MAIN BOARD (You must register to post) > In the Bible

Marrying your children???

<< < (6/6)

laloumen:

--- Quote from: Egyptian on September 23, 2012, 10:24:57 AM ---
--- Quote from: laloumen on September 22, 2012, 10:10:54 PM ---
Wow, you quoted Thomas Paine, the well-known Biblical scholar er Deist er infidel...lol. 
--- End quote ---


Whom would you like me to quote instead ,Farrell till (the well-known ex christian missionary ) ? or the rest of all non christian bible scholars ,including Jewish titans scholars in the old testament? who ALL refuted the pathetic messianic exegesis of Matthew and other writers of the new testament... 

laloumen, you already know that making sense,sometimes, doesn't require one to held a specific religion .... also bible scholarship doesn't force one to be a christian .

--- End quote ---

You can quote whomever you please, it doesn't matter to me.  I debated Farrell Till years ago and found his arguments to be "substandard" and his person execrable. 

I would suggest Hengstenberg, _Christology of the Old Testament_, as a palliative to all the pathetic non-Messianic exegesis.  His arguments are crisp and clear and utterly conclusive in favor of the Messianic interpretation.  Indeed, anyone with eyes can see that the Messianic message is the primary thread that runs through the OT from Gen 3:15 to Malachi 3.  The simple fact of this primary purpose of the OT makes any non-Messianic interpretation of a passage such as Isaiah 7:14 obviously biased and questionable.  And the fact that Matthew outright states that the prophecy is fulfilled in the birth of the Messiah removes all doubt.  If Matthew's statement was all there was, it would be enough to remove all doubt.  But there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it could not have been fulfilled in any other person.  So, there really can be no doubt about the passage at all.



--- Quote from: Egyptian on September 23, 2012, 10:24:57 AM ---
--- Quote from: laloumen on September 22, 2012, 10:10:54 PM ---Sunday church preaching?  Maybe you ought to read the NT? 
--- End quote ---

The problem is not reading the passage of Matthew ,but to understand it without a preconceived idea that it holds the ultimate truth. sadly Matthew wrote his flawed exegesis and The Church and its members have swallowed it completely.

--- End quote ---

Your claim that Matthew's exegesis is flawed is more than arrogant, as if Matthew didn't personally know the Lord and His mother and the fully story of His birth and the affirmation of the account from the Lord Himself.  You seriously expect anyone to believe you when you have no support for your ideas AT ALL - except some claims to the contrary without exegetical support.  It is laughable.  Again, why should anyone believe you given that you haven't given the slightest support for your assertion?  Especially when it is flat out contradicted by the writing of a man who knew the Lord personally and walked with Him for years!  Isn't your position simply the epitome of arrogance??


--- Quote from: Egyptian on September 23, 2012, 10:24:57 AM ---
--- Quote from: laloumen on September 22, 2012, 10:10:54 PM --- You ought to take your own advice - in accepting the words of Isaiah but giving them an impossible twist, you've already doomed your effort to failure.

--- End quote ---

why don't we let our readers judge that ? I invite them and you to take a look at my throughly refutation of te so called virgin-birth prophecy...... there they will find out about "the impossible twist of the writer of Matthew"  and his doomed failure to convince the rational reader of his messianic agenda.

there in the bottom of the page:


http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,27.msg817.html#msg817

If you would like to debate the \theme, it has to be there  ....  I will ignore any of your posts ,if you post here not there .... and any post there without quoting me.....

don't forget that we should respect the reader who come to learn something , avoiding the off-topic issues as much as possible.....  it is awful for a visitor of a thread about "marrying your children" to find off-topic messianic prophecies.... right?

--- End quote ---

I should say that I wasn't the one who took things off topic.  Osama Abdallah decided it was ok to post some video about whether Christ died on the cross in the original thread.  If you guys don't care to stay on topic in a single thread, why should I care??


--- Quote from: Egyptian on September 23, 2012, 10:24:57 AM ---again my link ,and re-invitation to debate me ,there not here, a civil objective debate on the messianic prophecies (I already refuted your argument there).... 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,27.msg817.html#msg817

you have no excuses to ignore debating me,isn't it?

all the best

--- End quote ---

No problem at all.  That's why I'm here.  So far I haven't see anything resembling a cogent argument but I suppose one might crop up somewhere along the line. ;-)


In Christ,
Jim Beale

Final Overture:

--- Quote ---Messianic message is the primary thread that runs through the OT from Gen 3:15 to Malachi 3.  The simple fact of this primary purpose of the OT makes any non-Messianic interpretation of a passage such as Isaiah 7:14 obviously biased and questionable.  And the fact that Matthew outright states that the prophecy is fulfilled in the birth of the Messiah removes all doubt.  If Matthew's statement was all there was, it would be enough to remove all doubt.  But there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it could not have been fulfilled in any other person.  So, there really can be no doubt about the passage at all.
--- End quote ---

May I ask you then about this "prophecy", which Matthew referred to Jesus?
Matthew 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Matthew refers to Hosea 11
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him,
    and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called,
    the more they went away from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals
    and they burned incense to images.
3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
    taking them by the arms;
but they did not realize
    it was I who healed them.

Was Jesus a worshipper of Baals?

laloumen:

--- Quote from: Final Overture on September 24, 2012, 07:46:08 AM ---
--- Quote ---Messianic message is the primary thread that runs through the OT from Gen 3:15 to Malachi 3.  The simple fact of this primary purpose of the OT makes any non-Messianic interpretation of a passage such as Isaiah 7:14 obviously biased and questionable.  And the fact that Matthew outright states that the prophecy is fulfilled in the birth of the Messiah removes all doubt.  If Matthew's statement was all there was, it would be enough to remove all doubt.  But there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it could not have been fulfilled in any other person.  So, there really can be no doubt about the passage at all.
--- End quote ---

May I ask you then about this "prophecy", which Matthew referred to Jesus?
Matthew 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Matthew refers to Hosea 11
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him,
    and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called,
    the more they went away from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals
    and they burned incense to images.
3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
    taking them by the arms;
but they did not realize
    it was I who healed them.

Was Jesus a worshipper of Baals?

--- End quote ---

What kind of question is that?  Have you heard of typology?  Israel is a type of Christ however the sense is that Christ is true Israel, true to God in contrast to Israel.

Here one ought to note the Qu'ran which states:

He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord,
that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.
(19:19)

In your zeal to denigrate Christ, you violate the bounds of your own Qu'ran which ascribes sinlessness to Christ.

I'm sure Allah would forgive you if there was any way for him to do so...but sadly there is not.

In Christ,
Jim

Final Overture:

--- Quote ---What kind of question is that?
--- End quote ---
What kind of answer is that?

--- Quote ---In your zeal to denigrate Christ, you violate the bounds of your own Qu'ran which ascribes sinlessness to Christ.
--- End quote ---
I am not denigrating Christ, wow. This prophecy turns Jesus into worshipper of Baals. Did Matthew got everything wrong?

19:19 He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy."

RamziBinNabil:
Jim, firstly, the God of Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) is Allah too. Proof is that 2000 years back, English did not even exists. It only came into existence in 1066 after the Normans invaded the Saxons, which was more than one a mellinium and a half after Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was alive. If you do further on him, you would discover that the language he spoke was Aramaic, which is relevantly similar to modern-day Hebrew and modern-day Arabic. Almighty God's name in Aramaic is Allah, and you could even look it up if you do not believe me. Even Arab Christians and Jews say Allah when mentioning God. For proof, go to any hotel or motel on the planet. In the drawer beside the bed, what do you find? A Bible. Flip about six or eight pages and you will find a list of the languages that they are translating the Bible into, and there is a small sample beside each language. It goes by alphabetical order, starting with the Afrikaans language first and then going on to Arabic. The sample is extracted from the Gospel of John (peace and blessings be upon him), chapter 3, verse 16, and beside the Arabic translation it reads: "And for Allah so loved the world...", with the word Allah replacing the word God. Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was not even called Jesus. He was called `Īsā. Most of the words we use today were not even used at the time of Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him). For example, Job was 'Ayyūb, Abraham was 'Ībrāhīm, Moses was Mūsā and Joseph was called Yūsuf. Even if you go to Israel or anywhere else and meet some Jews, they will tell you this is right. 
Secondly, regarding Jesus Christ (peace and blessings be upon him) being crucified or not; Muslims believe that Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was never crucified but a look alike of him was instead. Hence, we do not believe that he rose three days later. We believe that God the Almighty raised him up to Himself and before the Day of Judgement, as our Prophet (may Almighty God bless him and grant him peace) prophesized, God will make him reappear and all people would follow one religion. Before carrying on, just avoid misunderstandings, for I swear we love and respect Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) and follow his commandments more than you do. Just from reading your message one could differ that you are one that understands in religion and had read the Bible. 
Although it is one of the six pillars of faith for us to believe in all holy books that Almighty God had descended, we Muslims do not believe in the Bible we have nowadays as it had been changed and fabricated many times. This is not my opinion by the way. A man named FF Bruce, a Bible scholar, mentions in all of his books: "We do not have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of any of the original manuscripts of the Bible." He even became and atheist after he discovered this. Not just the Bible, but the holy book of the Jews, the Torah, as well as all other holy scriptures save the Noble Qur'an have experienced a great number of fabrications and alliterations. Thus, we Muslims only rely on the Noble Qur'an and consider it to be the exact and unchanged Word of God ever since it's revelation. Proof is that ever since the Noble Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), a large sum of Muslims have memorized the Noble Qur'an, resulting to if anybody were to try and change even a single letter in the Noble Qur'an, it would be clearly noticeable. And in case you were wondering, yes, throughout the years, many have tried and failed to forge and change the Noble Qur'an. Nowadays, approximately 10 million Muslims worldwide know the whole Qur'an by heart. On the other hand, not a single Christian or Jew have memorized their holy scripture. Anyway, back to the subject. So I will, God willing, give you evidence from the Bible itself that Jesus (peace be upon him) could not have been crucified or killed. Keep in mind that anything I might draw out of the Bible is not necessarily the Muslim perspective. The Noble Qur'an states, "That they (the wrong-doers) said (in boast), 'We killed the Christ Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah (God)';- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [or it appeared so unto them], and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah (God) raised him up unto Himself; and Allah (God) is Exalted in Power, Wise." [4:157]
The word "crucify" means to put to death by nailing or binding on to a cross or crucifix. In other words, a person must die on the cross to be crucified, if so does not occur, then he was not crucified. A writing that describes the life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon him) is called a Gospel. Judas, being the most trusted disciple doing the will of Jesus (peace be upon him), made the Christian Gnostic (Knowledge) Gospel describing the true life of Jesus (peace be upon him) which tell us that Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) was never crucified. However, it was burned by the Church Fathers in the year 325 at the Council of Nicaea and they claimed that Judas was a betrayer. This Gospel was rediscovered in the Egyptian town of Naj Hammadi by a peasant in 1945. If Jesus (peace be upon him) was not crucified and had not died then there could not have been any resurrection. A famous scholar also agreed that there was no evidence of crucifixion in the Gospel. He stated, "If you are looking for texts that depict the act of nailing persons to a cross you will not find any in the Gospels." In addition, according to Gunnar Samuelsson of Gothenburg University, the story of Jesus' execution is based on Christian traditions and artistic illustrations, and not antique texts. This is mentioned in doctoral thesis under the name of "Crucifixion in Antiquity - An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion". "The problem is descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature," said Samuelsson in an interview with the UK Daily Telegraph. "The sources where you would expect to find support for the established understanding of the event really don't say anything." 
Now let us discuss with regard to proofs from the Bible. As mentioned before, to be crucified, one must die on the cross. Jesus (peace be upon him) was put on the cross and brought down in only 3 hours. Only 3 hours is almost impossible for any person to die on a cross. Therefore, Jesus (peace be upon him) was alive. In addition, when he was bought down from the cross, his two cross mates were alive proving that Jesus (peace be upon him) was alive too. Also the legs of Jesus (peace be upon him) were not broken. What use is a broken leg to a dead man? Proving that he was alive. The stone was removed and the winding sheets were unwound proving that Jesus (peace be upon him) was alive. Keep in mind that Jesus (peace be upon him) was disguised as a gardener because he was trying to be saved from the Jews. This too indicates that he was alive at the time. When Mary Magdalene went to touch Jesus (peace be upon him), he said, "Touch me not". He was alive but in pain. The disciples had even heard from Mary Magdalene that Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was alive. Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "I have not yet ascended unto my father." That means he was not dead. In the upper room Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) showed his hands and feet to prove that he was not a spirit and that he was alive. The disciples were all overjoyed to see him as they thought that he was dead and in the spirit form. There were all happy to see him because he was alive. Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) consumed broiled fish and honeycomb to prove that he was alive. All these points are from the Bible proving that Jesus (peace be upon him) had not been crucified. These are not just random statements taken out of context.
Thirdly, do you know which is the most accurate existing Bible? It is the Gospel of Barnabas, which was claimed to have been written by Barnabas, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ (peace and blessings be upon him). However, this Bible was banned to be copied. I was shocked to hear this on an all-Christian forum and was willing to discover why. The answer might not be what you expected though. Anyway, before carrying on any further, just keep in mind that none of this am I making up from my head.
I do not want to take up much of your time, so this is just a summary. From the Gospel of Barnabas two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century and written respectively in the Italian and in Spanish languages. With regards to the Spanish manuscript, it is now lost, with it's text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript. The Italian manuscript on the other hand houses 222 chapters. One of the main reasons contributing to the banning of this Gospel is that in some key respects, the Gospel of Barnabas conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and completely contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity. For example, it generally resonates better with existing Muslim views and beliefs than with Christianity as it foretells the coming of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) by name, and rather than describing the crucifixion of the Messiah (peace be upon him), it describes him being raised up into heaven like the description of Prophet Elijah (peace be upon him) in 2 Kings. In addition, it refers to Jesus (peace be upon him) as a prophet whose objective was restricted to the house of Israel. Muslim teaching states with assurance that the prophetic Gospel delivered through Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) has been corrupted and fabricated as we have mentioned in the previous message. Thus no reliance can be placed on any text in the Christian tradition (including the four canonical gospels of the Christian New Testament) as truly representing the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him). Since from an Islamic perspective, the Gospel of Barnabas is obviously a Christian work as it is demonstrated by its many differences from the Noble Qur'an, it too may be expected to have experienced distortion and undergone a number of fabrications. Consequently, not a single Muslim writer or scholar accepts the Gospel of Barnabas as transmitting the original and authentic Gospel revealed to Jesus (peace be upon him) and very few deny that the known Italian text contains substantial elements of late fabrication and alteration. Nevertheless, Muslim writers are gratified to note those elements of the Gospel of Barnabas that do accord with Qur'anic teaching, such as the denial of Christ (peace be upon him) being Son of God and the prophetic prediction by Jesus (peace be upon him) describing the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore, Muslims regard these specific elements and details as representing the survival of suppressed early traditions of the Messiah (peace be upon him) much more compatible with Islam. 
I swear to God even when I discovered that I was not even expected anything like that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version