Announcement

Collapse

Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.

World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.

This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.

And as usual, the forum rules apply.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can One Man Die for the sins of Others?

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

  • #46
    Why do you manifest your feigned miscomprehension, again, ya "siam"??

    Can't u get it thru your thick skull THAT GOD DOES NOT DIE!?

    The sinless Man JESUS CHRIST Was the One who gave up his life as the punishment for sin, which is death - BOTH spiritual AND physical death.

    If you really CANNOT FIGURE OUT THE BIBLICAL TRUTH OF THE ATONEMENT THEN GO AND READ UP good theological clarifications on it.

    So, to continue, that is why Jesus Christ has TWO NATURES, Divine and Human in His person.

    Go & talk to your ulamak / shaikh / muallim / islamic guru/teacher / qualified mentor.

    Ask him/her about what the nature of the Koran is?!?

    Because it also has TWO natures. One infinite - coming down from the "heavenly mother of the book" (13/39) - eternal & uncreated as sunni orthodoxy demands it, & the other finite - as a reciting by a Qari or a printed and bound physical book.

    The physical koran can be destroyed AT ANY TIME. You and I and ANYONE can light it up and it is reduced to ashes to be thrown away.

    So, JESUS the Man likewise was killed over 2,000 years ago. Exactly what He Himself declared will happen to him at the relevant existential time. Peter his apostle tried to stop that from happening to Jesus, and Got A SHARP REBUKE from Christ - READ Matthew 16:13-23!

    You and ALL muslims are exactly like Peter - refusing to admit the reality of Jesus Christ's death, 2000 years ago, that Jesus declared upon Himself. By selective reading of the Gospels & shallow cherry-picking what you ONLY want to read to prop up your biases, you only get an ABYSMAL mis-reading of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Jesus Christ is called "the Lamb of God" in John 1:29. WHY?

    Because every Jew and Hebrew person knows the greatest Event in Jewish history- PASSOVER.

    That event is in Exodus 11 & 12...go READ THEM UP.

    The koran has shamelessly expunged the story of the 10th Plague from its pages..!

    Koran only says 9 plagues WHEN there were really 10 Plagues in the actual historical event of the Jews in Egypt. Read them all in the OT in Exodus 9 - 12 that preceded the koran over a thousand years.

    Plague number 10 was what forced pharaoh's hand to release the Jews from captivity in Egypt. - the DEATHS OF THE EGYPTIAN INFANTS. Yahweh PROTECTED His people the Jews, from the killing of the Egyptian infants by the Angel of death.

    HOW? By commanding the Jews to sacrifice a LAMB of GOD, taking its blood to splash on the door posts and the lintel of every Jewish house then.

    When God sent the angel of Death over the land of Egypt, it would PASS OVER THE HOMES that had the Blood marks of Lamb of God on the doorposts.

    It would only enter the houses that had not sacrificed the LAMB OF GOD & splashed it's blood on the doors. The first born male son in that home was killed by the angel of Death.

    Centuries later, John the Baptist declared Jesus by that same title "the Lamb of God" that came to remove the SINS OF THE WORLD im Jn.1:29.

    That's the historiographical background of "the Lamb of God" in the actual SCRIPTURE, BOTH IN THE OT and in the NT. Which the koran sneakily & deceptively deletes & expunged from its record. What a SHAME!






















    Originally posted by siam View Post
    Can one man die for the sins of others
    Here are 2 versions of the Nicene creed for refrence:-
    1) 325 CE
    We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
    By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];
    Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
    He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
    From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
    And in the Holy Ghost.

    2)381 CE
    We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
    by whom all things were made;
    who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
    he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
    from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead. ;
    whose kingdom shall have no end.
    And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
    In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

    Christianity is beyond my comprehension...yet....it seems to me, the general idea is that God has to "change" into man and "die"....?.... which effectively means God has to "die".
    If any sinless man can "die"---then God only needed to create a new man---one not from the Adamic line who did not inherit original sin and then proceed with the murder/sacrifice. After all, God created Adam without any parents.
    But that is not what Christianity says in its creed---It is God that has to incarnate and then die.

    Mary is sinful or sinless.
    According to the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrine of immaculate conception
    The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church which states that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception.[1][Notes 1] It proved highly controversial in the Middle Ages, but revived in the 19th century and was adopted as church dogma when Pope Pius IX promulgated Ineffabilis Deus in 1854
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

    Protestants reject this dogma...
    But.....
    That poses the problem---how can God be born of a sinful woman?
    ----Mary, Mother of God.
    Protestant views on Mary vary from denomination to denomination. They focus generally on interpretations of Mary in the Bible, the "Apostles' Creed", (which professes the Virgin Birth), and the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, in 431, which called Mary the Mother of God. While some early Protestants created Marian art and allowed limited forms of Marian veneration,[16] most Protestants today do not share the veneration of Mary practiced by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by siam View Post
      U say, Dr Carrier's ideas have been challenged....

      It is good to research and verify claims made by scholars.

      This also includes claims made by this Dr Wood fellow too...
      He "claims" things about the Quran---so all one has to do is go read the verses surrounding the quoted verse to verify.

      has anyone here bothered? ....or because its something you want to believe...you accept it blindly?
      What did David Wood take out of context?

      Your job is to put the verses into context and explain them.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Jesus was God. He was both God and man. He wasn't a mixture of both, but fully God and fully man.

        Being a man and being God, are two mutually exclusive, ontological states of being. There's no such thing as being both omnipotent and impotent. You're either omniscient and all knowing, or you're not. There's no such thing as being an all knowing ignoramus or a truthful, honest liar. You're either perfect and holy or you're not perfectly righteous and holy. These states are mutually contra-distinctive and to contend otherwise is appealing to nonsense. Fully God and Fully Man, might be simple to assert, but impossible to prove, due to the fact the premise is self nullifying and refuting. You refute yourself, when you assert such notions.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by YHWH RULES View Post
          Being a man and being God, are two mutually exclusive, ontological states of being. There's no such thing as being both omnipotent and impotent. You're either omniscient and all knowing, or you're not. There's no such thing as being an all knowing ignoramus or a truthful, honest liar. You're either perfect and holy or you're not perfectly righteous and holy. These states are mutually contra-distinctive and to contend otherwise is appealing to nonsense. Fully God and Fully Man, might be simple to assert, but impossible to prove, due to the fact the premise is self nullifying and refuting. You refute yourself, when you assert such notions.
          That's what makes Jesus so amazing.
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
            What did David Wood take out of context?

            Your job is to put the verses into context and explain them.
            The full context can be understood if read from 16:22 to 16:40. The theme is about the excuses humanity comes up with to reject belief in One God. The Quran explains that the root cause of this is arrogance (misplaced pride)...and such people wrong themselves. But there are some who not only wrong themselves...but wrong others who are less knowledgeable, by misleading them. Thus, they not only incur the burden of the wrongdoing against their own souls, but also the burden of the wrongdoing against others they misled. This is because in the Islamic ethical system, blessings/rights from God come with corresponding obligations/responsibilities. Therefore the blessing of intelligence comes with the responsibility of sharing it with others---but to mislead others is wrong.

            16:22
            Your God is One God:
            as to those who beleive not in the hereafter, their hearts refuse to know, and they are arrogant

            23 Undoubtedly God knows what they conceal and what they reveal. Surely he loves not the arrogant.

            24 When it is said to them, what is it that your lord revealed?" they say "tales of the ancients"

            25 That they may bear on the day of Judgement, their own burdens in full, and also (something) of the burdens of those without knowledge, whom they misled. Alas how grievous the burdens they will bear.

            this is contrasted with verse 16:30....

            30 To the righteous when it is said, "what is it your lord has revealed?" they say "All that is good"
            To those who do good, there is good in this world and the home of the hereafter is even better. And excellent indeed is the home of the righteous.

            Comment


            • #51
              If it is not necessary for God to die...then what is the reason/purpose for incarnation?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                That's what makes Jesus so amazing.
                can you elaborate.....

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by siam View Post
                  can you elaborate.....
                  Yes.
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Agreed. If only from a human standpoint. You may be forgetting that with GOD there is nothing that is impossible.

                    In God's divine economy and sovereignty He can cause His Word to incarnate in any form He chooses. That's what the Bible said happened to Christ.


                    Originally posted by YHWH RULES View Post
                    Being a man and being God, are two mutually exclusive, ontological states of being. There's no such thing as being both omnipotent and impotent. You're either omniscient and all knowing, or you're not. There's no such thing as being an all knowing ignoramus or a truthful, honest liar. You're either perfect and holy or you're not perfectly righteous and holy. These states are mutually contra-distinctive and to contend otherwise is appealing to nonsense. Fully God and Fully Man, might be simple to assert, but impossible to prove, due to the fact the premise is self nullifying and refuting. You refute yourself, when you assert such notions.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      If it was not necessary for the descent of the koran, either in recital or printed forms... then what was the purpose for it’s production, destruction and then re-publication, commanded by caliph no.3 but WITHOUT Allah’s sanction?


                      Originally posted by siam View Post
                      If it is not necessary for God to die...then what is the reason/purpose for incarnation?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Your aversion, Siam of the "infidels" scholars of the Koran betrays you and your own closed mind. Here is Ibn Khaldun, a very famous sunnite scholar, historian and historiographer of the koran and hadiths, admitting to the flawed transmission and development of the Qur'an. :-

                        Ibn Khaldun comments on the incompetence of the Arabic scribes & dubious koranic transmission process at the primitive, formative stage of its development :

                        "Arabic writing at the beginning of Islam was, therefore, not of the best quality nor of the greatest accuracy and excellence. It was not even of medium quality, because the Arabs possessed the savage desert attitude and were not familiar with crafts.

                        "One may compare what happened to the orthography of the Qur'an on account of this situation. The men around Muhammad wrote the Qur'an in their own script which was not of a firmly established, good quality. Most of the letters were in contradiction to the orthography required by persons versed in the craft of writing…

                        "Consequently, the Qur'anic orthography of the men around Muhammad was followed and became established, and the scholars acquainted with it have called attention to passages where this is noticeable.

                        "No attention should be paid in this connection with those incompetent (scholars) that the men around Muhammad knew well the art of writing and that the alleged discrepancies between their writing and the principles of orthography are not discrepancies, as has been alleged, but have a reason. For instance, they explain the addition of the alif in la 'adhbahannahU 'I shall indeed slaughter him' as indication that the slaughtering did not take place (lA 'adhbahannahU).

                        The addition of the ya in bi-ayydin 'with hands (power),' they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect. There are similar things based on nothing but purely arbitrary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to (assume such things) is their belief that (their explanations) would free the men around Muhammad from the suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well.They think that good writing is perfection. Thus, they do not admit the fact that the men around Muhammad were deficient in writing."

                        (Muqqadimah, Ibn Khaldun, vol. 2, p.382)

                        Ibn Khaldun is much more honest than you and the other islamic missionary ilk here that are obstinately deaf AND blind.

                        I'll bet you dislike the quote from his famous
                        Muqqadimah above, but u can't resent his honesty re: the flawed Koran ..LOL!




                        Originally posted by siam View Post
                        U say, Dr Carrier's ideas have been challenged....

                        It is good to research and verify claims made by scholars.

                        This also includes claims made by this Dr Wood fellow too...
                        He "claims" things about the Quran---so all one has to do is go read the verses surrounding the quoted verse to verify.

                        has anyone here bothered? ....or because its something you want to believe...you accept it blindly?

                        Comment

                        widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                        Working...
                        X