John, Mary and Jesus in the Qur'an. Surah Maryam

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by logical7

 

Incorruptible body with nail wounds? So if a man dies by half his face being blown off, he will resurrect with half face!!!

Jesus said the wounds would remain for all those who rejected him to see.

They will recognize him from his wounds and be reminded of what they had done.

For the rest of us, no, our bodies will be perfected and I'm sure the wounds that Jesus shows will go away before the new heaven/earth comes down.

thats an amazing claim if its true, any source? And a quote by him would be better.
NOT an interpretation of a verse literally pointing to the fact that he 'survived' /'got saved'

reply to post by logical7


I knew you were going to ask me that. I read it in the last couple of days and I may have to do some digging to get it back, but I'll start with this.

Zechariah 12:8-10

8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.

9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Here is a description in Zechariah 13 about what it will be like during the Millennium period...

Zechariah 13:6

6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

reply to post by Deetermined

40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

as Jonnah was... So shall the son of man..
Well either it means his state(alive) or time or both, the time doesnt fit, you may know why some celebrate Good wednesday rather than Good Friday.
If time doesnt fit and being alive doesnt fit then how is it a 'sign'? Jesus pbuh failed to give the only sign he promised to give?

1 Peter 3:18-20 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

peter is not written by peter according to bible scholars, you cant use a source written by a questionable identity, you could just read the creed and be done with it.

Put all of those verses together and I believe Jonah died. Whether or not he really did, I don't care, it doesn't matter to me.

u mean that? Its not my belief which rests on Jonah dying or not.
You'l trust people who told you things in the name of Jesus pbuh and hand them your soul?
We have a brain and cant complain and use 'i was fooled' as an excuse on judgement day. can we?

reply to post by Deetermined

Here's what you don't realize. Although Jesus was able to eat, he was able to appear in the midst of his disciples without opening a door. The door to the room they were in was locked and they did not unlock it for Jesus to let him in. He appeared and then it says he disappeared.

can you quote the verses that mention this.

reply to post by logical7


It's all right there in Luke 24 where you pulled the fish and honeycomb verses.

Read John 20 as a back up if you like.

reply to post by logical7


Logic, Jesus has already proven himself to me, I don't need the book of Jonah to confirm it. Maybe the Jews did, but I don't. Personally, I think this story is lame if you're looking at it as proof for Jesus' resurrection. There are too many other books of the Bible that go into detail regarding this subject.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by logical7

 

Logic, Jesus has already proven himself to me, I don't need the book of Jonah to confirm it. Maybe the Jews did, but I don't. Personally, I think this story is lame if you're looking at it as proof for Jesus' resurrection. There are too many other books of the Bible that go into detail regarding this subject.

Dee, he gave the sign to prove he is Messiah which i believe too, to prove that, he has to live. Yes the jews dint believe that and its their problem. He never claimed or gave proof of what the Nicene creed claims, he rather taught the opposite and made people closer to God and dint demand anything for himself. I believe in this Jesus pbuh.
I will ask you a question, has worshipping Jesus pbuh ever made you feel get away from God?

Scorpie

Just out of curiosity.....got any links to this experiment?

There's nothing special about it, it's just the history of early Christianity. The creed we have was developed during the Fourth Century, at two Councils, Nicea and Constantinople. It's based on an older and shorter creed, which we call the Apostles' Creed, but was probably written in the Third or Second Century, and possibly used as a baptismal formula or maybe at meetings.

You say you are an agnostic.... but I will say I used to consider myself Christian at one point in my life. I went from "trinitarian" to monotheist.

I didn't quite catch how one thought related to the other. We each undertake our own spiritual journey. My best wishes to you for yours.

logical7

but do you consider fanfic by paul and church as truth, how you believe it blindly, if you are an agnostic, you do know or at least you should know who started this christianity, it was surely not Jesùs pbuh.

I am unsure what your clause "you believe it blindly" refers to.

In my opinion, Paul started a Gentile wing of Christianity, which survived the fall of Jerusalem and the end of Second Temple Judaism, when any Jewish Christianities would presumably have ended. So his is the variety of Christianity that we have today. Paul obviously didn't rewrite anything, since he wrote before the Gospels were written. There's nothing I know of in his seven authentic epistles that conflicts with the Gospel Jesus.

Claiming his name or his visions is not authority enough to hijack a simple monotheistic belief and tailor it to the need of pagan roman customers to help the rulers rule peacefully over the masses.

All I know is that some centuries later there was this Arab guy who claimed that his visions were authority enough to hijack Paul's simple monotheistic belief and tailor it to the needs of pagan Arab customers, whose rulers to this day seek its help to rule peacefully over the masses.

reply to post by eight bits

There's nothing I know of in his seven authentic epistles that conflicts with the Gospel Jesus.

Heres a decent outline... and that's only a few issues with pauls writing

www.wordwiz72.com...

reply to post by logical7

I will ask you a question, has worshipping Jesus pbuh ever made you feel get away from God?

Can you rephrase that question, I'm not sure I understand.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by eight bits

 

There's nothing I know of in his seven authentic epistles that conflicts with the Gospel Jesus.

Heres a decent outline... and that's only a few issues with pauls writing

www.wordwiz72.com...

edit on 1-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Do these people even know what they're talking about?

From your link...

Jesus reportedly teaches that BEHAVIORAL requirements (works/deeds), rooted in an internal change of spiritual growth within the person (not external or apart from the person, though the gift of teaching and techniques to achieve this personal change are a gift of grace not earned or deserved by us, but requiring ACTIONS [deeds] to implement), are integral to salvation. While perhaps it is not possible for us to "earn" the "free gift" that Jesus reportedly provides -- a teaching of the universal compassionate love by which the evil within us CAN be transformed into a more holy kindness of love -- the Jesus account clearly includes a behavioral component to his requirements for "salvation." While he does not say that this satisfies any "debt," he still requires it; perhaps he is demanding merely a small partial "payment" as a gesture of "good faith." (In fact, James suggests this by his comments in James 2:26, that we demonstrate our faith -- if it is genuine -- BY our works or deeds.)

Romans 13

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

reply to post by Deetermined


Try to focus on the information presented... not the opinions of the people who wrote the website...

reply to post by Akragon


I'm sorry, the only thing I'm witnessing on this website is a misinterpretation of Paul's words. They think he means something other than what he has said. All they did was twist his words to fit their own meaning.

If you have one particular verse you want to discuss on how that was done, go ahead and pick one and let's discuss it.

reply to post by Deetermined


no need to apologise... There is actually quite a bit of information on that site... Its not a really good one

Try this...

www.voiceofjesus.org...

It's a little more point by point....

Either way I didn't post here to argue against paul... I have enough places for that... I was just showing Eight-bits what he wanted to see...

Akragon

Heres a decent outline... and that's only a few issues with pauls writing

I was aware that there were contending readings of Paul, other epistle writers and the Gospels.However, you know you're in trouble where someone proposes that there is an intra-Christian case for ditching Paul, and then leads with quotes from Thomas Jefferson and George Bernard Shaw.

Thank you for the link, and also the second one you pointed out to Dee, but my statement to logical7 stands.

reply to post by Akragon


Except none of it makes sense. From your latest link...

On the source of the Truth and the true gospel:

Paul says:
1Cor.2
[13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
Gal.1
[12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus says:
John.17
[14] I have given them thy word;
[17] Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.

Paul admits that his wisdom came from the Holy Spirit, not men.

Jesus told all of the disciples that the Holy Spirit would be the one to help them remember his words so that they would not be forgotten.

So, Jesus gave Paul his words through the Holy Spirit just like the other disciples. None of what Paul taught was different from Jesus taught and he didn't even hang out with the other disciples to get this information. He received it from the same source as the other disciples.

So, what's the point here?

reply to post by Deetermined


I already stated my point in my previous reply...

If you chose to believe none of the arguements are valid.. That is your perogative

reply to post by eight bits

All I know is that some centuries later there was this Arab guy who claimed that his visions were authority enough to hijack Paul's simple monotheistic belief

It was Paul who hijacked the simple monotheism as taught by Jesus and the prophets... and twisted it so badly a pagan Roman emperor had to hold a council to settle matters on a religion that originated with the semitic peoples. Modern Christian doctrines of Jesus' divinity etc. owes its existence to that Roman pagan emperor.

The Arab who came along simply restored the original monotheism as preached by Jesus and the prophets... and it rem

and tailor it to the needs of pagan Arab customers

He didn't tailor anything for the pagan Arabs because he refused to compromise with them.
Instead he sent Arab paganism and idolatry straight to the scrap heap and re-established monotheism in that land.

Scorpie

It was Paul who hijacked the simple monotheism as taught by Jesus and the prophets... and twisted it so badly a pagan Roman emperor had to hold a council to settle matters on a religion that originated with the semitic peoples.

The two events are separated by about 250 years. I am unsure what connection you are proposing between them. In between, generations came and went who had much more to say about triune monotheism than Paul did in the writings we have. Nobody at Nicea thought Jesus was "just a man."

Constantine did indeed convene the council, as was his job as Pontifex Maximus (the minister of all Imperial religious affairs, even a religion not his own, like Christianity). Almost everybody who attended was a Trinitarian. The object of christological discussion was the Arian view, which had already been condemned in synod, would be condemned anew, but would survive the council. You wouldn't have liked Arianism very much, either.

Modern Christian doctrines of Jesus' divinity etc. owes its existence to that Roman pagan emperor.

Hardly. We have Pliny's witness to Christian worship of Jesus (and correspondingly withholding of worship from Roman gods or godmen) about two centuries before Constantine had any say about anything religious. Constantine never did have any say in Christian doctrine, either.

He didn't tailor anything for the pagan Arabs because he refused to compromise with them. Instead he sent Arab paganism and idolatry straight to the scrap heap and re-established monotheism in that land.

As you know, Islamic historians dispute that. But yes, of course, Mohammed and his allies eventually won the civil war, and what opponents remained to his tailored-to-Arab-taste Abrahamic doctrines, he murdered. So yes, late in his career, there came a point where he stopped tailoring his doctrines to the Arabs, and instead tailored the Arabs to his doctrines.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Modern Christian doctrines of Jesus' divinity etc. owes its existence to that Roman pagan emperor.

Um ... no. John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Divinity of Christ throughout Scripture

The Arab who came along simply restored the original monotheism as preached by Jesus and the prophets...

The Arab who came along (muhammad) didn't restore anything .. he made up a bunch of stories that weren't true and got people to buy into them. He had to try to destroy the truth about Jesus divinity in order to gain traction for his newly made up religion/political force.