1. Bible
2. Church
3. Trinity
4. Crucifixion
5. Saved by Faith Alone
6. Bible inerrant
7.Jesus Died For Their Sins
8. That only Christians can be saved
9. That real name of Jesus is Jesus
10. That real name of God is God or Yahweh or Jehovah

The word Bible is not in The Bible.


If it's truly book of God or Holy book, The name of the scripture should have been mentioned times without number in the Bible.




Besides, Bible is derived from a Greek word which means book..

Church doesn't exist during or before Jesus era.. What exist is synagogue and temple.. During those time, synagogue or temple is almost synonymous with Hall of nowadays.


Because people only gathers there to listen to word of God and not just a certain sect of people.. Everybody.. Be it Jew,idol worshippers, non believer and so on.


The translation of the word translated into church will be discussed below

Matthew 16:18, "…And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (Greek - ekklesia)…"
The Greek word "ekklesia," is used 115 times in the New Testament, and in most bibles, it is always translated as "church" (except in Acts 19:32,39,41, where it is properly translated as "assembly".

The first complete English bible was the Tyndale bible in about 1524, and that bible did not use the word "church" anywhere in its pages, it used the word "congregation." Sometime after this bible, they started replacing the word "congregation" with the word "church."

Now, some people might say we're just mincing words; they say, "Church, assembly, what's the difference?" "You know what I mean when I say Church." But words are very, very important according to the Word of God. The following verses tell us that one of the duties of all followers of Christ is to diligently look at the words to describe His Body.

Matthew 4:4, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Matthew 12:36-37, "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

Proverbs 6:2, "Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth."

Proverbs 30:5-6, "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."



One of the jurisdictions of the natural man is the Church. There are many Churches out there, even the Church of Satan. The Church of Wicka. The Church of Humanity. You name it, there's a Church for it. Even bars are like Churches, they go to worship the bottle, and fellowship around ungodly things, and play music that praises Satan and the things of the flesh because they love the creation more than the Creator (Romans 1:25), so everything they worship and all the songs they sing worship the creation. So, there's another Church for you. This article will attempt to demonstrate how the State receives jurisdiction over the Church. We have to differentiate because Christ's ekklesia is not the Church.

If you look in a dictionary, under the word Church, it's defined as "a place of worship of any religion as a Jewish or heathen temple." When the world says "Church," they are thinking of a building or a structure, and this is actually the original meaning of Church, but somehow it transferred over as being the body of Christ. But as we're told in scripture, God "dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 17:24,48, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 9:24). There's many different definitions for the Church, and it's really an arbitrary and capricious word. And we're going to take a look at how the natural man got jurisdiction over that. They got jurisdiction over the Church because he's the one that created it, he's the one that took the word ekklesia to a word that has no substance.



The Meaning of Ekklesia
First, we'll look at the meaning of what Christ's ekklesia is, we'll look at the real thing first, then we'll compare the legal fiction that's being created as the substitute for Christ's ekklesia. The word ekklesia is the original Greek Word, it was used in the Septuagint. So, the seventy-two translators that translated the Septuagint around 280 B.C. were very much aware of that word ekklesia. They used it in the Septuagint as a replacement of the Hebrew for the "congregation of Israel."

Now, if we go to the modern word studies on ekklesia, they'll always point to the secular meaning of the Greek, that it was a group of citizens called together. They rarely go to the original meaning. The first time it's spoken in the New Testament, by Christ, is at Matthew 16:18, "…And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my ekklesia…"

When you go to Tyndale's bible, which was the first English Bible, he translated ekklesia as "assembly." In the George Ricker Berry Interlinear Greek/English New Testament (it's a literal translation of the Greek into English), which was written in the late 1800's, he translated ekklesia as "assembly," and you won't find the word "church" anywhere in there. Christ only used the word ekklesia three times. It's not recorded in the book of Mark, John, or Luke. Matthew is the only one who recorded it.

In Strong's Greek Concordance, the word ekklesia (word #1577) is defined as "an assembly," and it's from the word "ek," (word #1537) which means "out of"; and the word "klesis" (word #2821) which means "a calling." So ekklesia means to be called out, and obviously Christ is the one that's calling us out. But is that the first time we were ever called out?

The apostle Paul wrote, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you" (2 Corinthians 6:17). Now he's quoting the Old Testament from Isaiah 52:11, so we were called out in the Old Testament. In the Septuagint, Isaiah 52:11 reads, "Depart ye, depart, go out from thence, and touch not the unclean thing; go ye out from the midst of her; separate yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord."


So, when you go to the original Greek in the Septuagint and find out what those verses mean, you find out what you're being called out of. And that's what His ekklesia is, it is those who are called out.

When Isaiah says, "go ye out from the midst of her," what does that mean? Well, when you go to the original Greek, "out from the midst" means "out from the center." And the word "her" is from the Greek autos which means "self." So basically, what this verse is saying is to depart and separate yourself from your self will (those wants of the world) and touch not the impure. So what we're called out of is our self! We're called out of the self-will and all of those things that have to do with the flesh. And that is His ekklesia.

This goes along with: Matthew 10:38-39, "And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." The apostle Paul said, "I die daily" (1 Corinthians 15:31). What this means is to do His Will, and crucify the deeds of the flesh, kill our old man.

So, there's only one definition for ekklesia, and that's "assembly" (or "congregation". Now, how is it possible to take the word "church" (which means a physical structure) and insert it in there? Because the word "Church" does not mean "assembly" at all! It doesn't even closely correlate.




It's very difficult to get an exact handle on where the word "church" popped up, but there is some writings on it.

In Vincent's Word Studies, he comments on 1 Corinthians 11:18, "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it." Concerning the phrase "in the church, " he says, "not the Church edifice, a meaning which the word never has in the New Testament and which appears first in patristic writings."
The "patristic writings" would be the Church fathers after the apostles and Christ. So that's where the word "church" popped up, and it's not in the Word of God, so obviously it's a creation of man.

In 325 AD, "The Church" joined the State under Constantine, and it was carried through the Reformation. The Reformers, were all involved in civil government, such as John Calvin who set up the civil government in Geneva. The pope was the head of the Catholic Church and he was kicked out of England, and King Henry VIII took jurisdiction over the Church. And then when the King James version was done, it was very important for them to retain the word "church" because they had jurisdiction over it, so King James made fifteen specific edicts, as far as the translation goes, and one of those edicts (edict number three) stated that this bible was to retain the word "church" in the translation and it was not to be replaced with the word "congregation." That was his specific edict. He has no jurisdiction over the congregation (people), but he does over the church (physical buildings). So you can see he never wanted the word "assembly" associated with the original meaning of the Old Testament which meant "congregation." So he knew the correct translation, obviously, but he didn't want it in there, that way they retain control over "the church."

For example, the New Testament, at Hebrews 2:12, quotes the Old Testament, at Psalms 22:22, word for word. The word "congregation" in the Greek is "ekklesia." But since King James forbade replacing this Greek word with "congregation" (the true interpretation), it was replaced with a word which has a totally different meaning:

Psalms 22:22, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee."
Hebrews 2:12, "Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee."





And when we see what Vincent said about Patristic writings, we can see that "from the beginning it was not so," and it is a tradition of the elders that the word "church" has been retained. When you look in all of the word studies on the word "church", they put in there "the assembly," as if they were one and the same. But when you go to their own definitions, such as Elwells Evangelical Dictionary, it says the English word church "derives from the late Greek word kurioton, which means "the lord's house," a Church building. In the King James New Testament, the word translates from the Greek word ekklesia.

Notice this says "Church" is from a "late Greek word," so it's not a word that's used in the original Koine Greek, it's a modern word. So you see the problem. Also, kurioton, means "the lord's house." In the Old Testament, the phrase "the lord's house" is used three times, and it has to do with a secular lord every time (Genesis 40:7; 44:8, Isaiah 22:18). So, who is the lord we're talking about? The secular lord always had jurisdiction of the Church because it was their realm to begin with!

In Smith's Bible Dictionary from 1884, at page 452,, it says "the derivation of the word 'church' is uncertain. It is found in the Teutonic and Slavonic languages and answers to the derivatives of ekklesia, which are naturally found in the romance languages and by foreign importation elsewhere. The word is generally said to be derived from the Greek kyriakos, meaning the lord's house. But the derivation has been too hastily assumed. It is probably associated with the Scottish kirk, the Latin circus/circulous, the Greek klukos, because the congregations were gathered in circles."
And if you go into congregations that were gathered in circles, that's what the pagans did, they gathered in prayer circles, that's all pagan religions. After reading that comment, you might see why that word "Church" was adopted, because so many of the people that were being brought into the Church were of pagan origins, and they accommodated those pagans.

Smith's Bible Dictionary goes on to say, "Although kyriakos is found signifying a church, it is no more the common term used by Greeks than dominicum (the Latin word for 'church') is the common term used by Latins (in other words, it's not a common term). It is therefore very unlikely that it should have been adopted by the Greek missionaries and teachers and adopted by them so decidedly so as to be thrust into a foreign language."
What he's talking about is how all these other languages have picked up the word "church" and they all have different derivations of it. In the Anglo Saxon it's circay, in Scottish it's kirk, etc. He's saying all these different languages picked it up by the similarity of sound.

Smith's Bible Dictionary goes on to say, "further, there is no reason why the word should have passed into these two languages rather than into the Latin. The Roman Church was, in its origin, a Greek community and it introduced the Greek word for Church into the Latin tongue. But this word was not 'Church' (or dominicum), it was 'ekklesia."
In other words, the Latin has the word ekklesia, it passed from the Greek into the Latin and it stayed the same. But this other word, dominicum (church), was brought in, which is something completely different from ekklesia.


Lidellan's Scott's Greek English Lexicon confirms that the origins of the word "church" is shrouded in mystery. On defining the word "Klukos" which is one of the words church comes from, it says, "Of or for a lord or master (speaking of a secular lord). Assumed to be original of the Teutonic kirk, kirche, or church, but how this Greek name came to be adopted by the northern nations rather than the Roman name or Greek name ekklesia has not been satisfactorily explained."
We see from this Greek Lexicon that no one really knows how church got into the languages of the world to be used as a replacement for the Christ's ekklesia.

Church: "Derived from the Middle English word chirch/kirke, which is derived from the Old English word cirice (and the Old Norse kirkja), which is derived from the Germanic kirika, which is derived from the Classical Greek kyriake (oikia) which means "lord's house," and kyriakos which means "belonging to the lord," and kyrios which means "ruler," and kyros which means "supreme power," and all these words are derived from the Indo European base keu which means "a swelling, to be strong, hero," whence is derived "cave." 1. A building set apart or consecrated for public worship." Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 251.
Church: "The etymology of this word is generally assumed to be from the Greek, Kuriou oikos (house of God); but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of Greek. No doubt the word means "a circle." The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular. (Welsh, cyrch, French, cirque; Scotch, kirk; Greek, kirk-os, etc.) Compare Anglo-Saxon circe, a church, with circol, a circle." The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, E. Cobham Brewer, 1894.

Church: "Derived probably from the Greek kuriakon (i.e., "the Lord's house", which was used by ancient authors for the place of worship. In the New Testament it is the translation of the Greek word ecclesia, which is synonymous with the Hebrew kahal of the Old Testament, both words meaning simply an assembly, the character of which can only be known from the connection in which the word is found. There is no clear instance of its being used for a place of meeting or of worship, although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning." Easton's Bible Dictionary.

The courts have ruled that "The word 'church' is used interchangeably to designate a society of persons who profess the Christian religion and the place where such persons regularly assemble for worship."

The word in Latin for ekklesia is also ekklesia, so even the Latin retained this word. When we know what the word ekklesia means, how can we take something unclean, such as "The Church," and make it clean (Job 14:4)? We can't.

So, most bible translators have interpreted the Greek word ekklesia as Church, but ekklesia has nothing to do with the word Church! Every word study and reference available all agree that the word Church does not come from the original Koine Greek word ekklesia, but comes from a late Greek word, which has a totally different meaning! So we must ask ourselves this question: "Why do bibles falsely use the word church in place of the Christ's ekklesia?"

Trinity isn't in Bible..






The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. And though the Bible does mention the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it never calls them “persons.”

The idea that there is a Trinity of Persons in God is one of the oldest “Christian beliefs” that the Bible doesn’t teach. However, it still did not become a part of “Christian belief” until several centuries after the last books of the Bible were written. It was originated by human beings who were having trouble understanding the meaning of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit mentioned in the New Testament.

It’s not surprising that early Christian theologians were confused by the mention of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Many of them were converted pagans, or came from pagan backgrounds and cultures. For these former polytheists, who were still surrounded by people who believed in many gods, the idea that there were three distinct “persons” of God probably seemed fairly ordinary.

In short, the idea that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit form a “Trinity of Persons” in God is a human interpretation; it is not taught in the Bible.

7) Jesus died for their sins

"but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification". (Romans 4: 24-25)

And this :

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve".

Crucifixion



Who Carries Jesus’ Cross?:


In the Passion narratives, did Jesus carry his own cross or not?

Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26 - Jesus gets help from Simon of Cyrene
John 19:17 - Jesus carries his own cross the whole way

Inscription on Jesus’ Cross:


When crucified, Jesus’ cross had an inscription — but what did it say?

Mark 15:26 - The inscription: “The King of the Jews.”
Matthew 27:37 - The inscription: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”
Luke 23:38 - The inscription: “This is the King of the Jews.”
John 19:19 - The inscription: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”


Jesus and the Thieves:


Some gospels say Jesus was crucified with two thieves, though the Romans never crucified thieves.

Mark - The two thieves are mentioned, but there is no conversation
Matthew 27:44 - The two thieves taunt Jesus
Luke 23:39-42 - One thief taunts Jesus and is criticized by the other. Jesus promises the 2nd thief that they would be in Paradise that day, though John and Acts say he did not ascend to heaven until 40 days after his resurrection
John - The two men aren’t described as thieves


Does Jesus Drink Wine or Vinegar?:


Jesus is given something to drink while he is on the cross, but what?

Mark 15:23 - Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh, but he doesn’t drink
Matthew 27:48, Luke 23:36 - Jesus is given vinegar, but he doesn’t drink
John 19:29-30 - Jesus is given vinegar and he drinks


Jesus and the Centurion:


Romans supposedly witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion, but what did they think?

Mark 15:39 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was the son of God!”
Matthew 27:54 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this was the son of God.”
Luke 23:47 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was innocent.”
John - No centurions say anything

Women Watch the Curcifixion:


The gospels describe several woman as having followed Jesus around, but what did they do when Jesus was crucified?

Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55, Luke 23:49 - Several women watch Jesus from afar
John 19:25-26 - Several woman are close enough that Jesus could talk to his mother, contrary to Roman practices

When Was Jesus Crucified?:


The crucifixion of Jesus is the central event of the Passion narrative, but the narratives don’t agree on when the crucifixion occurred.

Mark 15:25 - Jesus was crucified on the “third hour.”
John 19:14-15 - Jesus was crucified on the “sixth hour.”
Matthew, Luke - It’s not stated when the crucifixion starts, but the “sixth hour” occurs during the curcifixion


Jesus’ Last Words:


Jesus’ last words before dying are important, but no one seems to have written then down.

Mark 15:34-37, Matthew 27:46-50 - Jesus says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (but they use different Greek words for “God” — Matthew uses “Eli” and Mark uses “Eloi”)
Luke 23:46 - Jesus says: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.”
John 19:30 - Jesus says: “It is finished.”

Earthquake After the Resurrection:


Was there an earthquake when Jesus died?

Matthew 27:51-53 - At the moment Jesus dies, a massive earth quake strikes and opens tombs where dead people rise again
Mark, Luke, John - No earthquake is mentioned. No earthquake and no massive influx of formerly dead people is mentioned in any historical records, which is strange given how monumental such an event would be.







To prove Jesus wasn't crucified biblically, check below

Chapter Psalm 91 clearly and indisputably confirms that Jesus never got crucified!

It is, first of all, important to know that Psalm 91 is referenced more than once in the New Testament for Jesus Christ. So we know for certainty that Psalm 91 is referring to the coming Messiah in the Bible:

Luke 4:10-12
10 For the Scriptures say, ‘He will order his angels to protect and guard you.
11 And they will hold you up with their hands so you won’t even hurt your foot on a stone.’”
12 Jesus responded, “The Scriptures also say, ‘You must not test the Lord your God.’”

Matthew 4:5-10
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city, Jerusalem, to the highest point of the Temple,
6 and said, “If you are the Son of God, jump off! For the Scriptures say, ‘He will order his angels to protect you. And they will hold you up with their hands so you won’t even hurt your foot on a stone.’”
7 Jesus responded, “The Scriptures also say, ‘You must not test the Lord your God.’”
8 Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
9 “I will give it all to you,” he said, “if you will kneel down and worship me.”
10 “Get out of here, Satan,” Jesus told him. “For the Scriptures say, ‘You must worship the Lord your God and serve only him.’”




Psalm 91

1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. [a]

2 I will say [b] of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust."

3 Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence.

4 He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

5 You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day,

6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday.

7 A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you.

8 You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked.

9 If you make the Most High your dwelling— even the LORD, who is my refuge-

10 then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent.

11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways;

12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone. (If Jesus died on the cross and got buried, then his feet would've struck the ground and the stones on it from bringing him down, throwing him on the floor and burying him).

13 You will tread upon the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

14 "Because he loves me," says the LORD, "I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.

15 He will call upon me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him.

16 With long life will I satisfy him and show him my salvation."

Footnotes:

There is no question!

There is no question that the emphasized parts above, especially in Psalm 91:11-12, 15 and the others, clearly and indisputably agree with the Noble Quran's and Isaiah 52:13 Verses that are shown below. Jesus was neither crucified nor resurrected, and he was protected and lifted by GOD Almighty. Also, the New Testament, again, confirms that Psalm 91 is referring to Jesus Christ.

GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3).

GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4).

Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5).

Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:.

No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion).

GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment.

Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified.

His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children).

His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12).

"Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death.

Important Note: Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt.

Saved by faith alone.



Salvation by faith alone is the idea that the one and only thing that saves us is believing in Jesus Christ. Nothing we do, good or bad, has any effect on our salvation. Only believing that Jesus Christ died for us matters. Once we believe this, we are automatically saved. This idea is common among Protestant Christians—especially fundamentalist and evangelical ones.

However, “faith alone” appears only once in the Bible, and in that one passage, it is specifically denied: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). Please read the whole passage, in which the apostle James teaches that faith without works is dead: James 2:14–26.

The apostle Paul does not teach faith alone, either. When Paul said, “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the Law” (Romans 3:28), he did not mean we do not have to do good works in order to be saved. He meant that those who believe in Jesus do not have to follow the laws of animal sacrifice, circumcision, and the other ancient Jewish ritual and behavioral codes found in the Hebrew Torah, or Law (the first five books of the Bible).

In fact, Paul made it very clear that we must do good in order to be saved. See Romans 2:5–16.

For Jesus’ own teaching about who will be saved and who will not, read Matthew 25:31–46.

The doctrine of salvation by faith alone did not become a widespread “Christian belief” until after Martin Luther promulgated it as part of the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s.

After the Trinity of Persons, salvation by faith alone is one of the most common “Christian beliefs” that the Bible doesn’t teach.

Bible inerrant..



The word “inerrant” does not appear anywhere in the Bible.

In fact, it was only in the last couple of centuries that some conservative Christians began saying that the Bible is inerrant. They came up with this idea, not because it is in the Bible, but because they believed they had to defend the Bible against modern science and history.

The passage most commonly quoted to say that the Bible claims inerrancy for itself is 2 Timothy 3:16–17. But that passage does not say that the Bible is free from error. It says, “All scripture is inspired by God.” The idea that “inspired by God” means that everything it says is historically and scientifically true exactly as written is a human interpretation.

In the same way, the Bible never says that everything in it is literally true. If anything, the Bible cautions us against overly literal interpretations. Jesus commonly spoke in “parables,” or figurative language. Perhaps the clearest statement in the Bible about a literal vs. a spiritual view of the Bible’s Christian message is found in 2 Corinthians 3:5–6: “Our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.”

The idea that the Bible is inerrant and literally true throughout is a fairly recent “Christian belief” that the Bible doesn’t teach. It is a human interpretation that goes back only as far as the 1800s.





As you can see contradictory account in crucifix statement.. Bible is full of errors and can't be trusted

“Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sins”

Sorry, the Bible just doesn’t say this.

The closest it comes is 1 Corinthians 15:3: “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” But dying for our sins is not the same thing as dying to pay the penalty for our sins. If an innocent person dies because of another person’s wrongdoing, the person who did wrong is still guilty. Whenever the Bible talks about penalties, it always attaches them to the one who committed the offense.

No matter how hard you search, you will not find a single passage in the entire Bible that says anything about Jesus paying the penalty for our sins. That’s because this is a “Christian belief” that the Bible doesn’t teach.

The technical, theological name for this belief is “Penal Substitution,” which is a variation of the “Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.” It is also sometimes called “The Vicarious Atonement.” These ideas are not taught anywhere in the Bible. In fact, they were not part of Christian doctrine or belief for the first 1,000 years of the Christian Church. They were then originated and developed by human beings who were having trouble understanding what the Bible teaches about how Jesus Christ saved humanity.





http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thegodarticle/2015/03/god-did-not-kill-jesus-on-the-cross-for-our-sins/

From a Christian

“Only Christians can be saved”

Those who believe this may think they have an open-and-shut case because of passages such as these:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16–18)

There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

First, these passages do not actually say that only Christians can be saved. And the problem with reading them that way is that the Bible also tells us how non-Christians can be saved:

God will repay everyone according to what they have done. To those who by patiently doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Gentile; but glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. (Romans 2:6–11)

And even more briefly:

Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21)

And once again, for Jesus’ own teaching about who will be saved and who will not, read Matthew 25:31–46.

If our interpretation of passages such as John 3:16–18 and Acts 4:12 is contradicted by clear teachings elsewhere in the Bible, then we must be mistaken in our understanding of those passages. Would the Bible really contradict itself on such basic a issue as who can be saved?

This is too large a subject to deal with in such a small space.

However, here’s the key to understanding John 3:16–18, Acts 4:12, and similar passages: If Jesus Christ is God as Christians believe, then anyone who believes in God and lives according to the teachings that God gave us as the Lord Jesus Christ is, in fact, believing in Jesus Christ and in the “name,” or reputation and character, of Jesus Christ. This is true even if they don’t identify God as Jesus Christ.






Can you see the john 3:16... No "begotten"

Lols! You are so confused. You can't be wrong completely. But you mixed everything up.
Your interpretation of the statement "All scripture is inspired by God" no be here. That, infact shows how far you've gone in not being straightforward.

The Greek word for Jesus is Iησοῦς. It is pronounced as "eeaysoos."


Yeshua (Hebrew יֵשׁוּעַ) the Hebrew word for Jesus


Eashoa in Aramaic


Eeaa in Arabic






Thus, the Qur'an's historical accuracy in its usage of "`Eesa" rather than the Arabic "Yesu`" for the name of Jesus is indeed interesting to say the very least. As we have seen, "Y'SHW`" is actually based upon a problemmatic and an ignoble Hebrew nomenclature for Jesus which is littered with disagreement and controversy. For 2000 years Jesus has been recorded in history under the cursed title "Y'SHW" from "Yemach Shmo w'Zikro" ("may his name and memory be wiped out).

Hebrew records have recorded certain figures whose sparsely sentenced fragmented stories are somewhat similar to that of Jesus' as Yeshua` but none as Yeheshu`ah. There is no historical evidence asserting that those references are indeed referring to Jesus. There have been a plethora of explanations attempting to rectify this variance in the Hebrew versions of Jesus' name, but all are based on conjecture and none are based on historicity or textual evidence. Indeed, the burden of proof is upon the Christian world to produce documented evidence of the existence of a "Jesus" from his own time period.

The Qur'an was revealed over 600 years after the ascent of Jesus, in far away Arabia where most of the Christians would have been calling him "Yesu`" from the same "Y'SHW" found in their Christian Biblical teachings which were sketchy at best. However, the Qur'an from which the Prophet Muhammad was teaching, mentioned a Jewish Messiah, who performed brilliant miracles, born of a pure virgin, who was named "`Eesa". The Arab Christians were familiar with "Yesu`" whom they knew as their Lord and Savior. Had the Prophet (peace be upon him) copied stories from the Jews and Christians, he would have also copied their mistakes. However, the Israelite stories which are related in the Qur'an are strikingly accurate historically and diverge from the Bible in the areas where the Judeo-Christian scriptures err monumentally.

For The Prophet Muhammad , himself an unlettered and unschooled man, in far away Arabia to have known the true name of Jesus, which was lost for hundreds of years to the world, confirms what Allah states in the Qur'an:

"And We have sent down to you the Book in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and rectifying it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you..."
[al-Qur'aan, Surat al-Maa'idah, 5:48]

The normal generic word for God is "alaha"/"aloho" (ܐܠܗܐ), which is linguistically related to the Hebrew word for God "elohim".

The translation of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, on the other hand, is "maria"/"morio" (ܡܪܝܐ), usually decomposed as mar-yah, Lord-Yah ("mar", lord, also being used by syriac speaking churches as a title for saints/doctors of the Church: "mor Ephrem" = Saint Ephrem). (Note: this word has nothing to do with the proper name Maria, coming from the Hebrew Mariam)

To answer your question, Jesus would almost certainly have used one of the two, or both at the same time as it is commonly done in Syriac: Maria Alaha.

Last remark: The arabic word Allah, used also by Arabic Christians, is no more no less related to the Aramaic Alaha than to the Hebrew Elohim. The three share a common linguistic root, which is nothing exceptional, so no point being dragged on sterile arguments concerning this point.

Concerning the cry on the cross (quote from Psalm 22:1), the Peshitta (the earliest christian Aramaic translation) translate it using the word alaha, with the first person possessive suffix -i : alahi (ܐܲܠܵܗܝ ܐܲܠܵܗܝ ܠܡܵܢܵܐ ܫܒܲܩ̣ܬܵܢܝ̱ ). The original Hebrew Psalm used "Eli". Since the scriptor of the Greek gospel may not have been fluent in Aramaic, or used to transliterate Aramaic with Greek characters, it may be expected that the transliterations are approximates, hence a possible : eloi/alohi confusion.


Eesa spoke Aramaic, definately he called God Allaha..


Allaha or Allah...



Since we all know our creator name.. Stop saying God.. Always say Allah

tempem:
Lols! You are so confused. You can't be wrong completely. But you mixed everything up.
Your interpretation of the statement "All scripture is inspired by God" no be here. That, infact shows how far you've gone in not being straightforward.

Scripture mean "holy book" given to each Prophet




So you saying holy books are or were not inspired by Allah