Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - laloumen

Pages: [1] 2
1

Now let's address some of Final Overture 's points...
 
Quote from:  Final Overture
Are you really in doubt that Psalms 22 is about Jesus?


as I said before, Psalm is not a prophecy,to begin with. It is nothing but an experience by its writer ,an experience that millions others of righteous believers had,they had been exposed to sufferings and been vindicated by God. religious zeal is the only reason to turn such passages into prophecies!.



What is the ground of such an assertion - that "Psalm is not a prophecy" other than merely assertion for the sake of winning an argument?  You're simply trying to eliminate a possibility by defining what a Psalm can be without considering the Psalms themselves.  But the Psalms can indeed be prophetic:

You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.”
(Psalm 2:9)

The above verse is not "nothing but an experience by its writer".  It is a prediction of a future occurrence, i.e. a prophecy.

For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol,
or let your holy one see corruption.
(Psalm 16:10)

How can this verse be "nothing but an experience by its writer"?  The future tense indicates something which has not yet happened.  And, as Peter makes clear in Acts 13, David died and remained dead and buried to that time, and to this time.  So, the statement concerning a future occurrence wasn't about David, himself, but about another.

In place of your fathers shall be your sons;
   you will make them princes in all the earth.
I will cause your name to be remembered in all generations;
   therefore nations will praise you forever and ever.
(Psalm 45:16-17)

This is a beautiful prophecy in Psalm 45.  That is clearly not "an experience by its writer" because it was future and not yet experienced by anyone.

The Lord is at your right hand;
   he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
He will execute judgment among the nations,
   filling them with corpses;
he will shatter chiefs
   over the wide earth.
(Psalm 110:5-6)

Here is another passage which is not "an experience by its writer".  It is clearly a prophecy of judgment. 

So, obviously the Psalms can be prophetic and your reply to Final Overture is bogus.  A Psalm can be or contain prophecy.  This is a simple fact and has nothing to do with "religious zeal" and everything to do with proper exegesis. 

Given this, there is no a priori reason to deny the prophetic nature of Psalm 22.  Final Overture's question is an honest acknowledgement of what ought to be perfectly obvious to everyone familiar with the facts - Psalm 22 is about the crucifixion of Jesus.  What is written there is not something that David personally experienced, in his own life.  There is no point in the life of David when they pierced his hands and feet.  There was never a time when David's garments were divided and men cast lots for his clothing. 

Your calculated rejection of the truth here is nothing more than that - a clear indication of your own dishonesty - as you show yourself willing to trample the obvious underfoot in order to win the argument at any cost.


In Christ,
Jim

2
Jesus didn't meet such qualifications to such predicted king messiah ....
so what does that mean?

for Islam ,no problem at all ,as nothing in the Quran says that Jesus was supposed to fulfill such predictions about the king messiah , actually the very basic prediction  of such messiah (as the seed of king David via Solomon), would exclude the born of a virgin ,Quranic Jesus ....
all that we have in the Quran is that Jesus had a title"the messiah" lots of others had.



It is pretty shocking to me that supposed Muslims are so ignorant of what the Qu'ran says.  To deny the Virgin Birth of Christ is anti-Islam.

The Qu'ran says,

She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched
me and I have not been unchaste?"

He said, "Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for Me,
and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us.
And it is a matter [already] decreed.' "

So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place.
(19:20-22)

But given that this is what the Qu'ran teaches concerning the birth of Christ, what is the reason for the strenuous argumentation against the prophecy given in Isaiah 7:14 --

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.
(Isaiah 7:14)

It's as if you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.  If you are required to believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ then what is the point of denying the prophecy that this would take place??  It is pointless.


In Christ,
Jim

3
In the Bible / Re: Marrying your children???
« on: September 24, 2012, 07:07:12 PM »
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.

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?

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

4
Given that that divinity of Jesus can be easily proven

proven biblicaly or scientifically?

If the first ,Trinity proof text been and still controversial for centuries,hence exaggeration if one say easily proven . equally exaggeration if one say it can be easily disproved.

if the second, it is impossible dream to prove it ,as it is mere an item of faith .

No, it is easy to prove but that is distinguished from persuasion.  People can be stubborn even if the face of overwhelming proof.

Here is a word from the Qu'ran:

And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way)
that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe
in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God
and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender.
(29:46)
 given that the Qu'ran states that "we believe in that what hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you" - that means you are obligated to believe in the divinity of Jesus.  It says, "our God and your God is One" and our God is a Trinity - so where does that leave you, except with a disaster on your hands????


1- The real disaster on your hands ,according to the Quran ,is the horrible punishment waiting those who believe in the trinity !

Holy Quran 5:73 They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.



2- There is nothing in the verse(29:46) to specify the term "people of the book" to only Christians ,but Jews must be included too ...

3- The verse means when it says: "our God and your God is One" , one with no partners .... hence ,indirectly ,attacking the trinity etc.....

Holy Quran 2:163 And your God is One God. There is no god but He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Holy Quran  : Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God.


But the Qu'ran is, in my opinion, not the Word of God.  It has none of the qualities of God's word.  There is nothing to distinguish it from the common writing of a common man. 


Allah addresses all humanity in another verse : Verily, verily, your God is one! Holy Quran 37:4

3- Applying your logic gets you into trouble , Jews don't believe in triune god ,and the new testament claims that the God of the Jews and Christians is one and the same.that means you are obligated to believe in the Non-Triune God of the Jews.
you may claim the Jews are ignorant of the true triune God ,I can argue the same that you are ignorant of the true Non-Triune God . and that should bury your argument forever.


You think that exegesis is like a democratic process or something?  As if the text has no objective meaning?  For instance, when the Scripture says,

The LORD says to my Lord:
   â€œSit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.”
(Psalm 110:1)

who is this "Lord" referred to by David?  Who could be the Lord of the king of Israel?  Jesus used this passage against the Jews and they were not able to answer Him:

Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question,
saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him,
“The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls
him Lord, saying,
   â€œâ€˜The Lord said to my Lord,
   â€œSit at my right hand,
      until I put your enemies under your feet”’?
If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no one was able to answer him a word,
nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.
(Matthew 22:41-46)

How can David call Him Lord knowing that there is one true God?  Simple answer: David had a glimpse of the Trinity which was more fully revealed later.
 

It doesn't seem that there is any reason for the Muslim to reject Christ as the Creator God.


Muslims have lots of reasons to reject Jesus as the Creator God. including the verses that shows his nature as mere a creature ,blaspheming those who think of him as more than a creature ,servant  and prophet ..... and the dozens of the verses affirming it was Allah (his father) is the one and only who is God and who is the creator.


So you just pick and choose which verses suit you instead of understanding them in the sense in which they were meant to be understood.


Given that the Qur'an says "we have believed in what was given to Jesus and the prophets"

you confuse the term "new testament" with "Injeel" .... they are not one and the same ,according to the Qur'an:


Quote from: Egyptian

Injeel ?

1- A revelation was sent to Jesus, as a guidance and light, confirmation yet modifying few items of the Law that had come before him, to make clear to Jews some of the (points) on which they dispute, a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God, verses 5:046,3:50 ,43:63 ...

2 - It HAS TO BE mostly the saying parts of the the synoptic gospels

Holy Quran[007:157] "Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the Torah and the Injil;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."

the Quran though tells that both the books were tampered with(we have exposed that in previous posts),yet most the truth has remained therein .....
the verse is not telling Christians,Jews to go look up a passage (s) in a lost gospel .....

the Injeel is mostly within the new testament .... why mostly? The Quran quotes the Injeel (besides the torah),directly ?

Holy Quran[009:111] God hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Torah, the Injil, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than God?

Holy Quran [048:029] Muhammad is the apostle of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from God and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Injil is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. God has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.

Are such promise & proverb to be found in the Old and New Testament?

if they are not there, then the Saying gospel (which is within the New testament) is missing some parts.....

If the following modifications of the Law were parts of the Injeel, and no mention about them in the saying gospel, then we can be assured of missing parts in the saying gospel that are parts of the Injeel .....

Holy Quran 3:50 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

Holy Quran 43:63 When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me.. that is why I said the Injeel is MOSTLY within the saying gospel ..


The Qur'an (Sura An-Nisa 4:163) states "and to David We gave the Psalms" so Psalm 110 is a problem for you.


In Christ,
Jim

5
welcome Bro Final Overture,to the thread ... 

Such controversy shouldn't bother us even for a minute, as both of their understandings are against Islam ... Jesus neither God the creator nor the channel through whom he caused all the rest of creation to be.
The Islamic Jesus is a by product of the word ,not the word ,and wasn't the entity through whom the universe was created....

Third : The goal of the study is not to prove a Trinitarian reading against a Unitarian one ,neither the opposite ...    but rather to say that BOTH readings are against Islam , and there are no valuable consequences ,to held any of the readings for the truth of Islam .....
I explained before why the question of whether the Bible contains a textual support for the trinity,is of no merit . and should make no difference for Islam or Muslims.


Given that the Qu'ran says "we have believed in what was given to Jesus and the prophets" --

Say, "We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and
what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants,
and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord.
We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting]
to Him."
(3:84)

and that a "prophet from their Lord" said the following concerning Jesus,

But of the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
   the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
   with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."

And,

"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
   and the heavens are the work of your hands;
they will perish, but you remain;
   they will all wear out like a garment,
like a robe you will roll them up,
   like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
   and your years will have no end."
(Hebrews 1:8-12)


It doesn't seem that there is any reason for the Muslim to reject Christ as the Creator God.


In Christ,
Jim

6
To add to the second mistake of confusing ,Is Jesus God? with ,Is Jesus God be biblical?

What if the divinity of Jesus proved to be biblical?
If we suppose that the trinity is biblical ,still that doesn't proof that the trinity is a fact..... Jesus ,according to the bible, atoned with his blood the sinful Christians ,but that doesn't mean it is a fact. Jesus  ,according to the bible, was killed and resurrected from the dead,but that doesn't mean it is a fact.
Our position in Islam is clear . the Quran denies the deity of Jesus ,not whether it is taught in the bible, or not !..
I have contacted some in-experienced Muslims who felt disappointed after reading or listening to the christian materials that argue for the divinity of Jesus as biblical .....
those good ,pious Muslims, been confused and wrongly thought, that if the bible teaches trinity then not only Christianity is true but Islam is false !!!!

Here is a word from the Qu'ran:

And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way)
that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe
in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God
and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender.
(29:46)

Given that that divinity of Jesus can be easily proven, and given that the Qu'ran states that "we believe in that what hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you" - that means you are obligated to believe in the divinity of Jesus.  It says, "our God and your God is One" and our God is a Trinity - so where does that leave you, except with a disaster on your hands????


In Christ,
Jim

7
In the Bible / Re: Marrying your children???
« on: September 23, 2012, 04:55:51 PM »

Wow, you quoted Thomas Paine, the well-known Biblical scholar er Deist er infidel...lol. 


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 .

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.


Sunday church preaching?  Maybe you ought to read the NT? 

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.

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??

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.

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?

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??

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

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

8
In the Bible / Re: Marrying your children???
« on: September 22, 2012, 10:10:54 PM »
second: you wrote :


Do you really not understand?  Maybe these will help:Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].(Isaiah 7:14)

Have you bothered reading the context?  that is the context of Isaiah 7:Thomas Paine explained it well:

"On the death of Solomon the Jewish nation split into two monarchies: one called the kingdom of Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem: the other the kingdom of Israel, the capital of which was Samaria. The kingdom of Judah followed the line of David, and the kingdom of Israel that of Saul; and these two rival monarchies frequently carried on fierce wars against each other.
At the time Ahaz was king of Judah, which was in the time of Isaiah, Pekah was king of Israel; and Pekah joined himself to Rezin, king of Syria, to make war against Ahaz, king of Judah; and these two kings marched a confederated and powerful army against Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed at their danger, and "their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind." Isaiah vii. 3.In this perilous situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord, (the cant phrase of all the prophets,) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to assure him that this should be the case, tells Ahaz to ask a sign of the Lord. This Ahaz declined doing, giving as a reason, that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who pretends to be sent from God, says, ver. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son -- Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and chose the good -- For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and chose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" -- meaning the king of Israel and the king of Syria who were marching against him.Here then is the sign, which was to be the birth of a child, and that child a son; and here also is the time limited for the accomplishment of the sign, namely, before the child should know to refuse the evil and chose the good.The thing, therefore, to be a sign of success to Ahaz, must be something that would take place before the event of the battle then pending between him and the two kings could be known. A thing to be a sign must precede the thing signified. The sign of rain must be before the rain.It would have been mockery and insulting nonsense for Isaiah to have assured Ahaz as a sign that these two kings should not prevail against him, that a child should be born seven hundred years after he was dead, and that before the child so born should know to refuse the evil and choose the good, he, Ahaz, should be delivered from the danger he was then immediately threatened with."

There is nothing about Jesus there, my friend.  you have been victimized by the Sunday church preaching that such passages "and others" were predicting Jesus....

more exposition on such so called virgin birth prophecy and the all of the conjectural messianic prophecies are soon to be refuted and dashed to pieces in my thread :

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,27.0.html

Wow, you quoted Thomas Paine, the well-known Biblical scholar er Deist er infidel...lol. 

There is certainly a shadow or type involved in the prophecy to Ahaz.  However, language is employed which, while being partially applicable to the immediate event, receives its fullest, most appropriate, and exhaustive accomplishment in Messianic events.  What Paine ignores is the merely limited sense in which the prophecy is fulfilled in Ahaz' time which cannot possibly exhaust the significance.  Paine, like you, accepts the shadow of a thing but then denies the thing which casts the shadow.

Sunday church preaching?  Maybe you ought to read the NT?

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way.
When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph,
before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
[...]
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
   and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us).
(Matthew 1:18,22-23)

So, given that Matthew explains Isaiah's prophecy in terms of the birth of Jesus, why would anyone accept that you and/or Thomas Paine know better??  Why should anyone believe you??

And, I just read through your "exposition" - you really give yourself far too much credit.  "Dashed to pieces" ??  Seriously??  I didn't see anything that made so much as a scratch. 

I noted that you and Bro Final Overture beginning the futile debate "is the trinity biblical" , and so I feel you need both to read the following thread ,in order to save your times for a fruitful debate....

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,71.0.html

peace for all.

Yeah, I read that one too.  You've got a lot to learn.  There is much more to the question that you realize.  You want to accept parts of the Bible, to pick and choose which ones suit you - To take your Jeffersonian scissors and make something in your own image, after your own likeness.  But in trying to do this, you've already ended up as a wreck alongside the path.

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.  As I said above, you've acknowledged the shadow of a thing but denied the thing which casts the shadow. 


In Christ,
Jim

9
In the Bible / Re: Marrying your children???
« on: September 22, 2012, 09:22:24 PM »
Quote
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].
(Isaiah 7:14)
Immanuel - God with us. And?
Elisha - God is my salvation
Eliakim - God rises
Eleazar - My God has helped
Eliab - My God is Father
Gedaliah - God is great
Ishmael - God hears

Umm, ok, so the point escapes you completely?  Perhaps the following verse will be helpful:

For to us a child is born,
   to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
   and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, **Mighty God**,
   Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
(Isaiah 9:6)

Your original question was, "if He was eternal, how could He die?"  To which the obvious answer is, He couldn't without taking to Himself a human nature.  That is why He, the Creator of the entire universe, joined Himself to a human nature, in order to become like us in every respect - yet without sin - in order to die for the sins of a people.  And, in his humanity clearly He could die.  That's not hard to understand, is it??

Quote
And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
Well...
Exodus 3:14: I AM (ὁ ὤν) has sent..
John 8:58: Before Abraham was, I am (ἐγώ εἰμι)...
Different phrase.

Not necessarily - considering that Jesus wasn't speaking Greek with the Jewish leaders and neither was the OT written in Greek originally. 

In your refusal, though, to see the relation of John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14, you miss the obvious - that Jesus claimed to exist before Abraham was born.  And, given that the assertion is in the present tense the significance of it ought to be clear to you (since you apparently know Greek).  Given that the Aktionsart of the Greek present tense is not primarily a time reference but a matter of continuation, the proposition is a claim to perpetual life - of an eternal existence - exactly as Exodus 3:14.  If you have enough Greek to understand that, then your objection is basically futile, since the idea of both verses is of continuous essential existence.  Thus, even though you may quibble at the apparent formal difference in the verses in the Greek, the underlying essential identity is impossible to refute.  However, you don't even seem to have grasped the first point, that Jesus claimed to have a perpetual life, for whatever reason. ;-)

Quote
Huh?  Why should they?
Because they do? Psalms 97:5 The mountains melt like wax before the LORD (Judges 5:5)

Quote
However, the mountains and indeed all the earth will melt before Him when He returns to judge the world,
So, that's when he will become God?

Uhh, no.  You're too clever by half. 

In Christ,
Jim

10
In the Bible / Re: Marrying your children???
« on: September 22, 2012, 02:18:02 PM »
Quote
There was a Savior.  He was the one sitting on the throne.  He is eternal and there is no future nor past to Him.  His death on the cross was before Him and He applied the benefit of that to Isaiah. 
If He is eternal, how could He die?

Do you really not understand?  Maybe these will help:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].
(Isaiah 7:14)

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
(John 1:1)

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,
and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only
Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
(John 1:14)

Quote
Look closer: Jesus is King of kings and Lord of Lords.  (Rev 19:16)

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
(John 8:58)
One can easily prove that he is not the King of Kings, but later.
What do you think "before Abraham was, I am" means? You think that means he is God?

It is an unambiguous reference to

And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
(Exodus 3:14)



Quote
Look again: Isaiah saw the Lord in glory, seated on a throne.  John tells us that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, and wrote of Him. (John 12:41).

So, you compare Isaiah 6:1 to John 12:41?

Of course, the comparison is unavoidable. 

Answer on these:
Psalms 97:5 «The mountains melt like wax before the LORD»
Amos 9:5 «The Lord GOD of hosts, he who touches the earth and it melts»
Nahum 1:5 «The mountains quake before him; the hills melt; the earth heaves before him, the world and all who dwell in it.»

Did mountains or hills melt before Jesus?

Huh?  Why should they?  His purpose in coming wasn't to destroy but to save:

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but in order that the world might be saved through him.
(John 3:17)

However, the mountains and indeed all the earth will melt before Him when He returns to judge the world,

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief,
and then the heavens will pass away with a roar,
and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved,
and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
(2 Peter 3:10)

That day is coming, when every knee will be forced to bow before Him and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,
"As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God."
(Romans 14:10-11)

at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth
and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:9-11)

Declare and present your case;
   let them take counsel together!
Who told this long ago?
   Who declared it of old?
Was it not I, the LORD?
   And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
   there is none besides me.
"Turn to me and be saved,
   all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn;
   from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
   a word that shall not return:
'To me every knee shall bow,
   every tongue shall swear allegiance.'"
(Isaiah 45:21-23)

And on that day, the mountains will melt and the hills be burned up,

when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty
angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do
not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of
our Lord Jesus.
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-8)

That day is coming, make no mistake about it.  And all those who reject the Lord Jesus Christ will be cast into hell for all eternity.

In Christ,
Jim

11
In the Bible / Re: Marrying your children???
« on: September 22, 2012, 11:27:49 AM »

Quote
It's not clear what your point is.


Some sins were forgiven, even though there was no savior.


There was a Savior.  He was the one sitting on the throne.  He is eternal and there is no future nor past to Him.  His death on the cross was before Him and He applied the benefit of that to Isaiah. 


Quote
You know that he [Jesus Christ] appeared in order
to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
(1 John 3:5)


Why did he break the Sabbath day, then?

He didn't break the Sabbath.  He corrected the misunderstanding of the Jews.


Quote
And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips,
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!
"
(Isaiah 6:5 ESV)

Thus, here is a declaration of the Deity of Christ - Isaiah calls him Jehovah and John says that Isaiah saw Christ's glory and spoke of HIM.  Thus, the efficacy of the burning coal is in the certain foreknowledge of Christ's own work by Him.

Hm, really? I don't find Jesus there. Look closely: "for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"

Look closer: Jesus is King of kings and Lord of Lords.  (Rev 19:16)

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
(John 8:58)


And the very first verse: In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple.
John lived at the time of King Uzziah?

Look again: Isaiah saw the Lord in glory, seated on a throne.  John tells us that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, and wrote of Him. (John 12:41). 


In Christ,
Jim

12
In the Bible / Re: Marrying your children???
« on: September 22, 2012, 09:29:52 AM »
Wow, really? Let's see:
Psalms 145:8 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
2 Thessalonians 1:6 God is just
And
Isaiah 6:6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for".

It's not clear what your point is.  The first two verses are clear and simple but the latter verse clearly shows the need of an atonement. 

You know that he [Jesus Christ] appeared in order
to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
(1 John 3:5)

The types and foreshadowings of the OT pointed to, looked forward to, the work of Christ.  Those things did not have efficacy in and of themselves but only by virtue of their connection with Christ's sacrifice. 

Then one of the seraphim flew to me,
having in his hand a burning coal that he
had taken with tongs from the altar.
And he touched my mouth and said:
"Behold, this has touched your lips;
your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."
(Isaiah 6:6-7)

This does not mean, that the fire from the altar had any physical effect to purify him from sin, but that it was emblematic of such a purifying; and probably, also, the fact that it was taken from the altar of sacrifice, was to him an indication that he was pardoned through the “atonement,” or expiation there made. The Jews expected pardon in no other mode than by sacrifice; and the offering on their altar pointed to the great sacrifice which was to be made on the cross for the sins of human beings. There is here a beautiful union of the truths respecting sacrifice. The great doctrine is presented that it is only by sacrifice that sin can be pardoned; and the Messiah, the sacrifice himself, is exhibited as issuing the commission to Isaiah to go and declare his message to people.

And, as a matter of interest to Muslims, John writes that what Isaiah saw was the preincarnate Christ:

Isaiah said these things because he saw his [Christ's] glory and spoke of him.
(John 12:41)

where Isaiah wrote:

And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips,
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
(Isaiah 6:5 ESV)

Thus, here is a declaration of the Deity of Christ - Isaiah calls him Jehovah and John says that Isaiah saw Christ's glory and spoke of HIM.  Thus, the efficacy of the burning coal is in the certain foreknowledge of Christ's own work by Him.

This is all straightforward.  However, it merely points out the utter lack of an atonement in Islam.  And, without an atonement, Allah cannot be righteous under Islam and forgive sins.  In order to be merciful, Allah must simply **ignore** the guilt of the guilty, and this makes Allah unrighteous in being merciful.  Thus, the Islamic view of God is false.

In Christ,
Jim

13
In the Bible / Re: Marrying your children???
« on: September 21, 2012, 07:44:02 PM »

"But, to make things very simple, forgiveness is not possible in Islam - God cannot be merciful to you without being unjust.  How can God forgive you for your sin without ignoring your guilt?  And, if God ignores your guilt, God is unjust.  You need a Savior!  You need to turn from your sin to the Lord, because in Him there is forgiveness, through His death on the cross on your behalf.  In this way, God is both merciful and just.  "

"God cannot be merciful without being unjust." Says who? Are you God?

The fact that you are alive even after making that statement is the whole reason why God is merciful.


The problem is that in order for Allah to remain perfectly just and righteous, sin must be punished. If all men are sinful and have committed sin, and Allah is infinite and perfect in his attributes, there can be no mercy. For mercy then would function as a negation of his justice. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that in order for Allah to be both merciful (in the Quranic sense of ignoring the sins of some) and just, he must be an arbitrary and changing being - which is to say, that God, in the Islamic conception of God, does not and cannot exist.

Christianity does not have this problem.

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had
passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time,
so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
(Romans 3:22-26)

Here is no arbitrary God!  Here is a God who is righteous and merciful.  He is **both** JUST and the ONE WHO JUSTIFIES those who place their trust in Christ. 

Here is reason to trust in Christ!!

Think about it.

In Christ,
Jim

14
In the Bible / Re: Marrying your children???
« on: September 21, 2012, 07:26:42 PM »
Peace be upon you Jim,

Do you honestly believe that putting someone like Jesus Christ on the cross for 3 hours only, - a person who was able to fast for 40 days without eating anything, - and expect him to die?

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

First, you need to get your facts straight!  Jesus was not only three hours on the cross.  Mark wrote:

And it was the third hour when they crucified him.
(Mark 15:25)

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
"Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God,
my God, why have you forsaken me?'
(Mark 15:34)

That is six hours.  And that was on top of the scourging and other abuse which obviously caused Him to lose a tremendous amount of blood.

Isaiah wrote of Him (about 700 years earlier) that

his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,
and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—
(Isaiah 52:14)

The type of beating to which Jesus was subjected was so severe that at times people would not even live through it to be crucified.  But Jesus did survive, as we read, and did go on to be crucified, although he collapsed while carrying the cross from the beating and the loss of blood. 

You haven't apparently bothered to do any independent thinking on this - I suppose you're just parroting what others have said without really thinking.  Be that as it may, I still need to answer your question/objection. 

The simple fact is that the Lord Jesus **willingly** laid down His life --

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.
I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.
This charge I have received from my Father.
(John 10:18)

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished,"
and he bowed his head and **gave up his spirit**.
(John 19:30)

Why should He suffer beyond what was necessary to complete the work set out for Him to accomplish?  For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  But those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

He was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
(Isaiah 53:5)

He was not pierced for His own transgressions, as He had committed none.  He was not crushed for His own iniquities, as He had none.  He was crushed for the transgressions of others, as a Substitute - and when the penalty for those transgressions had been fully borne, He cried "it is finished" and gave up His Spirit.  Should he suffer needlessly?  So when His work was accomplished, He allowed Himself to die.

Peace be upon you Jim,

And again, the NT is clear that Christ was ALIVE in the tomb.  Listen to the debate, and please respond to Dr. Zakir Naik's points, directly.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

First, the NT is clear that He died and was dead when He was laid in the tomb.  If you think that those Roman soldiers couldn't tell when a person was dead, you're sadly mistaken.  How many deaths had they witnessed do you suppose?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  They were perfectly capable of telling when a man was dead, as we read:

But when they came to Jesus and saw that **he was already dead**,
they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side
with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
(John 19:33-34)

The piercing of the side of Christ obviously penetrated to the heart and the fact that water and blood came out is clear proof that he was already dead. 

But, in saying that the NT is clear that Christ was ALIVE in the tomb is patently ridiculous.  I suppose you will bring up Jonah at this point?  I will just be blunt - Dr. Naik's arguments are genuinely dumb.  But, if you're so keen on trying to prove your point, feel free to post what you think is the best of his arguments and we can discuss it.


In Christ,
Jim

15
In the Bible / Re: Marrying your children???
« on: September 17, 2012, 08:43:30 PM »
The verse doesn't say anything about barrenness in general.  It speaks specifically of the possibility of children for those two sinners.  God's judgment is that they will not have children from their relationship.  I'm not sure why you're harping on this text so much.  It's not complicated.  Even if you could demonstrate a case in which their was such a union producing children, besides merely **supposing** what you want to prove, it doesn't mean anything because the verse could just mean that the children would not be counted as children under the Mosaic law.

But, that God does render such judgment is clear from Scripture.  For instance, David's child with Bathsheba was not permitted to live:

But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again?
I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.
(2 Samuel 12:23)

and the woman of Thyatira spoken of in Rev 2,

and I will strike her children dead.
(Revelation 2:23)

This has nothing to do with becoming barren, necessarily.  There are other ways to be childless, as is seen above. 

But it is clear that this verse doesn't even remotely support your assertion, that "the Bible in Leviticus 20:21 allows for parents to marry their children!"  Your logic is simply atrocious - actually, no, there is no logic in what you say - you simply make an assertion with no support at all. 

I don't know if you read Greek but I do - or if you simply naively accept what you hear but I don't.  The word ἐγείρω transliterated EGEIRW can mean to resurrect, as in the following verses: Mat 11:11, Mat 12:42, Mat 14:2, Mat 24:7, Mat 24:11, Mat 26:32, Mat 26:46, Mat 27:63, Mat 27:64, Mat 28:6, Mat 28:7, Mar 4:27, Mar 6:14, Mar 6:16, Mar 10:49, Mar 12:26, Mar 13:8, Mar 13:22, Mar 14:28, Mar 14:42, Mar 16:6, Mar 16:14, Luk 5:23, Luk 6:8, Luk 7:16, Luk 9:7, Luk 11:8, Luk 11:31, Luk 13:25, Luk 21:10, Luk 24:6, Luk 24:34, Joh 2:22, Joh 5:8, Joh 13:4, Joh 21:14, Rom 8:34, 1Co 15:4, 1Co 15:12, 1Co 15:13, 1Co 15:14, 1Co 15:15, 1Co 15:16, 1Co 15:20, 1Co 15:29, 1Co 15:32, 2Co 5:15, Rev 11:1.

In addition to EGEIRW, the Bible commonly uses ANASTASIS in such phrases as ἀναστασις ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν (ANASTASIS EK TWN NEKRWN) resurrection from the dead, and speaks of Christ's resurrection from the dead.  For instance,

And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
(Acts 4:33 ESV)

In addition, the word EGEIRW and ANASTATIS are used synonymously, as in the following:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead,
how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
(1 Cor 15:12)

The logic is clear - that if Christ is raised from the dead, then there is a resurrection from the dead.  This statement requires that being raised from the dead is the same as the resurrection from the dead.  So, there is simply no force whatsoever to Dr. Zakir's ludicrous attempts to prove his point from the Bible.  It is a laughable argument which deceives only those who do not take the time to think for themselves.

And where is your response about the impossibility of God being both righteous and merciful in Islam?  It is a crushing fact, no doubt, but I had hoped you would pose some sort of defense.

In Christ,
Jim Beale

Pages: [1] 2

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube