Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: No Evidence for No Christ at the Cross - Big Problem for Muslims

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    252
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    18

    Default 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    252
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eldon
    he confirmed what had appeared to happen, yes. The Apocalypse of Peter is one of the writings confirming that there was more to the story beyond the appearance.
    This "other book" you refer to came centuries later. It, therefore, is not worthy of consideration. Historians value sources nearest to the events which we have in the 27 books of the New Testament. What the Apostles testified to as eyewitnesses cannot be explained away leaving the burden on you to show otherwise.

    Luke 23:49 And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.

    Mark 14:50 And they all forsook him and fled.

    Matthew 26:56 ... Then all the disciples forsook him and fled. Matthew 27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee...

    Those are all ~first century accounts, right?
    Mark 14.50 and Matt. 26.56 are not at the cross and do not necessitate that John and some of the women can't come back to Jesus when He went to the cross. Hence, we read in Matt. 27.55 which says "many" not "all". When you read with an agenda you won't be able to reconcile passages. Think of it this way. If the Apostles who wrote the NT did not figure there to be any contradiction why impose one now with your short sitedness?

    ANYONE can say "no man takes my life..." !!!

    nothing happens unless it is allowed by the Most High to happen. No one can take my life unless the Almighty allows it and it is thus HIS doing, not theirs.
    Anyone can say "no man takes my life" but that wouldn't be a true statement, because men can take your life. They can take my life. Jesus spoke the truth that, indeed, no man can take His life unless He (Jesus) allows it. Our debate is not whether the Most High allows it, but that the One (Jesus) who said "No man takes MY life" is only something God can assure. Thus, Jesus is God. Jesus did not add "...unless the Almighty allows it..." You have added words that don't exist there. Jesus is talking about His own power Himself.

    That is not the "effect of the cross" that Paul is reporting, it is the spiritual reality that is behind the appearance, which NO ONE saw at the time. Christians instead major on the appearance of what happened instead of the actuality which did NOT appear visibly.
    The spiritual reality Paul is imparting behind the cross is the ability of the blood to atone for sins which only God the Son can do. Paul said in 1 Cor. 15...

    1 Let me now remind you, dear brothers and sisters, of the Good News I preached to you before. You welcomed it then, and you still stand firm in it. 2 It is this Good News that saves you if you continue to believe the message I told you—unless, of course, you believed something that was never true in the first place.

    3 I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. 4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. 9 For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I’m not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God’s church.

    People saw the spiritual authority of what Jesus did. People talked about it. They saw that the veil was rent which means the Holy Spirit could now come to indwell believers who received the sacrifice by Jesus paying for our sins to save us whosoever is willing to accept it.

    John was present and so were some of the women including Jesus' own mother. They don't even need to be present because the Apostles testify to having spent 40 days with Jesus after the cross. In those 40 days Jesus clearly imparted the meaning of His death on the cross and subsequent resurrection to save us from our sins and give us eternal life. They speak of Jesus being with them physically, in person. If you can't find a way they were deceived then be assured they were not deceived, but you would be. Over time believing in an untruth will hurt you over time. God wants you to be non-assuming. Assume nothing. Just go with where the evidence may lead you. We know that group hallucinations are impossible.

    right! of course you can just dismiss the majority of people who claim to be Christian because they don't agree with your interpretations.

    The fact remains that MOST of the worlds Christians believe and partake in a re-enactment of Jesus being sacrificed which is practiced DAILY.
    As long as I am consistent with Scripture that's what counts. Scripture calls the body of Christ a "little flock" (Luke 12.32). The Roman Church has over 1 billion souls. That is hardly little. I can also go over with you extensively many characteristics in Revelation 17 that relate to religious Rome and the great harlot being the Roman Church and her eventual destruction (v.16) as well as prophesied by the Roman Church itself this being the last pope according to the Malachy Prophecy.

    At least appreciate how you misunderstand the bread that the bread Jesus said is not Him but in remembrance of Him. That way you can see your line of argument is faulty. I don't know any Christians who partake in the bread as being anything more than in remembrance of Him so what you call a Christian obviously is not.

    I could likewise form an argument that Muslims are all murderers like Muhammad took up the sword to kill people, but if I did that I would be as ignorant as you. I prefer to be without that sin you harbor sinning bearing false witness.

    Again, just because you say they aren't Christians, that does not negate 1500 years of the Roman Catholic Church DOMINATING the world's understanding of Christianity. You have been conditioned to ignore that historical reality, instead of COMING OUT totally from among them to stand clear AWAY from the sins of Christianity.
    The Church has never accepted what the Roman Church said, its oppression and so many false teachings. While I have Scripture that agrees with me, you can't back up the position of the Roman Church you claim to be Christian so you lose this argument. The body of Christ is a little flock not a great flock. Think of the Church body of Christ as one here, one there, not this great enterprise. You have been conditioned to believe the Roman Church is the Church, but it is not. The Bible speaks against the great harlot of religious Rome. Their false teachings lead to the reformation and protestant movement in protestation. The protest was always there, but made more visibly in recent centuries. A sin of a man that is doing something Jesus does not agree with is not a sin of Christianity for Christianity is perfectly pure. Do I accuse you of being a murderer because Muhammad was? No. I prefer not to be obtuse like you and treat others as I would like to be treated.

    How about YOU granting that 1John 5:7 was ADDED to the text, a man-made alteration to the alleged Word of God?

    There is not even ONE verse in the NT that confirms the existence of a "co-equal and co-eternal Trinity" because Jesus addressed the Father as "the ONLY True God" and also called Him "my God and your God" (John 17:3 20:17).
    I am not 100% sure 1 John 5.7 was added. All I can say is if it was added the doctrine does not change. When Jesus speaks of His Father He showing obedience in the Triune Godhead as we should. Jesus was the only person to ever do so perfectly. Before the foundations of the world the 2nd Person which is Jesus agreed He would atone for sins and show perfect obedience to the 1st Person the Father by the 3rd Person the Holy Spirit. There are lots of verses that refer to the Trinity. When the Pharisees accused Jesus of claiming to be God by forgiving sins as only God can Jesus did not correct them. Jesus never addresses Himself as the Father nor the Spirit again showing the 3 Persons of the Godhead are co-equal, co-inherent and co-eternal before time and space. Praise the Lord!

    You are still blind to the REASON why the Almighty shifted emphasis AWAY from the cross: Christians had misused it and misrepresented it to the whole world by 600 AD along with interjecting the pagan notion of trinitarianism into Jesus' teachings, so much so that it was necessary to send the Revelations of the Quran to grant mankind access to accurate faith and true religion.

    I am humble enough to realize that the Most High does whatever He sees fit to do, and humble in my religion to understand that He will not endorse it if I introduce deception or otherwise practice injustice.
    The Almighty emphasizes the cross, never shifting from it. I am not aware of any Trinitarian teaching other than in Christianity. Truly unique and special. The complexity of God being Triune emphasizes His amazing complexity and sovereignty that you can't understand it. You need to understand so you reject it. Since only God can resurrect Himself and Jesus resurrected Himself as taught to His Apostles He spent 40 days with, and there is no naturalistic explanation to explain it away, then it remains true and the burden is on you to show otherwise. If you can't, instead of just self-declaring any old idea to reject God of the Bible, then realize you have the wrong faith. Faith is evidenced. By your standard of the Almighty not endorsing something that is not true then you should no longer be a Muslim. God would never ask you to believe something that has no evidence. Are you humble enough to have a change of mind?

    If you think 66 books is perfect, you have no earthly idea of what that number means prophetically! Don't deceive yourself like that.
    66 prophetically is that 6 is the number of man and the number of Satan. Man loves Satan's ways so the 66 books represent the redemptive design of the Bible separating that union. It is perfectly complete. Nothing should be added to it or taken away (Rev. 22.18,19). If you don't accept this proper understanding you have deceived yourself already.

    WOW, you also support another heresy introduced by Christianity! "once saved, always saved" is proven wrong by PLENTY of former preachers who are now drunkards and other types of sinners.

    It is not that the Most High is unfaithful to man, rather the fact is that many who profess to be His are proven wrong in the course of time by their own conduct. Only those who continue in repentance and faith can expect to be saved.
    Who cares what these former preachers you speak of say. The Bible says those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28) and salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast. Therefore, these former preachers according to the Bible would never have been saved to begin with. They have the same faith as you of salvation by works but in Christianity salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast. No man has the power to save himself or keep himself saved. All one can do is come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior and then shall you be saved. Otherwise, you go to Hell. Your problem is you don't care what the Bible says. You are clinging onto what men say instead of checking whether what they say is true or not with the Bible.

    To show you have no humility, you need to see that God is infinitely great and there is nothing you can do to bridge that gap in your works. It won't satisfy God. What will satisfy God is you receive His only begotten Son who paid the penalty duly belonging to you for being a sinner.

    The Apocalypse of Peter is addressed to humanity as FROM Peter, and the words quoted therein bear a VERY accurate prophecy confirmed by subsequent Christian history. Just because it was found recently does not negate its authenticity, the proof is in the prophecies it contains.
    This book you keep citing is not a Christian book. You keep relying on books that came centuries after the 27 books of the NT in the 1st century. Peter had long since died in the Neronian persecutions before 70 AD. Some guy writing as if it was Peter in this "other book" centuries later you keep mentioning is ridiculous. No scholar or historian in his right mind would give such a late dated book any credence. Historians simply don't do history that way. They love nearness of sources. There are many books and many more to be found, but they do not impinge on the Scriptures.

    Again, you are basing your beliefs upon what you have been told, which is a mischaracterization of Gnosticism since it conflicts so powerfully with what calls itself "orthodox". There is nothing in the Apocalypse of Peter or MOST "Gnostic" writings that promotes an evil creator. The Gospel of John, his epistles, and the Book of Revelation is full of "gnostic" language and concepts, as are some of Paul's writings & other NT books.
    When I came to Christ it was not based on what I was told, but one day I realized all things sum up in Christ. It was amazing! Since Gnosticism is flawed of course it is rejected. The universe was created by a holy and righteous God, therefore, you can be confident you were not created by an evil gnostic god created by God. How absurd! The church fathers rejected such ideas as these other ideas never agreed with God's word. Should you expect them to do any less? Your "other book" of Peter is centuries later so who cares what it says other than it disagrees with God's word. What matters is it has no evidence for its claim. And there is nothing in John's writings that is gnostic. John taught that we were created by the uncreated Creator not an evil god created by God. You are delusional.

    You don't even realize how FAR OFF from Scripture you are! Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah) is born of God 1John 5:1

    It does not say Whoever believes Jesus is God is saved!

    Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is OF God... 1John 4:2

    Muhammad(saw), in the Quran and in his sayings plentifully confessed that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah) who came in the flesh, which means that YOU should recognize that Muhammad is OF God.
    Whoever believes and receives Jesus is the Christ is born of God. Praise the Lord! 1 John 5.1. Therefore, I am born of God and you are not. Who is the Christ? The Messiah who as prophesied in the OT would atone for sins of the world (read Is. 53) as only God can do. All men are born of the flesh for that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the flesh is sinful in Adam. Whereas Jesus being God was born in the likeness of flesh because He had no physical father and He knew no sin.

    Muhammad was not saved because he altered what the Christ is. He totally changed the meaning. He taught salvation by works like all other religions which is against the Scriptures. Pray on this as I pray for your understanding and humility. Muhammad was a murderous tyrant. You don't want that in your life.

    Muhammad made up nothing, he only spoke what he was commanded to speak from the Most High, even though you can't see the reasons for the Almighty revealing what He did through Muhammad, he is still a True Prophet.
    The communication Muhammad received was from Satan or some other evil spirit certainly not the Most High. Remember Satan comes as an angel of light.

    I can see the reason why Satan used Muhammad to lead people away from Christ. It's really no different than Mormonism attempting the same feat. Even though you don't want to accept this at least realize you have no evidence for your claim that Jesus didn't go to the cross which should unsettle you as it would me if I believed that so contrary to all the evidence.

    Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.

  3. #3

    Default

    Not really a problem for them: They would probably say something like "Allah made it look like it was Jesus!". Guess he is the best of deceivers... :-P

    The problem they really run into is the "Injeel". Apparently, Jesus was handed a book called the "Injeel" and men corrupted it. No one has ever proved that this "true" Injeel ever existed.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    160
    Blog Entries
    7
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Islam has no evidence for its claims so why believe that which has no evidence? That's very unscientific. I'd like to pick away at the problem of Allah deceiving the Apostles. First off, why deceive the Apostles? Were they being bad? There is simply no valid reason to do that. Second, the person that the Apostles spent 40 days with after the cross made Himself out to be the person that spent 3 years with the Apostles. How could the Apostles who spent 3 years with Jesus mistake Jesus for someone else over the 40 days? It's not plausible. So I believe Allah is Satan. Islam is a great deception; so is Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-08-2017, 12:08 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-09-2013, 12:19 AM
  3. New Bible Versions are a Big Problem!
    By James in forum 66 Books-God's Word
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-26-2012, 05:41 PM
  4. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-05-2011, 08:15 PM
  5. Undeniable Evidence for Christ
    By Faithful in forum Minimal Facts Approach
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-19-2007, 07:32 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •