No Evidence for No Christ at the Cross - Big Problem for Muslims
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon
The disciples simply reported what appeared to happen: it looked for all the world as if Jesus was crucified, the disciples weren't there because they all forsook Jesus with the possible exception of John, who claimed to be on the scene despite another gospel reporting that they ALL fled or viewed the crucifixion from a distance.
That's right the person they spent 40 days with whom they had spent 3 years with clearly indicated to them he had died on the cross as is well documented in the gospel accounts, including John's presence at the cross with Mary and the mother of Jesus.
And I am not aware of another gospel from the first century that taught that ALL fled including John, and you don't seem to be able to produce any.
Quote:
The Quran acknowledges that it appeared that the Jews fulfilled their desire to have Jesus crucified, but it denies the reality of their boasted accomplishment. Even Jesus said "no man takes my life..." and Paul also wrote about what was UNSEEN taking place on the cross being of much importance rather than focusing on what was seen. (things like "our old man was crucified..." "the likeness of sinful flesh was condemned" "the writ of our transgressions was nailed to the cross" "enmity to the Law was slain on the cross")
The Scriptures report the non-believing Jews wanted to make sure the body stayed dead. Jesus could only say no man takes His life because He is God. Only God can make such a statement. No man can assure that for himself unless that man was fully man and fully God. As for Paul valuing the unseen effect of what is taking place on the cross that is Paul confirming the gospel message he received from the original Apostles that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world.
Quote:
By the time, Muhammad (saw) was born, Christianity had devolved to a religion claiming forgiveness for continued sins with a perpetual sacrifice of Jesus being re-enacted daily in the Mass. The Quran shifted any emphasis AWAY from Christianity's faulty presentation of the ministry of Jesus by simply denying that the Jews had accomplished their desire to kill Jesus.
There is no re-enacted daily sacrifice by Christians. You're referring to the Roman Catholic Church which of course is the great harlot in Rev. 17 that rides the beast and makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8), influencing the nations, but shall be destroyed one day according to 17.16. It's interesting to me that the Malachy Prophecy says this last pope will spell the destruction of the Vatican of religious Rome similar to the Jews who deep down inside know they killed their Messiah and have endured great hardship for their unfaithfulness. The Jewish community tell Pilate, "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). But sadly people don't listen to their own conscience, for they love their flesh too much.
Jesus died once and for all, covering the sins of those before Him and after Him. The cross is eternal in its effect, but physically only took place once. Christians do not accept the breaking of bread is actually the body of Christ. Rather, we do this in remembrance as Jesus said to do. Surely you can open your eyes a little bit to see that.
Your misunderstanding of the bread and judging those who misuse it doesn't help your argument because Christians don't hold that view of the bread. All the evidence we have in the earliest texts as the testimony of the Apostles is that the Jews did kill Jesus. If you wanted to suggest otherwise, you would need some evidence, not by altering the meaning of breaking bread. You come up empty handed in your argument. Try something else if you like.
Quote:
who told you that? it is universally acknowledged that 1John 5:7 (KJV) was inserted into the Greek manuscripts in the 16th century AD and was never found in any Greek manuscript prior to that time.
I hear it all the time especially from a leading scholar on textual criticism the formidable Daniel B. Wallace, http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/ Youtube him and hear him speak on the subject.
If a person grants 1 John 5.7 was added then take it out. The Trinity still remains intact in many other passages that are consistent in all manuscripts.
Quote:
There are other verses that have been altered as well, mostly in an effort to support Trinity/Deity of Christ doctrine that the church considered to be more important than anything in Scripture.
You could take out all such verses, assuming you were right, and the doctrines would still remain in dozens of other passages. You see you are trying to remove passages that agree with the doctrine already established which doesn't help you in any case anyway.
Quote:
they weren't deceived: they reported exactly what they believed to have happened, exactly what appeared to take place.
Since you admit the Apostles were not deceived then they were correct in reporting they had seen Jesus alive from the dead, touched him, talked with him, walked with him and ate with him. Therefore, you are in the wrong faith, but you need the humility to accept it as God desires to save you.
Quote:
The NT records very little of what Jesus said to his disciples after he reappeared amongst them. There are other early Christian writings (Nag Hammadi) that do quote Jesus extensively, in which he foretells how many would leave the faith which he initiated, but that his teachings would be completed by someone like him who was yet to come. (Coptic Apocalypse of Peter)
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html
Read through Christian history and see just what he foretold has taken place, but Christianity has yet to realize that the Prophet Muhammad was sent to complete the teachings began by Jesus.
There is quite a bit what Jesus said to His disciples and no more than that is needed. We have a Bible that is the perfect size of 66 books covering a long history by 40 writers over 1500 years. Everything is as it should be. The Nag Hammadi is not Christian writings to teach that person can lose salvation for the Bible clearly teaches a person who is born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). You can see why other texts are not included in God's word; even so they would not be included anyway because the Bible was completed with the book of Revelation around 95 AD about end-times. It is a perfect work. Nag Hammadi is unable to quote Jesus authentically because it is a late dated text. It's just making stuff up, for only the Apostles can testify to what Jesus said and them alone who lived at the time of Jesus.
Gnosticism is the teaching that the universe was created by an evil god who was not the ultimate creator. My contention with that theory is that a loving God would never allow an evil entity to create us in its image for that would make God unholy. And He is not unholy. We are created in God's image not an evil creator.
The Bible is clear what is foretold that Jesus would return to reign on earth for 1000 years before the New City and New Earth commence. When Jesus returns He brings with Himself overcomer believers. All believers in Jesus being God and received what He did for us on the cross are saved, but not all believers receive the reward of returning with Christ to reign on earth for 1000 years over the nations (Rev. 2.26,27; 20.4-6) as kings and priests. Better Christians be warned about this so that they seek to overcometh. 1000 years is a long time to lose this reward. After the 1000 year reign, non-believers are resurrected to the Great White Throne to be judged and cast into Hell for all eternity. Actually, they lock themselves from the inside because they want no part of God's redemptive design.
Muhammad rejects what Jesus did on the cross even makes up the idea that he didn't even go to the cross. There is nothing in all of human history to support that claim. A righteous and holy God would not ask you to turn your face to evidence. God gave Muhammad the free choice to reject what His only begotten Son has done to save us from our sins.
