Or Japan?

chrisd:

Don't tell me it started in Germany or England
Or maybe it started in America

I dont think anyone has said that. You still havent answered my question about the "Allah"  you said was used by early christians.

@ chrisd I'm surprised that you can quote so much of history books but don't even know where the faith you're trying to ridicule bagan. Are you seriously seeking to know the truth or something's wrong somewhere that we don't know about? Abi, make we call ambulance for you?  Talk now befor e too late. Or just 4get_me.

alheri:

I don't think anyone has said that. You still havent answered my question about the "Allah" you said was used by early christians.

alheri, lef am alone - your question is not in his history books

4gt_m.

Am not rying to ridicult christianity. I'm christian but I feel that most pentecostal/charismatic and protestant denominations put so many barriers. It has got to the point that in London one pentecostal church preacher is not happy if someone marries another from another pentecostal church. Is getting to the surreal really.

chrisd,
Just because you had problems with a few pastors or pentecostal churches does not mean that defines the whole of Christianity. Em,,, er,,, what about [b]alheri'[/b]s questions? You really have made some postulations that beg for answers.

4gt_m.

Allah is what is written in our Bible. But you have an english Bible. I have a semitic one. But it's the same. We have different culture here. The idea of loving father began in England. Everyone is their love in England.

chrisd:

We have different culture here. The idea of loving father began in England. Everyone is their love in England.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14:23)

So, tell me - according to your archives, this verse in the Bible was written after the idea of a loving father began in England? chrisd, when you make statements, first think about them before you leave yourself open to a situation you can not intelligently uphold. If you would rather grovel under a legalistic religion where love does not exist, good for you. Born again Christians enjoy the love of the Father that the Son came to offer - and that's my confession.

4gt_m.

We accept that but you tend to extend that too much. Not saying it is bad though. We use it but not that much.

Centuries ago, God's rebellious and presumptuous people thought they could follow their own sensual inclinations, participate in the rituals of their idolatrous neighbors and sacrifice their children to gain personal favors -- without losing God's favor and protection. Even the priests thought they were following His ways. They were wrong. Our holy God, who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, warned His foolish and presumptuous people,

"Therefore I will number you for the sword, And you shall all bow down to the slaughter; Because, when I called, you did not answer; When I spoke, you did not hear, but did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight.” -- Isaiah 65:12

He's not always the loving father we wish him to be. In other words, the word "fear" clashes with today's attempt to market God to the postmodern masses. To a lesser degree, so do the words "righteous" and "merciful." Both remind us of our sin and inadequacy. They bring the discomforting suggestion that God indeed is "holier than thou" -- an unpleasant notion for those who prefer to believe that God is and thinks like me.

While God's love is unconditional, His promises are not. Most are linked -- often in the same passage they appear -- to guidelines and conditions for their fulfillment. But those conditions and warnings are generally left out. Many of God's promises to those who -- by His grace and Spirit -- follow Him become, instead, universal and unconditional assurances to everyone who reads the book. No need to "mourn" our sin, "tremble at His Word," or repent of our addiction to contemporary thrills, for everyone is okay in the eyes of Him who "passionately" loves all of us as we are.

What you think?

BIBLE:

(One of the Commandments) "You shall not have no other gods before me."
Exodus 20:3

"Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me."
Isaiah 46:9

"I am the Lord, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God."
Isaiah 45:5

"The Lord brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up.
The Lord sends poverty and wealth; he humbles and he exalts. He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor.
For the foundations of the earth are the Lord's; upon them he has set the world."
1 Samuel 2:6-8

QURAN:
'[4:36] You shall worship GOD alone - do not associate anything with Him. ,
[42:9] Did they find other lords beside Him? GOD is the only Lord and Master. He is the One who resurrects the dead, and He is the Omnipotent One.
[ 42:11] , There is nothing that equals Him. He is the Hearer, the Seer.
[23:116] Most exalted is GOD, the true Sovereign. There is no other god beside Him; the Most Honorable Lord, possessor of all authority.


CAN ANYBODY SEE WHAT I AM SEEING

Why would anybody deceive him/herself when the answer to a simple question is clear

On the issue of Jesus calling God his father, read the explaination below as reproduced from a christian article:
'' What does the Bible mean then, when it says that Jesus is the son of God? In most modern languages it is rare to use the words father and son in other but literal meanings of biological descent. That is why readers of the Bible in translation may be honestly mistaken. The word son as applied to Christ and the word father as applied to God must be understood as metaphorical, that is, in a meaning other than the literal biological one. Indeed, few people actually understand them literally. No one, insofar as I know, actually believes that God had sexual intercourse with Mary to produce Jesus. Such an idea is revolting to most minds and is certainly not held by any of the established Christian creeds. God is not the father of Christ or any other humans in any literal sense. ''

'' The word "son" is clearly used in the Bible to express the character of people, and not always their biological descent. The word is used in both ways in 1 Samuel 2:12. "Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the Lord." It cannot mean that these young men had two biological fathers. The genes of only one sperm can naturally combine with the ovum to produce a genetically new individual. The expression "sons of Belial" means "wicked men," that is "sons of wickedness." ''

'' What are the non-biological usages of the word father in the Bible? In Genesis 4:20,21 father of such as dwell in tents and father of all such as handle the harp, suggest a meaning of "inventor, first, prototype." The words father and sons are used in Genesis 10:21 in the sense of ancestor and descendants. Joseph was no doubt younger than Pharaoh, but still he became Pharaoh's father or counselor in Genesis 45:8. The word father is used by a subject in addressing a king in 1 Samuel 24:11. Elisha, while the subordinate of Elijah the prophet, addresses him as father in 2 Kings 2:12.Again in terms of a servant to master, or in this case a soldier to a general, the accompanying soldier addresses Naaman as father in 2 Kings 5:13. ''

'' Five distinct groups of meaning appear for father:
1) a literal biological father,
2) an ancestor,
3) an inventor or prototype,
4) someone who gives counsel or information, and
5) someone to whom absolute obedience is due. ''

'' Considering that Jesus says that he came to do nothing but his Father's will, the last definition of father is the most appropriate as applied to his relationship with God. Jesus is the Son of God because he perfectly carries out the will of God. It was Christian failure to understand this true meaning that made it necessary, for example, to use another metaphor in the Qur'an for Jesus: servant of God. Neither metaphor completely describes the uniqueness of Christ. They are only two expressions among many. ''

'' All such expressions are merely metaphorical and cannot perfectly describe anyone's relationship to God, whose being and essence are completely outside the realm of human expression and language. To say that a person is a child of God or a servant of God is only to point out the relationship as a recipient of divine grace and the responsibility of obedience. God is not anyone's literal father or slave-master. Those are human relations that merely approximate or give a direction in understanding. The Bible uses other terms as well, such as "husband," for God, and metaphorically "unfaithfulness" for sin. All such expressions are only useful to the extent that they inspire us to submit ourselves to God's will. They are not intended to give us information about the nature of God, His essence, being or attributes. ''

LET ME STOP HERE FOR NOW

I agree with that. Thanks.

nuru:

On the issue of Jesus calling God his father, read the explaination below as reproduced from a christian article:
'' Jesus is the Son of God because he perfectly carries out the will of God. It was Christian failure to understand this true meaning that made it necessary, for example, to use another metaphor in the Qur'an for Jesus: servant of God. Neither metaphor completely describes the uniqueness of Christ. They are only two expressions among many. ''

'' All such expressions are merely metaphorical and cannot perfectly describe anyone's relationship to God, whose being and essence are completely outside the realm of human expression and language. To say that a person is a child of God or a servant of God is only to point out the relationship as a recipient of divine grace and the responsibility of obedience. God is not anyone's literal father or slave-master. Those are human relations that merely approximate or give a direction in understanding. The Bible uses other terms as well, such as "husband," for God, and metaphorically "unfaithfulness" for sin. All such expressions are only useful to the extent that they inspire us to submit ourselves to God's will. They are not intended to give us information about the nature of God, His essence, being or attributes. ''

[color=#000099]LET ME STOP HERE FOR NOW

Thank you very much for your explanation. But, I have a passage from the Bible that I will like you to explain:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

John6:53-58

Please explain what Jesus is saying in this passage.

I thought they were the same thing. They are trinity right?

I don't want you thinking here. I want definite answers. If you don't know, just back out. And Nuru is the one this question is directed at.

You always this hostile?

Don't tell me you drink blood. That makes you vomit or didn't you know that?

Nuru,

When the scriptures refer to Jesus as the Son of man, it does not mean that he was born of the seed of man. It means that He was man's representaive, to go to the cross in our place and to die and go to hell in our place.

It means He was the chosen one to appear before the mercy seat in heaven with his pure sanctified blood, to offer it on the alter of God for our eternal redemption.

When scriptures call Him the Son of God, it means he is God's representative to man, offered by God as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

He came from the father. His origin is in God. Before He was born, there was no Jesus. He existed as the eternal, all powerful, indestructible Word of God, in the bossom of the father.

To understad this is to understand who the christian is; because the christian is born of that same Word.

It was that Word which put on flesh and dwelt among us as Jesus. That is why Jesus was 100% divine even as He was 100% human. His life was divine,  it came from the seed of God -God's Word, and His body came from a woman. That is why he could be tempted and suffer pain like humans. But he was not born of man's corruptible seed(life).

Anyone Spirit that does not testify that Jesus is the Son of God is not of God,  but is the Spirit of the anti-christ.

Sorry Chrisd, you just about stepped on my nerves. Hey! cheer up, brother, I don't drink blood. But Jesus is speaking metaphorically here - (Nuru's words). That's why I want him to explain the passage from the Bible.

Looks like he's offline. But when he's done with that one, I will also like him to explain another passage in the Bible, This one:


Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 8:51-58

Jesus was conversing with the Jewish teachers.


What does he mean by the last statement highlighted?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

So the Bible is not inerrant to the word right?

Meaning of 'father' in Islamic thinking,

nuru:

No one, insofar as I know, actually believes that God had sexual intercourse with Mary to produce Jesus. Such an idea is revolting to most minds and is certainly not held by any of the established Christian creeds. God is not the father of Christ or any other humans in any literal sense. ''

So far so good. Note that you've quoted a source that clearly states that God is not the father in any literal sense - but that is what most Moslems have always believed, because they always want to force the idea that Christians are blaspheming when they call God 'Father'; and they do so by asking the retorical question: 'If God has a Son, who is His wife?'

nuru:

'' Considering that Jesus says that he came to do nothing but his Father's will, the last definition of father is the most appropriate as applied to his relationship with God. Jesus is the Son of God because he perfectly carries out the will of God. ''

nuru, by quoting the source above, do you really believe then that Jesus is the Son of God? No matter what that term means to you, Islam will never allow you confess Jesus as the Son of God, so don't even start to imagine the excuses you're bringing up. Jesus refered to God as 'Father' because He was the 'Son' - whatever definition you give to those terms, Islam denies both of them. Try going to a mosque and saying that Jesus is the Son of God - I doubt if you will remain the same from the experience that follows. Quoting sources you neither understand or believe in does not help your arguments.

4gt_m.  

In the same way you do not recognize Mohammed. What do you expect them to do? You're talkimng from your ass now.

chrisd:

In the same way you do not recognize Muhammad. What do you expect them to do? You're talkimng from your ass now.

chrisd, if that statement was meant as a reply to my post, I do not take kindly to your addressing me with 'talking from your ass.' Let's just be civil here or you'll have to change your eastern base. As to the question of Christians recognising Mohammed, I don't think the Bible has any reference to him, even though we respect his place in Islam. You cannot marry both faiths together as far as Islam does not recoginse the essential confessions in Christianity - one of which is this issue of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. Mohammed never acknowledged that, and we cannot recant on our faith that Jesus was who He said He was, in as much it is out of place for Moslems to recant their essential belief and cofessions in Islam. It does not appear to me that you know where you really belong.

4gt_m.

At least you don't see them jumping and acting like lunatics in their mosques. And no drama about being so filled with the spirit, like those attention seeking bastards.

chrisd, I advise that you let up on using such language on civilised people - no one's a bastard simply because he does not conform to your branch of lifeless christianity. In another thread, you've shown that you've a problem with people who are born again and you leave one wondering why you call yourself a christian if you don't know the first lesson of salvation in John 3:5. Some moslems may not act like lunatics in their mosques, but what happens outside of the mosques in Pakistan in protests at cartooning Mohammed? Really, you should have to check in somewhere for mental recess if you state what you can't defend. The question is if the Christian God and Allah in Islam are the same. If you've got constructive inputs, please do so.

Or, if you only want to prove to us in the forum that your religion is as uncultured as the uncivilised language you use, you're welcome to be my guest.

4gt_m.

So you're one of those christians who supports those cartoons eh. Of course, I have lots of things against so called born again christians. They act as self centred attention seekers just to get more people in church because it conformed to the modern secular worls when everything goes.

The cartoons were neither clever nor funny, and two of them were blatantly offensive. One depicted Muhammad himself as a terrorist, his turban transformed into a fizzing bomb; the other showed him speaking to a ragged queue of suicide bombers at heaven's gate saying "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins." They deliberately implied that Islam is a terrorist religion, and Denmark's Muslims quite reasonably demanded an apology.

Muslims seem to be the only ones who really take those cartoons seriously, though. Very rude, inappropriate, disrespectful and insulting!

chrisd:

Muslims seem to be the only ones who really take those cartoons seriously, though. Very rude, inappropriate, disrespectful and insulting!

All of this is true. But those cartoons, even if they're rude, inappropriate, disrespectful and insulting, are still protected by the freedom of speech. And nothing justifies the kind of reaction we've observed.

Perhaps, but how about the torturing of Iraqis by American troops. That is also bad right.

chrisd:

Perhaps, but how about the torturing of Iraqis by American troops. That is also bad right.

Of course that's bad, have I eve claimed otherwise? How come you compare the publishing of cartoons to the torture of human beings?

Well, if it was not for the cartoons there would have not been problems right. I don't think many people understand international relations, especially people in the media and journalists.