Sorry you don’t know what “Father” means. I am sure you can find a dictionary. And whatever definition you find, just know it is not Allah, who is a father to no one. In other words, you have no heavenly father, and, along with all other Muslims, you are a cosmic orphan.
Father is a person who have sex with a woman and conceive a child.
Son is a person who was/is begotten through sex by Father and Mother.
If Jesus is the Son of God, and not metaphorical as the other Sons of God in the Bible, then it is literal and a literal Son is through sex and Jesus becomes another God the Son and God the Father becomes another God the Father and we have 2 Gods but the Bible clearly said God is One, Only and Alone.
If the term Father means metaphorical Father, then Jesus is not the only Son of God but everybody. Then why are you saying Jesus is the only begotten, if God has other metaphorical Sons/sons?
God is not a Father to no one because HE DOES NOT have sex with anyone but a metaphorical father to anyone including idol worshipers, Gods enemy, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, Christians etc. because He is their sustainer, nourisher, provider, provides their needs for them like air, water, food etc.
Christian can claim the Father, but God is Father to anyone.
In Islam, we have Rabb as God the Father to anyone but do not use the Abb because the Christians have abused it to be part of 3 Gods.
@Robert, Intellect makes some really powerful points.
Now that we have established it is not literal, I want to bring to your attention the meaning of the title ‘Father’ and an Arabic term that Muslims use (‘Rabb’) which conveys the metaphorical meaning. I clipped this from the excellent Ali Ataie, it’s a short explanation of both terms. Please do have a listen. Thanks
Father is a person who have sex with a woman and conceive a child.
Son is a person who was/is begotten through sex by Father and Mother.
For humans yes, but not for God. Estaqfr’allah ! استغفرالله
God, the LORD, explained through the angel Gabriel, explained to Mary why Jesus would be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:30-35
30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
There is nothing physical in the terms “Father” and “Son” for God the Father and Jesus the Son. You have to eject that thinking out of your mind. God chose those words to describe God and His Word (the Son) from all eternity in Spirit relationship with one another because they communicate 1. close relationship (just like Ali Ataie said), but also 2. The Son has the same nature / essence / substance as the Father – spiritual essence / substance.
Why do you all of you refuse to understand that Father and Son in the NT about God and Jesus means spiritual ? (no sex, nothing physical)
with John 1:1-5 (Word, Creator, Eternal, Light, Life), John 1:14 (became human, took on a human nature along with His divine eternal nature) and John 17:5 (The Son is eternal) and other passages, it shows us that the NT teaches that God the Father and Jesus the Son/ the Word existed together (2 persons) in a spiritual relationship, that that relationship is pure, holy, spiritual, and eternal.
The Arabic word Rabb ربّ means “Lord”; it does not mean “father”, but Christianity agrees that God the Father is Lord and Jesus the Son is Lord.
The words Father and Son in the NT do not mean physical or sexual relations with a woman for God. Estaqfr’allah ! استغفرالله
But neither do they mean that Jesus is just a son in the sense of a created being. (the meaning of Psalm 82:6; that Ali Ataie and others (Ahmad Deedat’s “sons by the tons”, etc.) tries to say). He was not created, Jesus was eternally generated (always with the Father in spirit and equal in nature.)
Hebrews 10:5 – When the Son comes into the world, He says, “A body You have prepared for Me”.
God the Father prepared a human body for Jesus – it started in the womb of Mary.
‘Hebrews 10:5 – When the Son comes into the world, He says, “A body You have prepared for Me”. God the Father prepared a human body for Jesus – it started in the womb of Mary.’
The Christian Bible went to great lengths to demonstrate that the atoning death of Jesus was predicated upon the Jewish Scriptures. In the New Testament book of Hebrews, a verse from the Psalms is cited as evidence that the sacrifice of Jesus was part of God’s original plan for the world:
Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for me. (Hebrews 10:5, referencing Psalm 40:7)
Verse ten of this chapter in Hebrews informs us that the body spoken of is the body of Jesus. However, the Christian Bible took great liberties, distorting the verse quoted from the book of Psalms, which never mentions a body being prepared. What follows is the actual verse from Psalm 40:
Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired, but my ears You have opened; burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required.
The Christian claim of fidelity to the Biblical text is exposed here as a very hollow one.
Jesus worshipped God the Father while on earth for 33 years, of course. Jesus was not an atheist while on earth. Since God for all eternity was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; then Jesus worshipping God the Father while on earth does not prove He is not God in the flesh, since the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradicted by that.
‘Jesus worshipped God the Father while on earth for 33 years, of course. Jesus was not an atheist while on earth. Since God for all eternity was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; then Jesus worshipping God the Father while on earth does not prove He is not God in the flesh, since the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradicted by that.’
So you admit that Jesus had a God and worshiped him! Ken your theology has made you confused and befuddled. You have abandoned the key Jewish (and Islamic) concept of God as ONE. Your Trinitarianism forces you to express tritheism. May God have mercy on your blasphemous soul!
Since the NT is inspired and inerrant, the translation is a correct interpretation of the original intent to express the Son’s willingness to be used by God the Father as a willing sacrifice. “opening or piercing the ear” was an expressing of willingness to be obedient to God. The Son was willing to be a sacrifice. ear is one part of the body. The NT gives further revelation of the original meaning.
“NT is inspired and inerrant” – no it is not. It contains literally thousands of discrepancies and errors as an honest person will admit. And the NT was canonised by the Holy Catholic Church, and the book does not claim to be inspired, it does not claim to be inerrant or perfect. It’s all in your imagination Ken.
It is not “tri-theism”; all of Christian history denies this. (Both NT and church history) You have no right to impute “3 gods” onto Christianity, when that is why the doctrine of the Trinity is what it is – it avoids tritheism and also teaches that Jesus is God; God in the flesh. If Jesus humbled Himself for 33 years on earth and worshipped God the Father and prayed to God the Father, that does not say that Jesus is not God. It just says that Jesus is not an atheist while on earth.
The Christian Bible took great liberties, distorting the verse quoted from the book of Psalms, which never mentions a body being prepared. What follows is the actual verse from Psalm 40:
Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired, but my ears You have opened; burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required.
The Christian claim of fidelity to the Biblical text is exposed here as a very hollow one.
No; the doctrine of the Trinity refutes all your claims. You are required to represent the doctrine honestly, according to what the doctrine says, not what you want it to say.
The NT books were canon when they were written; they were self-authenticating. The early “catholic” (kata – holikos = according to the whole, universal, spreading to all nations) rightly recognized the right books, but they already existed and were already God-breathed. They were so powerful that the early church could not help but approve of them as “canon” (criterion, law, rule)
Ken you have been refuted. But you are not honest enough to admit it. That is your problem. You are truly a kafir
(The word kāfir is the active participle of the root K-F-R “to cover”. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting. Thus, the word kāfir implies a person who hides or covers the truth.)
The NT claims of inspiration and inerrancy – we have already hashed that out hundreds of times. It is not based on only one verse here and there. It is based on hundreds of verses and their implications.
You are Kafir for refusing to believe the Injeel and refusing to believe in God and His power and His Son and Spirit. And for refusing to believe in Al Masih’s atoning death on the cross and resurrection from the dead. You are the apostate, a kafir – since you turned away from what you claimed you believed in an evangelical church.
Since you don’t believe in the Injeel – you don’t believe that 2 Tim. 3:16 or 2 Peter 1:19-21 or John chapters 14 and 16 (The Holy Spirit will lead the apostles into all the truth) or I Cor. chapters 1-2, Acts 9, 22, 26, (the apostle Paul’s testimony), etc. What good does it do for you to ask for one verse, when you don’t believe in ANY of those verses?
And your professor Haleem admited that Surah 5:47 teaches that the text of the Injeel was NOT corrupted. So it is you who refuse to believe and you are Kafir and apostate and not honest and under the wrath of God.
2 Tim. 3:15 refers to the OT.
2 Tim. 3:16 expands it to the NT – all that is Scripture is God-breathed. The great apostle puts the Gospels and NT writings on the same level as Torah – 1 Tim. 5:18.
‘2 Tim. 3:16 expands it to the NT – all that is Scripture is God-breathed.’
That is exegetically incorrect. Read the verse in context and you will see the passage only refers to the Jewish scriptures – the New Testament was not canonised until the 4th century (by the Catholic Church).
Paul writes to the young Timothy:
‘But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.’
So the ‘All Scriptures’ refers to the sacred writings Timothy knew from his youth, long before 1 Timothy was written.
The Quran is irrelevant and your point is just a red herring. I am showing you what the NT itself teaches.
A conservative Christian scholar comments on verse 15:
‘By sacred writings Paul means, of course, the OT; there is abundant evidence that this was a stock designation for it in Greek-speaking Judaism (cf. Philo and Joseph). …The OT was the only canonical Scripture for Christians as well as Jews in the apostolic age and for several generations after it.’
Black’s New Testament Commentaries, The Pastoral Epistles by JND Kelly, page 201.
Of course verse 15 is about the OT; but the apostle Paul expands it to the NT in verse 16. 1 Tim. 5:18 proves that, since he puts NT books on same level as Torah as Scripture. Every time Paul writes, “I Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ . . . ” etc. – He is claiming the same apostolic authority that Jesus gave to the 11 disciples, some of whom would write Scripture later (John 14, 16, 17:8, etc.) (Peter, John, Matthew, Luke probably interviewed Mary and the other disciples for the rest of the details, along with revelation from the apostle Paul.)
I have J. N. D. Kelly’s Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, and you left out what he wrote with your elipsis . . . and what he wrote after that, that affirms the NT writings were considered on the same level of inspiration as the OT.
That is very shoddy exegesis Ken – you really do know better than that.
You concede that verse 15 (‘sacred scriptures’) is only about the Jewish scriptures. Good
JND Kelly helpfully comments on this (page 202):
‘By sacred writings Paul means, of course, the OT; there is abundant evidence that this was a stock designation for it in Greek-speaking Judaism (cf. Philo and Joseph). …The OT was the only canonical Scripture for Christians as well as Jews in the apostolic age and for several generations after it.’
So the OT was the only canonical scriptures until well into the 2nd century. Irenaeus (c. 180) was the first writer to speak unequivocally of a ‘New Testament’.
JND Kelly continues on verse 16, ‘All Scripture..’:
‘Paul develops his doctrine of the value of the OT… both the context and NT usage require that it should have the narrowed-down sense of Scripture, ie the OT.’
JND Kelly is very clear that only the OT is in Paul’s mind in 2 Timothy 3. You are refuted by your own scholar.
τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα = “the sacred writings” – verse 15, OT
is expanded to
πᾶσα γραφὴ = all Scripture (different, but related word to the one in verse 15)
θεόπνευστος = “God-breathed”, “breathed out by God”
the lack of the article in “all Scripture” points to the quality of Scripture – all that has the quality of Scripture is “God-breathed” and includes even books not written yet at the time 2 Tim. was written. (66-67 AD, before Nero executed Paul)
Kelly notes that 2 Peter 3:16 included all of Paul’s letters and Ignatius (110 AD) and Irenaeus ( 180 AD) are early writers who clearly put the NT on equality with OT.
George Knight and William Hendrickson’s commentaries on 2 Tim. are excellent and give a lot more argumentation than Kelly’s; more solid exegesis and argumentation for 2 Tim. 3:16 to include all of Nt writings.
2 Peter is a mid-2nd century forgery as all but fundamentalist and very conservative scholars agree.
Anyway, we are talking about Paul’s teaching in 2 Tim 3. There is no historical evidence that Ignatius or Irenaeus taught that ALL the books from Matthew through to Revelation are ‘inerrant and inspired by God’ as you wrongly claim.
You view is anachronistic, unscholarly and unhistorical.
‘are several indications that the Epistle is of late date’, and concludes, ‘these considerations of date, and the differences in style and interest from I Peter, make it virtually impossible to hold that St Peter was the author. The Epistle was received into the canon with considerable hesitation. Its date is probably the second or third Christian generation, perhaps c. AD 150.’
page 1262.
‘The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church‘ is perhaps the most authoritative, one-volume encyclopedia of information on Christianity. With over 480 contributors, from a myriad of denominational backgrounds, this book has a completeness that is unrivalled.’
It seems to me, after reading about 2 Peter and Jude in various commentaries (for the past 30 years), that Peter dictated his 2 letter from prison to Jude, and that explains why there is so much similarity in language, and it may also point to why 2 Peter was not known or mentioned much – Jude wrote it for Peter, but did not have a chance to publish it widely. Eventually, it was copied more later and the early church recognized it as “God-breathed”, apostolic, Scripture.
Jude in his own letter, says, “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” – Jude verse 3. includes the whole NT.
It makes sense, since Peter used Mark for his secretary to write the Gospel according to Mark, and Silvanus to write his first letter ( 1 Peter 5:12), that Peter would tell Jude to write his 2nd letter for him from prison.
You said;
But neither do they mean that Jesus is just a son in the sense of a created being. (the meaning of Psalm 82:6; that Ali Ataie and others (Ahmad Deedat’s “sons by the tons”, etc.) tries to say). He was not created, Jesus was eternally generated (always with the Father in spirit and equal in nature.)
I say;
“Jesus was eternally generated” According to Trinitarian Ken Temple.
Who generated Jesus then?
Did the Son also generated the Father?
The Bible said God is One, Only and Alone.
The Bible also said.”I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
“Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
If the above verse from the Bible is true, then why should Yahweh goes on to generate other persons to Himself when He clearly states that He is God and there is no one else.
Do you mean to tell me that a Person/person/being is not someone else? A person is someone else and so if Yahweh generates someone else He(Yahweh) is against his own Bible by generating a Person/person/being(someone else) to refute Himself(Yahweh) according to the verse above. Yahweh is God and will not refute Himself, so the doctrine of Trinity is false because it claims another person was generated.
You said;
Why do you all of you refuse to understand that Father and Son in the NT about God and Jesus means spiritual ? (no sex, nothing physical)
with John 1:1-5 (Word, Creator, Eternal, Light, Life), John 1:14 (became human, took on a human nature along with His divine eternal nature) and John 17:5 (The Son is eternal) and other passages, it shows us that the NT teaches that God the Father and Jesus the Son/ the Word existed together (2 persons) in a spiritual relationship, that that relationship is pure, holy, spiritual, and eternal.
I say;
You formed a God by becoming human because the human part was not there as part of God before He added the human nature to Him so it goes against the following verse. God-Man is a hybrid creature which is a formed God.
“Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.” Isaiah 43:10
You said;
But neither do they mean that Jesus is just a son in the sense of a created being. (the meaning of Psalm 82:6; that Ali Ataie and others (Ahmad Deedat’s “sons by the tons”, etc.) tries to say). He was not created, Jesus was eternally generated (always with the Father in spirit and equal in nature.)
I say;
Son/son will always be a created being because that is what it means, unless it is metaphorical and in such case it will disqualify Jesus Christ as the Only begotten Son and will include all of us as the Sons/sons of God but not Jesus Christ alone.
Son/son means Son/son unless it is metaphorical. If anyone does not want the Son/son as literal or metaphorical then he can change it to some word like buddies, brothers, sisters, share holders, directors etc. and we will kinow that they are equal on the same pyramid.
You use Son/son for One and Father for the other Person means one is higher than the other and God is higher than anyone and God is not Son/son to anyone because Son/son no matter how you describe it is lower status and almighty God is not Son/son the anyone and it is blaspheme to say someone who is Son/son is God. No matter how you describe it is a big sin and needs repentance as soon as possible and never to be repeated.
You do not use Son/son for God. It is a very bad name for God. God is not Son/son to anyone be it literal or metaphorical
John 1:1 One God with another God = 2 Gods. Why does the persons of the Trinity not be Directors but Son and Father? which has One higher than others.
ONE WHAT? To Trinitarians.
Monotheism. The Answer is simple and was spoken by Jesus himself.
“The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one [hen] God; ” Mark 12:29
If the above verse spoken by Jesus is true, then he(Jesus) can not be God even if he is on earth.
You said;
‘Jesus worshipped God the Father while on earth for 33 years, of course. Jesus was not an atheist while on earth. Since God for all eternity was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; then Jesus worshipping God the Father while on earth does not prove He is not God in the flesh, since the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradicted by that.’
You also said;
There is nothing physical in the terms “Father” and “Son” for God the Father and Jesus the Son. You have to eject that thinking out of your mind. God chose those words to describe God and His Word (the Son) from all eternity in Spirit relationship with one another because they communicate 1. close relationship (just like Ali Ataie said), but also 2. The Son has the same nature / essence / substance as the Father – spiritual essence / substance.
Why do you all of you refuse to understand that Father and Son in the NT about God and Jesus means spiritual ? (no sex, nothing physical)
I say;
God is the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit was God for all eternity- According to Ken Temple.
It is not true my dear Ken, because Jesus(God the Son/son) was conceived from the womb of Mary 2000 years ago, so cannot be eternal.
Jesus i.e. God The Son/son said the Father(God The Father) is Greater than I. If God is One, and the Father is greater than Jesus and no one is Greater than God, then Jesus(God the Son) is not God because he is no greater than the Father and The Father is Greater than anyone as the true God of Abraham.
Differences of style with 1 Peter is not a good argument, since Silvanus wrote it for Peter ( 1 Peter 5:12)
It makes sense that Jude wrote it for Peter, Peter dictating it from prison, since Jude and 2 Peter have similar language.
Peter used 3 different amanuenses (kind of like an ancient secretary) for his 3 books – Mark wrote down Peter’s sermons and memory; Silvanus wrote 1 Peter, and Jude wrote for Peter the second epistle. That is more than adequate to account for the differences in style – 3 different writers.
The Epistle of Barnabas (15:4) quotes 2 Peter, and it has a range of dating between 70 AD – 135 AD.
none of the NT are forgeries.
Conservative believing scholars agree with me. (or I agree with them)
“his own” = not true; I repudiate liberals and skeptics and unbelieving scholars – Ehrman, Schlermacher, Bultmann, Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg – they are unbelievers and not “our” scholars. Raymond Brown – liberal.
I am not a scholar, true; but I read both sides and see the believers are better.
Most of Them were believers and or were believers before. Bart Erhman was a believer and realized Christianity is not from God and at least was changed by men from the straight path to God.
Paul Williams knows religion very well and he was a believer( of your religion), but he used his intellect not dream but intellect to know that Christianity has diverted from the God of Moses, Abraham and chose Islam the right path which Dr. James White acknowledge that Islam has made a U-Turn back to the God and religion of Moses.
You doubt Paul Williams, Bart Erhman, Dr. Jerald Dirks( former Christian Deacon) etc. as former Christians but believed in Nabeel Quraish( a former Ahmadi who believed Jesus had his second coming in the form of Ghulam Ahmad) dreams as a former Muslim.
Do you also believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
Do you also believe humanity is only 6000 years old?
Do you also believe Noah’s flood was a global event?
Why do Muslims wish Muhammad peace and blessings? He should already have peace and blessings, according to your religion, if he was a true prophet and went to paradise when he died, right?
Didn’t he already go to paradise when he died?
or is he still waiting in the grave, until the day of resurrection?
Even if his soul is still in the grave and waiting for the day of resurrection, why the need for wishing him peace and blessings? Should he ALREADY have peace and blessings?
When one looks at all the issues between Ahmadis vs. Sunnis and Shiites, the differences are small compared to Biblical Christianity vs. Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
If you read the whole book of Nabeel’s, he was using most all Sunni and standard Muslim arguments against David Wood and Christianity while he was wrestling with the issues and investigating and seeking the truth.
Even Shabir Ally and Ahmad Deedat were using Ahmadi arguments for Surah 4:157 – saying that Al Masih was crucified, but did not die and recovered.
The differences are very small between Ahmadi’s and Sunnis, but great and large between Biblical Christianity vs. Mormonism (Pagan, polytheism) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (deny the Deity of Christ, deny physical bodily resurrection, deny the Holy Spirit, say only 144,000 reach heaven; deny a literal hell.)
Most of Them were believers and or were believers before.
Ehrman claims he was a believer, but according to Matthew 7:21-23 and 1 John 2:19, these verses show that he was never a true believer in the first place.
Humanity may be 10,000 years old. (there are gaps in the genealogies)
I don’t know about the age of the earth, since we don’t know how God is measuring time in the first 4 “days” in Genesis, since the sun of our solar system is not created until the 4th day. (Genesis 1:14-19)
بلا کیف
But God has the power to create things with age already in them, as He did with Adam and Eve. (They were not babies, but fully grown and mature humans.)
Why single out the Prophet Muhammed, we send peace and blessing on every prophet. It’s a way of respecting them and honoring them not taking their names like any name because they are best of the mankind handpicked by the God to the Prophets.
Is it just a greeting of respect, like “hello” or is there some reason why you have to say that millions of times over the centuries – it seems like there is a doubt as to whether the prophets actually have peace when they die.
You said;
Do Sunni’s and / or Shiites speak to Muhammad at the end of the prayer, as Nabeel wrote on page 24?
Or is that a purely Ahmadi practice?
I say;
Do Christians pray at all? What did you do today to keep close the Almighty God? Doing nothing and waiting for Holy Spirit to spoon fee you? Come on do something. Muslims have continue prayers to be reminding themselves and getting closer to their creator.
During Muslim prayers when we sit we ask God ask for God blessing to all righteous people and we did not ask for the prophets blessing alone, but for us as well and for all righteous people.
We started by
All greetings of humility are for Allah , and all prayers and goodness
We said to Mohammed peace be upon you
We said to all righteous people peace be upon you
We said to our selves peace be upon us.
What is wrong with that?
After praising God, of course we have to ask for His blessing to our loved ones and the prophet and all righteous people and to wish them well and I see nothing wrong with that.
Yes, In Salaat, it is verses praising God Alone but there is a provision to bring your loved ones in and pray for their blessings. The verse does not indicate anything to suggest worshiping anyone other than Allah.
In Christian Lords prayer it says
Our Father
And forgive us our trespasses.
We say peace be upon you Mohammed
Peace be upon all righteous slaves of Allah
Peace be upon us
What the heck is wrong about this? except ex-Ahmadi claiming to be ex Muslim trying to sell his book.
You said;
Why do Muslims wish Muhammad peace and blessings? He should already have peace and blessings, according to your religion, if he was a true prophet and went to paradise when he died, right?
I say;
Why do Christians do repent when they sin? Christians claim, the sin had already been paid by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. But repenting after Christian sinning does not mean the sin had been paid by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and rendered the crucifixion useless.
Wishing peace to prophet Mohammed, means Muslims are humble no matter who they are they continue to seek blessing from God because they are not God. Asking Gods blessing especially for prophet Mohammed clearly indicates that Mohammed is not God and needs Gods blessings. It is only God the Almighty who does not need blessings from anyone. But Mohammed is not God so he needs blessings from God. Who tells you that a true prophet of God does not need blessings from God?
Does Solomon, Abraham, Moses etc. not need blessings of God now? and are they God? to exempt themselves from the blessings of God? Even if you are in heaven as a prophet, don’t you need the blessings of God? Does the blessings of God ceases?
Who said they don’t have peace? it’s our job to send peace and blessing on the prophets because God said so, it’s not because they don’t have peace rather it because It’s a way of respecting them and honoring them not taking their names like any name because they are BEST OF THE MANKIND handpicked by the God to be the Prophets. If we don’t send peace on them then as IF we are taking their name AS ANY name that’s not acceptable. irrespective whether you invoke peace or not they have peace, if we don’t send peace God will not like it, its called being rude and manner less taking prophet’s name as IF ANY NAME. IN SHORT, SHOWING RESPECT!!!
Matthew 11:28-30
“come to Me, . . . and I will give you peace”
Romans 5:1
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
I say;
So, Christians have peace now? Do you have peace now? Don’t you need peace now? Why repent when you sin? as a Christian? Did you not have your peace already? and does not need any peace again and does not need to repent again.
Why do Christians repent if they already had peace. I can see Christians sinning everyday. What peace is that they have and continue sinning and do not need peace and blessings anymore but to sin?
You said;
Is it just a greeting of respect, like “hello” or is there some reason why you have to say that millions of times over the centuries – it seems like there is a doubt as to whether the prophets actually have peace when they die.
I say;
No, it is only God who does not need blessing but anyone needs the blessings of God be it prophets, dead, alive, in heaven etc. we continue to need the blessings of God and blessings of God is not something one must say he does not need.
You said;
When one looks at all the issues between Ahmadis vs. Sunnis and Shiites, the differences are small compared to Biblical Christianity vs. Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
If you read the whole book of Nabeel’s, he was using most all Sunni and standard Muslim arguments against David Wood and Christianity while he was wrestling with the issues and investigating and seeking the truth.
Even Shabir Ally and Ahmad Deedat were using Ahmadi arguments for Surah 4:157 – saying that Al Masih was crucified, but did not die and recovered.
The differences are very small between Ahmadi’s and Sunnis, but great and large between Biblical Christianity vs. Mormonism (Pagan, polytheism) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (deny the Deity of Christ, deny physical bodily resurrection, deny the Holy Spirit, say only 144,000 reach heaven; deny a literal hell.)
I say;
No, you know very well that all Muslims have minor differences except the Ahmadis who have different prophet and believe Jesus Christ second coming was their prophet Ghulam Ahmad, so Ahmadis are not Muslims but the rest sunis, Sufis, shite etc. believe in the only prophet Mohammed is the last prophet and so are Muslims. David Wood can only convince someone like Nabeel who has a shaky religion to begin with but not a true Muslim like me, Paul Williams, Bur, Yahya Snow, Eric and the rest of all real Muslims but not Ahmadis.
Paul Williams, Dr. Jerald Dirks, Yusuf Estes, Khalid Yasin, Hussein Yee, Mark Hanson, Timothy Humble, Ingrid Matson, Gary Miller, Jefferey Laing and many more learned Christians who converted to Islam did so through their research and intellect but not dream. It is only Nabeel Quraish who used dream to convert to Christianity. Sometimes dreams are not reliable and Satan can tempt humans during dream and try to convince them.
It is only through your intellect, that you can overcome Satan. Satan dare not come to tempt me or any brothers to believe One = Three because my intellect is strong on that true phenomenon as 3 beings is not equal to one being, so such Satanic dream is away from me, but I still pray everyday and ask God to guide me from Satan. A’uzu billahi minashaitanir rajim (I seek refuge in Allah from the outcast Satan).
Is that the only prominent Muslim convert you have in the person of Nabeel Quraish? What a Pity.
Compare that with this uncountable Christians who are learned in their former religion as well as Gurus in their new religion Islam.
Shuib Webb, Ryan Mahoney, Susan Carland, Yvonne Ridley, Paul Williams, Dr. Jerald Dirks, Yusuf Estes, Khalid Yasin, Hussein Yee, Mark Hanson, Timothy Humble, Ingrid Matson, Gary Miller, Jefferey Laing and many more learned Christians.
Apart from Mormons who have different prophet, the rest of Christians are Christians because they believed Jesus is their saviour and do not have prophet or saviour apart from Jesus. They believe just like you that they are following the true Christianity. You are all lost unfortunately.
Blogging Theology 
Jesus said to worship the Fahter, Allah said he is not a father, so Jesus was not a Muslim. END OF STORY.
Thanks Paul for clearing that up for us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robert, can you tell me what ‘Father’ means?
LikeLike
Yahya Snow…
Sorry you don’t know what “Father” means. I am sure you can find a dictionary. And whatever definition you find, just know it is not Allah, who is a father to no one. In other words, you have no heavenly father, and, along with all other Muslims, you are a cosmic orphan.
LikeLike
Robert Wells
The Dictionary
Father is a person who have sex with a woman and conceive a child.
Son is a person who was/is begotten through sex by Father and Mother.
If Jesus is the Son of God, and not metaphorical as the other Sons of God in the Bible, then it is literal and a literal Son is through sex and Jesus becomes another God the Son and God the Father becomes another God the Father and we have 2 Gods but the Bible clearly said God is One, Only and Alone.
If the term Father means metaphorical Father, then Jesus is not the only Son of God but everybody. Then why are you saying Jesus is the only begotten, if God has other metaphorical Sons/sons?
God is not a Father to no one because HE DOES NOT have sex with anyone but a metaphorical father to anyone including idol worshipers, Gods enemy, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, Christians etc. because He is their sustainer, nourisher, provider, provides their needs for them like air, water, food etc.
Christian can claim the Father, but God is Father to anyone.
In Islam, we have Rabb as God the Father to anyone but do not use the Abb because the Christians have abused it to be part of 3 Gods.
Come on Christians do research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabb
Thanks
LikeLiked by 2 people
Intellect
Thanks for proving that Jesus is not a Muslim.
LikeLike
lol silly Bobby. Thanks for providing the free entertainment on Blogging Theology.
LikeLike
@Robert, Intellect makes some really powerful points.
Now that we have established it is not literal, I want to bring to your attention the meaning of the title ‘Father’ and an Arabic term that Muslims use (‘Rabb’) which conveys the metaphorical meaning. I clipped this from the excellent Ali Ataie, it’s a short explanation of both terms. Please do have a listen. Thanks
LikeLike
Father is a person who have sex with a woman and conceive a child.
Son is a person who was/is begotten through sex by Father and Mother.
For humans yes, but not for God. Estaqfr’allah ! استغفرالله
God, the LORD, explained through the angel Gabriel, explained to Mary why Jesus would be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:30-35
30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
There is nothing physical in the terms “Father” and “Son” for God the Father and Jesus the Son. You have to eject that thinking out of your mind. God chose those words to describe God and His Word (the Son) from all eternity in Spirit relationship with one another because they communicate 1. close relationship (just like Ali Ataie said), but also 2. The Son has the same nature / essence / substance as the Father – spiritual essence / substance.
Why do you all of you refuse to understand that Father and Son in the NT about God and Jesus means spiritual ? (no sex, nothing physical)
with John 1:1-5 (Word, Creator, Eternal, Light, Life), John 1:14 (became human, took on a human nature along with His divine eternal nature) and John 17:5 (The Son is eternal) and other passages, it shows us that the NT teaches that God the Father and Jesus the Son/ the Word existed together (2 persons) in a spiritual relationship, that that relationship is pure, holy, spiritual, and eternal.
The Arabic word Rabb ربّ means “Lord”; it does not mean “father”, but Christianity agrees that God the Father is Lord and Jesus the Son is Lord.
The words Father and Son in the NT do not mean physical or sexual relations with a woman for God. Estaqfr’allah ! استغفرالله
But neither do they mean that Jesus is just a son in the sense of a created being. (the meaning of Psalm 82:6; that Ali Ataie and others (Ahmad Deedat’s “sons by the tons”, etc.) tries to say). He was not created, Jesus was eternally generated (always with the Father in spirit and equal in nature.)
Hebrews 10:5 – When the Son comes into the world, He says, “A body You have prepared for Me”.
God the Father prepared a human body for Jesus – it started in the womb of Mary.
LikeLike
Ken you claim:
‘Hebrews 10:5 – When the Son comes into the world, He says, “A body You have prepared for Me”. God the Father prepared a human body for Jesus – it started in the womb of Mary.’
The Christian Bible went to great lengths to demonstrate that the atoning death of Jesus was predicated upon the Jewish Scriptures. In the New Testament book of Hebrews, a verse from the Psalms is cited as evidence that the sacrifice of Jesus was part of God’s original plan for the world:
Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for me. (Hebrews 10:5, referencing Psalm 40:7)
Verse ten of this chapter in Hebrews informs us that the body spoken of is the body of Jesus. However, the Christian Bible took great liberties, distorting the verse quoted from the book of Psalms, which never mentions a body being prepared. What follows is the actual verse from Psalm 40:
Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired, but my ears You have opened; burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required.
The Christian claim of fidelity to the Biblical text is exposed here as a very hollow one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jesus worshipped God the Father while on earth for 33 years, of course. Jesus was not an atheist while on earth. Since God for all eternity was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; then Jesus worshipping God the Father while on earth does not prove He is not God in the flesh, since the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradicted by that.
LikeLike
Ken claims:
‘Jesus worshipped God the Father while on earth for 33 years, of course. Jesus was not an atheist while on earth. Since God for all eternity was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; then Jesus worshipping God the Father while on earth does not prove He is not God in the flesh, since the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradicted by that.’
So you admit that Jesus had a God and worshiped him! Ken your theology has made you confused and befuddled. You have abandoned the key Jewish (and Islamic) concept of God as ONE. Your Trinitarianism forces you to express tritheism. May God have mercy on your blasphemous soul!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since the NT is inspired and inerrant, the translation is a correct interpretation of the original intent to express the Son’s willingness to be used by God the Father as a willing sacrifice. “opening or piercing the ear” was an expressing of willingness to be obedient to God. The Son was willing to be a sacrifice. ear is one part of the body. The NT gives further revelation of the original meaning.
LikeLike
“NT is inspired and inerrant” – no it is not. It contains literally thousands of discrepancies and errors as an honest person will admit. And the NT was canonised by the Holy Catholic Church, and the book does not claim to be inspired, it does not claim to be inerrant or perfect. It’s all in your imagination Ken.
LikeLike
It is not “tri-theism”; all of Christian history denies this. (Both NT and church history) You have no right to impute “3 gods” onto Christianity, when that is why the doctrine of the Trinity is what it is – it avoids tritheism and also teaches that Jesus is God; God in the flesh. If Jesus humbled Himself for 33 years on earth and worshipped God the Father and prayed to God the Father, that does not say that Jesus is not God. It just says that Jesus is not an atheist while on earth.
LikeLike
Other verses also inform us that “a body You have prepared for Me” is true – John 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-8 prove this.
LikeLike
Ken this is so simple a child can grasp the logic:
There is 1 God.
Jesus said he worshiped as His God this 1 God
Ergo: Jesus was not God
Simple.
LikeLike
Yes, it is inspired and inerrant, and even the Qur’an says that also. “no one can change the words of Allah”
LikeLike
The Christian Bible took great liberties, distorting the verse quoted from the book of Psalms, which never mentions a body being prepared. What follows is the actual verse from Psalm 40:
Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired, but my ears You have opened; burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required.
The Christian claim of fidelity to the Biblical text is exposed here as a very hollow one.
LikeLike
“Yes, it is inspired and inerrant”
no it is not. It contains thousands of discrepancies and errors as an honest person will admit.
The NT was canonised by the Holy Catholic Church, and the book does not claim to be inspired, it does not claim to be inerrant or perfect.
It’s all in your imagination Ken.
LikeLike
No; the doctrine of the Trinity refutes all your claims. You are required to represent the doctrine honestly, according to what the doctrine says, not what you want it to say.
LikeLike
A child could easily refute you Ken..
LikeLike
The NT books were canon when they were written; they were self-authenticating. The early “catholic” (kata – holikos = according to the whole, universal, spreading to all nations) rightly recognized the right books, but they already existed and were already God-breathed. They were so powerful that the early church could not help but approve of them as “canon” (criterion, law, rule)
LikeLike
Where does the NT claim to be “inspired and inerrant”?
And was the Church correct to decide that Hebrews should be in the NT because it was allegedly authored by Paul?
LikeLike
no, none of you have refuted me yet, and you are all adults.
LikeLike
Ken you have been refuted. But you are not honest enough to admit it. That is your problem. You are truly a kafir
(The word kāfir is the active participle of the root K-F-R “to cover”. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting. Thus, the word kāfir implies a person who hides or covers the truth.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
The NT claims of inspiration and inerrancy – we have already hashed that out hundreds of times. It is not based on only one verse here and there. It is based on hundreds of verses and their implications.
LikeLike
just give me one verse then that says ALL the books from Matthew to Revelation are inerrant and inspired by God.
LikeLike
You are Kafir for refusing to believe the Injeel and refusing to believe in God and His power and His Son and Spirit. And for refusing to believe in Al Masih’s atoning death on the cross and resurrection from the dead. You are the apostate, a kafir – since you turned away from what you claimed you believed in an evangelical church.
Hebrews 3:12-13
LikeLike
As I wrote, it is based the combination of hundreds of verses.
LikeLike
Jesus worshiped the One True God. You worship Jesus. That makes you an idolater Ken.
LikeLike
so you admit there is not a single verse in the NT that says the NT is inerrant or inspired. Oh dear. Your faith is not biblical.
LikeLike
Since you don’t believe in the Injeel – you don’t believe that 2 Tim. 3:16 or 2 Peter 1:19-21 or John chapters 14 and 16 (The Holy Spirit will lead the apostles into all the truth) or I Cor. chapters 1-2, Acts 9, 22, 26, (the apostle Paul’s testimony), etc. What good does it do for you to ask for one verse, when you don’t believe in ANY of those verses?
LikeLike
None of those verses from Timothy or Peter or John say ALL the books from Matthew to Revelation are inerrant and inspired by God.
2 Tim 3:16 refers to the OT not the New Testament so it is irrelevant to the point at hand.
LikeLike
And your professor Haleem admited that Surah 5:47 teaches that the text of the Injeel was NOT corrupted. So it is you who refuse to believe and you are Kafir and apostate and not honest and under the wrath of God.
LikeLike
It is a theological deduction from all the verses.
LikeLike
It’s very odd you use the Quran to support your claim that the New Testament is inerrant and inspired by God.
For the purposes of this discussion I am not interested what you think the Quran says.
None of the verses from Timothy or Peter or John say ALL the books from Matthew to Revelation are inerrant and inspired by God.
2 Tim 3:16 refers to the OT not the New Testament so it is irrelevant to the point at hand.
Your ‘theological deduction’ has failed to provide the necessary evidence.
LikeLike
2 Tim. 3:15 refers to the OT.
2 Tim. 3:16 expands it to the NT – all that is Scripture is God-breathed. The great apostle puts the Gospels and NT writings on the same level as Torah – 1 Tim. 5:18.
LikeLike
It’s very odd you use the Quran to support your claim that the New Testament is inerrant and inspired by God.
Since you are a Muslim, it is not odd at all for me to use that as prove against you. Your own book condemns you.
For the purposes of this discussion I am not interested what you think the Quran says.
of course; because you cannot handle the truth.
LikeLike
‘2 Tim. 3:16 expands it to the NT – all that is Scripture is God-breathed.’
That is exegetically incorrect. Read the verse in context and you will see the passage only refers to the Jewish scriptures – the New Testament was not canonised until the 4th century (by the Catholic Church).
Paul writes to the young Timothy:
‘But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.’
So the ‘All Scriptures’ refers to the sacred writings Timothy knew from his youth, long before 1 Timothy was written.
The Quran is irrelevant and your point is just a red herring. I am showing you what the NT itself teaches.
LikeLike
A conservative Christian scholar comments on verse 15:
‘By sacred writings Paul means, of course, the OT; there is abundant evidence that this was a stock designation for it in Greek-speaking Judaism (cf. Philo and Joseph). …The OT was the only canonical Scripture for Christians as well as Jews in the apostolic age and for several generations after it.’
Black’s New Testament Commentaries, The Pastoral Epistles by JND Kelly, page 201.
LikeLike
Of course verse 15 is about the OT; but the apostle Paul expands it to the NT in verse 16. 1 Tim. 5:18 proves that, since he puts NT books on same level as Torah as Scripture. Every time Paul writes, “I Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ . . . ” etc. – He is claiming the same apostolic authority that Jesus gave to the 11 disciples, some of whom would write Scripture later (John 14, 16, 17:8, etc.) (Peter, John, Matthew, Luke probably interviewed Mary and the other disciples for the rest of the details, along with revelation from the apostle Paul.)
LikeLike
I have J. N. D. Kelly’s Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, and you left out what he wrote with your elipsis . . . and what he wrote after that, that affirms the NT writings were considered on the same level of inspiration as the OT.
LikeLike
That is very shoddy exegesis Ken – you really do know better than that.
You concede that verse 15 (‘sacred scriptures’) is only about the Jewish scriptures. Good
JND Kelly helpfully comments on this (page 202):
‘By sacred writings Paul means, of course, the OT; there is abundant evidence that this was a stock designation for it in Greek-speaking Judaism (cf. Philo and Joseph). …The OT was the only canonical Scripture for Christians as well as Jews in the apostolic age and for several generations after it.’
So the OT was the only canonical scriptures until well into the 2nd century. Irenaeus (c. 180) was the first writer to speak unequivocally of a ‘New Testament’.
JND Kelly continues on verse 16, ‘All Scripture..’:
‘Paul develops his doctrine of the value of the OT… both the context and NT usage require that it should have the narrowed-down sense of Scripture, ie the OT.’
JND Kelly is very clear that only the OT is in Paul’s mind in 2 Timothy 3. You are refuted by your own scholar.
LikeLike
Ken where does JND Kelly say Paul ‘affirms the NT writings were considered on the same level of inspiration as the OT’ ?????
LikeLike
τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα = “the sacred writings” – verse 15, OT
is expanded to
πᾶσα γραφὴ = all Scripture (different, but related word to the one in verse 15)
θεόπνευστος = “God-breathed”, “breathed out by God”
the lack of the article in “all Scripture” points to the quality of Scripture – all that has the quality of Scripture is “God-breathed” and includes even books not written yet at the time 2 Tim. was written. (66-67 AD, before Nero executed Paul)
LikeLike
that contradicts Kelly’s exegesis and is unwarranted, arbitrary and frankly loppy: ‘books not written yet’!!
Remember: The OT was the only canonical Scripture for Christians as well as Jews in the apostolic age and for several generations after it.
LikeLike
Kelly notes that 2 Peter 3:16 included all of Paul’s letters and Ignatius (110 AD) and Irenaeus ( 180 AD) are early writers who clearly put the NT on equality with OT.
LikeLike
George Knight and William Hendrickson’s commentaries on 2 Tim. are excellent and give a lot more argumentation than Kelly’s; more solid exegesis and argumentation for 2 Tim. 3:16 to include all of Nt writings.
LikeLike
It does not contradict what Kelly wrote, but it does add to it and expand it.
LikeLike
2 Peter is a mid-2nd century forgery as all but fundamentalist and very conservative scholars agree.
Anyway, we are talking about Paul’s teaching in 2 Tim 3. There is no historical evidence that Ignatius or Irenaeus taught that ALL the books from Matthew through to Revelation are ‘inerrant and inspired by God’ as you wrongly claim.
You view is anachronistic, unscholarly and unhistorical.
LikeLike
No; 2 Peter was written around the same time as 2 Timothy. (66-67 AD) before both Paul and Peter were executed by Nero.
LikeLike
Ken you claim (without any evidence) that,
“2 Peter was written around the same time as 2 Timothy. (66-67 AD) before both Paul and Peter were executed by Nero.”
But the experts in Christianity disagree with you. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (publisher: Oxford University Press) says that there
‘are several indications that the Epistle is of late date’, and concludes, ‘these considerations of date, and the differences in style and interest from I Peter, make it virtually impossible to hold that St Peter was the author. The Epistle was received into the canon with considerable hesitation. Its date is probably the second or third Christian generation, perhaps c. AD 150.’
page 1262.
‘The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church‘ is perhaps the most authoritative, one-volume encyclopedia of information on Christianity. With over 480 contributors, from a myriad of denominational backgrounds, this book has a completeness that is unrivalled.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems to me, after reading about 2 Peter and Jude in various commentaries (for the past 30 years), that Peter dictated his 2 letter from prison to Jude, and that explains why there is so much similarity in language, and it may also point to why 2 Peter was not known or mentioned much – Jude wrote it for Peter, but did not have a chance to publish it widely. Eventually, it was copied more later and the early church recognized it as “God-breathed”, apostolic, Scripture.
Jude in his own letter, says, “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” – Jude verse 3. includes the whole NT.
LikeLike
It makes sense, since Peter used Mark for his secretary to write the Gospel according to Mark, and Silvanus to write his first letter ( 1 Peter 5:12), that Peter would tell Jude to write his 2nd letter for him from prison.
LikeLike
Your view of Surah 4:157 and 5:47 is anachronistic, unscholarly and unhistorical.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
But neither do they mean that Jesus is just a son in the sense of a created being. (the meaning of Psalm 82:6; that Ali Ataie and others (Ahmad Deedat’s “sons by the tons”, etc.) tries to say). He was not created, Jesus was eternally generated (always with the Father in spirit and equal in nature.)
I say;
“Jesus was eternally generated” According to Trinitarian Ken Temple.
Who generated Jesus then?
Did the Son also generated the Father?
The Bible said God is One, Only and Alone.
The Bible also said.”I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
generate: meaning;
Source of dictionary
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=xof9VbvfJOmh8weHiqigAQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=what+is+generate+
“Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
If the above verse from the Bible is true, then why should Yahweh goes on to generate other persons to Himself when He clearly states that He is God and there is no one else.
Do you mean to tell me that a Person/person/being is not someone else? A person is someone else and so if Yahweh generates someone else He(Yahweh) is against his own Bible by generating a Person/person/being(someone else) to refute Himself(Yahweh) according to the verse above. Yahweh is God and will not refute Himself, so the doctrine of Trinity is false because it claims another person was generated.
You said;
Why do you all of you refuse to understand that Father and Son in the NT about God and Jesus means spiritual ? (no sex, nothing physical)
with John 1:1-5 (Word, Creator, Eternal, Light, Life), John 1:14 (became human, took on a human nature along with His divine eternal nature) and John 17:5 (The Son is eternal) and other passages, it shows us that the NT teaches that God the Father and Jesus the Son/ the Word existed together (2 persons) in a spiritual relationship, that that relationship is pure, holy, spiritual, and eternal.
I say;
You formed a God by becoming human because the human part was not there as part of God before He added the human nature to Him so it goes against the following verse. God-Man is a hybrid creature which is a formed God.
“Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.” Isaiah 43:10
You said;
But neither do they mean that Jesus is just a son in the sense of a created being. (the meaning of Psalm 82:6; that Ali Ataie and others (Ahmad Deedat’s “sons by the tons”, etc.) tries to say). He was not created, Jesus was eternally generated (always with the Father in spirit and equal in nature.)
I say;
Son/son will always be a created being because that is what it means, unless it is metaphorical and in such case it will disqualify Jesus Christ as the Only begotten Son and will include all of us as the Sons/sons of God but not Jesus Christ alone.
Son/son means Son/son unless it is metaphorical. If anyone does not want the Son/son as literal or metaphorical then he can change it to some word like buddies, brothers, sisters, share holders, directors etc. and we will kinow that they are equal on the same pyramid.
You use Son/son for One and Father for the other Person means one is higher than the other and God is higher than anyone and God is not Son/son to anyone because Son/son no matter how you describe it is lower status and almighty God is not Son/son the anyone and it is blaspheme to say someone who is Son/son is God. No matter how you describe it is a big sin and needs repentance as soon as possible and never to be repeated.
You do not use Son/son for God. It is a very bad name for God. God is not Son/son to anyone be it literal or metaphorical
John 1:1 One God with another God = 2 Gods. Why does the persons of the Trinity not be Directors but Son and Father? which has One higher than others.
ONE WHAT? To Trinitarians.
Monotheism. The Answer is simple and was spoken by Jesus himself.
“The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one [hen] God; ” Mark 12:29
If the above verse spoken by Jesus is true, then he(Jesus) can not be God even if he is on earth.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
‘Jesus worshipped God the Father while on earth for 33 years, of course. Jesus was not an atheist while on earth. Since God for all eternity was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; then Jesus worshipping God the Father while on earth does not prove He is not God in the flesh, since the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradicted by that.’
You also said;
There is nothing physical in the terms “Father” and “Son” for God the Father and Jesus the Son. You have to eject that thinking out of your mind. God chose those words to describe God and His Word (the Son) from all eternity in Spirit relationship with one another because they communicate 1. close relationship (just like Ali Ataie said), but also 2. The Son has the same nature / essence / substance as the Father – spiritual essence / substance.
Why do you all of you refuse to understand that Father and Son in the NT about God and Jesus means spiritual ? (no sex, nothing physical)
I say;
God is the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit was God for all eternity- According to Ken Temple.
It is not true my dear Ken, because Jesus(God the Son/son) was conceived from the womb of Mary 2000 years ago, so cannot be eternal.
Jesus i.e. God The Son/son said the Father(God The Father) is Greater than I. If God is One, and the Father is greater than Jesus and no one is Greater than God, then Jesus(God the Son) is not God because he is no greater than the Father and The Father is Greater than anyone as the true God of Abraham.
Watch this video and think.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Differences of style with 1 Peter is not a good argument, since Silvanus wrote it for Peter ( 1 Peter 5:12)
It makes sense that Jude wrote it for Peter, Peter dictating it from prison, since Jude and 2 Peter have similar language.
Peter used 3 different amanuenses (kind of like an ancient secretary) for his 3 books – Mark wrote down Peter’s sermons and memory; Silvanus wrote 1 Peter, and Jude wrote for Peter the second epistle. That is more than adequate to account for the differences in style – 3 different writers.
The Epistle of Barnabas (15:4) quotes 2 Peter, and it has a range of dating between 70 AD – 135 AD.
LikeLike
The Gospel according to Mark = Peter’s sermons and memories
LikeLike
2 Peter is a forgery
LikeLiked by 1 person
no, it is not.
LikeLike
Ken is not a scholar. But 99% of his own scholars disagree with him.
LikeLike
When it looks like a forgery and sounds like a forgery and smells like a forgery, I call that a forgery
LikeLiked by 2 people
11 books of the NT at least are forgeries
LikeLiked by 2 people
none of the NT are forgeries.
Conservative believing scholars agree with me. (or I agree with them)
“his own” = not true; I repudiate liberals and skeptics and unbelieving scholars – Ehrman, Schlermacher, Bultmann, Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg – they are unbelievers and not “our” scholars. Raymond Brown – liberal.
I am not a scholar, true; but I read both sides and see the believers are better.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
Most of Them were believers and or were believers before. Bart Erhman was a believer and realized Christianity is not from God and at least was changed by men from the straight path to God.
Paul Williams knows religion very well and he was a believer( of your religion), but he used his intellect not dream but intellect to know that Christianity has diverted from the God of Moses, Abraham and chose Islam the right path which Dr. James White acknowledge that Islam has made a U-Turn back to the God and religion of Moses.
You doubt Paul Williams, Bart Erhman, Dr. Jerald Dirks( former Christian Deacon) etc. as former Christians but believed in Nabeel Quraish( a former Ahmadi who believed Jesus had his second coming in the form of Ghulam Ahmad) dreams as a former Muslim.
1
2.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Temple “… the believers are better.”
Do you also believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
Do you also believe humanity is only 6000 years old?
Do you also believe Noah’s flood was a global event?
LikeLike
Do Sunni’s and / or Shiites speak to Muhammad at the end of the prayer, as Nabeel wrote on page 24?
Or is that a purely Ahmadi practice?
LikeLike
Why do Muslims wish Muhammad peace and blessings? He should already have peace and blessings, according to your religion, if he was a true prophet and went to paradise when he died, right?
Didn’t he already go to paradise when he died?
or is he still waiting in the grave, until the day of resurrection?
Even if his soul is still in the grave and waiting for the day of resurrection, why the need for wishing him peace and blessings? Should he ALREADY have peace and blessings?
LikeLike
When one looks at all the issues between Ahmadis vs. Sunnis and Shiites, the differences are small compared to Biblical Christianity vs. Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
If you read the whole book of Nabeel’s, he was using most all Sunni and standard Muslim arguments against David Wood and Christianity while he was wrestling with the issues and investigating and seeking the truth.
Even Shabir Ally and Ahmad Deedat were using Ahmadi arguments for Surah 4:157 – saying that Al Masih was crucified, but did not die and recovered.
The differences are very small between Ahmadi’s and Sunnis, but great and large between Biblical Christianity vs. Mormonism (Pagan, polytheism) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (deny the Deity of Christ, deny physical bodily resurrection, deny the Holy Spirit, say only 144,000 reach heaven; deny a literal hell.)
LikeLike
Most of Them were believers and or were believers before.
Ehrman claims he was a believer, but according to Matthew 7:21-23 and 1 John 2:19, these verses show that he was never a true believer in the first place.
LikeLike
Noah’s flood was global.
Humanity may be 10,000 years old. (there are gaps in the genealogies)
I don’t know about the age of the earth, since we don’t know how God is measuring time in the first 4 “days” in Genesis, since the sun of our solar system is not created until the 4th day. (Genesis 1:14-19)
بلا کیف
But God has the power to create things with age already in them, as He did with Adam and Eve. (They were not babies, but fully grown and mature humans.)
LikeLike
Why single out the Prophet Muhammed, we send peace and blessing on every prophet. It’s a way of respecting them and honoring them not taking their names like any name because they are best of the mankind handpicked by the God to the Prophets.
LikeLike
To be* the Prophets.
LikeLike
Ok, apply the question to all the prophets – Noah, Abraham, Moses, Davood, Isa Al Masih, ok.
but why wish them peace and blessings? Dont they ALREADY have peace?
They are all good prophets, believers in God, and are with God after they die, so they should ALREADY have peace?
LikeLike
Do Sunnis and/Shiites speak to Muhammad at the end of the prayer? (that Nabeel mentioned)
LikeLike
The Gospel promises present peace:
John 14:27
Jesus said, “peace I leave with you”
Matthew 11:28-30
“come to Me, . . . and I will give you peace”
Romans 5:1
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
Is it just a greeting of respect, like “hello” or is there some reason why you have to say that millions of times over the centuries – it seems like there is a doubt as to whether the prophets actually have peace when they die.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Do Sunni’s and / or Shiites speak to Muhammad at the end of the prayer, as Nabeel wrote on page 24?
Or is that a purely Ahmadi practice?
I say;
Do Christians pray at all? What did you do today to keep close the Almighty God? Doing nothing and waiting for Holy Spirit to spoon fee you? Come on do something. Muslims have continue prayers to be reminding themselves and getting closer to their creator.
During Muslim prayers when we sit we ask God ask for God blessing to all righteous people and we did not ask for the prophets blessing alone, but for us as well and for all righteous people.
We started by
All greetings of humility are for Allah , and all prayers and goodness
We said to Mohammed peace be upon you
We said to all righteous people peace be upon you
We said to our selves peace be upon us.
What is wrong with that?
After praising God, of course we have to ask for His blessing to our loved ones and the prophet and all righteous people and to wish them well and I see nothing wrong with that.
Yes, In Salaat, it is verses praising God Alone but there is a provision to bring your loved ones in and pray for their blessings. The verse does not indicate anything to suggest worshiping anyone other than Allah.
In Christian Lords prayer it says
Our Father
And forgive us our trespasses.
We say peace be upon you Mohammed
Peace be upon all righteous slaves of Allah
Peace be upon us
What the heck is wrong about this? except ex-Ahmadi claiming to be ex Muslim trying to sell his book.
You said;
Why do Muslims wish Muhammad peace and blessings? He should already have peace and blessings, according to your religion, if he was a true prophet and went to paradise when he died, right?
I say;
Why do Christians do repent when they sin? Christians claim, the sin had already been paid by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. But repenting after Christian sinning does not mean the sin had been paid by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and rendered the crucifixion useless.
Wishing peace to prophet Mohammed, means Muslims are humble no matter who they are they continue to seek blessing from God because they are not God. Asking Gods blessing especially for prophet Mohammed clearly indicates that Mohammed is not God and needs Gods blessings. It is only God the Almighty who does not need blessings from anyone. But Mohammed is not God so he needs blessings from God. Who tells you that a true prophet of God does not need blessings from God?
Does Solomon, Abraham, Moses etc. not need blessings of God now? and are they God? to exempt themselves from the blessings of God? Even if you are in heaven as a prophet, don’t you need the blessings of God? Does the blessings of God ceases?
Thanks
LikeLike
Who said they don’t have peace? it’s our job to send peace and blessing on the prophets because God said so, it’s not because they don’t have peace rather it because It’s a way of respecting them and honoring them not taking their names like any name because they are BEST OF THE MANKIND handpicked by the God to be the Prophets. If we don’t send peace on them then as IF we are taking their name AS ANY name that’s not acceptable. irrespective whether you invoke peace or not they have peace, if we don’t send peace God will not like it, its called being rude and manner less taking prophet’s name as IF ANY NAME. IN SHORT, SHOWING RESPECT!!!
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The Gospel promises present peace:
John 14:27
Jesus said, “peace I leave with you”
Matthew 11:28-30
“come to Me, . . . and I will give you peace”
Romans 5:1
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
I say;
So, Christians have peace now? Do you have peace now? Don’t you need peace now? Why repent when you sin? as a Christian? Did you not have your peace already? and does not need any peace again and does not need to repent again.
Why do Christians repent if they already had peace. I can see Christians sinning everyday. What peace is that they have and continue sinning and do not need peace and blessings anymore but to sin?
You said;
Is it just a greeting of respect, like “hello” or is there some reason why you have to say that millions of times over the centuries – it seems like there is a doubt as to whether the prophets actually have peace when they die.
I say;
No, it is only God who does not need blessing but anyone needs the blessings of God be it prophets, dead, alive, in heaven etc. we continue to need the blessings of God and blessings of God is not something one must say he does not need.
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
When one looks at all the issues between Ahmadis vs. Sunnis and Shiites, the differences are small compared to Biblical Christianity vs. Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
If you read the whole book of Nabeel’s, he was using most all Sunni and standard Muslim arguments against David Wood and Christianity while he was wrestling with the issues and investigating and seeking the truth.
Even Shabir Ally and Ahmad Deedat were using Ahmadi arguments for Surah 4:157 – saying that Al Masih was crucified, but did not die and recovered.
The differences are very small between Ahmadi’s and Sunnis, but great and large between Biblical Christianity vs. Mormonism (Pagan, polytheism) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (deny the Deity of Christ, deny physical bodily resurrection, deny the Holy Spirit, say only 144,000 reach heaven; deny a literal hell.)
I say;
No, you know very well that all Muslims have minor differences except the Ahmadis who have different prophet and believe Jesus Christ second coming was their prophet Ghulam Ahmad, so Ahmadis are not Muslims but the rest sunis, Sufis, shite etc. believe in the only prophet Mohammed is the last prophet and so are Muslims. David Wood can only convince someone like Nabeel who has a shaky religion to begin with but not a true Muslim like me, Paul Williams, Bur, Yahya Snow, Eric and the rest of all real Muslims but not Ahmadis.
Paul Williams, Dr. Jerald Dirks, Yusuf Estes, Khalid Yasin, Hussein Yee, Mark Hanson, Timothy Humble, Ingrid Matson, Gary Miller, Jefferey Laing and many more learned Christians who converted to Islam did so through their research and intellect but not dream. It is only Nabeel Quraish who used dream to convert to Christianity. Sometimes dreams are not reliable and Satan can tempt humans during dream and try to convince them.
It is only through your intellect, that you can overcome Satan. Satan dare not come to tempt me or any brothers to believe One = Three because my intellect is strong on that true phenomenon as 3 beings is not equal to one being, so such Satanic dream is away from me, but I still pray everyday and ask God to guide me from Satan. A’uzu billahi minashaitanir rajim (I seek refuge in Allah from the outcast Satan).
Is that the only prominent Muslim convert you have in the person of Nabeel Quraish? What a Pity.
Compare that with this uncountable Christians who are learned in their former religion as well as Gurus in their new religion Islam.
Shuib Webb, Ryan Mahoney, Susan Carland, Yvonne Ridley, Paul Williams, Dr. Jerald Dirks, Yusuf Estes, Khalid Yasin, Hussein Yee, Mark Hanson, Timothy Humble, Ingrid Matson, Gary Miller, Jefferey Laing and many more learned Christians.
Apart from Mormons who have different prophet, the rest of Christians are Christians because they believed Jesus is their saviour and do not have prophet or saviour apart from Jesus. They believe just like you that they are following the true Christianity. You are all lost unfortunately.
Thanks
LikeLike
Temple “Noah’s flood was global.” OMG
There never was a global flood as described in the “Bible”. The amount of water available on the planet just isn’t big enough.
Why do fundamentalists like yourself have to make fools out of themselves and deny reality in order to uphold their agenda-driven fairytales?
LikeLike