Comments by "MU MU" (@mumu9690) on "“Radicalized Youth” - Assyrian Bishop Mari Mari Emmanuel Survives Stabbing Attack In Australia" video.

  1. The findings show that the Christian civilization was responsible for the largest amount of kiwiings in history! The results are as follows: 1. Christian Civilization - caused ca 236 million deafz 2. Antitheist Civilization(former Communist Block) - caused ca 124 million deafz 3. Sinic Civilization (East Asian) - caused ca 107 million deafz 4. Buddhist Civilization - caused ca 87 million deafz 5. Primal Indigenous Civilization - caused ca 45 million deafz 6. Islamic Civilization - caused ca 31 million deafz
    5
  2. Many like him who are muslim too. But he is just another Paul followers, leading ppl astray from the truth
    5
  3. in Islam, we r to love our neighbour as ourselves whatever relgion they were. thats why when Islam expanded, they allowed everyone to practice their own religion, with their own courts etc. the only conditon was that they paid income tax. this tax was only upon men, of those only who could afford it. no elderly, women, were reruired to pay, and they wer exempt from militry duties. whilst upon the muslims, zakat which is higher than the tax the non muslims paid, was upon men and women, and they had to do milit duties. they did not force their relig onto others, and therefore didnt impoze zakat on them. this is why when ch3wz were bein purse. cute. ted around europe, by the paul followers, they ran to muslm lands for safety.
    4
  4.  @Pikkon-17  theres only one religon that teaches to harm children. and its the bible of Jesus
    4
  5. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,...
    3
  6. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..,,,
    3
  7. So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was,,,,
    3
  8. For me, the biggest evidence is that Paul followers ALWAYS QUOTE PAUL, OR THE LAST GOSPEL JOHN, as their evidences And their own scholars say John is the LEAST AUTHENTIC, written by multiple authors, hundreds of miles and years away from Jesus. And this is the book that elevates Jesus, at least tries. They never ever quote Mark or luke, the earlier Gospels, where Jesus is a prophet and messiah, sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, by his own admission. This is the biggest red flag that Paul followers are misguided. ALL THEIR favourite quotes come from the froindulent Gospel of John. Even Mark isn't safe. 16.8 is where Mark ends,as the earliest manuscripts end there.. But the 'long ending' of Mark, 16.9 to 20, has the resurrection, Jesus sitting on right side of God etc Their own academia acknowledge this, that 9 to 20 are later interpolation and its common knowledge except for the blind followers who have not studied what they are basing their salvation on 🤦,
    3
  9. Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim The prophesy 🤦 1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses). 2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd. 3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this: Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth. Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object. 4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. "in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon: There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy: Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels. Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone. 5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children. 6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢,
    3
  10. Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified. In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110 CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present author) is directly to the point: But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts? In that case, I am dying in vain." 80 The Cross & The Crescent One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory, demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians. Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself. When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock. However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning. Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,,,
    3
  11. Psalm 91 is about Jesus, he is mentioned by name in the original language, so we cant deny its about Jesus. This prophecy that Jesus would be protected, and be lifted with no crucifixion matches what the Qur'an says about Jesus PBUH GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3). GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4). Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5). Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8). No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion). GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment. Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified. His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children). His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12). "Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death. Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt.
    3
  12. Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind. God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached. This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 🤯 Its shocking! Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel. And then you have Paul.  A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father. Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus. The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7 The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught. Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself 🥴, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant. Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible. Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God. Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man. So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice. If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth. Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind? The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood. Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead. People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..,.,,,
    3
  13. I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20 So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you. Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings. Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God. The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God. Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him. Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you 🙏,.
    3
  14. That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible.  Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially. First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense.  For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.”  The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense.  In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25.  Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense! Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”  This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event.  Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history.  A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says.  The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son. Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew.  Rather, “is” is understood.  For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.”  A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”.  This name describes God, not the person who carries the name.  The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body! Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars.  Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot.  The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English.  Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.”  Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime. Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father!  And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine. Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus. Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah.  Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies.  At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib.  The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept.  When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38).  Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God.  When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory.  It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31.  Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God.  Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege.  Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz......
    3
  15. Before Abraham was, I am . Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes: Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”  The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he”  or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God.  A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay” Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.,,,,
    3
  16. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, and he replied that you are called GODS in scripture, I am only saying son of God So Jesus denies the accusation against him. He denies he is claiming divinity. For example, I could be accused of murdering someone, and I reply, you people killed people, I just threw a punch. I'm really not sure why Christians use this accusation of the Jews as evidence Jesus was God. This verse further supports the fact Jesus was not God. As he denies the accusation and says his claim is not comparable to the accusatio
    3
  17. How many sons does the Bible tell us that God Almighty has? Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22. Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?). Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God" Luke 3:38. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2 As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people. Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God ? Read Psalms 2:7 : "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee",,,...
    3
  18. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable histor
    3
  19. Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation., This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus. This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025. Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11. in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.] John 7:53-8:11, often described as “The Passage of the Woman Caught in Adultery” (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage? The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to today’s reader that it is part of the Gospel of Jon
    3
  20. whilst Islam teaches that even in woah, innocent. 🧔‍♀👩🙍‍♂🙍‍♀ 👶⛪🐮 are not to be touched and if they are we would go to 🔥
    3
  21.  @JusBes  yes that's what the Angels said to God, and God told them he knows what we do not know.
    3
  22. The findings show that the Christian civilization was responsible for the largest amount of kiwiings in history! The results are as follows: 1. Christian Civilization - caused ca 236 million deafz 2. Antitheist Civilization(former Communist Block) - caused ca 124 million deafz 3. Sinic Civilization (East Asian) - caused ca 107 million deafz 4. Buddhist Civilization - caused ca 87 million deafz 5. Primal Indigenous Civilization - caused ca 45 million deafz 6. Islamic Civilization - caused ca 31 million deafz
    3
  23. whilst Islam teaches that even in woah, innocent. 🧔‍♀ 👩 👦 👧 👶 🐄 ⛪ are not to be touched and if they are we would go to 🔥
    3
  24. the reason paulanity is at the top and islam is at the bottom of the above list is cos in the bible, it teaches that all of the above were to be un alibed.
    3
  25. in Islam, we r to love our neighbour as ourselves whatever relgion they were. thats why when Islam expanded, they allowed everyone to practice their own religion, with their own courts etc. the only conditon was that they paid income tax. this tax was only upon men, of those only who could afford it. no elderly, women, were reruired to pay, and they wer exempt from militry duties. whilst upon the muslims, zakat which is higher than the tax the non muslims paid, was upon men and women, and they had to do milit duties. they did not force their relig onto others, and therefore didnt impoze zakat on them. this is why when ch3wz were bein purse. cute. ted around europe, by the paul followers, they ran to muslm lands for safety.
    3
  26. these r facts. any1 can luk it up. whilst when paulanity x. p4nd3d, it literally unn. 47ibed everyone who dint blieve. and thats why you see the huge diff in numbers above. the oldest churches in the wrld are in muz lands. there are 80ml christians in egypt.
    3
  27. And it's all in the scriptures. They will cherry pick from the Qur'an and present verses that were revealed during w04h, against ppl who had broken treaties, and then even being given 4 months to leave, and if they didn't, then they were to be tacked. And during this, if any of them were to ask for mercy, they were Commandd to take those ppl to safety and protect them. Meanwhile to this day, jelly. Slides are being kmitted and they r quiting the bible verbatim, to justify why they un. Alibe. 👶
    3
  28. Critics as usual apply ‘cut and choose’ approach with regards to this passage (Quran 2:191). They only quote, “And ciw them wherever you find them…(2:191). However, when we read the passage in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite what they portray of the verse. Quran 2:190 – 195 2:190 Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. 2:191 And ciw them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than kiwing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kiw them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. 2:194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him. 2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good. It’s important whenever one reads a Quranic verse, to read it in its context. As you have read, critics only quote the part which suites them, they isolate previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the kiwing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read, Allah makes it evident to fight those only who fight them, fighting in self-defence. Another thing some love to do with the verse is, change the Arabic word’s meaning. Example, the Arabic word ‘Fitna’ used in 2:191 and 2:193, they deceptively have translated the word as ‘disbelief’. So, when it’s read in that perspective, the passage is implying to fight to those who are disbelievers, just because of their religion. This again when we examine it, it will turn out to be a lie. The Arabic word ‘Fitnah’ means ‘persecution’, ‘corruption’, ‘sedition’. But when the word ‘Fitnah’ is used in verse 2:191 and 2:193 it means ‘persecution’
    3
  29. cil Followers of Other Religions “If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kcil him. Your hand shall be the first raised to zlay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to dev, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slvry. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such 3vi7 as this in your midst.” (Deut13..
    3
  30. 17 Now therefore kw1e77 every male among the little ones, and kw137 every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. num 31
    3
  31. the reason paulanity is at the top and islam is at the bottom of the above list is cos in the bible, it teaches that all of the above were to be un alibed.
    2
  32. these r facts. any1 can luk it up. whilst when paulanity x. p4nd3d, it literally unn. 47ibed everyone who dint blieve. and thats why you see the huge diff in numbers above. the oldest churches in the wrld are in muz lands. there are 80ml christians in egypt.
    2
  33. And it's all in the scriptures. They will cherry pick from the Qur'an and present verses that were revealed during w04h, against ppl who had broken treaties, and then even being given 4 months to leave, and if they didn't, then they were to be tacked. And during this, if any of them were to ask for mercy, they were Commandd to take those ppl to safety and protect them. Meanwhile to this day, jelly. Slides are being kmitted and they r quiting the bible verbatim, to justify why they un. Alibe. 👶
    2
  34. Critics as usual apply ‘cut and choose’ approach with regards to this passage (Quran 2:191). They only quote, “And ciw them wherever you find them…(2:191). However, when we read the passage in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite what they portray of the verse. Quran 2:190 – 195 2:190 Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. 2:191 And ciw them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than kiwing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kiw them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. 2:194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him. 2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good. It’s important whenever one reads a Quranic verse, to read it in its context. As you have read, critics only quote the part which suites them, they isolate previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the kiwing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read, Allah makes it evident to fight those only who fight them, fighting in self-defence. Another thing some love to do with the verse is, change the Arabic word’s meaning. Example, the Arabic word ‘Fitna’ used in 2:191 and 2:193, they deceptively have translated the word as ‘disbelief’. So, when it’s read in that perspective, the passage is implying to fight to those who are disbelievers, just because of their religion. This again when we examine it, it will turn out to be a lie. The Arabic word ‘Fitnah’ means ‘persecution’, ‘corruption’, ‘sedition’. But when the word ‘Fitnah’ is used in verse 2:191 and 2:193 it means ‘persecution’
    2
  35. in Islam, we r to love our neighbour as ourselves whatever relgion they were. thats why when Islam expanded, they allowed everyone to practice their own religion, with their own courts etc. the only conditon was that they paid income tax. this tax was only upon men, of those only who could afford it. no elderly, women, were reruired to pay, and they wer exempt from militry duties. whilst upon the muslims, zakat which is higher than the tax the non muslims paid, was upon men and women, and they had to do milit duties. they did not force their relig onto others, and therefore didnt impoze zakat on them. this is why when ch3wz were bein purse. cute. ted around europe, they ran to muslm lands for safety. these r facts. any h0n3st person can luk it up. whilst when paulanity expanded, it literally unalibed everyone who dint blieve. and thats why you see the huge disparity in numbers above. the oldest churches in the wrld are in muslim lands. there are 80ml christians in egypt.
    2
  36. these r facts. any h0n3st person can luk it up. whilst when paulanity expanded, it literally unalibed everyone who dint blieve. and thats why you see the huge disparity in numbers above. the oldest churches in the wrld are in muslim lands. there are 80ml christians in egypt.
    2
  37. these r facts. any h0n3st person can luk it up. whilst when paulanity expanded, it literally unn. 47ibed everyone who dint blieve. and thats why you see the huge disparity in numbers above. the oldest churches in the wrld are in muslim lands. there are 80ml christians in egypt.
    2
  38. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  39. There will be NO HUMILIATION when we look up the validity of the famous story of the adult eress woman, one that is the GO TO STORY pointed to, as the most beautiful of teachings of Jesus, and we realise that it is remo ved from modern translations because the story was A CONFIRMED INTER POL ATION, a froidd, AND NOT IN THE EARLY MANUSCRIPTS. Even though this story, is a big part of our faith, which we use to show Jesus was all love 🤦. We will not care. ( I mean the story itself contra bicted our beliefs, because we belive Jesus is si nless, and so should have st0n 3d the woman, but he didn't, meaning he was also a s1nner! But stop it. We don't use our brains and question nonsense. We says it's a mystery and blindly accept it) So what if church and Paul teach DIRECTLY OPPOSITE TO WHAT JESUS TAUGHT. So what if Jesus refers to himself as a prophet, and is called by all those close to him! We will change the meanings of words to remain upon falsehood. GOD is now also a prophet because Jesus bought a message, and multiple ano nee mous authors 4 centuries after Jesus told us Jesus is God ( in gospel of John), and so God can also be a prophet. ( again, don't bother pointing out that if Jesus was indeed God, then that means he was D3C3IV ING THE PEOPLE, letting them believe he was a prophet when he was actually their God!, because we won't care) most of us haven't heard verses like john seven teen .3, 2wenty.7teen, unambiguous clear cut, not open to interpretation statements that clearly d35 troy our whole existence, because church pastors like to keep them quiet. So what if most of the statements we depend on, are metaphorical, and clearly refuted by verses from Jesus, so what if Jesus saying he is " Alpha and omega" is removed from modern translations because its yet another fraudlent insertion. Rev1.eleven john 5ive sev7 is one of our most famous frwdulent insertions, the trinity formula, johanine coma, it is also removed from all modern translations, because it is yet anothwer froid. Even though, all the inter pol ations, fraud and mi15 stranslations seem to be around who God is, and who Jesus is, alarm bells wont go off ringing. We will instead, insist the bible isn't kurpted. We will get angry with the Qur'an and Muslims for daring for suggesting it. Even though God says He doesn't accept human s4c rifice, we will insist Jesus the man, d13d for us. We know God is immortal, so we will reconcile by creating a second dimension of Jesus, where he is 100% man and 100% God, so we have a loophole. When muslims tell us God is immortal, and so Jesus can't be God, we will be able to say "his human nature d1 3d".... and if the Muslims say that God hay 8s uman s4c rifice, we can say "He was God in flesh" and it was a divine s4c ri fice! We appreciate when Jesus was asked the all important question about what was required for salvation, he didnt say believe i will dy for your sins, no, Jesus said to keep the commandments, most importantly that OUR lord God is one,...HOWEVER, we prefer the story paul and church taught us, this is much better for us as we don't have to s4c ri fice anymore, we just belive Jesus paid for our sins, and be sorry and bingo! And as you have seen so far, we aren't very s1n seer, so we see no in just iss when an innocent pays for the s1ns of the guilty, or when children inherit s1ns for krymez that had nothing to do with them. Even though this goes against all the previous messages and teachings, and original s1n is only found in pauls work and the last gospel John, we will accept this 3 vil concept. Again, we don't care that in Eze kiel 8teen .2wenty God tells us he hay 8s ORIGINAL S1N, BECAUSE HE IS JUST, and that we can be saved through repentance, not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin through his mercy, WITHOUT BLuD. ( WE COMPELTELY IGNORE THIS BECAUSE IT IS ISLAM ) ....also we can point to our false pro pet paul, who said we can do away with the old covenant. ( even though Jesus said that not one JOT shouldn't be kept until heaven and earth disappear ) they don't call us paul followers for nothing. We will insist Jesus is the only begotten son of God, even though David is called begotten of God by God in the Bible. And we will say that the title 'son of man' is a divine title ( don't remind us eze keel is called son of man more times than Jesus ) We will claim Jesus was a willing s4k rifice even though Jesus begs, and cries all day to be saved from the cruc fiction. Jesus 'will' was to be saved, but he said he would accept whatever was God's will. We believe God DID NOT ANSWER Jesus prayers, and our God was stripped n4k3d, bee ten whyppd and kil d by men against his wishes. Even though all the disciples deserted Jesus, and there were no historical eyewitness, we will argue there are ( we only have jos ephus, who wasn't an eyewitness, and reported on rumours ) We will point to eye zayya 53, where Jesus meets absolutely NONE of the criteria, and ignore salm 9one where Jesus is mentioned by name, and says not even a bruise or cut would come to Jesus as God will send angels to protect him and raise him up We will ignore the letters of ignacious which writ to challenge the popular belief that the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion. This proves in the 1st century, people were unsure if Jesus was crucified. We will insist a plural godhead of 3 fully God's is PURE MONOTHEISM. even we know its absurd, but if we keep insisting, we can be at peace with it. Our bible attributes much bad and f17th to Jesus that we wish it didn't, but we are good at spinning and miss represen tation of text, so we will twist our way out of it. Although we believe Jesus is God and always was, we will run whenever people respond to our critique of Islam, by showing 10x worse stuff our God Jesus commanded in the o.t. And for any of the bad stuff they show us from the n.t., we just say Jesus was teaching a parable 😉 always works 💪 We will continue spreading l13s about Islam, because it is the biggest thret to xtianity, many of our pristes, celebs, and in particular, our woman, are leaving paul anity for Islam by the fastest rate. The conversion rates are the highest, and most ree verts to Islam are white xtian woman! But, as malcolm once said, the media can make the innocent the gylty and the gylty the innocent, and the sion media is on our side, look at how easily we made the world believe they did nine wane wan, look how we lyde about sad damn, ga daf, luted them countries and now we are helping the sionist juws carry out a g3n 0cide on the nay tivs. ( we don't care the ones we help LITERALLY belive our God Jesus is boil ing in x crement and sea men).
    1
  40. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,..
    1
  41. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..,,,
    1
  42. The Muslims are right, and they are the only ones who actually follow the message of Jesus. And that is why its the fastest growing religion by number of conversions, and most reverts come from xtianty. Jesus also prophesied of Muhammad to come, and lead us to ALL TRUTH. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. There is no man in History that this verse applies to more than the final messenger Muhammad. Unfortunately for christians, this cannot be about the holy spirit as Jesus clearly says the comforter will not come until after he departs. And the holy spirit was already on earth at that point, e.g. at the baptism. Also no holy ghost has guided us to all truth and new teachings that we couldn't bare then. There are many sects of xrianty who claim they have the Spirit, and none of these sects can agree with each other, let alone guide to a new truth. The final messenger did not speak of his own, but what he heard from Angel Gabriel, he glorfied Jesus, and told us Jesus will return towards the end times to deal wit the anti christ. There is a whole chapter in the Qur'an dedicated to Mary and she is called the greatest woman of ALL time. He has led us to all truth, he received the final revelation from God. May peace be upon all the prophets of God
    1
  43. So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was,,,
    1
  44. For me, the biggest evidence is that Paul followers ALWAYS QUOTE PAUL, OR THE LAST GOSPEL JOHN, as their evidences And their own scholars say John is the LEAST AUTHENTIC, written by multiple authors, hundreds of miles and years away from Jesus. And this is the book that elevates Jesus, at least tries. They never ever quote Mark or luke, the earlier Gospels, where Jesus is a prophet and messiah, sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, by his own admission. This is the biggest red flag that Paul followers are misguided. ALL THEIR favourite quotes come from the froindulent Gospel of John. Even Mark isn't safe. 16.8 is where Mark ends,as the earliest manuscripts end there.. But the 'long ending' of Mark, 16.9 to 20, has the resurrection, Jesus sitting on right side of God etc Their own academia acknowledge this, that 9 to 20 are later interpolation and its common knowledge except for the blind followers who have not studied what they are basing their salvation on 🤦
    1
  45. Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim The prophesy 🤦 1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses). 2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd. 3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this: Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth. Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object. 4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. "in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon: There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy: Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels. Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone. 5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children. 6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢,..
    1
  46. Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just. Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood? He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,,.,
    1
  47. Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified. In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110 CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present author) is directly to the point: But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts? In that case, I am dying in vain." 80 The Cross & The Crescent One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory, demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians. Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself. When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock. However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning. Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,
    1
  48. Psalm 91 is about Jesus, he is mentioned by name in the original language, so we cant deny its about Jesus. This prophecy that Jesus would be protected, and be lifted with no crucifixion matches what the Qur'an says about Jesus PBUH GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3). GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4). Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5). Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8). No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion). GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment. Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified. His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children). His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12). "Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death. Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt..,
    1
  49. Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind. God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached. This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 🤯 Its shocking! Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel. And then you have Paul.  A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father. Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus. The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7 The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught. Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself 🥴, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant. Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible. Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God. Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man. So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice. If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth. Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind? The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood. Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead. People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..,.
    1
  50. I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20 So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you. Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings. Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God. The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God. Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him. Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you 🙏..
    1
  51. That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible.  Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially. First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense.  For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.”  The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense.  In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25.  Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense! Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”  This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event.  Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history.  A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says.  The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son. Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew.  Rather, “is” is understood.  For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.”  A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”.  This name describes God, not the person who carries the name.  The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body! Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars.  Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot.  The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English.  Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.”  Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime. Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father!  And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine. Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus. Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah.  Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies.  At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib.  The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept.  When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38).  Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God.  When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory.  It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31.  Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God.  Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege.  Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz.
    1
  52. Before Abraham was, I am . Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes: Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”  The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he”  or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God.  A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay” Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.,,,
    1
  53. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, and he replied that you are called GODS in scripture, I am only saying son of God So Jesus denies the accusation against him. He denies he is claiming divinity. For example, I could be accused of murdering someone, and I reply, you people killed people, I just threw a punch. I'm really not sure why Christians use this accusation of the Jews as evidence Jesus was God. This verse further supports the fact Jesus was not God. As he denies the accusation and says his claim is not comparable to the accusatio
    1
  54. How many sons does the Bible tell us that God Almighty has? Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22. Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?). Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God" Luke 3:38. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2 As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people. Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God ? Read Psalms 2:7 : "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee"
    1
  55. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable histor
    1
  56. Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation., This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus. This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025. Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11. in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.] John 7:53-8:11, often described as “The Passage of the Woman Caught in Adultery” (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage? The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to today’s reader that it is part of the Gospel of John,,
    1
  57. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later
    1
  58. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you
    1
  59.  @CJ-dt5mh  Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.
    1
  60. So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was...
    1
  61.  @CJ-dt5mh  For me, the biggest evidence is that Paul followers ALWAYS QUOTE PAUL, OR THE LAST GOSPEL JOHN, as their evidences And their own scholars say John is the LEAST AUTHENTIC, written by multiple authors, hundreds of miles and years away from Jesus. And this is the book that elevates Jesus, at least tries. They never ever quote Mark or luke, the earlier Gospels, where Jesus is a prophet and messiah, sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, by his own admission. This is the biggest red flag that Paul followers are misguided. ALL THEIR favourite quotes come from the froindulent Gospel of John. Even Mark isn't safe. 16.8 is where Mark ends,as the earliest manuscripts end there.. But the 'long ending' of Mark, 16.9 to 20, has the resurrection, Jesus sitting on right side of God etc Their own academia acknowledge this, that 9 to 20 are later interpolation and its common knowledge except for the blind followers who have not studied what they are basing their salvation on 🤦
    1
  62. Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim The prophesy 🤦 1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses). 2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd. 3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this: Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth. Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object. 4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. "in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon: There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy: Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels. Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone. 5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children. 6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢
    1
  63. Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just. Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood? He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,
    1
  64. Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified. In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110 CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present author) is directly to the point: But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts? In that case, I am dying in vain." 80 The Cross & The Crescent One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory, demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians. Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself. When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock. However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning. Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,,,,,
    1
  65. Psalm 91 is about Jesus, he is mentioned by name in the original language, so we cant deny its about Jesus. This prophecy that Jesus would be protected, and be lifted with no crucifixion matches what the Qur'an says about Jesus PBUH GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3). GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4). Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5). Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8). No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion). GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment. Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified. His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children). His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12). "Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death. Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt..,.,
    1
  66. Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind. God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached. This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 🤯 Its shocking! Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel. And then you have Paul.  A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father. Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus. The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7 The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught. Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself 🥴, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant. Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible. Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God. Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man. So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice. If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth. Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind? The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood. Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead. People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God.
    1
  67. I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20 So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you. Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings. Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God. The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God. Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him. Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you 🙏...
    1
  68. That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible.  Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially. First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense.  For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.”  The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense.  In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25.  Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense! Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”  This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event.  Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history.  A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says.  The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son. Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew.  Rather, “is” is understood.  For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.”  A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”.  This name describes God, not the person who carries the name.  The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body! Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars.  Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot.  The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English.  Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.”  Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime. Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father!  And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine. Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus. Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah.  Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies.  At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib.  The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept.  When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38).  Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God.  When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory.  It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31.  Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God.  Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege.  Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz.,,,
    1
  69. Before Abraham was, I am . Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes: Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”  The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he”  or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God.  A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay” Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.,,,
    1
  70. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, and he replied that you are called GODS in scripture, I am only saying son of God So Jesus denies the accusation against him. He denies he is claiming divinity. For example, I could be accused of murdering someone, and I reply, you people killed people, I just threw a punch. I'm really not sure why Christians use this accusation of the Jews as evidence Jesus was God. This verse further supports the fact Jesus was not God. As he denies the accusation and says his claim is not comparable to the accusation....
    1
  71. How many sons does the Bible tell us that God Almighty has? Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22. Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?). Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God" Luke 3:38. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2 As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people. Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God ? Read Psalms 2:7 : "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee"...
    1
  72. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.....
    1
  73. Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation., This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus. This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025. Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11. in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.] John 7:53-8:11, often described as “The Passage of the Woman Caught in Adultery” (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage? The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to today’s reader that it is part of the Gospel of John
    1
  74. No offense good people. Just want what's best for you. Don't fall for these tales and paid l13r5 who are inspired by shayyy. Tannn to keep you away from the truth. Go and study
    1
  75.  @CJ-dt5mh  read eze 18.20 Paul was the first to make up riginal s77n. It all comes from Paul, who never met Jesus and adopted p4yg4n1zm in to your religion, where God can no longer forgive, and needs a payment in yooman blo0uid
    1
  76.  @CJ-dt5mh  uthman? Where do you get your tales. He got rid of all the copies where ppl had footnote so what happened to the Bible didn't happen to us. You ppl need to learn from the source, and not Paul followers who take from the source, then make things up to feel better about the bible
    1
  77.  @CJ-dt5mh  God is the witness. He was the one who revealed the Qur'an. The ch33wz claim Mary and Jesus were not good ppl, and that you took their book, their God and turned him into a trinity. They must be correct right? Cos they came before? Smh. Jesus of the bible didn't teach paulanity. The evidence is above
    1
  78. the ch3wz were before Jesus, they say MAry and Jesus werent gud ppl, they say you took their book and God and turned him into a trinity. they must be correct cos they came b4 right? it dont matter if Muhammad came 6000 yrs after JEsus if the source of the info is from God. And regardless, we see in the bible, Jesus doesnt teach paulanity. he teaches the same as all the prophets before and after him. that God is one with no partner, and we follow his command, repent, and thru his mercy God forgives.
    1
  79. Paul was the first one to invent riginal s77n.and that the wages for it are d3ff. read esec137 8t33n. twenny. God says the son does not bare inequities of the father and vice versa ( riginal s77n ) because he is JUST. he says he can forgive, even the badd35t of the b4d, if they change ways, thru his mercy. PAul came along and said God cannot 4giv, instead he needs a payment in yooman bl01uid. also if Jesus was to pay the price paul said, he wud need to spend more than 3 days to pay 4 mankind. he wudda need to be ther 4eva. none of it adds up, cos its not from God.
    1
  80.  @CJ-dt5mh  Paul was the first one to invent riginal s77n.and that the wages for it are d3ff. read esec137 8t33n. twenny. God says the son does not bare inequities of the father and vice versa ( riginal s77n ) because he is JUST. he says he can forgive, even the badd35t of the b4d, if they change ways, thru his mercy. PAul came along and said God cannot 4giv, instead he needs a payment in yooman bl01uid. also if Jesus was to pay the price paul said, he wud need to spend more than 3 days to pay 4 mankind. he wudda need to be ther 4eva. none of it adds up, cos its not from God.
    1
  81. Paul was the first one to invent riginal s77n.and that the wages for it are d3ff. read esec137 8t33n. twenny. God says the son does not bare inequities of the father and vice versa ( riginal s77n ) because he is JUST. he says he can forgive, even the badd35t of the b4d, if they change ways, thru his mercy. PAul came along and said God cannot 4giv, instead he needs a payment in yooman bl01uid.
    1
  82.  @CJ-dt5mh  that's what Paul followers have told you to cope with the state of the bible. Their source of info is from us. No one else. And we know what happened, everything is documented. This is all Paul followers have, they make things up and clasp at straws cos they know there is no comparison between our preservation and theirs. And that's why, like this priest, yall are obsessd with Islam.
    1
  83.  @CJ-dt5mh  cool story paul followers taught you. I prefer the source of the info, they took from there are made things up about it. This is all they can do to feel.better about the bible
    1
  84.  @CJ-dt5mh  there are Hindus with the same experience, ppl of all faiths. These aren't an evidence you have the truth. The facts speak for themselves and Jesus of the bible didn't teach the paulainty you are upon 🙏
    1
  85.  @CJ-dt5mh  when that day comes and you see Jesus trembling in fear like all other humans, unable to help anyone, it will be too late. Hope you realise before that 🙏
    1
  86.  @CJ-dt5mh  According to early church tradition, originating with Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130 AD),[10] the gospel was written by Matthew the companion of Jesus, but this presents numerous problems.[9] Most modern scholars hold that it was written anonymously[8] in the last quarter of the first century by a male Jew who stood on the margin between traditional and nontraditional Jewish values and who was familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time
    1
  87. Not only is the great commission doctored, Matthew is written by yet another anonymous author, a ju who copied Mark
    1
  88. In many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.
    1
  89. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: “The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition.”
    1
  90. Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: “The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.
    1
  91. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
    1
  92. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”
    1
  93. Around 35 CE, a man named Saul of Tarsus came; he later changed his name to Paul. Paul was a Roman citizen, a Jew, and the enemy of Jesus Christ. He was a zealous persecutor and killer of Jesus Christ’s faithful followers. En route from Jerusalem to Damascus, Paul claimed that he saw “the light” when he saw Jesus Christ appearing to him, filled with the Holy Spirit. He was chosen and commanded to teach and preach acts that Jesus Christ never did to the masses. Paul taught concepts contradictory to what Jesus Christ and faithful followers of Jesus Christ were teaching. Paul provided no proof as to what he claimed to receive. I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11–12)
    1
  94. While Jesus Christ is the central focus of Christianity, the founder of modern Christianity is not Jesus Christ; instead, it is Paul because the version of Christianity that has survived is not the version that Jesus Christ preached; instead, it was the version that Paul preached when he claimed Jesus Christ came to him in a vision and told him to preach new concepts. He converted to Christianity and wrongfully began calling people to worship Jesus Christ and spread strange teachings. Due to his power, wealth, and relationships, people started to adopt these strange beliefs and teachings, while the true disciples of Jesus Christ disapproved.
    1
  95. The disciples clashed and argued with Paul because of his innovative and bizarre teachings, and the New Testament references this fact. Many Christians mistakenly took him as one of the disciples of Jesus Christ due to his claim that he was, but he was not, nor did he ever meet Jesus Christ. While some Christians elevate Paul to sainthood, Paul was responsible for destroying the teachings of Jesus Christ. He told people they did not need to follow God’s laws, even though Jesus Christ suffered and struggled to convey the Message of God, which included teaching people to obey God’s commandments.
    1
  96. Many people took Paul’s word and believed him, even though Jesus Christ never violated the Laws of Moses that came before him, and even though the Bible clearly states, Till Heaven and earth pass, the one that breaks the Law will be called the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished’ ‘Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ (Matthew 5:18–19). This verse explicitly states that anyone that breaks the Law or teaches others to break the Law will be called the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven. On the contrary, the verse states that whoever practices and teaches the Law will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.
    1
  97. Almost all the concepts of the modern-day teachings of Christianity, including the concept of Jesus Christ being the son of God and Atonement, are from Paul — and not from the teachings of Jesus Christ. As such, the teachings of Paul contradict the teachings of Jesus.Paul met the disciples of Christ occasionally but was not fortunate enough to live in their company. When he later came into the picture after the departure of Jesus Christ, he made some severe changes to the religion to win over the Gentiles (non-Jewish people). He introduced what became vital concepts of Christianity, including the idea that Christ is the Son of God, that he sacrificed himself on the cross to save humanity, and that all one needs to do to earn Paradise is to believe Christ died for his sins. Half of the New Testament is written by this man who never met Jesus Christ in his lifetime. Yet, Christians do not question the authenticity of this ex-enemy of Jesus Christ and thus take his word as Truth.
    1
  98. The Book of Acts in the Bible holds three contradictory accounts of Paul’s so-called “conversion” when he claims he saw Jesus Christ in a vision. The story has many holes. Acts 9:7 states: The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. This verse states that the men traveling with Saul stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could not see, but in Acts 22:9, there exists an apparent contradiction. The verse states the men travailing with Paul saw the light but did not hear the voice who spoke! And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. Did the men that traveled with Paul see the light or hear the voice? Why don’t we have records of these witnesses to testify to this significant event? The answer is simple; this event never happened.
    1
  99. The New Testament that is now in existence contains more writings of Paul than any other source. All his reports were written before the four Gospels. They are influenced mainly by the teachings and innovations of Paul, even though his writings consist of hundreds of inconsistences and contradictions! Paul abolished God’s laws, such as not eating pork, fasting, observing the Sabbath, and the instruction of circumcision.
    1
  100. The early devoted followers of Jesus Christ struggled for years to uphold the teaching that only One God (the Father) should be worshiped, and Jesus Christ was only His human Messenger. The real followers of Jesus Christ opposed the blatant misrepresentations that Paul was wrongfully decimating. They had a strong understanding of his message and tried to maintain the purity and clarity of his teachings — worshipping God the Father alone and following His commandments.
    1
  101. However, Paul gave Jesus Christ’s faithful disciples a bad reputation. Paul gave these faithful disciples, who were with Jesus Christ all along — supporting and helping him, the reputation of being lazy, misguided, and hypocritical. People mistakenly believed that Paul understood the message and teachings of Jesus Christ better than the disciples, even though they lived with Jesus Christ and Paul had never met him. How bizarre is that?
    1
  102. Since the innovative teachings of Paul appealed to the Gentiles (non-Jewish people), Jesus’ faithful followers were unable to stop Paul’s misguidance. Although the first Christians were Unitarians who asserted the unity of God and would have rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus Christ’s message of the absolute Oneness of God lasted in its original purity for only a short time, then diminished over the years. The very first Christians were not Trinitarians and, in fact, never had heard of the Trinity, as many current-day Biblical scholars acknowledge.
    1
  103. Some Christians developed different beliefs about the Prophet Jesus PBUH over the next few centuries. They claimed that he was divine, calling him the Son of God, which eventually became the dominant Christian belief. Sadly, Christian leaders took Paul’s beliefs as their religion even though his teachings contradict the Bible, and Christian leaders abandoned the actual teachings of Jesus Christ. Many Biblical scholars recognize and admit that the formulation of modern Christianity did not begin with Jesus Christ; instead, the faith started with Paul, as shocking as that sounds. Sadly, Paul, not Jesus Christ, is the true founder of modern Christianity. Today, only Muslims follow the actual teachings of Jesus Chris
    1
  104. Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just. Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood? He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,,.,.
    1
  105.  @seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388  first of all, that's not what it says. Second, in the Bible God's calls many God's. Lastly, these are from Paul, which is toilet paper. He never met Jesus and overturned everything Jesus taught. Jesus warned about Paul. He said anyone who changes the commandments will be the least in the kingdom. Jesus never ate pork, and circumsz, Paul came along and said we can do away with all this. Who do you follow? Paul or Jesus? Jesus makes it plain. The father js the only true God
    1
  106.  @seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388  Allah talks about Paul 🤣🤣🤣 You just said God calls no one God. And then said he called the judges God. Newsflash. Paul isn't God. You are quoting Paul. A man who never met Jesus and invented your religion 👀🤦
    1
  107. this is elementary level. Abba is 3 times in the Bible, twice in Paul, toilet paper, and once in Mark. Most likely added in. Allah is not the literal father to anyone. Father and son in the Bible aren't literal. Or your whole belief falls apart. David is called the begotten son of God in the Bible. Adam is called son of God. So if literal, then adam and david are also your God. Father? John 20.17..Jesus says I go to my father and your father, my God and your God. So if literal, then that means Jesus is saying we are also begotten of God like you claim Jesus was. Finally, Jesus never spoke English and never ever said father. He spoke aramaic, and called God Ellah... In syriac its Allaha... Sound familiar? Allahu Akbar 🥰
    1
  108.  @seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388  small G 🤣🥰🤣🥰🤣🥰🤣 There were no capitals in Hebrew. These are the trinitaria trikz they use They put a big S in son when it talks of Jesus listen kid, I'm done with your elementary debate
    1
  109.  @seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388  🤦 where do you get your info? Everything you said was far from the truth whilst anything I said can be verified from your own sources You lot don't deserve the truth so it makes sense why u r wer u r
    1
  110.  @seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388  I'll give you one more chance, again you have shown you are clueless about Islam cos you learn from Paul followers who won't tell you the truth. The injeel given to Jesus, is not the n.t. Jesus never saw wrote or approved any of the n.t. I'm sure you are an adult, and it's unbelievable how 1ns7nseer some of you are. Try to be a better person. Whatever I have said was from your sources. Everything you have said, is from Paul followers who have made things up. The Qur'an confirms the previous scriptures have been written into, and to use the Qur’an as a criteria to filter truth from falsehood from the previous.. There is a moment when xtian or ch3wz came to the prophet for a ruling, and the ruling was d. Penalty in both Islam and the previous, so he tod them to judge by their own book, because they weren't Muslim and we dont 4ce ours onto others, and the ruling was the same in both books. I don't know what your intentions are, but trust me, you need to be a better person than this whatever your intentions are
    1
  111.  @joynjoku1199  😄 many ppl get saved, who don't worship the man, messiah, and prophet Jesus.
    1
  112. cil Followers of Other Religions “If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kcil him. Your hand shall be the first raised to zlay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to dev, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slvry. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such 3vi7 as this in your midst.” (Deut13..
    1
  113. 17 Now therefore kw1e77 every male among the little ones, and kw137 every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. num 31
    1
  114. Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not kilng their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10 Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15 John. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14 Acts Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be kiled. 3:23 God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12 thessalonian
    1
  115. Jesus says to wipe out all non lievers. They r ener mees. Cor Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? John one.nine/ Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
    1
  116.  @johnjaso385  get out more buddy. stop hidin stop bein a sheep drip fed the narrative sh4yy taan wants you to be fed
    1
  117.  @jaysaini955  pardon?
    1
  118.  @leratommutle6139  every religion teaches it. But there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that you haven't read cos they don't want you too. Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not kilng their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10 Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15 John. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14 Acts Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be kiled. 3:23 God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12 thessalonian
    1
  119.  @jaysaini955  embarassing 🤦
    1
  120.  @jaysaini955  r these l14r5 who spend all their time making things up about Islam the ppl you look up to?
    1
  121.  @zeljkameznaric6047  please go and study. JESUS like every other prophet taught Islam. Pbut
    1
  122.  @zeljkameznaric6047  A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  123.  @zeljkameznaric6047  So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was
    1
  124.  @zeljkameznaric6047  Sadly only Muslims accept the teachings Jesus bought. We will keep trying, to show them there was no mystery to Jesus, his teachings were clear cut and unambiguous. The same message every prophet before and after Jesus bought. They were the ONLY WAY to God, during their respective ministries. And by following their teachings, one could be saved. Jesus, who insisted he was sent ONLY FOR THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL, when asked what was required for salvation, said to keep the commandments, most importantly that OUR lord God is ONE. When disciples wanted to go to the gentiles, he forbid them, and reminded them he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel. This was always the way to God. God says in the o.t. that he hates original sin because its UNJUST, and says even the wickedest of the wicked can be saved by repentance and good works, exekiel 18. 20 This obviously completely contradicts paulanity, where Paul taught that the only way to be saved was from the death of Jesus. Something Jesus never ever said. Many xtians don't know that Paul never met Jesus, and taught opposite what Jesus taught. Jesus said not one dot of the law shall be changed until heaven and earth pass away. Paul came along after Jesus and said Jesus told him in a dream that we can do away with the law because Jesus died for our sins. When he bought these teachings to the disciples they were irate, as they walked with Jesus and knew him better and Jesus kept the commandments with the disciples. Unfortunately most xtians havent read the bible, let alone the history of the Gospels. They think the disciples wrote the Gospels 😅 Their own scholars say the authors are anonymous, and most definitely not the disciples, who were unlettered uneducated fisherman. They did not know how to write Greek. The Qur'an says scripture was given to Moses and Jesus but man has written much and attributed to God, so we are to use the Qur’an to filter truth from falsehood in the previous scriptures and bring the people of the book back to their creator. So there are some parts of the bible we can accept, e.g. John 17.3, or where Jesus was asked what to do for salvation, and Jesus told him to keep the commandments, most importantly that OUR lord God is ONE. He didn't say that he would die for sins and believing that he died would save us! It's no coincidence, when they try to prove they have the truth, they mostly point to the works of false prophet Paul, or the multi authored Gospel of John, written hundreds of miles away and after Jesus time. And this is the Gospel that turns Jesus to a God. The real problem is the masses have been lied to and deceived about Islam for soo long. But now, in this technological era, its much harder for them to keep fooling the people. And it's inevitable, when sincere people learn about Islam, they accept, as Allah said, truth is easily distinguished from falsehood. Islam is nothing to be afraid of, its simply the submission of one's will to their creator. The religion of Adam, to Muhammad. It's is pure monotheism, the way every prophet taught. There is only One God with no partners. The desperate xtians and haters have painted Islam as a war mongering woman oppressing religion. The biggest criticisms are the fact prophet Muhammad was polygamous. The Arabs at the time didn't not treat woman humanely, they were burying baby daughters at birth, had TENS of wives, and worshipped idols. Muhammed through revelation, reduced the number of wives to max 4. These woman had better chance of being treated justly. So Islam reduced the number of wives, but if you listen to the haters,....Islam is bad because it let's you have 4 wives 🤦 All but one of his wives were divorced or widowed and such a state made it hard to get remarried. It was compassionate to marry such woman. In the Bible, many prophets were polygamous, and there are instructions to be fair to your wives when you marry more than one. Deuteronomy 21.15 Then they say Muhammad was a pedo and he raped children. The girl in question, Aisha, was already engaged to someone else, but her father married her to Muhammad, who was his best friend, and he wanted for his daughter to marry the prophet, who wouldn't. Muhammad wasn't lusting after her, as liars say. This was an arranged marriage, and was only consumated 3 yrs later after she had entered puberty. Marriage at this age was the norm of the time, and this marr8age was never a criticism until last century. Only a few centuries ago, people were married even at 7 in the UK and USA. Bible historians put Mary as 12 and her husband as 90. Xtians believe Jesus was always God, so authored the bible, where he commands kilin whole families including babies except the lil virgin girls, to be kept as sex slaves. So what's worse? Killing families and keeping only the virgin girls, or Muhammad arranged marriage chosen by God, and as we see, Aisha is the greatest scholar in Islam. Then they see he was a war monger. More lies. His wars were in self defence versus the oppressors. And the rules of war were beautiful. No non combatants, woman, children, nor elderly or religious leaders, no building tress or animals. And if the oppressors surrendered, they were to be shown mercy. When we contrast this with the teachings of Jesus in the bible, woman, babies even donkeys were to be destroyed in war. When you look past all the lies and hate, what you see is the messenger sent for mankind, the final messenger, a mercy to mankind with the final revelation and our only WAY TO GOD NOW. Unlike the other prophets, who were sent only to their people, Muhammad was sent for mankind. When you learn the truth about him, you will realise. Jesus also told you the spirit of truth, the comforter would lead us to all truth. May peace be upon all the prophets of God
    1
  125.  @sam-wc6mv  you were corrected, but you are inspired by shayy. Tann, so you won't accept the truth
    1
  126. So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was
    1
  127. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  128. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..
    1
  129. For me, the biggest evidence is that Paul followers ALWAYS QUOTE PAUL, OR THE LAST GOSPEL JOHN, as their evidences And their own scholars say John is the LEAST AUTHENTIC, written by multiple authors, hundreds of miles and years away from Jesus. And this is the book that elevates Jesus, at least tries. They never ever quote Mark or luke, the earlier Gospels, where Jesus is a prophet and messiah, sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, by his own admission. This is the biggest red flag that Paul followers are misguided. ALL THEIR favourite quotes come from the froindulent Gospel of John. Even Mark isn't safe. 16.8 is where Mark ends,as the earliest manuscripts end there.. But the 'long ending' of Mark, 16.9 to 20, has the resurrection, Jesus sitting on right side of God etc Their own academia acknowledge this, that 9 to 20 are later interpolation and its common knowledge except for the blind followers who have not studied what they are basing their salvation on 🤦
    1
  130. Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim The prophesy 🤦 1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses). 2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd. 3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this: Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth. Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object. 4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. "in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon: There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy: Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels. Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone. 5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children. 6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢,
    1
  131. Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just. Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood? He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,,.,.
    1
  132. Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified. In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110 CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present author) is directly to the point: But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts? In that case, I am dying in vain." 80 The Cross & The Crescent One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory, demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians. Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself. When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock. However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning. Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,,
    1
  133. Psalm 91 is about Jesus, he is mentioned by name in the original language, so we cant deny its about Jesus. This prophecy that Jesus would be protected, and be lifted with no crucifixion matches what the Qur'an says about Jesus PBUH GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3). GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4). Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5). Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8). No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion). GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment. Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified. His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children). His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12). "Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death. Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt..
    1
  134. Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind. God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached. This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 🤯 Its shocking! Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel. And then you have Paul.  A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father. Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus. The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7 The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught. Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself 🥴, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant. Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible. Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God. Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man. So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice. If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth. Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind? The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood. Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead. People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..,.,
    1
  135. I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20 So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you. Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings. Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God. The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God. Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him. Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you 🙏
    1
  136. That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible.  Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially. First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense.  For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.”  The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense.  In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25.  Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense! Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”  This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event.  Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history.  A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says.  The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son. Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew.  Rather, “is” is understood.  For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.”  A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”.  This name describes God, not the person who carries the name.  The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body! Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars.  Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot.  The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English.  Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.”  Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime. Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father!  And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine. Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus. Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah.  Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies.  At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib.  The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept.  When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38).  Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God.  When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory.  It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31.  Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God.  Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege.  Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz.
    1
  137. Before Abraham was, I am . Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes: Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”  The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he”  or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God.  A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay” Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.
    1
  138. That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible.  Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially. First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense.  For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.”  The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense.  In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25.  Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense! Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”  This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event.  Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history.  A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says.  The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son. Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew.  Rather, “is” is understood.  For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.”  A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”.  This name describes God, not the person who carries the name.  The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body! Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars.  Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot.  The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English.  Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.”  Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime. Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father!  And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine. Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus. Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah.  Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies.  At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib.  The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept.  When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38).  Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God.  When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory.  It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31.  Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God.  Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege.  Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz.
    1
  139. Before Abraham was, I am . Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes: Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”  The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he”  or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God.  A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay” Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.
    1
  140. Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation., This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus. This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025. Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11. in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.] John 7:53-8:11, often described as “The Passage of the Woman Caught in Adultery” (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage? The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to today’s reader that it is part of the Gospel of John
    1
  141. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.
    1
  142. The Muslims are right, and they are the only ones who actually follow the message of Jesus. And that is why its the fastest growing religion by number of conversions, and most reverts come from xtianty. Jesus also prophesied of Muhammad to come, and lead us to ALL TRUTH. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. There is no man in History that this verse applies to more than the final messenger Muhammad. Unfortunately for christians, this cannot be about the holy spirit as Jesus clearly says the comforter will not come until after he departs. And the holy spirit was already on earth at that point, e.g. at the baptism. Also no holy ghost has guided us to all truth and new teachings that we couldn't bare then. There are many sects of xrianty who claim they have the Spirit, and none of these sects can agree with each other, let alone guide to a new truth. The final messenger did not speak of his own, but what he heard from Angel Gabriel, he glorfied Jesus, and told us Jesus will return towards the end times to deal wit the anti christ. There is a whole chapter in the Qur'an dedicated to Mary and she is called the greatest woman of ALL time. He has led us to all truth, he received the final revelation from God. May peace be upon all the prophets of God
    1
  143. wake up! they had to add the trinity later Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version...,,.,
    1
  144. the fa.Yke comission matt 28.19 isnt found in any manuscript befire the 3rd century. Not only did they add in that " paulanity was now to be spread to the world" they later, had to add in the trinity to this already added command Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: “The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church..,,..,.
    1
  145. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”,
    1
  146. Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes: “Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”. He explains further, that: “The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3] Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus. In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement. Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83) It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions. It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version. Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered,,
    1
  147.  @maryvandeusen5554  according to the church and shayyy.tannn According to Jesus the father is the only true God.. Jon 17.3 Who is the Father? Jon 20.17 I go to my father and your father, my God and your God So father and son are not literal terms. Adam is son of God, David is called begotten of God by God in the Bible
    1
  148.  @perc-ai  numbers God says He is not son of man. Ezekile is called son of man more times than Jesus in the bible
    1
  149. No prophet including Jesus, or any disciples anywhere in the Bible calls to a triune God. They all say the father, God Almighty. Who is the Father? 17.3 the only true God according to Jesus 20.17 I go to my father and your father, my God and your God. Adam is called son of God, David is called begotten of God by God Father and son are not literal terms Trinity was formed in the 4th century at the council of nicea, when they added the Holy g, to the duality
    1
  150. Jesus says to wipe out all non 🐝 lievers. They r ener mees. 🤦 Cor Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? John one.nine/ Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
    1
  151. Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not kilng their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10 Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15 John. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14 Acts Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be kiled. 3:23 God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12 thessalonian
    1
  152. Critics as usual apply ‘cut and choose’ approach with regards to this passage (Quran 2:191). They only quote, “And ciw them wherever you find them…(2:191). However, when we read the passage in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite what they portray of the verse. Quran 2:190 – 195 2:190 Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. 2:191 And ciw them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than kiwing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kiw them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. 2:194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him. 2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good. It’s important whenever one reads a Quranic verse, to read it in its context. As you have read, critics only quote the part which suites them, they isolate previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the kiwing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read, Allah makes it evident to fight those only who fight them, fighting in self-defence. Another thing some love to do with the verse is, change the Arabic word’s meaning. Example, the Arabic word ‘Fitna’ used in 2:191 and 2:193, they deceptively have translated the word as ‘disbelief’. So, when it’s read in that perspective, the passage is implying to fight to those who are disbelievers, just because of their religion. This again when we examine it, it will turn out to be a lie. The Arabic word ‘Fitnah’ means ‘persecution’, ‘corruption’, ‘sedition’. But when the word ‘Fitnah’ is used in verse 2:191 and 2:193 it means ‘persecution’.
    1
  153. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  154. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..
    1
  155. So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was
    1
  156. Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim The prophesy 🤦 1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses). 2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd. 3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this: Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth. Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object. 4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. "in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon: There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy: Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels. Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone. 5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children. 6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢,
    1
  157. Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just. Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood? He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,,.,.
    1
  158. Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified. In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110 CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present author) is directly to the point: But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts? In that case, I am dying in vain." 80 The Cross & The Crescent One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory, demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians. Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself. When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock. However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning. Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,,
    1
  159. Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind. God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached. This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 🤯 Its shocking! Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel. And then you have Paul.  A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father. Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus. The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7 The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught. Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself 🥴, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant. Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible. Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God. Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man. So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice. If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth. Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind? The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood. Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead. People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God.
    1
  160. I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20 So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you. Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings. Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God. The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God. Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him. Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you 🙏
    1
  161. Mi5guyd3d
    1
  162. The God of the bible
    1
  163. Jesus says to wipe out all non 🐝 lievers. They r ener mees. 🤦 Cor Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? John one.nine/ Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
    1
  164. Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not kilng their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10 Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15 John. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14 Acts Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be kiled. 3:23 God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12 thessalonian
    1
  165. Any christian can explain why Jesus in the Bible says he speaks in parables TO DECEIVE PEOPLE SO THEY GO TO HELL or why woman and children who don't accept the Lord of Israel should be stoned to def Why does it say not to greet or invite non believers to your home Why does it say that woman should obey their husband as they obey their Lord. Why does it say woman should cover their hair, else shave their heads? Why does it say woman shouldn't teach, and be silent Why does Jesus say that children who insult their parents should be put to def If Jesus is all love then why when he returns will he kil all non believers? Why are nuns praised for their commitment to God whilst muslim woman who cover their hair are called oppressed? Do Not Marry a Divorced Woman:  Matthew 5:32  NASB Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Women: Don’t Dress Up, Fix Your Hair, or Wear Jewelry:  1st Peter 3:3  The Good News Translation You should not use outward aids to make yourselves beautiful, such as the way you fix your hair, or the jewelry you put on, or the dresses you wear. Women Should Shut Up in Church:  1st Corinthians 14:34  NASB The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak. Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17 Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32 Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24 Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not kiling disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be kilred? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7 Mark Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not kilng their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10 Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15 John. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14 Acts Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be kiled. 3:23 God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12 thessalonian
    1
  166. Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not kilng their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10 Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15 John. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14 Acts Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be kiled. 3:23 God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12 thessalonian
    1
  167. Jesus says to wipe out all non 🐝 lievers. They r ener mees. 🤦 Cor Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? John one.nine/ Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked ways
    1
  168. Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind. God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached. This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 🤯 Its shocking! Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel. And then you have Paul.  A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father. Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus. The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7 The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught. Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself 🥴, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant. Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible. Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God. Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man. So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice. If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth. Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind? The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood. Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead. People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..,.,
    1
  169. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  170. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..
    1
  171. Don't worry muslims. We know what's going on. They can keep spreadin ly35 about the one true religion that God sent from Adam, thru Abraham Moses Jesus and Muhammed. May peace be upon them. The more they make things up, the more decent pll study and realise they been told tales all along. And so all their priests and woman are leaving this religion of Paul and coming back to the message of Jesus. ISLAM. we have seen what they're doing, they have no morals and will pay pll to be fake muslims to say crazy shi like we see. Stay firm in your faith, we knew a day would come when holding onto the truth would be like holding hot coals. Shay..tann uses these de seevers to keep ppl away from worshipping their creator. We know Islam is not what they portray. They will need to answer for all of their actions. No need to worry. God is in control 🙏
    1
  172. There will be NO HUMILIATION when we look up the validity of the famous story of the adult eress woman, one that is the GO TO STORY pointed to, as the most beautiful of teachings of Jesus, and we realise that it is remo ved from modern translations because the story was A CONFIRMED INTER POL ATION, a froidd, AND NOT IN THE EARLY MANUSCRIPTS. Even though this story, is a big part of our faith, which we use to show Jesus was all love 🤦. We will not care. ( I mean the story itself contra bicted our beliefs, because we belive Jesus is si nless, and so should have st0n 3d the woman, but he didn't, meaning he was also a s1nner! But stop it. We don't use our brains and question nonsense. We says it's a mystery and blindly accept it) So what if church and Paul teach DIRECTLY OPPOSITE TO WHAT JESUS TAUGHT. So what if Jesus refers to himself as a prophet, and is called by all those close to him! We will change the meanings of words to remain upon falsehood. GOD is now also a prophet because Jesus bought a message, and multiple ano nee mous authors 4 centuries after Jesus told us Jesus is God ( in gospel of John), and so God can also be a prophet. ( again, don't bother pointing out that if Jesus was indeed God, then that means he was D3C3IV ING THE PEOPLE, letting them believe he was a prophet when he was actually their God!, because we won't care) most of us haven't heard verses like john seven teen .3, 2wenty.7teen, unambiguous clear cut, not open to interpretation statements that clearly d35 troy our whole existence, because church pastors like to keep them quiet. So what if most of the statements we depend on, are metaphorical, and clearly refuted by verses from Jesus, so what if Jesus saying he is " Alpha and omega" is removed from modern translations because its yet another fraudlent insertion. Rev1.eleven john 5ive sev7 is one of our most famous frwdulent insertions, the trinity formula, johanine coma, it is also removed from all modern translations, because it is yet anothwer froid. Even though, all the inter pol ations, fraud and mi15 stranslations seem to be around who God is, and who Jesus is, alarm bells wont go off ringing. We will instead, insist the bible isn't kurpted. We will get angry with the Qur'an and Muslims for daring for suggesting it. Even though God says He doesn't accept human s4c rifice, we will insist Jesus the man, d13d for us. We know God is immortal, so we will reconcile by creating a second dimension of Jesus, where he is 100% man and 100% God, so we have a loophole. When muslims tell us God is immortal, and so Jesus can't be God, we will be able to say "his human nature d1 3d".... and if the Muslims say that God hay 8s uman s4c rifice, we can say "He was God in flesh" and it was a divine s4c ri fice! We appreciate when Jesus was asked the all important question about what was required for salvation, he didnt say believe i will dy for your sins, no, Jesus said to keep the commandments, most importantly that OUR lord God is one,...HOWEVER, we prefer the story paul and church taught us, this is much better for us as we don't have to s4c ri fice anymore, we just belive Jesus paid for our sins, and be sorry and bingo! And as you have seen so far, we aren't very s1n seer, so we see no in just iss when an innocent pays for the s1ns of the guilty, or when children inherit s1ns for krymez that had nothing to do with them. Even though this goes against all the previous messages and teachings, and original s1n is only found in pauls work and the last gospel John, we will accept this 3 vil concept. Again, we don't care that in Eze kiel 8teen .2wenty God tells us he hay 8s ORIGINAL S1N, BECAUSE HE IS JUST, and that we can be saved through repentance, not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin through his mercy, WITHOUT BLuD. ( WE COMPELTELY IGNORE THIS BECAUSE IT IS ISLAM ) ....also we can point to our false pro pet paul, who said we can do away with the old covenant. ( even though Jesus said that not one JOT shouldn't be kept until heaven and earth disappear ) they don't call us paul followers for nothing. We will insist Jesus is the only begotten son of God, even though David is called begotten of God by God in the Bible. And we will say that the title 'son of man' is a divine title ( don't remind us eze keel is called son of man more times than Jesus ) We will claim Jesus was a willing s4k rifice even though Jesus begs, and cries all day to be saved from the cruc fiction. Jesus 'will' was to be saved, but he said he would accept whatever was God's will. We believe God DID NOT ANSWER Jesus prayers, and our God was stripped n4k3d, bee ten whyppd and kil d by men against his wishes. Even though all the disciples deserted Jesus, and there were no historical eyewitness, we will argue there are ( we only have jos ephus, who wasn't an eyewitness, and reported on rumours ) We will point to eye zayya 53, where Jesus meets absolutely NONE of the criteria, and ignore salm 9one where Jesus is mentioned by name, and says not even a bruise or cut would come to Jesus as God will send angels to protect him and raise him up We will ignore the letters of ignacious which writ to challenge the popular belief that the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion. This proves in the 1st century, people were unsure if Jesus was crucified. We will insist a plural godhead of 3 fully God's is PURE MONOTHEISM. even we know its absurd, but if we keep insisting, we can be at peace with it. Our bible attributes much bad and f17th to Jesus that we wish it didn't, but we are good at spinning and miss represen tation of text, so we will twist our way out of it. Although we believe Jesus is God and always was, we will run whenever people respond to our critique of Islam, by showing 10x worse stuff our God Jesus commanded in the o.t. And for any of the bad stuff they show us from the n.t., we just say Jesus was teaching a parable 😉 always works 💪 We will continue spreading l13s about Islam, because it is the biggest thret to xtianity, many of our pristes, celebs, and in particular, our woman, are leaving paul anity for Islam by the fastest rate. The conversion rates are the highest, and most ree verts to Islam are white xtian woman! But, as malcolm once said, the media can make the innocent the gylty and the gylty the innocent, and the sion media is on our side, look at how easily we made the world believe they did nine wane wan, look how we lyde about sad damn, ga daf, luted them countries and now we are helping the sionist juws carry out a g3n 0cide on the nay tivs. ( we don't care the ones we help LITERALLY belive our God Jesus is boil ing in x crement and sea men).
    1
  173.  @verityhunt2913  cool story paul taught. when Jesus was asked by the rich ch3w...Good master what must one do for eternal life, he first told the man off for calling him Good, saying that only the Lord God in heaven is good, then he told him to keep the commandments and follow him. What was the most important commandment, Jesus said its OUR LORD GOD IS ONE. Jesus said over and over that he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel, to reaffirm the laws. He never came with a new message of salvation. He came with Islam. The religion of all the prophets from Adam to Muhammad, may peace be upon them all
    1
  174.  @verityhunt2913  buddy, Paul who never met Jesus contributes more than 50 percent of the n.t. Jesus never saw wrote or approved any of it. However, there might be some truth in it. But the most glaring reason why this religion is not from Jesus, is cos none of you follow what Jesus says. He teaches in line with all the other prophets. That he was sent by God, to a specific ppl, to bring them back to the religion of Abraham. You need to reach far to read the church and Pauline narrative into metaphors, yet when we look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus in the Bible, his teachings are far from what we call Christianity.
    1
  175. Around 35 CE, a man named Saul of Tarsus came; he later changed his name to Paul. Paul was a Roman citizen, a Jew, and the enemy of Jesus Christ. He was a zealous persecutor and killer of Jesus Christ’s faithful followers. En route from Jerusalem to Damascus, Paul claimed that he saw “the light” when he saw Jesus Christ appearing to him, filled with the Holy Spirit. He was chosen and commanded to teach and preach acts that Jesus Christ never did to the masses. Paul taught concepts contradictory to what Jesus Christ and faithful followers of Jesus Christ were teaching. Paul provided no proof as to what he claimed to receive. I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11–12)
    1
  176. While Jesus Christ is the central focus of Christianity, the founder of modern Christianity is not Jesus Christ; instead, it is Paul because the version of Christianity that has survived is not the version that Jesus Christ preached; instead, it was the version that Paul preached when he claimed Jesus Christ came to him in a vision and told him to preach new concepts. He converted to Christianity and wrongfully began calling people to worship Jesus Christ and spread strange teachings. Due to his power, wealth, and relationships, people started to adopt these strange beliefs and teachings, while the true disciples of Jesus Christ disapproved.
    1
  177. The disciples clashed and argued with Paul because of his innovative and bizarre teachings, and the New Testament references this fact. Many Christians mistakenly took him as one of the disciples of Jesus Christ due to his claim that he was, but he was not, nor did he ever meet Jesus Christ. While some Christians elevate Paul to sainthood, Paul was responsible for destroying the teachings of Jesus Christ. He told people they did not need to follow God’s laws, even though Jesus Christ suffered and struggled to convey the Message of God, which included teaching people to obey God’s commandments.
    1
  178. Many people took Paul’s word and believed him, even though Jesus Christ never violated the Laws of Moses that came before him, and even though the Bible clearly states, Till Heaven and earth pass, the one that breaks the Law will be called the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished’ ‘Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ (Matthew 5:18–19). This verse explicitly states that anyone that breaks the Law or teaches others to break the Law will be called the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven. On the contrary, the verse states that whoever practices and teaches the Law will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.
    1
  179. Almost all the concepts of the modern-day teachings of Christianity, including the concept of Jesus Christ being the son of God and Atonement, are from Paul — and not from the teachings of Jesus Christ. As such, the teachings of Paul contradict the teachings of Jesus.Paul met the disciples of Christ occasionally but was not fortunate enough to live in their company. When he later came into the picture after the departure of Jesus Christ, he made some severe changes to the religion to win over the Gentiles (non-Jewish people). He introduced what became vital concepts of Christianity, including the idea that Christ is the Son of God, that he sacrificed himself on the cross to save humanity, and that all one needs to do to earn Paradise is to believe Christ died for his sins. Half of the New Testament is written by this man who never met Jesus Christ in his lifetime. Yet, Christians do not question the authenticity of this ex-enemy of Jesus Christ and thus take his word as Truth.
    1
  180. The Book of Acts in the Bible holds three contradictory accounts of Paul’s so-called “conversion” when he claims he saw Jesus Christ in a vision. The story has many holes. Acts 9:7 states: The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. This verse states that the men traveling with Saul stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could not see, but in Acts 22:9, there exists an apparent contradiction. The verse states the men travailing with Paul saw the light but did not hear the voice who spoke! And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. Did the men that traveled with Paul see the light or hear the voice? Why don’t we have records of these witnesses to testify to this significant event? The answer is simple; this event never happened.
    1
  181. The New Testament that is now in existence contains more writings of Paul than any other source. All his reports were written before the four Gospels. They are influenced mainly by the teachings and innovations of Paul, even though his writings consist of hundreds of inconsistences and contradictions! Paul abolished God’s laws, such as not eating pork, fasting, observing the Sabbath, and the instruction of circumcision.
    1
  182. The early devoted followers of Jesus Christ struggled for years to uphold the teaching that only One God (the Father) should be worshiped, and Jesus Christ was only His human Messenger. The real followers of Jesus Christ opposed the blatant misrepresentations that Paul was wrongfully decimating. They had a strong understanding of his message and tried to maintain the purity and clarity of his teachings — worshipping God the Father alone and following His commandments.
    1
  183. However, Paul gave Jesus Christ’s faithful disciples a bad reputation. Paul gave these faithful disciples, who were with Jesus Christ all along — supporting and helping him, the reputation of being lazy, misguided, and hypocritical. People mistakenly believed that Paul understood the message and teachings of Jesus Christ better than the disciples, even though they lived with Jesus Christ and Paul had never met him. How bizarre is that?
    1
  184. Since the innovative teachings of Paul appealed to the Gentiles (non-Jewish people), Jesus’ faithful followers were unable to stop Paul’s misguidance. Although the first Christians were Unitarians who asserted the unity of God and would have rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus Christ’s message of the absolute Oneness of God lasted in its original purity for only a short time, then diminished over the years. The very first Christians were not Trinitarians and, in fact, never had heard of the Trinity, as many current-day Biblical scholars acknowledge.
    1
  185. Some Christians developed different beliefs about the Prophet Jesus PBUH over the next few centuries. They claimed that he was divine, calling him the Son of God, which eventually became the dominant Christian belief. Sadly, Christian leaders took Paul’s beliefs as their religion even though his teachings contradict the Bible, and Christian leaders abandoned the actual teachings of Jesus Christ. Many Biblical scholars recognize and admit that the formulation of modern Christianity did not begin with Jesus Christ; instead, the faith started with Paul, as shocking as that sounds. Sadly, Paul, not Jesus Christ, is the true founder of modern Christianity. Today, only Muslims follow the actual teachings of Jesus Chris
    1
  186.  @Niday249  how can you claim the gospels written by anonymous authors, that Jesus never saw wrote or approved are the words of God. Your own Bibles confirm that there has been so many changes and additions, even to these anonymous books from that time to now. E.g. niv has thrown out the word begotten from...the only begotten son...from John, as they confirm it wasn't an accurate trains. Late. 10n. Read luke 1. 1 to 4 The author says...many people were writing about Jesus, so I felt like also writing about him. Wake up and go and study.
    1
  187. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  188. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..,,
    1
  189. So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was,.,
    1
  190. Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim The prophesy 🤦 1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses). 2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd. 3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this: Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth. Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object. 4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. "in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon: There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy: Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels. Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone. 5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children. 6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢
    1
  191. Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just. Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood? He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,,
    1
  192. Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified. In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110 CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present author) is directly to the point: But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts? In that case, I am dying in vain." 80 The Cross & The Crescent One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory, demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians. Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself. When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock. However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning. Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,,
    1
  193. Psalm 91 is about Jesus, he is mentioned by name in the original language, so we cant deny its about Jesus. This prophecy that Jesus would be protected, and be lifted with no crucifixion matches what the Qur'an says about Jesus PBUH GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3). GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4). Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5). Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8). No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion). GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment. Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified. His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children). His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12). "Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death. Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt..,.,
    1
  194. Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind. God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached. This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 🤯 Its shocking! Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel. And then you have Paul.  A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father. Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus. The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7 The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught. Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself 🥴, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant. Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible. Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God. Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man. So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice. If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth. Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind? The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood. Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead. People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..,.,
    1
  195. I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20 So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you. Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings. Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God. The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God. Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him. Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you 🙏
    1
  196. That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible.  Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially. First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense.  For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.”  The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense.  In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25.  Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense! Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”  This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event.  Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history.  A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says.  The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son. Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew.  Rather, “is” is understood.  For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.”  A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”.  This name describes God, not the person who carries the name.  The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body! Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars.  Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot.  The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English.  Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.”  Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime. Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father!  And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine. Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus. Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah.  Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies.  At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib.  The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept.  When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38).  Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God.  When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory.  It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31.  Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God.  Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege.  Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Aha
    1
  197. Before Abraham was, I am . Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes: Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”  The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he”  or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God.  A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay” Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.,,,
    1
  198. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, and he replied that you are called GODS in scripture, I am only saying son of God So Jesus denies the accusation against him. He denies he is claiming divinity. For example, I could be accused of murdering someone, and I reply, you people killed people, I just threw a punch. I'm really not sure why Christians use this accusation of the Jews as evidence Jesus was God. This verse further supports the fact Jesus was not God. As he denies the accusation and says his claim is not comparable to the accusatio
    1
  199. How many sons does the Bible tell us that God Almighty has? Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22. Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?). Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God" Luke 3:38. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2 As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people. Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God ? Read Psalms 2:7 : "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee
    1
  200. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable histor
    1
  201. Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation., This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus. This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025. Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11. in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.] John 7:53-8:11, often described as “The Passage of the Woman Caught in Adultery” (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage? The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to today’s reader that it is part of the Gospel of Jonn
    1
  202. Sadly only Muslims accept the teachings Jesus bought. We will keep trying, to show them there was no mystery to Jesus, his teachings were clear cut and unambiguous. The same message every prophet before and after Jesus bought. They were the ONLY WAY to God, during their respective ministries. And by following their teachings, one could be saved. Jesus, who insisted he was sent ONLY FOR THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL, when asked what was required for salvation, said to keep the commandments, most importantly that OUR lord God is ONE. When disciples wanted to go to the gentiles, he forbid them, and reminded them he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel. This was always the way to God. God says in the o.t. that he hates original sin because its UNJUST, and says even the wickedest of the wicked can be saved by repentance and good works, exekiel 18. 20 This obviously completely contradicts paulanity, where Paul taught that the only way to be saved was from the death of Jesus. Something Jesus never ever said. Many xtians don't know that Paul never met Jesus, and taught opposite what Jesus taught. Jesus said not one dot of the law shall be changed until heaven and earth pass away. Paul came along after Jesus and said Jesus told him in a dream that we can do away with the law because Jesus died for our sins. When he bought these teachings to the disciples they were irate, as they walked with Jesus and knew him better and Jesus kept the commandments with the disciples. Unfortunately most xtians havent read the bible, let alone the history of the Gospels. They think the disciples wrote the Gospels 😅 Their own scholars say the authors are anonymous, and most definitely not the disciples, who were unlettered uneducated fisherman. They did not know how to write Greek. The Qur'an says scripture was given to Moses and Jesus but man has written much and attributed to God, so we are to use the Qur’an to filter truth from falsehood in the previous scriptures and bring the people of the book back to their creator. So there are some parts of the bible we can accept, e.g. John 17.3, or where Jesus was asked what to do for salvation, and Jesus told him to keep the commandments, most importantly that OUR lord God is ONE. He didn't say that he would die for sins and believing that he died would save us! It's no coincidence, when they try to prove they have the truth, they mostly point to the works of false prophet Paul, or the multi authored Gospel of John, written hundreds of miles away and after Jesus time. And this is the Gospel that turns Jesus to a God. The real problem is the masses have been lied to and deceived about Islam for soo long. But now, in this technological era, its much harder for them to keep fooling the people. And it's inevitable, when sincere people learn about Islam, they accept, as Allah said, truth is easily distinguished from falsehood. Islam is nothing to be afraid of, its simply the submission of one's will to their creator. The religion of Adam, to Muhammad. It's is pure monotheism, the way every prophet taught. There is only One God with no partners. The desperate xtians and haters have painted Islam as a war mongering woman oppressing religion. The biggest criticisms are the fact prophet Muhammad was polygamous. The Arabs at the time didn't not treat woman humanely, they were burying baby daughters at birth, had TENS of wives, and worshipped idols. Muhammed through revelation, reduced the number of wives to max 4. These woman had better chance of being treated justly. So Islam reduced the number of wives, but if you listen to the haters,....Islam is bad because it let's you have 4 wives 🤦 All but one of his wives were divorced or widowed and such a state made it hard to get remarried. It was compassionate to marry such woman. In the Bible, many prophets were polygamous, and there are instructions to be fair to your wives when you marry more than one. Deuteronomy 21.15 Then they say Muhammad was a pedo and he raped children. The girl in question, Aisha, was already engaged to someone else, but her father married her to Muhammad, who was his best friend, and he wanted for his daughter to marry the prophet, who wouldn't. Muhammad wasn't lusting after her, as liars say. This was an arranged marriage, and was only consumated 3 yrs later after she had entered puberty. Marriage at this age was the norm of the time, and this marr8age was never a criticism until last century. Only a few centuries ago, people were married even at 7 in the UK and USA. Bible historians put Mary as 12 and her husband as 90. Xtians believe Jesus was always God, so authored the bible, where he commands kilin whole families including babies except the lil virgin girls, to be kept as sex slaves. So what's worse? Killing families and keeping only the virgin girls, or Muhammad arranged marriage chosen by God, and as we see, Aisha is the greatest scholar in Islam. Then they see he was a war monger. More lies. His wars were in self defence versus the oppressors. And the rules of war were beautiful. No non combatants, woman, children, nor elderly or religious leaders, no building tress or animals. And if the oppressors surrendered, they were to be shown mercy. When we contrast this with the teachings of Jesus in the bible, woman, babies even donkeys were to be destroyed in war. When you look past all the lies and hate, what you see is the messenger sent for mankind, the final messenger, a mercy to mankind with the final revelation and our only WAY TO GOD NOW. Unlike the other prophets, who were sent only to their people, Muhammad was sent for mankind. When you learn the truth about him, you will realise. Jesus also told you the spirit of truth, the comforter would lead us to all truth. May peace be upon all the prophets of God
    1
  203. The Bible, unfortunately, for Christians doesn't support their false beliefs. man has attributed his writing to God.That’s why we see these errors and contradictions, insertions and revisions. To follow xtianity, you have to turn a blind eye to facts and not use logic. E.g 3 = 1. Or 100% man and 100% God. Or...hes God, but also son of God, etc Prior to the alleged crucifiction, Jesus says his work is complete, John 17.4 another evidence that he wasn't here to die for sins. Later, he begs God to take the crucifiction away from him. Matt 27.46. If that was his whole mission, he wouldn't have said his mission was complete, nor would he beg to be saved. It's a fact that Xmas and Easter celebrations are from satanic cults. Look it up. It's no coincidence that a religion that makes people worship Gods creation instead of him has celebrations derived from satanic cults. Every prophet before Jesus, and Jesus and his disciples, and every prophet after, worshipped God as 1 person. Never a trinity. only worshipped the father I haven't misrepresented what your scripture says. No matter how hard Satan has tried to corrupt it through trinitarian scribes, it's still easily dissected to show that what the church and Paul taught you ain't from Jesus. Thats why you only have ambiguous verses, such as me and the father are one ( disciples also one in same way further in same verse ), before Abraham was..mistranslation...even then how is that saying Jesus is God??? If you see me you've seen the father...another verse  Paul followers say is proof Jesus is God...but wait a minute, if that is literal, than that means Jesus is the Father..and that is not the xtian belief. They are 2 separate entities. It's obviously metaphoric if you read the context instead of cherry-picking. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Jesus was given authority and glory...GIVEN...God is authority. Again, how at all does this show Jesus is God? Also, Jesus says he gives this very glory to the believers. Every verse you use as evidence Jesus is God is a desperate reach, its easily debunked by the bible itself. Just mistranslstions, and interpolation and fraud. why turn a blind eye to the clear-cut unambiguous statements of Jesus proving he is not God. It defies belief. E.g  I was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD.. John 17.3 and Jesus Christ whom you sent. I go to my father AND YOUR FATHER, my God and your God... John 20.17. Jesus is a mediator between God and man. The list is endless. See other comments. You would expect trinitarianism to be all over the bible. If this was the most important message, for our salvation, why is it not there in the NT? You have one interpolation about Trinity but not in manuscripts and a confirmed interpolation and so removed by most Bibles. Then you turn to Paul's statements, a man who never met Jesus and preached opposite what Jesus preached!! Still, you remain ignorant? That is why you're considered followers of Paul and not Jesus. Then you say look at the prophesies in the OT. When we look at these prophesies we find again, verses have been changed and mistranslated to inject your falsehood. And even then, it falls apart under the smallest scrutiny. E.g. Isaiah 53.5, which is about the babylonian exile of joos, trinitarians have changed it to make out its Jesus, FACTS, ask the Jews about this verse from their book. Isaiah 9.6. The Hebrew verbs are in past tense, but again, satanic trinitarians have changed it to future tense. Then it says he will be called eternal father. Jesus is never called the father, and it is totally against their Creed that Jesus was the father. They are supposed to be separate beings, who form 1. Jesus is never referred to as the father, yet Paul followers are happy to accept this verse as a prophesy about Jesus. Then you got Isaiah 7.14, again mischievous trinitarians have mistraslated the verse to imply the virgin birth of christ. The Hebrew says "amah," meaning a young woman, but the Greek has been changed to translate as a virgin. Smh Despite the clear evidence of this falsehood, Paul followers will deny it. Sadly, one needs to remain insincere and throw logic out the window to remain on this falsehood. Sorry if this offends. Please do study, this is your salvation. Stop blaspheming our Almighty God 🙏
    1
  204.  @srbob89  Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not kilng their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10 Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15 John. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14 Acts Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be kiled. 3:23 God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12 thessalonian
    1
  205.  @tishleigh7026  no, he preaches the word of Paul and church. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  206. 1. Neither book names the fruit, but the Bible alone calls it the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Qur'an does not call it such, but teaches that humans are already inspired with the knowledge of good and evil at creation in order to enable them to exercise choice between good and evil. This knowledge did not come as a result of eating from a forbidden tree. 2. The Bible says the deceiver was a serpent, but the Qur'an says it was Satan. 3. The Bible says that Adam was not deceived, but only Eve was deceived; it says that Eve then gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. On the other hand, more than one Qur'anic passages mention that they were both deceived. One passage specifically says that Satan approached Adam and deceived him. The Qur'an does not single out Eve for blame in any passage. 4. The Bible says that when the couple heard the sound of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, they hid from him among the trees. So God called out to Adam asking where he was, and asking if he ate from the forbidden tree. On the other hand the Qur'an does not depict God in limited human form. The Qur'an and the Bible both teach that God knows everything always. 5. According to the Bible, when the couple was confronted with their mistake, they blamed each other, and Adam even blamed God because God gave him the woman who gave him the fruit. According to the Qur'an they did not pass the blame. Instead, both repented. 6. According to the Bible, God cursed them. According to the Qur'an, God forgave them and guided them. 7. According to the Bible, they were driven out of the garden because God was afraid that they may eat from the tree of life and live forever. According to the Qur'an, God's plan was to educate our first parents in paradise, then send them into the world for a limited time to resist Satan, the enemy. They were sent to earth as part of God's plan for them; not as a way of preventing them access to the tree of life, but as a test to distinguish those deserving of everlasting enjoyment in God's paradise. 8. According to the Bible, God had said that when Adam eats from the tree he would surely die, and the serpent said they will not surely die. The serpent was right - they did not die. Contrary to this, in the Qur'an, God said that if Adam and Eve eat from the tree they will become wrongdoers, then they will have to leave the garden and come out to where they will have to labour. Satan, however, promised them that if they eat from the tree they will live forever. Satan was wrong - they did not live forever. 9. According to the Bible, because of God's curse, serpents have to crawl and eat dust, women have to suffer in childbirth, and men have to sweat for a living. According to the Qur'an, no such curse was issued. The difficulties of life on earth are what makes it different from life in paradise.🎉
    1
  207.  @julievalencia8633  Jesus says to wipe out all non 🐝 lievers. They r ener mees. 🤦 Cor Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? John one.nine/ Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked ways
    1
  208.  @julievalencia8633  Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not kilng their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10 Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15 John. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14 Acts Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be kiled. 3:23 God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12 thessalonian
    1
  209.  @julievalencia8633  kjv? The one that has John 5.7 That all other Bibles have removed cos it was a concoction? The one that says in Jon...the only begotten son... Whilst the Niv has removed the word begotten because they confirm it wasn't a correct trains...late...tion? The king James who was a man lover? The man who ordained this Bible had many male lovers whilst he was married to his wife? Go and study lady
    1
  210.  @julievalencia8633  word of God? Read luke 1. 1 to 4 The author says...everyone was wiritng about Jesus, so I felt like also riting my version 🤦
    1
  211. Kjv. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.
    1
  212.  @PaulWashington..  friend, there is no such thing. Jesus never taught this rubbish. And none of you follow his teachings. Go and study. Islam is what Jesus taught, as did every prophet before and after... Even this priest spends most his time making things up about Islam
    1
  213.  @PaulWashington..  why pick and choose? Jesus said over and over, he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel, to reaffirm the laws. He was the WAY for them. Like evey prophet who was sent to their people, they were the way to God, and you had to know the prophet and the ONLY TRUE GOD who sent them. Unlike the previous prophets, Muhammad was sent to all mankind. Muhammad, the final prophet was sent for mankind, and the only way to God for us, is to know him, and know of the previous prophets, and to submit to the ONLY TRUE GOD.
    1
  214.  @PaulWashington..  the niv has thrown out the word begotten from John's...the only begotten son... Cos it wasn't trains. Lated. Ted correctly. David is called begotten of God by God in the Bible. Paul made up that wages of s777ns is deaf. He also invented riginal s777n. No one ever mentioned it before.
    1
  215. Not only is the great commission doctored, Matthew is written by yet another anonymous author, a ju who copied Mark you have so much to lern bud
    1
  216.  @PaulWashington..  The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: “The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition.”
    1
  217.  @PaulWashington..  Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: “The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.
    1
  218.  @PaulWashington..  The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
    1
  219.  @PaulWashington..  The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”
    1
  220.  @PaulWashington..  According to early church tradition, originating with Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130 AD),[10] the gospel was written by Matthew the companion of Jesus, but this presents numerous problems.[9] Most modern scholars hold that it was written anonymously[8] in the last quarter of the first century by a male Jew who stood on the margin between traditional and nontraditional Jewish values and who was familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time
    1
  221.  @PaulWashington..  In many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.
    1
  222. david is worshipd as God 1 Chronicles 29:20 — King J 20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and the king.
    1
  223.  @PaulWashington..  Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just. Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood? He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,,.,.
    1
  224.  @PaulWashington..  Read eze 18.20. The fact no one before Paul mentioned riginal s77n, and that he said w4g35 of s77n is deaf, in light of the above, prove it didn't come from Jesus or his God. Also if that was the case, Jesus would have remained in 🔥 for more than 3 days. For if he paid for all humanity, he wud need to be there longer than 3 days. God is just. He doesn't bare the inequities of the father on the son, nor vice versa, and he CAN forgive. Even the wickedest if the repent and change ways, thru his mercy, he forgives. Eze 18.20 This is what all the prophets of God taught. But Paul came along and said God cannot forgive, but needs payment in yooman bl0ioud. Pure pay. Gand. Izm
    1
  225.  @PaulWashington..  Read ez 18.20 Paul invented that God cannot 4give without yooman bl0oid
    1
  226.  @PaulWashington..  the ch3wz were before Jesus, they say MAry and Jesus werent gud ppl, they say you took their book and God and turned him into a trinity. they must be correct cos they came b4 right? it dont matter if Muhammad came 6000 yrs after JEsus if the source of the info is from God. And regardless, we see in the bible, Jesus doesnt teach paulanity. he teaches the same as all the prophets before and after him. that God is one with no partner, and we follow his command, repent, and thru his mercy God forgives.
    1
  227.  @PaulWashington..  you claimed Jesus was sent to everyone cos of the great commission. This comes from Matthew. The Great Commission is made up. See above. It can't be trusted. There are verses in the earlier Gospels where Jesus insists to the disciples, not to go out to the gent. Tiles. He says because he was sent only for the lost sheep. He at first refuses to help the cannonite woman, again saying he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel, after the disciples pleaded, he eventually helped them.
    1
  228.  @PaulWashington..  Paul was the first one to invent riginal s77n.and that the wages for it are d3ff. read esec137 8t33n. twenny. God says the son does not bare inequities of the father and vice versa ( riginal s77n ) because he is JUST. he says he can forgive, even the badd35t of the b4d, if they change ways, thru his mercy. PAul came along and said God cannot 4giv, instead he needs a payment in yooman bl01uid. also if Jesus was to pay the price paul said, he wud need to spend more than 3 days to pay 4 mankind. he wudda need to be ther 4eva. none of it adds up, cos its not from God.
    1
  229. Paul was the first one to invent riginal s77n.and that the wages for it are d3ff. read esec137 8t33n. twenny. God says the son does not bare inequities of the father and vice versa ( riginal s77n ) because he is JUST. he says he can forgive, even the badd35t of the b4d, if they change ways, thru his mercy. PAul came along and said God cannot 4giv, instead he needs a payment in yooman bl01uid.
    1
  230.  @julievalencia8633  with respect, you are a typical uneducated Paul follower who thinks they follow and love Jesus... First of all, I took nothing out if context, and if you make accusations have the decency to show me what I took out of context. Personal experiences, subjective, are not an evidence of truth. There are hindus who claim they're life has changed, they have God etc. Ppl of all faiths make these claims.. You don't know anything about the authenticity of you text, and why newer editions of the bible were made. Your clearly just emotional, and that is what drives you on your path, and you refuse to actually think and be s1ns33r. The Bible says prove all things. Jesus of the bible tells you he's not God. Only the Father is. I appreciate you have been told otherwise your whole life, and so you cannot accept the truth, but this life ain't a joke.
    1
  231.  @julievalencia8633  and now that you have been shown clearly, when that day comes and you see Jesus trembling in fear like all other humans, unable to help anyone, you only have yourself to blame 🙏
    1
  232.  @julievalencia8633  but you don't follow Jesus. You follow Paul. Jesus said the father is the only true God. You accused me of taking out of context, you should do the right thing and back it up by telling me what I took that way. There are Hundus who will claim their life gas changed cos they have God. Pll of all faiths make this claim. Its not an evidence.
    1
  233.  @julievalencia8633  you clearly just belive off emotion and due to being taught that you have the truth your whole life, but bible says prove all things Just because something doesn't suit your narrative, don't mean it ain't right. Evey claim you made was refuted sincerely and honestly from the bible, but you r not taking it seriously. I hope you do cos its not a joke.
    1
  234. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  235.  @goosemonroe2695  Before Abraham was, I am . Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes: Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”  The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he”  or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God.  A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay” Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.
    1
  236. 1 Chron. 29:20 “And David said to all the congregation, now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshiped the LORD, and the king.” (KJV).
    1
  237.  @aaronsaju9766  1 Chron. 29:20 which says in the King James, “And David said to all the congregation, now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshiped the LORD, and the king.” (KJV).
    1
  238.  @aaronsaju9766  In many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.
    1
  239. In many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.
    1
  240. According to early church tradition, originating with Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130 AD),[10] the gospel was written by Matthew the companion of Jesus, but this presents numerous problems.[9] Most modern scholars hold that it was written anonymously[8] in the last quarter of the first century by a male Jew who stood on the margin between traditional and nontraditional Jewish values and who was familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time
    1
  241. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: “The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition.”
    1
  242. Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: “The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.
    1
  243. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
    1
  244. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”
    1
  245. The findings show that the Christian civilization was responsible for the largest amount of kiwiings in history! The results are as follows: 1. Christian Civilization - caused ca 236 million deafz 2. Antitheist Civilization(former Communist Block) - caused ca 124 million deafz 3. Sinic Civilization (East Asian) - caused ca 107 million deafz 4. Buddhist Civilization - caused ca 87 million deafz 5. Primal Indigenous Civilization - caused ca 45 million deafz 6. Islamic Civilization - caused ca 31 million deafz
    1
  246. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,...
    1
  247. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..,,,
    1
  248. So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was,,,x
    1
  249. For me, the biggest evidence is that Paul followers ALWAYS QUOTE PAUL, OR THE LAST GOSPEL JOHN, as their evidences And their own scholars say John is the LEAST AUTHENTIC, written by multiple authors, hundreds of miles and years away from Jesus. And this is the book that elevates Jesus, at least tries. They never ever quote Mark or luke, the earlier Gospels, where Jesus is a prophet and messiah, sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, by his own admission. This is the biggest red flag that Paul followers are misguided. ALL THEIR favourite quotes come from the froindulent Gospel of John. Even Mark isn't safe. 16.8 is where Mark ends,as the earliest manuscripts end there.. But the 'long ending' of Mark, 16.9 to 20, has the resurrection, Jesus sitting on right side of God etc Their own academia acknowledge this, that 9 to 20 are later interpolation and its common knowledge except for the blind followers who have not studied what they are basing their salvation on 🤦,,,,
    1
  250. Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim The prophesy 🤦 1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses). 2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd. 3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this: Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth. Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object. 4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. "in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon: There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy: Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels. Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone. 5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children. 6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢,...
    1
  251. Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just. Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood? He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,
    1
  252. Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified. In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110 CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present author) is directly to the point: But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts? In that case, I am dying in vain." 80 The Cross & The Crescent One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory, demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians. Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself. When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock. However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning. Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,
    1
  253. Psalm 91 is about Jesus, he is mentioned by name in the original language, so we cant deny its about Jesus. This prophecy that Jesus would be protected, and be lifted with no crucifixion matches what the Qur'an says about Jesus PBUH GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3). GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4). Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5). Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8). No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion). GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment. Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified. His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children). His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12). "Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death. Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt..,.
    1
  254. Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind. God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached. This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 🤯 Its shocking! Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel. And then you have Paul.  A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father. Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus. The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7 The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught. Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself 🥴, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant. Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible. Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God. Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man. So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice. If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth. Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind? The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood. Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead. People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..,.
    1
  255. I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20 So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you. Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings. Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God. The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God. Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him. Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you 🙏,,,
    1
  256. That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible.  Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially. First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense.  For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.”  The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense.  In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25.  Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense! Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”  This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event.  Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history.  A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says.  The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son. Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew.  Rather, “is” is understood.  For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.”  A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”.  This name describes God, not the person who carries the name.  The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body! Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars.  Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot.  The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English.  Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.”  Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime. Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father!  And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine. Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus. Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah.  Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies.  At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib.  The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept.  When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38).  Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God.  When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory.  It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31.  Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God.  Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege.  Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz....
    1
  257. Before Abraham was, I am . Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes: Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”  The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he”  or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God.  A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay” Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.....
    1
  258. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, and he replied that you are called GODS in scripture, I am only saying son of God So Jesus denies the accusation against him. He denies he is claiming divinity. For example, I could be accused of murdering someone, and I reply, you people killed people, I just threw a punch. I'm really not sure why Christians use this accusation of the Jews as evidence Jesus was God. This verse further supports the fact Jesus was not God. As he denies the accusation and says his claim is not comparable to the accusation.....
    1
  259. How many sons does the Bible tell us that God Almighty has? Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22. Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?). Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God" Luke 3:38. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2 As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people. Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God ? Read Psalms 2:7 : "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee",,,
    1
  260. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.....
    1
  261. Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation., This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus. This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025. Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11. in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.] John 7:53-8:11, often described as “The Passage of the Woman Caught in Adultery” (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage? The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to today’s reader that it is part of the Gospel of John,,,
    1
  262. The Muslims are right, and they are the only ones who actually follow the message of Jesus. And that is why its the fastest growing religion by number of conversions, and most reverts come from xtianty. Jesus also prophesied of Muhammad to come, and lead us to ALL TRUTH. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. There is no man in History that this verse applies to more than the final messenger Muhammad. Unfortunately for christians, this cannot be about the holy spirit as Jesus clearly says the comforter will not come until after he departs. And the holy spirit was already on earth at that point, e.g. at the baptism. Also no holy ghost has guided us to all truth and new teachings that we couldn't bare then. There are many sects of xrianty who claim they have the Spirit, and none of these sects can agree with each other, let alone guide to a new truth. The final messenger did not speak of his own, but what he heard from Angel Gabriel, he glorfied Jesus, and told us Jesus will return towards the end times to deal wit the anti christ. There is a whole chapter in the Qur'an dedicated to Mary and she is called the greatest woman of ALL time. He has led us to all truth, he received the final revelation from God. May peace be upon all the prophets of God,,,,
    1
  263. cil Followers of Other Religions “If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kcil him. Your hand shall be the first raised to zlay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to dev, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slvry. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such 3vi7 as this in your midst.” (Deut13..
    1
  264. The God of the Bible, Jesus they say, explicitly endorses polygamy and sexual slavery and c03ced marriage of fur. ginz along with monogamy. In fact, he endorses all three to the point of providing detailed regulations. Based on stories of sex and marriage that God rewards and appears to approve one might add incest to the mix of sexual contact that receives divine sanction.
    1
  265. Deut 2two. If a man is caught in the act of r8ink a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violin.lated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. What kind of God would make a r8 biktim marry her atcker? Answer: Jesus of the bible.
    1
  266. When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them!
    1
  267. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. ..,
    1
  268. You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephes 6:5 NLT) Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Tim 6:1-2 NLT) In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of bee. ting slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong. The servant will be sevrely punn. ished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12.
    1
  269. Christian ministers, the ones with oly spirit, are knwon for gruu mhing 8oys Muhammed was in an arranged marriage, not lu57in
    1
  270. Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not kilng their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10 Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15 John. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14 Acts Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be kiled. 3:23 God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12 thessalonia
    1
  271. as you can see above Jesus who they claim was always God, doesn't do marriage, or wait til pew Betty He say to unm.alive bay. Bee's. Except the lil. Who have yet to gnow a The morals between paulanity and Islam are a world apart If our God taught this, I would hide in shame
    1
  272. Critics as usual apply ‘cut and choose’ approach with regards to this passage (Quran 2:191). They only quote, “And ciw them wherever you find them…(2:191). However, when we read the passage in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite what they portray of the verse. Quran 2:190 – 195 2:190 Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. 2:191 And ciw them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than kiwing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kiw them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. 2:194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him. 2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good. It’s important whenever one reads a Quranic verse, to read it in its context. As you have read, critics only quote the part which suites them, they isolate previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the kiwing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read, Allah makes it evident to fight those only who fight them, fighting in self-defence. Another thing some love to do with the verse is, change the Arabic word’s meaning. Example, the Arabic word ‘Fitna’ used in 2:191 and 2:193, they deceptively have translated the word as ‘disbelief’. So, when it’s read in that perspective, the passage is implying to fight to those who are disbelievers, just because of their religion. This again when we examine it, it will turn out to be a lie. The Arabic word ‘Fitnah’ means ‘persecution’, ‘corruption’, ‘sedition’. But when the word ‘Fitnah’ is used in verse 2:191 and 2:193 it means ‘persecution’
    1
  273. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  274. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..
    1
  275.  @Pikkon-17  talking of fraud Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation., This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus. This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025. Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11. in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.] John 7:53-8:11, often described as “The Passage of the Woman Caught in Adultery” (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage? The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to today’s reader that it is part of the Gospel of John
    1
  276. So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was.,.
    1
  277. For me, the biggest evidence is that Paul followers ALWAYS QUOTE PAUL, OR THE LAST GOSPEL JOHN, as their evidences And their own scholars say John is the LEAST AUTHENTIC, written by multiple authors, hundreds of miles and years away from Jesus. And this is the book that elevates Jesus, at least tries. They never ever quote Mark or luke, the earlier Gospels, where Jesus is a prophet and messiah, sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, by his own admission. This is the biggest red flag that Paul followers are misguided. ALL THEIR favourite quotes come from the froindulent Gospel of John. Even Mark isn't safe. 16.8 is where Mark ends,as the earliest manuscripts end there.. But the 'long ending' of Mark, 16.9 to 20, has the resurrection, Jesus sitting on right side of God etc Their own academia acknowledge this, that 9 to 20 are later interpolation and its common knowledge except for the blind followers who have not studied what they are basing their salvation on 🤦
    1
  278. Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim The prophesy 🤦 1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses). 2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd. 3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this: Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth. Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object. 4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. "in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon: There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy: Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels. Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone. 5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children. 6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢,,,,
    1
  279. Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just. Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood? He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,,.,.,,,
    1
  280. Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified. In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110 CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present author) is directly to the point: But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts? In that case, I am dying in vain." 80 The Cross & The Crescent One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory, demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians. Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself. When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock. However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning. Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,,..,
    1
  281. Psalm 91 is about Jesus, he is mentioned by name in the original language, so we cant deny its about Jesus. This prophecy that Jesus would be protected, and be lifted with no crucifixion matches what the Qur'an says about Jesus PBUH GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3). GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4). Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5). Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8). No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion). GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment. Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified. His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children). His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12). "Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death. Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt..,
    1
  282. Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind. God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached. This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 🤯 Its shocking! Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel. And then you have Paul.  A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father. Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus. The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7 The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught. Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself 🥴, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant. Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible. Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God. Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man. So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice. If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth. Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind? The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood. Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead. People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..,.,
    1
  283. More fraud That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible.  Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially. First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense.  For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.”  The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense.  In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25.  Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense! Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”  This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event.  Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history.  A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says.  The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son. Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew.  Rather, “is” is understood.  For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.”  A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”.  This name describes God, not the person who carries the name.  The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body! Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars.  Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot.  The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English.  Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.”  Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime. Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father!  And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine. Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus. Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah.  Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies.  At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib.  The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept.  When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38).  Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God.  When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory.  It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31.  Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God.  Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege.  Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz.
    1
  284. They have nothing Before Abraham was, I am . Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes: Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”  The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he”  or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God.  A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay” Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.
    1
  285. I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20 So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you. Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings. Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God. The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God. Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him. Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you 🙏
    1
  286. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, and he replied that you are called GODS in scripture, I am only saying son of God So Jesus denies the accusation against him. He denies he is claiming divinity. For example, I could be accused of murdering someone, and I reply, you people killed people, I just threw a punch. I'm really not sure why Christians use this accusation of the Jews as evidence Jesus was God. This verse further supports the fact Jesus was not God. As he denies the accusation and says his claim is not comparable to the accusation.
    1
  287. How many sons does the Bible tell us that God Almighty has? Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22. Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?). Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God" Luke 3:38. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2 As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people. Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God ? Read Psalms 2:7 : "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee"
    1
  288. Jesus says to wipe out all non 🐝 lievers. They r ener mees. 🤦 Cor Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? John one.nine/ Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. 2 Chro fifteen And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to devv whether young or old, man or woman. 2cor In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from truth 2 corin Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbelieve Luuk But as for these 3nmies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them hear and slaw😶‍🌫️ ter them b4 me
    1
  289. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.
    1
  290. The Muslims are right, and they are the only ones who actually follow the message of Jesus. And that is why its the fastest growing religion by number of conversions, and most reverts come from xtianty. Jesus also prophesied of Muhammad to come, and lead us to ALL TRUTH. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. There is no man in History that this verse applies to more than the final messenger Muhammad. Unfortunately for christians, this cannot be about the holy spirit as Jesus clearly says the comforter will not come until after he departs. And the holy spirit was already on earth at that point, e.g. at the baptism. Also no holy ghost has guided us to all truth and new teachings that we couldn't bare then. There are many sects of xrianty who claim they have the Spirit, and none of these sects can agree with each other, let alone guide to a new truth. The final messenger did not speak of his own, but what he heard from Angel Gabriel, he glorfied Jesus, and told us Jesus will return towards the end times to deal wit the anti christ. There is a whole chapter in the Qur'an dedicated to Mary and she is called the greatest woman of ALL time. He has led us to all truth, he received the final revelation from God. May peace be upon all the prophets of God
    1
  291. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  292. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.
    1
  293. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you
    1
  294. So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was...
    1
  295. For me, the biggest evidence is that Paul followers ALWAYS QUOTE PAUL, OR THE LAST GOSPEL JOHN, as their evidences And their own scholars say John is the LEAST AUTHENTIC, written by multiple authors, hundreds of miles and years away from Jesus. And this is the book that elevates Jesus, at least tries. They never ever quote Mark or luke, the earlier Gospels, where Jesus is a prophet and messiah, sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, by his own admission. This is the biggest red flag that Paul followers are misguided. ALL THEIR favourite quotes come from the froindulent Gospel of John. Even Mark isn't safe. 16.8 is where Mark ends,as the earliest manuscripts end there.. But the 'long ending' of Mark, 16.9 to 20, has the resurrection, Jesus sitting on right side of God etc Their own academia acknowledge this, that 9 to 20 are later interpolation and its common knowledge except for the blind followers who have not studied what they are basing their salvation on 🤦
    1
  296. Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim The prophesy 🤦 1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses). 2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd. 3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this: Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth. Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object. 4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. "in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon: There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy: Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels. Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone. 5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children. 6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢,
    1
  297. Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just. Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood? He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,,
    1
  298. Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified. In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110 CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present author) is directly to the point: But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts? In that case, I am dying in vain." 80 The Cross & The Crescent One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory, demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians. Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself. When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock. However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning. Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical.
    1
  299. Psalm 91 is about Jesus, he is mentioned by name in the original language, so we cant deny its about Jesus. This prophecy that Jesus would be protected, and be lifted with no crucifixion matches what the Qur'an says about Jesus PBUH GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3). GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4). Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5). Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8). No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion). GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment. Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified. His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children). His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12). "Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death. Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt.
    1
  300. Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind. God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached. This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 🤯 Its shocking! Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel. And then you have Paul.  A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father. Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus. The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7 The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught. Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself 🥴, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant. Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible. Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God. Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man. So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice. If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth. Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind? The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood. Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead. People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..,.,
    1
  301. I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20 So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you. Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings. Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God. The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God. Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him. Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you 🙏
    1
  302. That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible.  Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially. First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense.  For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.”  The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense.  In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25.  Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense! Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”  This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event.  Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history.  A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says.  The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son. Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew.  Rather, “is” is understood.  For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.”  A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”.  This name describes God, not the person who carries the name.  The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body! Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars.  Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot.  The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English.  Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.”  Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime. Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father!  And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine. Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus. Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah.  Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies.  At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib.  The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept.  When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38).  Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God.  When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory.  It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31.  Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God.  Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege.  Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Aha
    1
  303. Before Abraham was, I am . Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes: Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”  The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he”  or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God.  A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay” Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.,,
    1
  304. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, and he replied that you are called GODS in scripture, I am only saying son of God So Jesus denies the accusation against him. He denies he is claiming divinity. For example, I could be accused of murdering someone, and I reply, you people killed people, I just threw a punch. I'm really not sure why Christians use this accusation of the Jews as evidence Jesus was God. This verse further supports the fact Jesus was not God. As he denies the accusation and says his claim is not comparable to the accusation
    1
  305. How many sons does the Bible tell us that God Almighty has? Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22. Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?). Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God" Luke 3:38. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2 As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people. Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God ? Read Psalms 2:7 : "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee"
    1
  306. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.,,,,
    1
  307. Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation., This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus. This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025. Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11. in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.] John 7:53-8:11, often described as “The Passage of the Woman Caught in Adultery” (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage? The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to today’s reader that it is part of the Gospel of John,,
    1
  308. i know you wont agree that christians have fallen in to disbelif. cos you follow paul and church. not Jesus. he told you the father is the ONLY TRUE GOD. john 17.3 he says...i go to my father and your father, my god and your god. 20.17 evry religon teaches that those who dont beileve will go to the fire.
    1
  309. the sad thing about you lot is you leanr islam from christians and bring these tales as tho they are true. No christian knew about our history except from our sources. Go and leanr frm muslims what actually uthman brned. he got rid of all where ppl had writtne their notes into. so that what happened to the bible, didnt happen to us. then you talk of the various modes of transmission, they are different dialects, ALL IF WHICH WERE revealed to the prophet by the angel, who revealed over 23 years and many times in front of witnesses. i want to give you more credit, but i assume you learnt it was all revealed to him in one go in the cave?
    1
  310.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  you claim it was o.t that had those verses, but n.t. was also provided, regardless, christians belive Jesus was ALWAYS god, so he also comanded whats in the o.t. theres no gettin away from it. and we dont need to say the bible is changed. your own bible attest to it. you have e.g. the niv. which was written to be closer to the OLDER manuscripts that were discovered, which proves much of the kjv was not in the original. your own scholars agree its not preserved. the Qur'an was preserved orally from day one, til now we have mils of ppl knwo it by heart letter for letter, with chains of transmission goin back to the prophet. we have first century 99%of content paper copies that are exactly what we have today.
    1
  311. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: “The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition.”
    1
  312. Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: “The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.
    1
  313. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
    1
  314. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”
    1
  315. According to early church tradition, originating with Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130 AD),[10] the gospel was written by Matthew the companion of Jesus, but this presents numerous problems.[9] Most modern scholars hold that it was written anonymously[8] in the last quarter of the first century by a male Jew who stood on the margin between traditional and nontraditional Jewish values and who was familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time
    1
  316. In many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.
    1
  317. Not only is the great commission doctored, Matthew is written by yet another anonymous author, a ju who copied Mark if are a decent h0n35t person who is 'learning about islam' id suggest you leanr about it not from paul followers who wil tell you tales, as its in their interest not to tell you the truth. you will realise that none of the evidence above was from our sources, whilst you bought things made uo from non muslims
    1
  318.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  we have read the context, it doesn't change anything. A God doesn't need to be granted authority. He is authority. Being given permission by God to give eternal.life, is again you reading your Pauline and church narrative into the text whilst ignoring the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus where he denies he is God. Adam is son of God, David is called the begotten son of God, so being son is not literal. The context doesn't change the fact Jesus said the father is the ONLY TRUE GOD. But the most obvious evidence is that it is agreed by your own historians, that the last gospel, was written by multiple anonymous authors centuries after Jesus and miles away from Jesus. And it's no coincidence that it's ONLY in this gospel, we find all the "I am" statements. And if you lot were to be hon35t, they still don't help you. You need to read divinity into something that wasn't claimed
    1
  319.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  and there's a sheik in America called urthman, he was stabbed in the name of Jesus, by a grown adult xtian man, because the sheik was pointing out all the k0ntr4dikt0ry verses in the gospels. But that got zero coverage. He is more well known than mari mari
    1
  320.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  as you have seen, you claimed the Qur'an teaches to be bad to xtians and chewz, but the context shows that it was about a specific event, where a treaty was broken. The context changes everything. And what you quoted, the context doesn't not at all change the fact Jesus wasn't God, never claimed to be. The context just shows Jesus was GIVEN AUTHORITY, GIVEN Glory etc. And even of he wasn't given it, the fact he says the Father is the only true God means the context doesn't help you in any way. This is sadly the difference between your ppl, your books don't support you, so you go around making up tales about ours, from your sources, and ppl are taken for a ride, a ride they are all too happy to take, cos like I said, Shay...tannns job in this world is to take ppl away from the truth, and he does this via non believers who continu their double standards and spreadin things that aren't true.
    1
  321.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  the act this person did isn't part of our faith. We are only here because so many like you are making things up about our faith. And it will be your loss. You can belive you follow Jesus, but you were shown plainly you follow nothing but conjecture. My only advice at this point is be a better person as if you want to 'learn' about Islam as you claimed you were, learn it not from Christians, who will only tell you takes 🙏
    1
  322.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  again, your fruits show what inspires you. Do you know what Jihad is? The answer is no. The Qur'an says to enforce God's law? And the bible doesn't? You lot make me feel 😌 that you have no decency to study properly, and belive whatever the xtian and chews drip feed you in the news. Take one look around the comments and what ppl r saying and you would understand why we might sound annoyed. Don't waste my time anymore. The reason most of you are not upon the truth is cos you don't deserve it
    1
  323.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  and apostasy is punishable by death even in the west. Go and look up what Islam actually says about it, and when and how it can be enforced. Again, try to learn about it from the source, and not from Paul followers.
    1
  324.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  yes, you made things up about uthman, about what our religion teaches. Now you are making things up about things you again learnt from xtian sources. You have no clue what Jihad means. I do Jihad everyday. Go and learn. You have been drip fed all this cr4p from your xtian news sources, and you expect me to be soo merry to you? I no longer can speak to you, again you claim context is irrelevant cos you saw some stuff cherry picked from xtians, and now it's your worldview
    1
  325.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  take one look around the comments, and see what the fruits of your ppl r. Just like you, they r spreading unfounded tales, drop.fed by shay... tannn If what they told you about us was true, there's 2 bn of us. None of you wud be here if that's what our religion taught
    1
  326.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  🤣 you have no idea what jhad is or sharia. And the Bible also claims God's law is paramount. I'm done with you. You're all the same. And that's why you r upon the religion of Paul and church. You don't deserve the truth
    1
  327.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  Jesus says to wipe out all non 🐝 lievers. They r ener mees. 🤦 Cor Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? John one.nine/ Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
    1
  328. Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not kilng their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10 Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15 John. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14 Acts Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be kiled. 3:23 God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12 thessalonian
    1
  329. You have no clu about anything, and no, you don't follow Jesus at all. Jesus taught Islam. He said the father is the only true God. You disagree, and follow the church narrative, which is basically following say. Tann. And that's why we see you character, is not s7nseer at all Egypt has 80mlion Christians The oldest churches in the world are in muslim lands I don't wanna waste my time on you anymore Keep learning from xtians about Islam. When they day comes, and you see Jesus trembling in fear like all other humans, unable to help anyone, it will be too late 🙏
    1
  330.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  and treason is punishable by deaf on the west, and these are the same principles in Islam, if you are a danger to society, under very specific conditions and evidences, you can be g8ven deaf penalty But you don't care about details, you are happy to entertain the fal53 narrative you learn from Christians, and that's fine. You do you. Unfortunately for you, you have been clearly shown the truth, but if you still wanna follow Paul and church, who taught opposite to what Jesus taught, its your loss.
    1
  331.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  no you don't follow Jesus. Jesus said the father is the only true God. You follow church and shayyy.tann who disagree. Take care 👍 hopefully u realise before it's over
    1
  332.  @SourdoughJesusFreak  I meant tree. Son. And this is the same principle by which Islam says, but there are very stringent criteria and evidences that r require. There are 80mil xtians in Egypt. The oldest churches in the world r in muslim lands. Stop learning from Paul followers
    1
  333. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.
    1
  334. So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was,,
    1
  335. For me, the biggest evidence is that Paul followers ALWAYS QUOTE PAUL, OR THE LAST GOSPEL JOHN, as their evidences And their own scholars say John is the LEAST AUTHENTIC, written by multiple authors, hundreds of miles and years away from Jesus. And this is the book that elevates Jesus, at least tries. They never ever quote Mark or luke, the earlier Gospels, where Jesus is a prophet and messiah, sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, by his own admission. This is the biggest red flag that Paul followers are misguided. ALL THEIR favourite quotes come from the froindulent Gospel of John. Even Mark isn't safe. 16.8 is where Mark ends,as the earliest manuscripts end there.. But the 'long ending' of Mark, 16.9 to 20, has the resurrection, Jesus sitting on right side of God etc Their own academia acknowledge this, that 9 to 20 are later interpolation and its common knowledge except for the blind followers who have not studied what they are basing their salvation on 🤦,,,
    1
  336. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,,,
    1
  337. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..
    1
  338. Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim The prophesy 🤦 1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses). 2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd. 3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this: Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth. Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object. 4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. "in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon: There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy: Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels. Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone. 5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children. 6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢,
    1
  339. Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just. Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood? He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,,.,.
    1
  340. Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified. In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110 CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present author) is directly to the point: But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts? In that case, I am dying in vain." 80 The Cross & The Crescent One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory, demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians. Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself. When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock. However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning. Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical.
    1
  341. Psalm 91 is about Jesus, he is mentioned by name in the original language, so we cant deny its about Jesus. This prophecy that Jesus would be protected, and be lifted with no crucifixion matches what the Qur'an says about Jesus PBUH GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3). GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4). Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5). Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8). No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion). GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment. Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified. His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children). His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12). "Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death. Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt..,.,,,
    1
  342. Christianity is sadly one of the greatest tricks the devil pulled on mankind. God sent tonnes of prophets with the message to worship God alone, and this is exactly what Jesus preached. This message was twisted by man and now Christians worship Jesus and forget God altogether 🤯 Its shocking! Jesus never preached he was God and he would die for your sins, rather he taught to pray to the Father alone and seek forgiveness. There is clear unambiguous evidence in the Bible that clearly shows Jesus came to reaffirm the laws and was a man anointed by God. The only Gospel that inclines towards Jesus divinity, was in the later Gospel of John, which scholars say is clearly written by someone other than the other Gospel. And then you have Paul.  A man who never met Jesus. Jesus said hes here to reaffirm the laws, he said the father is greater than all, he said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God ( john 20.17 ). He says that they may know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus who u sent (John 17.3) He said to direct worship only to the Father. Paul said to do away with the law. He said Jesus is equal to God. He said to pray to Jesus. How mind-boggling that Christians disobey Jesus and obey Paul. Thats why your considered followers of Paul, not Jesus. The only evidence of a trinity is an interpolation and removed from modern translationsby. John 1.5.7 The only verses xtians use to support their position are ambiguous verses, mostly from the revelations of John. Now this is striking, because the core tenants of your salvation, trinity, dying for our sins and divinty should be crystal clear and all over the bible, but its nowhere. You reach hard to mistranslate verses which shouldn't be the case. That message would be clear if that was indeed what Jesus taught. Despite the clear evidence, and the absurdity of original sin (bible says each is responsible for their own deeds and son doesn't bare the iniquity of the father) and the joke that God cannot forgive, and needs a blood payment from an innocent soul, so he came to earth, to kill himself to save humanity from himself 🥴, ppl remain arrogant and ignorant. Believing Jesus died for your sins, you are saved, as an innocent paid for your sins, is truly unjust. There's no way that is Gods justice as he is most Just. And this belief contradicts the bible. Jesus said he goes to his father and our father, his God and our God. He says referring to God, that he is the ONLY true God. Muslims are true followers of Jesus PBUH. We can be saved by gods mercy, and we are responsible and accountable for our own deeds. If we sin against God, we ask him to forgive, and he is most forgiving, he doesn't need a payment. if we sin against man, we need to reconcile with man, my good deeds won't negate my sins against fellow man. So if I murder someone, the victims family can seek revenge, eye for an eye, compensation, or to forgive. This is real justice. If we read the bible sincerely, and believe Jesus was always God, then he authored and instructed killing babies, revenge rape, taking virgin girls as sex slaves, beating slaves to death as its one's property, incest, etc, you know God would never produce such filth. Xtians cop out of this saying that Jesus bought new testament, but he was always God. Or they say the old testament was for Jews? So then gods morality changes? There was a time when rape and revenge was allowed and God changed his mind? The holes in xtianity make it easy to tear this falsehood down with ease, and that's because its falsehood. Most Christians haven't even read the bible and just belive what the church teaches them, but they are mislead. People need to go back to Jesus true message, God is 1, not 3 in 1, not Jesus, but the one true God. Jesus's God and our God..
    1
  343. I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20 So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you. Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings. Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God. The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God. Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him. Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you 🙏..,,
    1
  344. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, and he replied that you are called GODS in scripture, I am only saying son of God So Jesus denies the accusation against him. He denies he is claiming divinity. For example, I could be accused of murdering someone, and I reply, you people killed people, I just threw a punch. I'm really not sure why Christians use this accusation of the Jews as evidence Jesus was God. This verse further supports the fact Jesus was not God. As he denies the accusation and says his claim is not comparable to the accusation.
    1
  345. How many sons does the Bible tell us that God Almighty has? Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22. Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?). Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God" Luke 3:38. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2 As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people. Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God ? Read Psalms 2:7 : "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee"
    1
  346. That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible.  Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially. First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense.  For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.”  The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense.  In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25.  Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense! Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”  This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event.  Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history.  A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says.  The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son. Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew.  Rather, “is” is understood.  For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.”  A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”.  This name describes God, not the person who carries the name.  The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body! Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars.  Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot.  The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English.  Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.”  Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime. Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father!  And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine. Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus. Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah.  Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies.  At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib.  The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept.  When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38).  Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God.  When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory.  It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31.  Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God.  Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege.  Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz...
    1
  347. Before Abraham was, I am . Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes: Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”  The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he”  or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God.  A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay” Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.,,,
    1
  348. Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation., This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus. This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025. Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11. in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.] John 7:53-8:11, often described as “The Passage of the Woman Caught in Adultery” (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage? The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to today’s reader that it is part of the Gospel of John
    1
  349. The Muslims are right, and they are the only ones who actually follow the message of Jesus. And that is why its the fastest growing religion by number of conversions, and most reverts come from xtianty. Jesus also prophesied of Muhammad to come, and lead us to ALL TRUTH. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. There is no man in History that this verse applies to more than the final messenger Muhammad. Unfortunately for christians, this cannot be about the holy spirit as Jesus clearly says the comforter will not come until after he departs. And the holy spirit was already on earth at that point, e.g. at the baptism. Also no holy ghost has guided us to all truth and new teachings that we couldn't bare then. There are many sects of xrianty who claim they have the Spirit, and none of these sects can agree with each other, let alone guide to a new truth. The final messenger did not speak of his own, but what he heard from Angel Gabriel, he glorfied Jesus, and told us Jesus will return towards the end times to deal wit the anti christ. There is a whole chapter in the Qur'an dedicated to Mary and she is called the greatest woman of ALL time. He has led us to all truth, he received the final revelation from God. May peace be upon all the prophets of God
    1
  350. 1. Neither book names the fruit, but the Bible alone calls it the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Qur'an does not call it such, but teaches that humans are already inspired with the knowledge of good and evil at creation in order to enable them to exercise choice between good and evil. This knowledge did not come as a result of eating from a forbidden tree. 2. The Bible says the deceiver was a serpent, but the Qur'an says it was Satan. 3. The Bible says that Adam was not deceived, but only Eve was deceived; it says that Eve then gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. On the other hand, more than one Qur'anic passages mention that they were both deceived. One passage specifically says that Satan approached Adam and deceived him. The Qur'an does not single out Eve for blame in any passage. 4. The Bible says that when the couple heard the sound of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, they hid from him among the trees. So God called out to Adam asking where he was, and asking if he ate from the forbidden tree. On the other hand the Qur'an does not depict God in limited human form. The Qur'an and the Bible both teach that God knows everything always. 5. According to the Bible, when the couple was confronted with their mistake, they blamed each other, and Adam even blamed God because God gave him the woman who gave him the fruit. According to the Qur'an they did not pass the blame. Instead, both repented. 6. According to the Bible, God cursed them. According to the Qur'an, God forgave them and guided them. 7. According to the Bible, they were driven out of the garden because God was afraid that they may eat from the tree of life and live forever. According to the Qur'an, God's plan was to educate our first parents in paradise, then send them into the world for a limited time to resist Satan, the enemy. They were sent to earth as part of God's plan for them; not as a way of preventing them access to the tree of life, but as a test to distinguish those deserving of everlasting enjoyment in God's paradise. 8. According to the Bible, God had said that when Adam eats from the tree he would surely die, and the serpent said they will not surely die. The serpent was right - they did not die. Contrary to this, in the Qur'an, God said that if Adam and Eve eat from the tree they will become wrongdoers, then they will have to leave the garden and come out to where they will have to labour. Satan, however, promised them that if they eat from the tree they will live forever. Satan was wrong - they did not live forever. 9. According to the Bible, because of God's curse, serpents have to crawl and eat dust, women have to suffer in childbirth, and men have to sweat for a living. According to the Qur'an, no such curse was issued. The difficulties of life on earth are what makes it different from life in paradise.🎉
    1
  351. I'm sorry to have done this to you. When the message has been conveyed, and you refuse to investigate and remain miss. Guy. Did....you are now no longer in the boat of ignorance. You will have no excuse if you don't study, and when that day comes and you see Jesus trembling in fear like all other humans, unable to help anyone it will be too late. I urge you to study, not from Paul followers who only tell tales about islam, but from the source and make your decision then. You will have no excuse 🙏
    1