father gave the Son these glorious titles and honours is because they rightly belong to the Son and they demonstrate who he really is - God. He is the incarnate Son of God – the second person of the tri-personal God-head. Isaiah 42:8 tells us that God’s glory belongs to no one but him. It states:

                        I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.

                        The reason the Father could give Jesus this glory in the form of titles – the same Glory he says only belongs to him, is because Jesus is also fully God so there is no contradiction – he is giving the glory to himself in a sense. The Father, Son and Spirit are one being and three persons. Jesus was not simply given these titles because he is an exalted prophet. This would go against the Father’s previous exhortation in Isaiah 42:8. It would go against the clear Old Testament teachings that have God as Lord of the Sabbath and temple. Thus it is quite clear that after one assesses both the Muslim and the Christian point of view on Matthew 12:6-8, Jesus declares himself God by identifying himself as greater than the temple and Lord of the Sabbath.

                        As Dr. Frederick Dale Bruner remarks:

                        … For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.’ Therefore what Jesus, the Son of Man, says about Sabbath observance is decisive. According to the law of God (Exod 20:10; Lev 23:3, Deut 5:14), the Sabbath day is “for” and “to” Yahweh; he is Lord of the Sabbath. Hence Jesus is making a second indirect reference, after his “a greater than the temple is here,” to what the later church rightly called Jesus’ deity. (8)

                        https://www.answering-islam.org/auth...for_deity.html
                        What ??! ‘Answering Islam’ site again ??!! Is this how you understand your Scripture ??! If I am going to link you to the exact opposite site of ‘answering Islam’, the mods here will delete my statement for reasons only they will know and which I can only guess. Nevertheless, I do understand that’s the prerogatives and rights of any forum mods.

                        Anyway, here’s the thing – before you read what other people said, why don’t you for once use your own intelligence which God gave you and read to understand your own Scripture yourself minus the preconceived mindset that Jesus is God ?? If you honestly do that, then, you will understand that Jesus in saying ‘S/son of Man’ is ONLY making reference to mankind in general, and, if he’s referring to himself too, he is actually saying he is a human being, a man, NOT divine and NOT God.

                        The term ‘S/son of man’ originated from the Old Scripture, NOT from Jesus and certainly not because Jesus wanted to tell the world that he is fully man and fully God, as FALSELY preached by the church preachers and scholars. Jesus loves to use the OT phrases or sayings in his communication with the Jews, and ‘son of man’ in his saying of “so the S/son of man is Lord of the Sabbath” is no difference. Jesus could be using ‘S/son of man’ in the context of Psalm 8:4 (man in general) or in the context of Daniel 7:13 (one like a human being/man).

                        It’s very CLEAR that in Mark 2:27-28, ‘S/son of Man’ is a reference to man in general, and NOT specifically to Jesus himself, as saying “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” is similar as saying “Man eats to live, NOT Man lives to eat, so the S/son of Man eats”, in which, ‘the S/son of Man’ here, is a reference to all man in general, NOT to an individual.

                        The clue in Mark 2:28 which tells us it’s a reference to man in general, and NOT specifically to Jesus himself, is the word “So” as in “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath”. To put that in a clearer perspective, why is mankind Lord of the Sabbath ?? It’s because, as Jesus told you, the Sabbath was made for man, NOT man for the Sabbath. Jesus NEVER said the Sabbath was made for him that he should be Lord of the Sabbath, did he ?? Clearly, only those with the preconceived mindset that Jesus is God, will believe that Jesus was claiming to be the Lord of the Sabbath.

                        Comment


                        • The Qur'an confirms that Jesus is the eternal Word of God made flesh

                          According to the Qur'an Jesus could create life when he was a child:

                          Sura 5:110: When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how thou didst shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and didst blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and thou didst heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how thou didst raise the dead by My permission; and how I restrained the Children of Israel from (harming) thee when thou camest unto them with clear proofs, and those of them who disbelieved exclaimed: This is naught else than mere magic;

                          Christians know that the story of Jesus making birds out of clay that could fly is from The Gospel of Thomas the Israelite not to be confused with the Gospel of Thomas.

                          "The child Jesus was playing on the road by a dirty stream of running water; and having brought it all together into ditches, immediately made it pure and clean; by saying a single word. Then having moistened some earth, he made of it twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath day when he did these things. There were many other children playing with him. Now a Jew, seeing what Jesus did, that he was playing on the Sabbath day, went his way to (Jesus') father Joseph. He said, "Behold, your son is at the stream of dirty water, and having taken up some mud, has made of it twelve sparrows, thus desecrating the Sabbath. On this Joseph went to the spot, and cried out, "Why did you do these things on the Sabbath day which it is not lawful to do?" Jesus then clapped his hands at the sparrows and cried aloud to them, "Go off!" So they, clucking, flew away. The Jews seeing it were astonished, and went and told their rulers what they had seen Jesus do."

                          The author of the Qur'an did not know that account did not happen. Obviously Mary and Joseph would have used it if it had been true and we would find it in the New Testament. Even Jesus would have remembered this event.

                          Obviously, the author of this book knew the account of the Word becoming flesh, the Word of God, His agent for creating.

                          John 1 All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.

                          Since Jesus was the Word made flesh, the author of the infancy gospels imagined that Jesus could surely create life even as a child.

                          The story of Jesus making clay birds that could fly comes for the infancy gospels (Thomas) and there is a Coptic version. (circa 150-185AD) Muhammad was married to a Copt and undoubtedly this is where he heard the story and how it ended up in the Qur'an.

                          The power to create is the exclusive province of God.

                          The author of the Qur'an by including this story has inadvertently confirmed that Jesus is the incarnate Word of God.












                          They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. John 16:2

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post
                            Well, how is all this, from your own words, “ancient Christians and Church fathers interpreted the verse” going to prove Jesus is divine when Jesus have NEVER said, implied or inferred that he’s divine??
                            Strange. The Jews who were listening to Jesus converse with them in the vernacular of their time plainly head Him claim equality with deity more than once.
                            Joh 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. [NIV]

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post
                              Anyway, here’s the thing – before you read what other people said, why don’t you for once use your own intelligence which God gave you and read to understand your own Scripture yourself minus the preconceived mindset that Jesus is God ?? If you honestly do that, then, you will understand that Jesus in saying ‘S/son of Man’ is ONLY making reference to mankind in general, and, if he’s referring to himself too, he is actually saying he is a human being, a man, NOT divine and NOT God..
                              Well, if one makes up one's mind that Jesus cannot possibly be God, then ignore all the scripture saying He is God and proceed then to twist every Scripture to conform to the cast in stone presupposition that Jesus can't possibly be God, yeah.
                              Joh 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. [NIV]

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post

                                Well, how is all this, from your own words, “ancient Christians and Church fathers interpreted the verse” going to prove Jesus is divine when Jesus have NEVER said, implied or inferred that he’s divine??
                                Mohamad never said "I am The Comforter as promised by Jesus". Therefore Mohamad is not the comforter !

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X