Christian/Muslim ThreadsLucifers Pride!I am going to give you a brief account of the Gospel being barrowed from various pagan sources which where wide spread in the Christiandom, infact if I am accurate in one of his treaties mentions that a fellow in the cap said (mithraist) that your man Jesus is just like our man. It is mentioned by the apologist Justin Martyr, writing to a Pagan in the second century AD, "When we say that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." [First Apology, 21] Also remembering that Saint Paul the founder of Christianity was born in Tarus which in his days was a major centre for propogation of Pagan mysteries, in his letters he reffers to himself “steward of the Mysteries of God” the term for a priest in the pagan mysteries of Serapis. Finally let me summarise for you in the words of Gerald Massey: Mary being Mother of God doesn’t make her devine but Jesus be Son of God is devine, what can kind non-sense are you talking about. Sceondly shia’s are not Muslims, if they claim to be Muslims that’s there problem, no Muslim with a little knowledge about there beleife will dare to call them muslim, in the words of a sufi Ahmed Raza khan Brealwi, shia is the filtheist non-beleiver on earth, and any muslim denys there infidelatiy has become one like the shias. Any ways that was beside the point. But when they picked up stones to stone him he said, isnt that in your law that you are sons of god, they thought he said literal son of god, but when they picked up stones to stone him he clarified his position telling them look I am same way son of god has you are sons of god, figuratively not litrallly, and yet you have to provide evidence in defence of death of Jesus. Weather used by Ahmed Deedat or me, the fact does not change, Jesus never sa-id he was God or worhsip me. Ofcourse if God came to me and said I am God I would have believed him, but if a man comes and tell me that I am the God, I would punch him on his jaw, not because I am angry person, but to test him, if I land my upper-cut on his jaw that will be the first evidence which will prove that he is a man, secondly if he screams in pain then that will prove he is not god, thirdly if he bleeds then that will prove that he is in flesh and blood thus he is not all-knowing because if he was then he would not come to me for a punch, forthly if he runs off, that will prove he was a coward man who was afraid of me and if he does run of that will prove he is going to hide some where and god is not hiding, and if he runs off then that will mean he is going somewhere, where he is not present at one time, therefore he cant be god, and even if all that was his will that this should happen, then he being alknowing, came to me while knowing that I will punch him, that will prove he is a stupid man, and not God. How did he show you that he is god, what convinced you that he is god, his birth, nothing unique about his birth, Adam was created without Mother and Father, his miracles, old testament is full of miracles that where performed by the earlier prophets, does that mean they are god also, raising the dead man, while moses made sticks into snakes, which is greater miracle, if miracles is the criteria for his god-ness then Moses is greater god then Jesus, if his birth is the criteria that he was born without the father then Adam is greater god then Jesus, miracles prove nothing, nor does any passage of the Bible. And those evidences that you have piled up thinking that this is proving that Jesus was god, then bring forward your proof. There have been many additions, omissions, and alteration to the original book of John, and this book reached its final form late has 130 AD. According to Irenaeus the student of Polycrap the gospel of John was written in the reign of Trajan, which will indicate that it was between 98-117 AD, but overall the Gospel of John was being edited until 130 AD. Even when the Gosple of John was standardised, some additions where made in it, forexample the verse on trinity which states that for there are three that bear record in heaven … was inserted in the gospel of John and which was only recently found to be a forgery, thus it was omitted from the Bible. The evidence against it piled up in many different works of a pro-trinity scholar, Saint Augustine, whom wrote extensively on the doctrine of trinity but does not quote this passage in his works, also the this verse is not to be found in the earliest New Testament copies, the scholars find this verse in the marginal notes, which either deliberately or exccidentaly was inserted into the Gosple of John until recent discoveries proved opposite so. In the above paragraph I have put the Gosple of John in its historical perspective, showing you the unreliability of the Gosple. Now here I would like to look into the aims and objectives of the Gosple. One of the striking features of this Gosple is the number of occurance of statement which begin with “I am”, you can even feel motive of the author of this Gosple while reading through it. Here is a interesting statistical analysis of the Greek word Eimi, it occurs 137 times in the entire New Testament, translated, I ,I am, I am he, I was, have been, 14 times in the Gospel if Mathew, 4 times in the Gospel of Mark, 16 times in the Gospel of Luke, 52 times in the Gospel of John, 14 times in the Acts of Apostales, 4 times in Romans, 9 times in the 1st Corinthians, 2 times in the 2nd Epistle to Corinthians, 1 in Philippians, 1 in Colossians, 1 in 1st Timothy, 1 in Hebrews, 1 in 1st Peter, 1 in 2nd Petter, 12 times in the book of Revelations. While the specific phrase "ego eimi" (also translated "I am") occurs 24 times in the Gospel of John, out of those 24 occurances, 17 times the phrase "ego eimi" is fallowed by a honourary Title, or even Doctrinal Title, such has, "I am the bread of life", "I am the light of the world", and “I am the good shepard.” It can be clearly seen that the author of the Gosple of John has set himself a agenda to prove to his readers that Jesus was a deity linked to exodus 3:14, the Gosple of John is not a historical record of Jesus has the other three Gosples are, this Gosple was written to prove the Christian Doctrines or more accurately it’s a summary of the Christian believes, considering where it was written in Asia Minor, it becomes apparent that those Christian where in need of short but accurate account of Christian Doctrines, and to fill that gap this Gosple was written. Now coming to the main part of the reply, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1 reading this passage upto the verse 14 will highlight the purpose of this statement, it seems that the author of this book had in mind the doctrine of Logos in first chapter of Genesis from 1-14. The author begins in the book of Genesis stating that “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” but the author of the Gospel of John keeping the same idea in mind begins with “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things where made; …” what the author says next is quite amazing it shows the intentions of the author, you can feel that tha author wants to prove his point, but to make sure that readers don’t misunderstand the Christian Doctrine he state “… without him nothing was made that has been made.” Next the author of Genesis states that after the heaven and earth where created there was dark on the earth, therefore God created light which represented good, and seperated the light from Darkness, while the author of the Gosple of John is working on the same theme but he attributes this light to the life of man, indicating that light reffered in Gensis is Jesus, and he is the primal source of life for living creatures. Has I said earlier that the author of the Gosple of John has a pre-conceived view of Jesus which he is aiming to prove, Gospel of John is not a un-baised account of Jesus, but it’s a account of Christian Doctrines about Jesus, neither Jesus believed what is being attributed to him, nor he preached what is being attributed to him, some where in the Gosple he utters why is a prophet without honour at his own home or something like that which seems a genuine statement, because it is consistant with Jewish expectations, they expected a Prophet, and their expected Messiah was a Prophet not god, secondly its consistent with the Jewish-ness of Jesus, thirdly that its consistant with few passages of the New Testament, fourthly its consistant with the beleife of the many Christian sects which now are considered has un-orthordox, fifthly its consistent with the Quranic world view of Jesus. Am I imposing the Islamic beleife on your Bible think about it before you accuse me of that, I have given your four reasons why Jesus was a Prophet which are independent of Islamic thought, and the fifth is Islamic, think about it before you do it.
Isaiah 41:4 states that Lord said “the first and with the last”, it becomes apparent that Lord in Isaiah is not claiming to be the First and the Last, but he is stating that he was with the first people and is with the last (or present generation,). You only quoted a partial verse which suites your interest, the actual verse reads: “Who hasth wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord, the First, and with the last (generation); I am he.” Another interpretaion, Lord did not claim to be the Last, the claim of only the First. In the book of Revelation the author is quoting Old Testament wrongfully assuming that Lord Yahweh claimed to be Alpha and Omega, or even willfully was misinterpreting the given clear cut fact in the book of Isaiah. The author after quoting the passage wrongfully then gives his interpretation from his preconcieved beleife about Jesus who acording to him was is and will be coming back in future. He records events like the author of John which are absolutly unique to there books, in here he invents a scenario, angles apearing, light and the voice talking, and he assumes that it was Jesus standing, his perfect cover-up technique, he cant be challenged for anything by historians other Gosple writers, because his book of revelation is a mystical experience and the one chance given to only to him. Jesus claims in the Gosple of John and in the book or Revelation which he didn’t in his earthly life, almost all of his I am saying are unique to the Gosple of John not a single word that has been mentioned by any of the others, which makes me think that the author of the book of Revelation must also be the same person who wrote the Gosple of John, and his account is only unique because it was also the product of hillucinations which the author of the book of Revelation. Coming to the main point the author has a set agenda which he wants to convey to his readers, and to do so, he misinterprets the Old Testament, to convey his message. Not forgetting that some where in the New Testament I read that the devil can imitate Jesus, and just assuming that the vision was real, it will easily fit with what a devil would do, attribute all kind of none-sense to Jesus, this will fit in for number of reasons, Jesus was born Jew, Jews believe in One God, No death resuaraction, and salvation gained by death of Jesus, nor they expected such a thing. And especially considering the quote from Isaiah which was mis-quoted, surely a devilish thing. And just a thing why would Jesus claim things which he didn’t claim while he was on earth, if he didn’t do it then, there wasn’t need for it now, I see the hand of the Devil behind this, do you! Please, please don’t murder the character of Jesus with your odd interpretations, If you call me a “heathen evil lucifer with pigs nose" now that would not be a compliment that will be a insult to me, but if at some time I say I forgive you, what I am doing is forgiving SIN, you sinned against my and I forgave you, now I must be god, and you god says to you no salvation by eating and drinking body and blood. Every body has the authority to forgive sin, Jesus forgives sins of the child not because he wanted to because he had to anounce the fact that those who have real faith in him being Christ, and accept Jesus, there past sins are forgiven like baptism of water if purifys the person from his sins, in the same way when someone is accepting the teaching of Jesus, he has been baptised in spirit, and his sins are forgiven. Its like when you are a Christian but when you convert to Islam you begin with a new sheet, a clean sheet of life and all of your previous sins are forgiven, and anything you commit after will be added to this new sheet of life and on this sheet of life you will be judged. You are just making moutain out of mole, for no reason. The Gosple itslef clearly indicates that the child had faith in Jesus and they went at lenths to get this child to see Jesus, for two reasons because the child was beleiver in the message of Jesus, that’s why he went there, secondly because the child and the people with child knew that Jesus can heal, and Jesus only heals thos who have faith in him, like the woman whom he calls dog, but then he states that you have great faith and then he heals the child. The context holds the key to the understanding of this passage. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame