For once I agree with James White: the reformation must continue..

screen-shot-2017-01-02-at-13-56-14

But the Reformation agenda needs to be even more radical. Christians must go back to the historical Jesus: a Torah-observant Prophet who submitted to his Lord. He was so humble he even denied that he was “good” – an attribute properly belonging to God alone. Mark 10:

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.



Categories: Christianity

225 replies

  1. coming from a man who believes that the mother of his god birth two natures from her body.

    mary is making more appearances than jesus
    mary is convincing more people than jesus

    i don’t know why christians have jealously over mary. after all, she carried and birth christian god and saved him from the wrath of herod.

    pope francis understands christianity better than man worshippers like james white.

    mary is james whites god’s mother.

    Like

  2. Paul have you read the book of God in the light of higher criticism

    Like

  3. Richard Bauckham clearly refutes Williams’ take on Mark 10 when Jesus says, “Why do you call Me good? Only God is good.” Bauckham called this a “wonderful double entendre” and shows how Jesus is indirectly claiming to be God. Jesus is saying, “If you recognize Me as good; and only God is truly good; then you should realize that I am God, for only God is good.”

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/08/muslims-favorite-conservative-scholar.html

    Like

    • this is one occasion when Bauckham let’s Christian apologetics override objective exegesis. I know of no other scholar (who is not a conservative evangelical – ie has an axe to grind) that would agree with him.

      Mark has Jesus praying to God (if he was God who was he praying to?); Jesus cries out in despair on the cross “My God, why have you abandoned me?”.

      Obviously, in the wider context, he was not God in Mark. “Why do you call me good, no one is god but God” fits in naturally.

      Like

    • Jesus as fully human (and fully God by nature) bears the sins of humanity from all nations (Revelation 5:9; 7:9) and as He bears the guilt of all the sin of people from all nations; that is why He cried out, both quoting Psalm 22 and showing He voluntarily took the wrath of God against sin – Galatians 3:10-13; Isaiah 53:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21.

      There is no contradiction to the doctrine of the Trinity that while Jesus the eternal Son was on earth, for Him to pray to the Father is not a problem.

      Like

    • preach Ken – preach! It always works wonders on this blog!

      Liked by 2 people

    • quote:
      and as He bears the guilt of all the sin of people from all nations; that is why He cried out, both quoting Psalm 22 and showing He voluntarily took the wrath of God against sin

      god is asking god why he is forsaken because god is bearing his own wrath?

      the same person on the cross is asking why he is forsaken for bearing his own wrath?

      Like

    • that is why the doctrine is also “3 Persons” – One being/substance of God in three persons.

      Like

    • your god (1 person, 2 natures) punches himself in the face and then asks why he is forsaken?
      he showers his own wrath on himself and then asks why he is forsaken?
      ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “that is why the doctrine is also “3 Persons” – One being/substance of God in three persons.”

      1 person, 2 natures uses his wrath from “one being” and then asks the OTHER person why he has been forsaken?

      did he forget that he used the others persons wrath to get forsaken ?

      did the 1 person, 2 natures forget that he poured his own wrath on himself with the other two?

      Like

    • @Ken,

      Mark 10:20, the man calls Jesus “Teacher”. He drops the word “Good”.

      If your explanation is correct Jesus did not correct this man’s misunderstanding. The obvious meaning is that Jesus was being humble and making sure the man realizes the source of his knowledge and wisdom is God.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Actually, that would mean that the man understood what Jesus was implying, and he dropped it because he realized calling Jesus “good” would be calling Him “God” also; and because he was trying to justify himself and was unwilling to let go of his riches, Jesus proved that he was an idolater and materialistic and put his riches before God.

      Like

    • @Ken; Why do you enjoy inserting your words onto the lips of Jesus? Have you no fear ? no shame? no faith?

      Why are you saying things about Jesus for which you have no evidence?

      Liked by 1 person

    • ken , i don’t get your thinking, i don’t think you do either.

      you wrote:
      Actually, that would mean that the man understood what Jesus was implying, and he dropped it because he realized calling Jesus “good” would be calling Him “God” also; and because he was trying to justify himself and was unwilling to let go of his riches, Jesus proved that he was an idolater and materialistic and put his riches before God

      17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

      comment : are you assuming that this guy was considering jesus as a god when he said “good teacher” ?

      then jesus replied :

      18“Why do you call me good?”

      but he was already seeing jesus as “god” according to your logic:

      because he realized calling Jesus “good” would be calling Him “God”

      but he already called him “good” in verse 17.

      jesus proved that he rejected one idol (jesus) over another (wealth)?

      Like

  4. The historical Jesus also said that He came to give His life as ransom for many.

    Mark 10:45

    Matthew 20:28

    The historical Jesus taught that His substitutionary death was a ransom for sinners.

    (and the Qur’an also affirms the substitutionary-ransom aspect of the obedience of Abraham and God providing a ram to substitute as a ransom sacrifice – Surah 37:107 – “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”. ) based on Genesis 22

    22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.”
    23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
    24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

    Mark 14:22-23

    Like

    • Luke disagrees with Mark 10:45 so he eliminates this verse.

      Liked by 1 person

    • But in order to do historical Jesus studies and proper scholarly study, you have to take the earlier texts of Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28; as you follow liberal Raymond Brown and think Luke was written in 80s or 90s AD.

      Not very scholarly of you to ignore the more established older historical Jesus – 2 witnesses (Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28) are stronger that one witness (your claim that Luke “eliminated” it).

      Boom!!

      Like

    • I’m just pointing out that the gospels disagree and contradict each other about what Jesus taught. Matt corrects Mark on the Law. Luke corrects Mark on substitutionary atonement.

      Don’t be a dull fundamentalist Ken.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Why are you a dull Islamic fundamentalist who apriori dismisses historical and scholarly things earlier by your 600 year late one man’s claim?

      All scholars believe Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 is by the historical Jesus and all scholars believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate around 30 AD.

      Like

  5. agreed….the Church needs to do much more serious Christology…our Christmas/Halmark approach is wearisome and dim-witted.

    I spoke on Sunday about the difference between saying “Jesus is my personal saviour” (A bit like my personal buyer or financial consultant…very nice if you can afford it)

    And / or

    “Jesus is the prophet who helps me interpret the signs of my times, and find my way.”

    One is exclusivist and so idiosyncratic as to be ( in the most extreme case) mere idolatry, while the other is open to conversation and encounter with all.

    In the scriptures I never encounter Jesus saying “This is how it is” but I do hear him asking “how could it be?”

    All those with their version of the personal saviour (shudder) seem far too certain of the very things over which he, Jesus, raised the most fundamental questions. So an honest Reformation akin to John Robinson’s “Honest to God”, yes please, and not a moment too soon.

    And we need to have an intelligent conversation about what the term Son of God/Son of man means

    It most certainly does not mean Jesus is God.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. But all scholars believe Mark is the earlier on the historical Jesus, so Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 is stronger scholarly evidence for Jesus’ belief in His own substitutionary atonement; in opposition to your claim that Luke “eliminated” the verse.

    Luke affirmed Jesus’ substitutionary atonement anyway in Luke 24:20, 25-27; 32; 44-47.

    Shows that Luke probably does not even know about the pericope that you claim he “eliminated” – shows that each of them was independently guided by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote.

    And the Qur’an affirms substitutionary atonement in Qur’an 37:107.

    Like

    • “And the Qur’an affirms substitutionary atonement in Qur’an 37:107”
      How come?!

      Like

    • cause “ransom” = substitutionary atonement, since God provided a ram to substitute for Abraham’s son.

      Same Arabic root word in Surah 37:107 فدا ، فدیه as what is translated from the Greek into Arabic and Farsi for Mark 10:45.

      Like

    • cause I already refuted him and nothing he wrote refuted my point and there is not enough time to be at his blog and this one also and with all the other responsibilities of life. Paul Williams blog already takes a lot of time to respond to; I choose this one because it is good and maybe the best at allowing my side to communicate and also probably most fair I have seen. (not perfect; but more fair that several other Muslim blogs that I had read, and also tried to write something in the comboxes, but they did not allow it.)

      Like

    • @Ken,

      Abraham’s son being saved is not the same as your concept of substitutionary atonement.

      The incident has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins. The substituted animal fulfilled the vision Abraham saw.

      If God extracted a full punishment there would be no forgiveness. The Quran teaches us that God actually forgives sins. Also He does not transfer punishment on the innocent.

      Like

    • God Bless you, Fawaz.
      It seems Ken is just looking for the word ( فداء) to link it with their belief !
      God gave that sheep as a (reward) for our father Abraham & his son for their commitment. God was testing Abraham. How could that story have anything to do with your belief?

      Liked by 2 people

    • deal with this chiasmus because it destroys the idea of christological lamb

      here is what was written

      A God announces the name of the mountain (::::): land of “the place of seeing” (::::: “Moriah,”
      22:2)

      B Abraham sees (::::::) the place (:::::) of sacrifice (22:4)

      C Abraham asserts God will see/provide (!:, 22:8)

      C Abraham sees (::::) God’s provision (22:13)

      B’ Abraham names the place (::::) “God sees/provides” (::::::)

      A’ Narrator announces maxim about the mountain (:!): where “God will be seen” (::::: 22:14b)

      the whole story implies that god stopped a human sacrifice and “god will provide” proves this

      Like

    • “And the Qur’an affirms substitutionary atonement in Qur’an 37:107.”

      remember that just last week i had asked you where does the quran say that either abraham or his son sinned ? yet you are a shameful christian who repeated this lie again .

      if neither of them according to the author committed sins , how then is it possible you can add in the word “substitutionary ATONEMENT”

      THIS is a lie you are reading into the text.

      you don’t even have shame adding in the lie .

      Like

    • I never claimed that the text in the immediate context of the Qur’an passage in Surah 37 says that Abraham or his son sinned; although in other places, the Qur’an seems to teach that all people are sinners – Surah 16:61 –

      “If Allah were to punish men for their wrong-doing, He would not leave, on the (earth), a single living creature, . . . ”
      All I am saying is that the passage Surah 37:107 contains the truth of substitutionary atonement, even though Islam tries to deny it; or not give other details from the Genesis 22 account, or by some of its traditions, and/or emphasis – downplay the OT teachings on sin and sacrifice, the tabernacle, the temple, etc.

      According to the previous Scriptures, all humans are sinners. (Genesis 6:5; chapter 9, Jeremiah 17:9; Jeremiah 13:23; 1 Kings 8:46 “for there is no man who does not sin” – and the whole context of the reason for the temple and the sacrifices.

      Also, Genesis and Job are the two oldest books, written before the law and details of the Exodus tabernacle laws (Exodus 25-40) and the book of Leviticus, and “burnt offerings” were for the forgiveness of sins as part of the worship – Genesis 8:20-21; Job 1:5; Job 42:8. The context of the previous Scriptures is about sin and substitutionary atonement. Islam, by using the story of Abraham and the sacrifice and his obedience, could not completely get away from substitutionary atonement for sin. Just the one verse and the words used implies this, “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”

      Islam came 600 years late and tries to hide and change the meaning of the original Scriptures.

      Like

    • “If Allah were to punish men for their wrong-doing, He would not leave, on the (earth), a single living creature, .

      this is specifically targeting the disbelievers like you, not prophets or believers.

      . . ”
      “All I am saying is that the passage Surah 37:107 contains the truth of substitutionary atonement”

      how?


      , even though Islam tries to deny it; or not give other details from the Genesis 22 account, or by some of its traditions, and/or emphasis – downplay the OT teachings on sin and sacrifice, the tabernacle, the temple, etc.”

      abrahams act have nothing to do with jesus you nutter

      “According to the previous Scriptures, all humans are sinners. (Genesis 6:5; chapter 9, Jeremiah 17:9; Jeremiah 13:23; 1 Kings 8:46 “for there is no man who does not sin” – and the whole context of the reason for the temple and the sacrifices.”

      where are you going with this? yes, jesus was a sinner .

      “Also, Genesis and Job are the two oldest books, written before the law and details of the Exodus tabernacle laws (Exodus 25-40) and the book of Leviticus, and “burnt offerings” were for the forgiveness of sins as part of the worship – Genesis 8:20-21; Job 1:5; Job 42:8. The context of the previous Scriptures is about sin and substitutionary atonement. Islam, by using the story of Abraham and the sacrifice and his obedience, could not completely get away from substitutionary atonement for sin. Just the one verse and the words used implies this, “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”

      what makes you think the quran accepted your christianised bull s?

      what makes you think the torah accepted your christianised bull s

      where does the bible say that the burnt offering abraham gave to yhwh had anything to do with abrahams sins?
      or isaacs sins?

      or was an olah as a GUILT or SIN offering?


      Islam came 600 years late and tries to hide and change the meaning of the original Scriptures.”

      so now you are saying that islam did get rid of sub atonement?

      are you on drugs?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “And if Allah were to impose blame on the people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left upon the earth any creature, . . . ” Surah 16:61

      “any creature” includes all humans, even prophets. You lost that argument big time.

      boom!

      Like

    • deal with this

      deal with this chiasmus because it destroys the idea of christological lamb

      here is what was written

      A God announces the name of the mountain (::::): land of “the place of seeing” (::::: “Moriah,”
      22:2)

      B Abraham sees (::::::) the place (:::::) of sacrifice (22:4)

      C Abraham asserts God will see/provide (!:, 22:8)

      C Abraham sees (::::) God’s provision (22:13)

      B’ Abraham names the place (::::) “God sees/provides” (::::::)

      A’ Narrator announces maxim about the mountain (:!): where “God will be seen” (::::: 22:14b)

      the whole story implies that god stopped a human sacrifice and “god will provide” proves this

      WHERE IS YOUR christological lamb?

      Liked by 1 person

    • ken, can you tell me that when pagans burnt their humans to offer them as an olah, can you tell me how this was foreshadowing jesus’ Crucifixion?

      quote:
      an ‘olah, which is a burntsacrifice
      to a deity. ‘Olah does not refer to a murder or execution.
      Its usage is strictly limited to ritual sacrifice to a deity, unless killing
      is not involved, in which case it simply means “to go up,” and
      only very rarely in this way.

      quote:
      And what the Hebrew
      writer tells us is that Mesha offered the son as an ‘olah

      so was mesha’s offering foreshadowing jesus krist?

      you must be consistent with your pagan evangelical method.

      quote:

      The meaning of ‘olah as a burntsacrifice
      to a deity is so secure that it hardly need be mentioned
      that Mesha is offering his burnt-sacrifice to his god.

      Like

    • quote:
      and “burnt offerings” were for the forgiveness of sins as part of the worship – Genesis 8:20-21; Job 1:5; Job 42:8. The context of the previous Scriptures is about sin and substitutionary atonement. Islam, by using the story of Abraham and the sacrifice and his obedience,

      abraham said :
      Genesis 18:23 He came forward and said, ‘Will You actually wipe out the innocent together with the guilty?

      abraham never knew your pagan christological pagan lamb.

      when abraham did his olah, jesus was never on his mind

      abraham was provided with an ANIMAL because according to the jews he was LOYAL to his god.

      Like

    • 20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

      after god saves noah, he burnt an animal to god.
      are you trying to say that after god saved the people , noah burnt jesus as thanksgiving ?

      His sons used to hold feasts in their homes on their birthdays, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom

      1. where did abraham think what job did?
      2. where does it say “perhaps ” is divine revelation?
      3. what has jobs TIME got to do with abrahams?

      Like

    • ken, you have just confirmed that you don’t give a damn about the bible. as long as you can violently beat jesus up in your mushrik mind, the bible is usable.

      if it is not used to beat up jesus, then it is not needed.

      Like

    • it seems like the smell of barbecue got your god in the mood to say something in his heart
      and the barbecue was the act of noah who was a

      “righteous man”

      barbecues have nice smell

      barbecue aroma pleases yhwh

      but the THOUGHT to not curse man seems to be disconnected from the barbecue

      Like

    • honestly a kafir like you doesn’t understand the verse

      quote:
      “And if Allah were to impose blame on the people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left upon the earth any creature, . . . ” Surah 16:61

      “any creature” includes all humans, even prophets. You lost that argument big time.

      boom!

      end quote

      i don’t even know why does this look like winning or losing to you?

      this is specifically directed to the disbelievers

      Sahih International: For those who do not believe in the Hereafter is the description of evil; and for Allah is the highest attribute. And He is Exalted in Might, the Wise.

      Sahih International: And if Allah were to impose blame on the people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left upon the earth any creature, but He defers them for a specified term. And when their term has come, they will not remain behind an hour, nor will they precede [it].

      Sahih International: And they attribute to Allah that which they dislike, and their tongues assert the lie that they will have the best [from Him]. Assuredly, they will have the Fire, and they will be [therein] neglected.

      this is clearly talking about kafir like you, not believers or prophets.
      and the verse uses “wa low”

      the verse is clearly saying one thing FAILED to take place because of another thing /reason.

      the verse is definately talking about disbelievers

      quote:

      Sahih International: By Allah , We did certainly send [messengers] to nations before you, but Satan made their deeds attractive to them. And he is the disbelievers’ ally today [as well], and they will have a painful punishment.

      the context is clearly pointing to the disbelievers .

      what wrong did abraham do before he sacrificed the animal ?

      Like

    • “no one left on earth” = all humans are sinners

      Like

    • you are possibly a 70 year great grand dad and you still say stuff like this

      quote:
      “any creature” includes all humans, even prophets. You lost that argument big time.
      end quote

      even jesus as well:

      Surely, in disbelief are they who say that Allah is the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary). Say (O Muhammad SAW): “Who then has the least power against Allah, if He were to destroy the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), his mother, and all those who are on the earth together?” And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them. He creates what He wills. And Allah is Able to do all things.

      Like

    • any honest reading of the text, one can see that the focus is clearly on the sins of the disbelievers .
      notice in the verse even jesus and his mother could be taken out, but there is absolutely no sin being discussed.

      ergo, even in the verses you talk about, the focus is not the believers or the prophets, the focus is people like you.

      Like

    • “any creature” includes all humans, even prophets. You lost that argument big time.”

      you are possibly in your late 70’s or 80’s and you still talk like this?

      what does “boom” mean?

      Like

    • boom! means the tree of your argument fell and hit the ground.

      I am only 55. 🙂

      Like

    • actually it is hypothetical, so i was incorrect when i said “could be…”

      Like

    • ed babinski also notes that christians like you take middle eastern texts and try to impose your ideas unto them

      i quote

      ::::::::::::::::menstrual rags?::::::::::::::::

      I thought Yahweh was pleased with blood sacrifices, and what was a woman’s life back then but a life wrought with sacrifices, not just a monthly flow of blood, but having to suffer a higher mortality rate for both women in childbirth and their children back then?

      Furthermore, should the scriptures about our righteousness being nothing but filthy rags, and the heart being “deceitful above all things and desperately wicked,” be interpreted woodenly, dogmatically? They may apply to some people at some times whenever they act deceitful and wicked, especially when they are at their lowest and weakest points. But does it make sense to take the book of Jeremiah’s exaggerated ancient Near Eastern way of speaking, and bake it in an oven until it becomes as dry and hard as a brick of dogma, and make that brick a cornerstone of your theology?

      That also ignores the flexibility of the “heart” as seen in New Testament verses where Jesus is depicted as putting a positive spin on “the heart,” saying, “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart” (Luke 6:45 & Mat. 12:35) and taught that people ought to “Love God with all their heart,” (Mat. 22:37). How is that possible if the “heart” is “wicked and deceitful above all things?”

      Like

    • quote:
      “no one left on earth” = all humans are sinners

      quote:
      boom! means the tree of your argument fell and hit the ground.

      I am only 55. 🙂

      no one left on earth = all humans are sinners ?

      how come you did not read the verse in arabic?
      what do you know about “low” which talks about unfulfilled conditions in the past?

      which argument can you make based on the arabic that all humans = sinners, according to that verse. sometimes tsunamis take out children even though they are sinless.
      what does that mean to you?

      in hypothetical scenario even mary and jesus were going to be wiped out

      if my “argument fell and hit the ground”

      what are you basing this on?
      your reading in english?

      why do you not show same respect to koran like you to your corrupt and adulterated bible?

      Like

    • quote:
      “no one left on earth” = all humans are sinners

      you did not get that from the ayah, you read your diseased original sin stained mind into that verse

      the verse clearly is focusing on the sins of the DISBELIEVERS and then uses WALOW
      the quran talks about christian shirk and then says there is a very possibility that jesus and his mother could be DESTROYED

      here is does not use “walow”

      very very interesting

      the conditional word is “in”

      intusaafir sa usaafir

      so it says it is POSSIBLE

      according to you, does the quran say that jesus and his mother = SINNERS?

      Like

    • “no person left” = all people. The text does not say, “all the unbelievers will be gone, but the prophets and holy people will be left”, rather it says “no one will be left on earth, if God were to punish people for their sins”.

      Sorry, you lost that argument.

      Like

    • how did this go from abrahams burnt offering which symbolised loyalty to his god to destruction of everyone because they are sinful?

      quote:
      “no person left” = all people. The text does not say, “all the unbelievers will be gone, but the prophets and holy people will be left”, rather it says “no one will be left on earth, if God were to punish people for their sins”.

      quote:
      Sahih International: And brought [within view], that Day, is Hell – that Day, man will remember, but what good to him will be the remembrance?

      jesus will be remembering hell and so will mary, right? “man” must include believers and disbelievers, right?

      “no person left”

      funny , your gods failed returned for 2500 + years and you flex the words attributed to him, but you don’t want to apply the same here:

      Sahih International: For those who do not believe in the Hereafter is the description of evil; and for Allah is the highest attribute. And He is Exalted in Might, the Wise.

      Sahih International: And if Allah were to impose blame on the people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left upon the earth any creature, but He defers them for a specified term. And when their term has come, they will not remain behind an hour, nor will they precede [it].

      Yusuf Ali: If Allah were to punish men for their wrong-doing, He would not leave, on the (earth), a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term: When their Term expires, they would not be able to delay (the punishment) for a single hour, just as they would not be able to anticipate it (for a single hour).

      Sahih International: And they attribute to Allah that which they dislike, and their tongues assert the lie that they will have the best [from Him]. Assuredly, they will have the Fire, and they will be [therein] neglected.

      Sahih International: By Allah , We did certainly send [messengers] to nations before you, but Satan made their deeds attractive to them. And he is the disbelievers’ ally today [as well], and they will have a painful punishment.

      IN context, which is the quality of the BELIEVER being DESCRIBED?
      does the believer deny the hereafter?
      do they lie about God?

      what is the DHULM of the BELIEVER?

      Like

    • “Sorry, you lost that argument.”

      i don’t really give a shit lol

      Like

    • you just proved that you lost even more – resort to cussing and dirty language, anger – which even some other Muslims have warned you about here.

      Like

  7. I can’t understand the christians’ position in Mark 10:18.
    Why don’t christians think that verse is a clear evidence that Jesus is NOT divine? Either Jesus is wrong or christians are wrong. It’s the one or the other .

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Also, you have to keep reading in Mark 10. The historical Jesus answers your questions if you keep reading and have an open mind and heart.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/no-muslim-can-deal-with-mark-1023-27/

    Like

    • the historical Jesus was not a god Ken. History agrees with the Quran

      Liked by 1 person

    • History refutes the Qur’an, as the Qur’an denies the death of Jesus on the cross in 4:157, which even all scholars agree, even those like John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman and Tillic and Bultmann and Bauer, etc. – that the historical Jesus was crucified and died on the cross.

      Bauckham affirms that Jesus was indirectly claiming to be God, by saying, in effect, “If you believe I am good, and only God is Good; then I am God”

      Jesus was not “a god” – true – He was God by nature/substance, same substance ( homo-ousias ‘ομο-ουσιας ) as the Father.

      History refutes the Qur’an again.

      the Qur’an was ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity also – Surah 5:116; 72-78; 19:88-92; 6:101.

      Like

    • the verse does not necessarily deny that Jesus was crucified as such. I have schooled you on this before. There is much discussion and diverse opinion about this in the Islamic tradition.

      See this scholarly discussion:

      Liked by 1 person

    • Surah 4:157 denies that Jesus Al Masih died, “for sure” یقیناً they did not kill him”. Twice “they slew him not”.
      Therefore, the Qur’an denies established history; therefore the Qur’an is not from God; the Qur’an is not inspired by God.

      Like

    • So, do you agree with Lawson that it means that Jesus really was crucified and dead on the cross; but that Surah 2:154 and 3:169 interprets 4:157 so as to say, “Jesus was crucified and died on the cross in reality and history; but don’t think of him as dead, since his spirit/soul lives on in heaven with Allah” ? (Lawson interprets it that way, just as those who really were killed in this way like in Jihad, the Qur’an says, “don’t think of them as dead; they are really alive, because they are with their Lord”)

      I have seen your view written here many times, that you think Allah took Jesus to Himself and made it look like He was crucified and died; so did you change your view to Lawson’s view?

      Like

    • ken, are there any stories in the old testament you doubt?

      Like

  9. . . . some guy speculating a Gospel is written early because it doesn’t mention this or that historical event is not a convincing method for dating.

    As Robinson points out, the gospel writers not mentioning 70 AD – that if they wrote after 70 AD, they would have written, “and this came about when the temple was destroyed, in order to fulfill the word of Jesus”, etc.

    To not mention the 7 year war and the details, is just too massive to be credible as being written after the events.

    Josephus and Tactius and other secular writers provide lots of details of the 7 year war of the Jews with Rome, 66-73 and 70 AD and destruction of the temple, the mass suicide of 400 Jews on the hill of Masada in 73 AD.

    this even is not just “this or that historical event”.

    It is one of the the most historically verifiable events in history.

    Like

    • the problem with this methodology is that the gospel writers are writing about characters who were not involved in 70 ad

      they are writing far away from jerusalem in unknown places

      they do not need to mention the destruction because the destruction is already implied by marks wording which assumes temple has already been replaced with sacrificed man-god

      the other problem is that even in the second century christians did not make reference to the destruction of the temple

      many times when we ask christian apologists “why didn’t mark mention about the rising of the dead saints”

      they will say “he knew it but didn’t mention it”

      ergo mark knew of the destruction but his story need not mention it.

      Like

    • btw here is fergusons reply on this :

      quote:
      1. Regarding the vagueness of the details on the destruction of Jerusalem in Mark 13, and the use of Old Testament language/imagery, I’m not sure that this is a good argument that the prophecy must have been written pre-factum. What I thought about after the debate is that the use of OT motifs is actually common in the NT, including for events that we *know* are post-factum. Take Jesus’ crucifixion, for example. Everyone agrees that Mark was writing post-factum on Jesus’ crucifixion, but consider the ample use of OT language/imagery in Mark 15. The reference to casting lots for Jesus’ garments is lifted directly from Psalm 22:18. Jesus’ last words are lifted from Psalm 22:1. The midday darkness probably references several OT verses (cf. Joel 2:1-2; Amos 5:18-20; Zephaniah 1:14-15). As such, simply because OT language/imagery is used in describing the Temple’s destruction, I’m not sure that this is a good argument for saying that it was written pre-factum. It would, of course, be nice to have references to the fire or other more concrete details, but perhaps the author of Mark used metaphor (e.g. the fig tree) to make the post-factum prophecy less obvious?

      A point that I emphasized during the debate is that the internal evidence, such as whether Mark writes about the 70 CE destruction of Jerusalem, is rather ambiguous and it depends greatly on *interpretation*. Scholars can likewise disagree on these interpretations, which is why I tend to place less stock in the internal evidence. The external evidence of the 2nd century CE is less disputable (not to say that it isn’t still complicated), which is why I favor the external evidence, which places a terminus ante quem for the texts in the early-2nd century CE. I’m not sure we can *prove* they were written earlier, because we only have interpretive evidence, but I am open to earlier dates.

      2. As for the lack of anti-Temple rhetoric in Paul’s letters and its first appearance in Mark, here is what Adam Winn writes about it (taken from private correspondence):

      “If Mark’s audience was primarily Gentile, the question that must be asked is what interest did Gentile Christians have in the Jewish Temple? That the evangelist devotes a major section of the gospel to the Jewish Temple and its future suggests that his Gentile readers must have had some interest in it. But such an interest stands in stark contrast with the evidence we see throughout the New Testament. In Paul’s undisputed letters, which are without question our best window into the interests and concerns of early Gentile Christianity, we see no interest in or concern for the Jerusalem Temple. In fact, the only “temple” that Paul refers to is the church itself, which he identifies as God’s temple. But even in such an identification, the Jerusalem Temple plays virtually no role. Paul never makes a case that the Jerusalem Temple is corrupt and thus needs to be replaced by the people of God. He never even uses language of “newness” when describing the church as the God’s temple, i.e., the church is the “new” temple of God. In identifying the church as God’s temple, Paul never presents the church as taking on the cultic functions of the temple. It seems that the Jerusalem Temple played virtually no role in Paul’s missional and pastoral work among Gentile churches, even in instances in which Paul identifies those churches with God’s temple. And while the value of the book of Acts for reconstructing Paul’s missionary work is debated, it is noteworthy that the temple plays no role in Acts’ depiction of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles (particularly given the fact that the temple seems to play a prominent role in other parts of the book of Acts). Thus, all the existing evidence that we have portrays an early Gentile Christian church that has no interest in the Jerusalem Temple.”

      3. Regarding Luke’s use of Josephus, Richard Pervo devotes a whole chapter to it in Dating Acts (pp. 149-199). I’d be happy to discuss the individual instances of inter-dependence that he lists, but I will say one thing, though. Evans argued that the use of Luke’s other sources, such as Mark, are more obvious, whereas we don’t see as obvious a use of Josephus. I think this fails to take into account the differences between the *mimetic* and *informatic* use of sources. The mimetic use of sources is when an author overtly follows the outline of an earlier narrative and sometimes even copies whole verses and passages. This is how Luke uses Mark, and why there is a large amount of direct material shared with Mark. An author does not have to engage in mimesis of a source, however, to still use a source. The informatic use of sources is when an author uses a literary or documentary source for details and information. During this process, the author might even change how that source depicts things, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t used as a source. An example of each use of sources can be seen in Lucan’s Pharsalia. Scholars generally agree that Lucan performed mimesis on Livy, by copying his sequence of events in Caesar’s civil war (at least what we know of them from the Periochae). Nevertheless, it is also probable that Lucan used Caesar’s commentaries, too, but he uses them in a different way. Some have argued that he actually diverges from Caesar’s commentaries by including material that Caesar leaves out (e.g. the crossing of the Rubicon). So, you don’t have to perform mimesis on a source to still use a source, and I don’t argue that Luke engaged in mimesis of Josephus, rather than that he may have used his history for information.

      4. A point I left out of this debate, which I didn’t think of until afterward, is an anachronism in all of the Synoptic Gospels that dates to post-70 CE. This is the reference to paying the Roman denarius to Caesar in Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21, and Luke 20:25. Prior to the reign of Vespasian, Roman taxation was not collected in Judea (Julius Caesar banned the use of Roman publicans in 47 BCE, and instead the Jewish government paid Roman tribute after collecting taxes through a native system), nor was the use of the denarius widespread. Coin hoards dating to that period contain vastly more Tyrian shekels and not many many denarii. This changed after the destruction of Jerusalem and the reign of Vespasian, when the silver currency was changed to the denarius and the tax system was changed. As such, the connection that is made between the Roman taxation and the silver denarius in the passages above is anachronistic, since it was not the practice during Jesus’ lifetime, and instead reflects post-70 CE tax practices. I write more about this here:

      https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/matthew-the-%CF%84%CE%B5%CE%BB%CF%8E%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%82-toll-collector-and-the-authorship-of-the-first-gospel/

      This could be evidence of a post-70 CE date of composition for the Gospels. Or, could it be that it is a geographic error rather than a chronological error, in that the authors of the Gospels innacurately imputed tax practices in other Roman provinces during the 50’s-60’s CE onto the practices in Judea? Nevertheless, this is still a candidate for a post-70 CE anachronism in the Gospels.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Jesus didn’t deny that He was good.

    But I suspect you know this deep down anyway.

    Like

    • actually he did & I suspect you know this deep down.

      Like

    • ““What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!””
      ‭‭Mark‬ ‭1:24‬ ‭

      How can somebody described as Holy, righteous and sinless not be classified as good?

      Like

    • others can call him that, but if you are humble you do not say ‘I am such a good person’!

      Liked by 1 person

    • jesus’ “good” is under the Good of God.

      there is a thing called status

      i don’t get you pagans.

      you believe that the father is greater than jesus, then the fathers good must be greater too

      jesus really did say that the “good” he has is no where near or at the same level as the good of the father ..

      Liked by 1 person

    • That is your interpretation. Don’t impose your “interpolation” upon lips of Jesus.

      Liked by 2 people

    • being a “holy one” does not mean your “holiness” is like the fathers holiness

      even aron was is “the holy one of god”

      quote:

      God is Israel’s Holy One. And angels are often called holy ones. But the only precedent for a singular ‘the Holy One of God’ is Aaron (Ps. 106.16; Num. 16.7

      better add aaron to the trinity

      Like

    • “”That is your interpretation. Don’t impose your “interpolation” upon lips of Jesus.””

      Yeah, Williams!

      Like

    • lol you want Jesus to be a nice evagelical Christian, but the Jesus of history would repulse you.

      Liked by 3 people

    • @ZS

      you wrote “How can somebody described as Holy, righteous and sinless not be classified as good?”

      That is your interpretation. Jesus didn’t say that. He denied being called good. There are other holy and righteous figures in Bible. Are you willing to give them the same position as Jesus?

      Liked by 3 people

    • RM

      The only problem here is on the part of the Muslims cherry picking which verses( of the bible you agree(usually out of context) with and throwing out the rest.

      cafeteria Muslims is what you are.

      Like

    • zeltis, is the father greater than jesus? is the father greater than all?
      if yes, then the fathers good must be greater than all, right?

      Like

    • ZS: Ok suppose you charge is true about Muslims then why do you engage in cherry picking? But the problem is if you stop cherry picking you will not have your faith.

      Your entire theology is based on selective reading of sayings of Jesus. For example why don’t you consider which entity was it that Jesus worshiped? Now this would be definitive in proving who is and who isn’t God because you will be basing your interpretation based what Jesus did when he was present among his people. Are you willing to do that?

      Liked by 1 person

    • zeltis, you put faith in the devils when you quote

      Mark‬ ‭1:24

      but you cannot find even one place that after righteous man like john the baptist declared jesus “holy one” after he dunked jesus and cleansed him of his sins

      later in the same gospel, john has doubts.

      Like

    • “”That is your interpretation. Jesus didn’t say that. He denied being called good.””

      No he didn’t deny being called good. Jesus was challenging the rich young ruler to think through the implications of attributing to Him the title “good.” By calling Jesus good was he prepared to acknowledge Jesus’s deity?

      Like

    • quote:
      “By calling jesus good was he prepared to acknowledge jesus’s deity?”

      quote:
      jesus was challenging the rich young ruler to think through the implications of attributing to him the title “good.”

      is this how you are understanding these texts ? i have added the word “god”

      17As jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “good teacher/god,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

      18“Why do you call me good/god?”

      do you believe deity is already acknowledged in verse 17?

      christian blasphemy finishes mind

      Like

    • quote:
      jesus was challenging the rich young ruler to think through the implications of attributing to him the title “good.”

      is this how you are understanding the text below? i have added the words “god”

      why do you call me good/god?
      no one is good/god but god alone.

      Like

    • words like this come from a 21 century man worshipper

      quote:
      By calling Jesus good was he prepared to acknowledge Jesus’s deity?

      but lets be honest, even when a man in palestine says “good teacher” to someone, does he even think that the guy in front of him is a god?

      remember this :

      quote:
      If you read what the pagans wrote about the Jews, it wasn’t the Jews’ monotheism that they found odd. It’s the fact that the Jewish temple had no god inside of it. That is to say, the Jews didn’t represent their god with some form of statue or image. The Holy of Holies in the Temple was literally empty. The notion of an all-powerful Creator godhead wasn’t that odd to the pagans. The lack of a physical representation is what the pagans found odd.

      so would a man saying “good teacher” even
      think to himself that the jewish guy in front of him is “good god” ?

      only the polluted 21st century man worshipping christian or ancient greek pagan would make such assumption

      Liked by 1 person

  11. @Ken : the ransom thing:

    Read mark 10 again

    43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    So question for you

    1. If Jesus is according to you came to ransom himself them he is also asking you to be ransom. To be a good servant you must be willing to be a ransom. That is what Jesus is telling you. Read the whole thing. Don’t just cherry pick

    2. In which language ransom means death? So why impose your theology on a verse that doesn’t talk about death?

    Psalm 49:7 No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them—
    8 the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—

    Do you see ken, there is no ransom for anyone and no one can redeem life for another. Now off course you will have you spin it to make it say what it doesn’t say.

    Liked by 1 person

    • IRRATIONAL MUHAMMADAN
      1. If Jesus is according to you came to ransom himself them he is also asking you to be ransom. To be a good servant you must be willing to be a ransom. That is what Jesus is telling you. Read the whole thing. Don’t just cherry pick
      RESPONSE
      Yes, do read the whole thing and don’t just cherry pick:
      “They were on the way, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus went ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. Again, He took the twelve aside and began to tell them what would happen to Him, saying, ‘Listen! We are going up to Jerusalem. The Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, AND THEY WILL CONDEMN HIM TO DEATH and hand Him over to the Gentiles. They will mock Him, and scourge Him, and spit on Him, AND KILL HIM. THEN AFTER THREE DAYS HE WILL RISE.’ Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, ‘Teacher, we want that whatever we may ask, You would do for us.’ He said to them, ‘What do you want Me to do for you?’ They said to Him, ‘Grant us to sit, one at Your right hand and the other at Your left hand, in Your glory.’ But Jesus said to them, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?’ They said to Him, ‘We can.’ Jesus said to them, ‘You will indeed drink the cup that I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. But to sit at My right hand or at My left hand is not Mine to grant. It is for those for whom it has been prepared.’ When the ten heard it, they began to be very displeased with James and John. But Jesus called them together, and said, ‘You know that those who are appointed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever among you would be greatest must be servant of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, AND to give His life as a ransom for many.’” Mark 10:32-45
      Now please be so kind and show us where Jesus tells the Apostles that their service to one another encompasses and includes offering up their lives as a ransom for the sins of their comrades. Prove, don’t merely assert, that serving and ransoming are necessarily synonymous. The very fact that Jesus went on to specify that he both serves AND offers his life as a ransom for many proves that they are not synonymous, since one doesn’t imply or entail the other. However, I understand that your reading the Quran with all its incoherent babble and ellipses has caused you to assume that the Gospels are to be read in the same way where you add your own spin and misinterpretation, much like you do whenever you read the incoherent babble you call a revelation from Allah in order to make sense out of it. But unfortunately for you, the Gospels have a context that can be understood clearly.
      IRRATIONAL MUHAMMADAN
      2. In which language ransom means death? So why impose your theology on a verse that doesn’t talk about death?
      RESPONSE
      In the language of Mark 10 which you just butchered to your profit’s shame and humiliation. Let me repeat it:
      “They were on the way, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus went ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. Again, He took the twelve aside and began to tell them what would happen to Him, saying, ‘Listen! We are going up to Jerusalem. The Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, AND THEY WILL CONDEMN HIM TO DEATH and hand Him over to the Gentiles. They will mock Him, and scourge Him, and spit on Him, AND KILL HIM. THEN AFTER THREE DAYS HE WILL RISE… For even the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, AND TO GIVE HIS LIFE AS A RANSOM FOR MANY.’” Mark 10:32-34, 45
      AS THE CONTEXT SHOWS, the way Jesus offers his life as a ransom is by being handed over to the Gentiles to be beaten and killed. Mark provides further proof that Jesus ransoms souls from judgment by his vicarious death on their behalf:

      “As they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Take and eat it. This is My body.’ Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them. And they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is MY BLOOD of the new covenant, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY. Truly I say to you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’” Mark 14:22-25

      Now be a good lil Muhammadan and quote from any of the Gospels where Jesus says that his disciples will shed their blood for the forgiveness of the sins of many as part of their service towards one another.

      IRRATIONAL MUHAMMADAN
      Psalm 49:7 No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them—
8 the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—
      Do you see ken, there is no ransom for anyone and no one can redeem life for another. Now off course you will have you spin it to make it say what it doesn’t say.

      RESPONSE

      Do you see Muhammadan, that you just proved that Jesus is God Almighty who became flesh since the only way he can ransom countless numbers of lives is if he is no mere finite, imperfect, temporal creature like your profit, but God in the flesh, since God alone ransoms souls from the pit, from sheol:

      “none of them can by any means redeem the other, nor give to God a ransom for anyone, for the redemption of their souls is costly; even so people cease to exist forever, making efforts to live eternally, and not see the pit… BUT GOD SHALL REDEEM MY SOUL FROM THE POWER OF SHEOL, FOR HE SHALL RECEIVE ME. Selah” Psalm 49:7-9, 15

      OUCH!

      Try as you might, no amount of your Muhammadan spin will salvage your profit from this embarrassment. 😉

      With that said, keep up the great work of helping us expose your profit while glorifying the Lord Jesus, Muhammad’s God and Judge. Much appreciated.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You really need to behave like an adult Sam. You do your proselytising no good.

      Like

  12. Psalm 49:7 is true, because he is talking about sinful humans – no sinful human can ransom for another. Read the whole Psalm and context.

    But Jesus was sinless, and even the Qur’an agrees with this (Surah 19:19); and Isaiah 53:1-12 speaks of the one who would come in the future and be the ransom, the sin and guilt offering, the suffering servant (Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12)

    It is clear if you read all of Psalm 49, that ransom means death, and also the context of Mark 10:45, because in the same context, Jesus speaks of His suffering, death on the cross, and resurrection several times:

    Mark 8:31
    Mark 9:9
    Mark 9:31
    Mark 10:32-34 (which is right there in between Mark 10:18 – 23 and 10:45, vindicating all Islamic polemics and destroying all Islamic arguments.)

    boom!! double and triple boom!1

    Like

    • jesus was most likely a sinner who sinned in mind and action

      Like

    • @ken “Psalm 49:7 is true, because he is talking about sinful humans ”

      Nope the words are general. Where is your evidence that the sentence is restrictive?

      Also according to NT, Jesus is not sinless. He was gluttonous, He ordered taking animals for his ride without owners permission. He said calling people fool will condemn a person to hell yet he called others fool etc.

      Like

    • ken,
      i sincerely believe that each gospel writer thought that jesus was able to sin like any other person and did sin. it is a lie to say that jesus did not sin. jesus sinned in thought and action.
      you need “divine revelation” which says mary pushed out 2 natures and you need “divine revelation” which contradicts the following verses :

      Job 25:4- How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure?

      jesus was impure and born in sin and born under cursed law.
      if adam was able to sin, then who is jesus who was born from a sinful mother who thought he was mental?

      http://ehrmanblog.org/does-marks-gospel-implicitly-deny-the-virgin-birth/

      the bible is written by sinners like moses who boast about how humble they are

      quote:
      “Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth.”

      but we know that even though the spirit of yhwh hovered over moses, david and others , they still sinned and continued to sin and lied about themselves when they attributed humbleness to themselves.

      they were humbly sinning ?

      the scribes who wrote your bibles down were sinners. the desiples who told your stories were sinners.

      what was the sin of mary?

      she thought that the god she was carrying was mental

      http://ehrmanblog.org/does-marks-gospel-implicitly-deny-the-virgin-birth/

      yes ken, the bible tells you directly that jesus was a sinner. he told his friends to watch what comes from their own mouth, but he doesn’t watch his own mouth and calls an ill little child a dog which feeds of the floor

      jesus had no love or compassion for an ill little suffering child.

      only jesus’ wife could apply oil like this woman did

      https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/perfumed-jesus.html

      your animal god was married ken.

      he sinned in thought and action
      it is a lie and dishonest to say that he was sinless

      you have received your bibles from sinners.
      you have liars who change the stories

      Like

  13. @ Paul Williams:
    Since you put up Todd Lawson’s book, as a scholarly treatment of Surah 4:157, etc.

    So, do you agree with Lawson that it means that Jesus really was crucified and dead on the cross; but that Surah 2:154 and 3:169 interprets 4:157 so as to say, “Jesus was crucified and died on the cross in reality and history; but don’t think of him as dead, since his spirit/soul lives on in heaven with Allah” ? (Lawson interprets it that way, just as those who really were killed in this way like in Jihad, the Qur’an says, “don’t think of them as dead; they are really alive, because they are with their Lord”)

    I have seen your view written here many times, that you think Allah took Jesus to Himself and made it look like He was crucified and died; so did you change your view to Lawson’s view?

    Like

    • There are many early sects who did’t believe in CR. Like Basilides etc. Moreover that is not even the question, The real question is did Jesus even teach salvation through CR?

      There are 100+ sayings of Jesus where teaches salvation through faith and good deeds. Why ignore them?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Basilides was a Gnostic who did not believe that Jesus was human or had a physical body. not a good example for Muslims to use.

      But it does sort of expose some of the thinking of Muslims – there seems to be some kind of Gnostic thought in Muslim’s attitudes about physical things. “God cannot have any association with physical matter”; “therefore, Jesus cannot be God, since Jesus was human, got thirsty, tired, had to go the bathroom; was born from a virgin’s womb, was a baby, “pooped and peed”, etc. Yet God thought of all the physical processes of sex, digestion, urination, defecation of feces, etc. Many of you recoil at God the Son becoming human because of those processes; yet the Living Eternal God-Creator was the one who thought of all those physical processes for us.

      Just the way Mr. Heathcliffs mocks and talks dirty and cusses (even when other Muslims warn him) exposes this.

      Like

    • ken,
      i sincerely believe that each gospel writer thought that jesus was able to sin like any other person and did sin. it is a lie to say that jesus did not sin. jesus sinned in thought and action.
      you need “divine revelation” which says mary pushed out 2 natures and you need “divine revelation” which contradicts the following verses :

      Job 25:4- How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure?

      jesus was impure and born in sin and born under cursed law.
      if adam was able to sin, then who is jesus who was born from a sinful mother who thought he was mental?

      http://ehrmanblog.org/does-marks-gospel-implicitly-deny-the-virgin-birth/

      the bible is written by sinners like moses who boast about how humble they are

      quote:
      “Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth.”

      but we know that even though the spirit of yhwh hovered over moses, david and others , they still sinned and continued to sin and lied about themselves when they attributed humbleness to themselves.

      they were humbly sinning ?

      the scribes who wrote your bibles down were sinners. the desiples who told your stories were sinners.

      what was the sin of mary?

      she thought that the god she was carrying was mental

      http://ehrmanblog.org/does-marks-gospel-implicitly-deny-the-virgin-birth/

      yes ken, the bible tells you directly that jesus was a sinner. he told his friends to watch what comes from their own mouth, but he doesn’t watch his own mouth and calls an ill little child a dog which feeds of the floor

      jesus had no love or compassion for an ill little suffering child.

      only jesus’ wife could apply oil like this woman did

      https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/perfumed-jesus.html

      your animal god was married ken.

      he sinned in thought and action
      it is a lie and dishonest to say that he was sinless

      you have received your bibles from sinners.
      you have liars who change the stories

      Like

  14. Brother Paul, random thought…

    Matthew 26:39-40… what’s up with that point of view? Who’s supposed to have been the one witnessing these events and recounting them? I asked one Christian recently and he said “God.” My obvious next question was “so God wrote Matthew?” To which his obvious Evangelical reply was “yes,” his reference being 1 Timothy (I think) and Paul’s unauthoritative and probably not even applicable opinion that “all scripture is blah blah.”

    The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t claim to be divine inspiration; Jesus ﷺ was withdrawn in seclusion from his sleeping disciples; Paul’s opinion about “scripture” is a.) without authority and b). likely not applicable to anything in the New Testament – and if it is, then further proof is needed for specification that, for instance, the various apocrypha aren’t included.

    I know Muslims love throwing this verse out to show how “Islamic” Jesus ﷺ was, but… c’mon what gives??

    Like

  15. The islamic Jesus must have been ransomed by whoever, or whatever, was crucified in his place, according to the Koran !

    So the concept of substitutionary atonement is shored up by the Koran itself !

    [4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

    Like

    • thats not a very literal translation. It adds in the (like Isa) bit which is not in the Quran

      Like

    • assuming this interpretation is correct.

      i think mad manna is mental

      does he think that someone else got punished for jesus’ sins? no?
      then there was no sub atonement

      does he think that the guy who was KILLED was guilty of murder but looked like jebus?

      then there is no ransom or anything, the guy was punished under the law and rightly .

      christians are mental man worshippers.

      Like

  16. Sam, until you can start behaving like an adult human being I’m going to delete your comments.

    Like

  17. “Christians must go back to the historical Jesus: a Torah-observant Prophet who submitted to his Lord.”

    The god of the Torah is even more blatantly plural than the New Testament. Believing in the Torah means believing that god is multi-personal – this is what jesus taught and this is why he was condemned by the pharisees.

    Liked by 1 person

    • how do you know he isn’t 8 persons? if i can prove to you that there are more than 5 persons functioning , then would you leave trinity ?

      Like

    • A plural god is multi-personal – like the god o the bible.

      Like

    • can you give me an example of a multi person god from the gospels?

      Like

    • quote:
      this is what jesus taught and this is why he was condemned by the pharisees.

      quote:
      63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

      quote:

      Leviticus 24:15-16New International Version (NIV)

      15 Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

      so the high priest was absolutely right. they had every right to execute jesus according to leviticus 24

      if your own god said not to blaspheme the holy spirit, then what more do you want for a mere meat/flesh idol who claims to be “most high” ?

      Like

    • the funny thing is that every christian ignores this

      Leviticus 24:15-16New International Version (NIV)

      15 Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

      lol

      Like

  18. “does he think that someone else got punished for jesus’ sins? no?
    then there was no sub atonement”

    The koran doesn’t tell us why Allah did what he did so I have to leave all options open. Maybe whoever or whatever it was that died was supposed to be a ransom and a substitute for the sins of the world. Where does it say otherwise?

    He saved the life of your prophet and you say he is a criminal? That’s gratitude for you.

    How do I know that your understanding is the standard islamic interpretation?

    Like

    • quote:
      The koran doesn’t tell us why Allah did what he did so I have to leave all options open. Maybe whoever or whatever it was that died was supposed to be a ransom and a substitute for the sins of the world. Where does it say otherwise?

      He saved the life of your prophet and you say he is a criminal? That’s gratitude for you.
      end quote

      just going by your interpretation
      saved whose life? maybe the guy was a murderer or blasphemer . one battered bearded criminal back in those days probably resembled another battered bearded criminal

      who knows ?

      just going by your interpretation

      maybe the saved one proved that the battered bearded criminal was guilty of crime, like telling people to worship him and take him as a god?

      Leviticus 24:15-16New International Version (NIV)

      15 Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

      shape shifting exists in the gospels

      https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2016/05/20/jesus-the-shapeshifter-in-early-christian-tradition/

      you shouldn’t really have a problem with one blaspheming criminal resembling another jew. jews did look like each other back in those days.

      Like

  19. Sam has total meltdown. Calm down dude. Follow Jesus and don’t use filthy language. It does you no good.

    The question for Christian in general is. Did Jesus ever teach salvation through his death and resurrection? In evidence they bring two main verses, the ransom verses from Mark 10 and Matthew 20. Well are these verses talking about salvation? If yes and if we have to be consistent then lets see what they say

    Matthew 20: 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    Mark 10: 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    So if salvation is by “ransom’ (whatever that word means, will be discussed later), then it is also by serving others. Notice Jesus is teaching his disciples “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” and “whoever wants to be first must be your slave.

    Well in that not only that you don’t Jesus to die, you also don’t need anyone to die. Rather you need to humble yourself and be slave of others. And Jesus is setting example that to serve others he will even his own self as ransom. Ransom is not synonymous with service rather, it is an EXAMPLE of how to serve.

    Same theme is repeated in John 10

    11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

    A goo shepherded is someone who has to be willing to lay down his life for his flock. He preaches same message in John 15

    13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business.

    Similarly Jesus teaches his disciples of be willing to lay down their own life for true faith rather than risk their salvation

    Matthew 16: 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

    Actually if we take Matthew16:24-26 literally, one can conclude that sure shot way to salvation is to die for faith. Notice the word “whoever loses their life for me will find it” and “and take up their cross and follow me”. So if Jesus was willing to die, then so should they. This concept is not much different than Islamic concept of martyrdom.

    Why insert preconceived meanings into these passages? Why not take them at face value? The message in these verses are clear as day. That a good leader and a good friends has to be willing to lay down his life for his flock. A good believer must be willing to lay down his own life. That is it. There is no teaching of death and resurrection here. And certainly no DEMAND from Jesus to believe in his death and resurrection as means of salvation.

    Now let’s consider the word “Ransom,” It doesn’t mean death in any the place it occurs inside Bible. In fact Psalm 49 teaches that ransom is not acceptable at all for salvation.

    Psalm 49:
    No one can redeem the life of another
    or give to God a ransom for them—
    8 the ransom for a life is costly,
    no payment is ever enough—
    9 so that they should live on forever
    and not see decay.

    Later on it teaches that only God can redeem. No mention of anyone’s death for redemption is needed. No need of anyone’s substitutionary death.

    15 But God will redeem me from the realm of the dead;
    he will surely take me to himself.

    Conclusion: By honest of text of Mark 10 and Matthew 20 it is clear that Jesus is not offering himself as substitute of people’s sin. Rather being ransom is an example that his disciples need to be ready to offer. Psalm 49 confirms that redemption “ransom” is NOT acceptable. Psalm 49:15 teaches God himself alone redeems people

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sorry for typo” the last paragraph should read

      “Conclusion: Reading of text of Mark 10 and Matthew 20 in context, it is clear that Jesus is not offering himself as substitute for people’s sin. Rather for him being “ransom” is an example of being a good “servant/slave” that his disciples need to be ready to offer. Psalm 49 confirms that for redemption “ransom” is NOT acceptable. Psalm 49:15 teaches God himself alone can redeem people of their sins

      Like

    • paul, are you of the opinion that the reason why luke changed the “ransom verse” was because he saw some kind of sacrificial for sins language in it?

      if it is as rational muslim says it is, then luke wouldn’t have any problem to change the verse because it supports martyrdom and luke has a martyred jesus.

      Like

  20. And how about this verse? Why not apply this upon Jesus? Actually this verse alone undermines the entire theological underpinning of Christian theology on salvation. If any ransom has to be paid it has to be by unfaithful for the righteous, which just the opposite of their stated position. You don’t need perfect sinless “lamb” to die for you.

    Proverbs 21:18 The wicked become a ransom for the righteous, and the unfaithful for the upright.

    Like

  21. “Proverbs 21:18 The wicked become a ransom for the righteous, and the unfaithful for the upright.”

    This is not law it’s just an inspired observation.

    ” 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

    The “lifted up” or crucified Jesus must be an object of faith, just like the serpent on the pole in the wilderness, through which we have everlasting life.

    Just as those bitten by a serpent looked on the serpent which was lifted up in the wilderness to be healed so we look on the “lifted up” or crucified Jesus to save our souls.

    Numbers 21 v 8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. 9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

    Sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura, solus christus, soli deo gloria

    There is no element of works involved.

    Simple as that.

    Like

    • @madmanna

      Please don’t change the subject. The question is about ransom. Plenty of evidence has been provided and everyone can see no refutation has been given. just saying “This is not law it’s just an inspired observation.” is admission that indeed the arguments provided are correct.

      Can we use the same logic elsewhere?

      Also did Moses “crucify” his snake? Was it even a live snake that Moses mounted on his pole? It was a brass serpent. So if you are going to draw any analogy then you need to mount on pole a “Jesus” made up of brass or something like it. It is just insane and stupid to draw “crucifixion” meaning from this verse . How can John 3:14 have anything to do with Number 21:8?

      Moreover “lifting up” doesn’t mean crucifixion. It is a generic word, it can simply mean Jesus was not killed and “lifted up”. Are you ready for that meaning? Why not?

      For evangelicals the interpretive principle seems to be is as follows:

      If there is slightest/ remotest possibility to derive a “Christian meaning” from any verse of OT/NT then by all means do it. However if there are even clearest words against their theology then just explain away those verses. Statements like “This is not law it’s just an inspired observation.” are emblematic of that mentality.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Also please notice a Muslim has no problem agreeing with “John3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life”. We will say Ameen. But it is your distortion and inserting meaning that is not there is the problem. This verse, even remotely, doesn’t talk about Crucifixion.

      Like

  22. In regard to the original post, if Christians were honest with themselves, they would continue the Reformation to its logical conclusion, by embracing NT Historical Criticism and rejecting the innovations and false doctrines that have entered into their own religion. They could then reform their own doctrines to be more in line with the Bible, and historical textual critique, by ejecting false and innovated doctrines (Trinitarianism, the deification of Christ, Atonement by the cross, doctrine of original sin, Paul’s faith based redemption and rejection of the Law, perpetual virgin, etc.) that are not Biblically supported. This would help return Christianity to a position more in line with the Traditional Unitarian Abrahamic Monotheism as preached by all the Prophets, including Jesus, and as professed by the sister faiths, Judaism and Islam. In the past, Christians were unable to do this out of fear of being persecuted by a powerful Church. However, now Christians are free to pursue the reformation and complete it without fear of reprisal from the Church, which will either have to change and reform as well, or lose any legitimate relevancy.

    Like

  23. “Moreover “lifting up” doesn’t mean crucifixion. It is a generic word, it can simply mean Jesus was not killed and “lifted up”. Are you ready for that meaning? Why not?”

    John 12 v 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

    33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.

    Like

    • Dude; if we discussing one verse , don’t jump to next.

      also your are talking non sense about John 3:14. Look at this biblical interpretation

      There are far more dissimilarities than there are similarities, thus: (1) the brass serpent was of different material from the deadly snakes that were tormenting Israel; but Jesus was made in all points like unto his brethren (Hebrews 2:17); (2) Israel was forbidden to worship the brass snake; but all people are commanded to worship Christ; (3) the brass snake eventually became an idol and was defiled and burned up (2 Kings 18:1,4); (the manner of appropriating the blessing is exceedingly diverse in each case, there having been no moral or spiritual conditions whatever in the healing of snake bites, not even faith). Now, when the Pharisees looked upon Jesus on the cross, were they saved? No! Far more than looking is required for salvation in Christ, as revealed in the next verse. And, as for those who would take this verse as the basis for promising salvation to all who “look upon” Jesus, and then interpret that to mean “faith only,” it should be pointed out that Jesus had just revealed to Nicodemus that absolutely nothing short of being born again, born of water and of the Spirit, could suffice for entry into God’s kingdom.

      [16] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (London: Mason and Lane, 1837), Vol. V, p. 533.
      [17] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 55.

      ref: https://www.studylight.org/commentary/john/3-14.html

      Like

    • Also check the Calvin’s interpretation. I have made the line separate for all to read. this doesn’t refer Jesus raised on cross, rather to Calvin it means “raised standard” of Jesus.


      14.And as Moses lifted up the serpent. He explains more clearly why he said that it is he alone to whom heaven is opened; namely, that he brings to heaven all who are only willing to follow him as their guide; for he testifies that he will be openly and publicly manifested to all, that he may diffuse his power over men of every class.

      (62) To be lifted up means to be placed in a lofty and elevated situation, so as to be exhibited to the view of all.

      This was done by the preaching of the Gospel; for the explanation of it which some give, as referring to the cross, neither agrees with the context nor is applicable to the present subject.

      The simple meaning of the words therefore is, that, by the preaching of the Gospel, Christ was to be raised on high, like a standard to which the eyes of all would be directed, as Isaiah had foretold,

      (Isaiah 2:2.) As a type of this lifting up, he refers to the brazen serpent, which was erected by Moses, the sight of which was a salutary remedy to those who had been wounded by the deadly bite of serpents. The history of that transaction is well known, and is detailed in Numbers 21:9. Christ introduces it in this passage, in order to show that he must be placed before the eyes of all by the doctrine of the Gospel, that all who look at him by faith may obtain salvation. ”

      https://www.studylight.org/commentary/john/3-14.html

      Like

  24. @ Paul Williams: Can you answer this question?

    Since you put up Todd Lawson’s book, as a scholarly treatment of Surah 4:157, etc.

    So, do you agree with Lawson that it means that Jesus really was crucified and dead on the cross; but that Surah 2:154 and 3:169 interprets 4:157 so as to say, “Jesus was crucified and died on the cross in reality and history; but don’t think of him as dead, since his spirit/soul lives on in heaven with Allah” ? (Lawson interprets it that way, just as those who really were killed in this way like in Jihad, the Qur’an says, “don’t think of them as dead; they are really alive, because they are with their Lord”)

    I have seen your view written here many times, that you think Allah took Jesus to Himself and made it look like He was crucified and died; so did you change your view to Lawson’s view?

    Like

  25. “John 12 v 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

    33 This he said, signifying what death he should die”

    The meaning of the text is plain and simple.

    I only have one scholar whose opinion means anything to me and he is sitting between my ears.

    When Muslims start throwing scholars at me I know they have lost and are desparate to avoid the truth that is staring at them in the face because their worldview demands it.

    Like

    • @madmanna: “The meaning of the text is plain and simple.”

      No it is not. The text doesn’t say anything about salvation by believing in crucifixion and resurrection (CR) of Jesus. You don’t believe in your scholars who question your interpretation. So can you show me one example, one verse, one statement from lips of Jesus where he commanded you to BELIEVE in his CR.

      Now would ya?

      Like

    • Clarification:

      Can you show me one example, one verse, one statement from lips of Jesus where he commanded you to BELIEVE in his CR for your salvation?

      I am not questioning here about CR of Jesus. Assume that it did take place. My question is whether CR has anything to do with salvation.

      Like

  26. John 3 v 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of

    man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

    John 12 v 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

    32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

    33 This he said, signifying what death he should die

    If you put the two texts together they clearly mean that we can only be saved by his crucifixion. Otherwise the belief is not effective to eternal life.

    Like

    • Where did Jesus tell you to believe in his future CR for your salvation? no one not interested in your “opinion” bring evidence please. be specific.

      As for John 3:14: are you saying Jesus was a serpent?

      Like

  27. Both elements are necessary. The crucifixion and the belief in that event.

    If either element is absent, according to these scriptures, the salvation does not materialize.

    Like

  28. So if you deny the crucifixion you are calling the Jesus of the NT a liar. He said it was necessary for him to be crucified. Muslims say it wasn’t. They both can’t be right.

    Like

    • No, I am calling you a wrong because you are imposing on lips of Jesus something that he didn’t say. You made BELIEF in CR central to your faith, while Jesus never ordered you.

      Like

    • Jesus rode donkey into Jerusalem. He also cursed a fig tree. Are you saying Jesus cursing a fig tree is your means of salvation or believing that Jesus rode donkey into Jerusalem in necessary for your salvation.

      Why assign this privilege to CR event but not to dozens of other incidents in life of Jesus? Bring evidence from lips of Jesus buddy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • look , jesus could have been electrocuted , stoned or even toppled
      necessity to die does not mean the method of execution is NECESSARY for belief

      do you see the difference

      Like

    • method of execution was something paul needed, but luke doesn’t even think it is necessary .

      Like

    • i don’t even think that luke thought that the death was required to believe that an atonement for sins had taken place

      i think to luke the death signifies something completely different than pauline theology

      paul needs a human sacrificial ritual thats why he needs the tool which was used to pierce your god

      the other writers don’t need the tool or even jesus’ blood or opening of his flesh.

      paul is the one who views jesus as levitical animal opening .

      Like

  29. My belief in him is not merely in his existence but in all the words and actions recorded of him.

    I don’t believe in an empty shell.

    So I believe in all that the NT reveals about him.

    One of these facts is that he stated clearly the need for his death by crucifixion. So it is not optional as part of my belief.

    Like

    • @madmanna

      So you admit that you have no evidence from Jesus where he taught you to believe in his CR for your salvation. But you must do so because a liar and a deceiver [these are description of St Paul in his own word] told you so.

      Like

  30. King James Bible

    Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

    Like

  31. King James Bible

    Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

    Like

    • so? the tool which pierced your god is not important to luke. even the death is not important. if jews did not hand over jesus, they would have prevented the death.
      it was in the jews hands
      your religion developed

      Like

    • @MM

      But it says nothing about salvation. Jesus also prophesied and later cursed Peter as Satan. So you must now believe that Peter was Satan to be saved? For God’s sake talk logic.

      Like

  32. If he prophesied it he also foreordained it. Thus it was the way he choose to offer himself. Who am I to argue against the will of God?

    Like

    • prophesied? nearly all scholars believe that the handing over to the chief priests was christian invention
      scholars also believe that judas’ betrayal was invented so that jesus was not caught off guard.

      Like

    • correction : scholars believe that the handing over to the chief priest was not something jesus knew about, they think that later christians when telling stories made their hero look like he knew it all along .

      Like

    • You need to argue against a liar and a deceiver that distorted teaching of Jesus. There are 100+ sayings of Jesus on salvation in four Gospels. None of them about BELIEF in CR as means of salvation. And all of them about BELIEF in Jesus and in God and doing good deeds.

      That is why “argue against the will of God” is wrong and you must accept if you claim to be follower of Jesus. No some fancy non sense that a lair taught you.

      Like

    • @MM

      What else did Jesus prophesy? Why not count all of them as part of “plan of salvation”?

      Like

  33. ” if jews did not hand over jesus, they would have prevented the death.
    it was in the jews hands
    your religion developed”

    Jesus said salvation is of the Jews.

    Both of their evil and of their good.

    Like

    • where did luke say that the cross, the blood and the meat of jesus was IMPORTANT for belief.
      if jews did not hand jesus over, they would have saved him. luke is making them realise that it was injustice to hand over jesus to pagans , not that jesus went willingly as an levitical animal ritual for atonement of sins

      Like

  34. One strong evidence of the centrality and absolute necessity of his death in our salvation is the institution of the Lords Supper:

    he Lord’s Supper Instituted
    (Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34)

    14And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! 23And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.

    Like

  35. Without the crucifixion it would have been impossible for God or the Son of Man to have been glorified. the whole purpose of Jesus life would have failed:

    John 12 v 23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

    31Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.

    We have already seen that Jesus makes his lifting up or crucifixion necessary for eternal life for those who believe.

    Like

    • @MM: you wrote “Without the crucifixion it would have been impossible for God or the Son of Man to have been glorified. ”

      Evidence please. Jesus never taught such a horrible thing.

      Like

  36. “No, I am calling you a wrong because you are imposing on lips of Jesus something that he didn’t say. You made BELIEF in CR central to your faith, while Jesus never ordered you.”

    Without belief nothing that Jesus did can be appropriated for our salvation.

    As the Lords Supper and other texts show beyond doubt belief in his death is central.

    John 12 v 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

    33 This he said, signifying what death he should die. NOT how his death would be proclaimed.

    John 3 v 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

    Like

    • You keep bringing up “serpent” verse.

      Was Jesus a serpent?

      Will people be saved by looking at Jesus mounted at a pole ( that you can’t as you can no longer see so no longer saved?

      Why pick and choose your interpolations? Why not be consistent?

      Like

  37. ” This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”

    Liked by 1 person

  38. If the cross is not central and I should not believe in it because Jesus does not tell me to then why does he command me to take up his cross and follow him?

    How can I do that without believing that it is central to his mission? How does that make sense?

    Why would Jesus characterize discipleship with something that he does not wish anyone to believe about him?

    So Jesus is obviously looking forward to his death on the cross and commands his disciples to share with him that experience of being rejected and despised by the world.

    Take Up Your Cross
    (Matthew 10:37-39; Mark 8:34-38; Luke 9:23-27)

    24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

    Any rational Muslims out there following Jesus by taking up his cross? If not why not?

    Like

    • madmanna

      The New Testament mentioned ghosts coming out from their graves and walking through the street of Jerusalem which was recorded by only one gospel. If this blockbuster movie was only recorded by one gospel, it means we are not to believe anything in the NT.

      You said;
      24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

      Any rational Muslims out there following Jesus by taking up his cross? If not why not?

      I say;
      Muslims out there are skeptical and do not believe in the whole NT except few that corresponds with the Quran and Christians themselves are picking and choosing NT passages by not drinking poison and allowing poisonous snake bites except one or two pastors in the Appalachians.

      madmanna, drink poison and allow poisonous snakes bites as the Bible said close to the passage of Christian doctrine before counselling Muslims to accept the whole NT.

      I want to see you drinking deadly poison and allowing rattle snakes bites as the Bible said, before you ask any Muslim to accept the whole NT.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • @MM Is this your best argument?

      Does taking up the cross Jesus means believing in his death and resurrection? Really?

      This verse appears in Mark 8:34 and matthew 16:24. Looks at your own schaolrs what they are saying about it.

      https://www.studylight.org/commentary/mark/8-34.html

      This verse simply tells you for complete surrender to the religion. So much so that if someone insults, humiliates, spits, tortures and crucifies you, you still don’t give up. That is what “cross” signifies. Nothing more. But unless you give up faithfulness in the deceiver Paul you can never follow Jesus.

      In any case you will admit that these verses are not explicit is telling your about your theology about CR. Do you ever wonder why? Why is it that none of the “fundamentals” of your faith are clearly taught by Jesus in any explicit manner, despite that fact that Jesus told his disciples that he would teach them clearly and publicly (John 16:25). His disciples confirmed this in John 16:29

      So the choice for you is one of the two

      1. Accept that Jesus fulfilled his promise and talked to his disciples clearly and plainly is available now to understand his religion. That will mean you will need to accept conclusions that are apparent and clear not some hidden meanings.

      2.Or accept that what Jesus taught plainly and clearly is no more available.

      3.Or the third option is that Jesus lied and he didn’t fulfill his promise but that is neither acceptable to you or me.

      Doesn’t these things bother you? Think about eternal life? Why would you bet that on hundreds of years of debates and council resolutions?

      Like

    • quote:
      First, it is curious that Jesus refers to following him as “taking up the cross” at a time before he is supposed to have died on a cross. If we are to assume Jesus knew about crucifixion before his own death, then he was apparently characterizing one’s following of him with severe persecution and death…which is a very far cry from anything experienced by modern-day Christians. Today’s Christians do not believe that following Jesus involves a serious sacrifice of one’s life, the way “take up your cross” would have been understood by Jesus’ original hearers in the first century, so “take up your cross” only increases the legalism of his gospel message. You don’t just “accept Jesus”, you have to live a life which constitutes taking up your “cross”, and you also have to follow the commandments.

      quote:
      Fourth, Jesus’ statement “take up your cross and follow me” is too ambiguous even in context to permit certitude about the details of what he meant, but since Jews were not singled out for persecution simply because they practiced Judaism, Jesus appears to be associating the choice to follow him with great hardship. I don’t think Jesus said this at all, I think it is Mark or somebody else who is currently enduring persecution in the late second century, and having Jesus associate such suffering with true followers would have been a comfort to Christians of that day.

      Fifth, I see nothing in the context to indicate that “take up your cross and follow me” has anything to do with the issue of Jesus himself dying on a cross or one’s belief thereto.

      Like

  39. I thought I’d post my opinion on this response to the twitter quote from James White. Here is my response:
    http://allanruhl.com/does-mark-10-refute-the-deity-of-christ/

    Liked by 1 person

  40. @RM

    ” Why is it that none of the “fundamentals” of your faith are clearly taught by Jesus in any explicit manner, ”

    Is this the best you can do to avoid the obvious plain and simple truths about Jesus in the gospels?

    It’s just a red herring on your part. Utterly vacuous from a logical point of view.

    Some other scriptures I also could have mentioned which assert that the Son of Man came to seek and save that which was lost, and came to to give his life a ransom for many.

    Nothing that you have said has even to begun to create a nano mg of doubt in my mind.

    Like

    • quote:
      First, it is curious that Jesus refers to following him as “taking up the cross” at a time before he is supposed to have died on a cross. If we are to assume Jesus knew about crucifixion before his own death, then he was apparently characterizing one’s following of him with severe persecution and death…which is a very far cry from anything experienced by modern-day Christians. Today’s Christians do not believe that following Jesus involves a serious sacrifice of one’s life, the way “take up your cross” would have been understood by Jesus’ original hearers in the first century, so “take up your cross” only increases the legalism of his gospel message. You don’t just “accept Jesus”, you have to live a life which constitutes taking up your “cross”, and you also have to follow the commandments.

      quote:
      Fourth, Jesus’ statement “take up your cross and follow me” is too ambiguous even in context to permit certitude about the details of what he meant, but since Jews were not singled out for persecution simply because they practiced Judaism, Jesus appears to be associating the choice to follow him with great hardship. I don’t think Jesus said this at all, I think it is Mark or somebody else who is currently enduring persecution in the late second century, and having Jesus associate such suffering with true followers would have been a comfort to Christians of that day.

      Fifth, I see nothing in the context to indicate that “take up your cross and follow me” has anything to do with the issue of Jesus himself dying on a cross or one’s belief thereto.

      Like

  41. @ RM

    Lets have a look at the words of Jesus at the Last Supper to put some more nails in the coffin of your assertion:

    Jesus said he shed his blood and gave his body and that the testament is in his blood. these are clear references to his crucifixion in view of the fact that he clearly prophesied it on various occasions even mentioning it by name:

    18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

    26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

    22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 25Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

    Jesus enters in to this testament with all who eat and drink in faith as he commanded. This rules out some kind of narcissistic jihadic endeavour.

    The testament or will of Jesus is that all who believingly partake in this ritual will drink of the fruit of the vine with him in his kingdom because of his death on the cross.

    What is not explicit here?

    Like

    • what a disgusting verse. no wonder luke changed it .

      Like

    • @MM: your quotes between “// //”

      //Jesus said he shed his blood and gave his body and that the testament is in his blood. these are clear references to his crucifixion in view of the fact that he clearly prophesied it on various occasions even mentioning it by name://

      Why? What this statement has to be with Crufixion. But suppose it is? How does these teach you that you MUST believe in CR to be saved? Why jumped from one to another?

      //The testament or will of Jesus is that all who believingly partake in this ritual will drink of the fruit of the vine with him in his kingdom because of his death on the cross.//

      Is Jesus teaching cannibalism? are you a cannibal now?

      Like

  42. Luke did not “change” it.

    Luke does not have the whole pericope (Mark 10:35-45 and Matthew 20:20-28).

    This is Not just “leaving out” one verse; but Luke just does not have the whole pericope about servant leadership and the mother of John and James coming to Jesus and asking for Jesus to grant them to sit on the right and the left, etc.

    It shows the complicated nature of the “synoptic problem”; why some things in Mark, seem to be repeated in Matthew and Luke but others are not; but Mark has many things in greater vivid detail. and some things are common to Luke and Matthew and not in Mark and some things common to Mark and Matthew and not in Luke.

    It also shows that Luke may not have used Mark as one of his sources, but that both Mark and Matthew and Luke have other sources that are no longer extant to us, but are true and that we have all we need in all 4 Gospels; and/or that each gospel writer was independently led by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote.

    Like

    • your religion is already debunked.

      how did the poking of jesus go missing from all accounts, except john?
      why does paul need to make an argument about a resurrection when their were people who had spoken to people who heard thomas say that thomas poked jesus

      think about it, if some guy came to life, you would not need “guards at the tomb”

      or “jews paid of guards and spread a lie”

      these are all defences which makes no sense if their was a NUMBER of witnesses.

      tell me why the poking of jesus would go MISSING from ALL the other accounts

      why?

      Like

  43. Maybe because John is an eyewitness at foot of the cross. 🙂

    Like

    • are you telling me that even after all that poking business , nobody thought it was important enough to mention?
      thomas poked your god because your god did not know that he was in the room so he had to come back a second time

      luke has him handled and seen, but the poked side is not talked about.

      these christians were morphing the story. how does it not get one mention in matthew or mark?

      you have all these witnesses , but mark prefer to say that “they said nothing to anyone ” ?

      all these witnesses and they need to talk about guards, empty tombs and counter each others version of the story?

      Like

    • one of the greatest killer of christianity is the paul.
      that guy DESPERATELY needs to make a case for resurrection
      he uses all these USELESS analogies even though he had a POKED jesus in his mind
      one of the GREATEST killers of your religion is the LACK of witnesses
      and how DESPERATE early christians were to COOK up any unverified line to pump up the unseen and unknown “resurrection”

      Like

    • all 27 books of the NT are inspired (God -breathed) records of reality / history /fact / truth.

      Like

    • that is your belief Ken. The NT as such claims to be none of these things as you well know!

      Like

    • Already refuted you on this many times, but here is the truth again; also for the sake of others looking in:

      “All Scripture is God-breathed” 2 Timothy 3:16 – expands it from all the OT in verse 15 to the NT in verse 16.
      1 Timothy 5:18 puts NT along with OT as Holy Scripture.
      John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:12-13 – Jesus says the Holy Spirit will lead the disciples into all the truth – that is inspiration.

      The Qur’an also affirms that the OT and NT are inspired Scripture. Surah 3:3-4; 5:47; 5:66-68; 10:94; 2:136; 29:46 and “no one can change God’s word” – 6:114-115 and 18:27.

      Therefore, NT is God’s word.

      Also: apostolic preaching and teaching is God’s word and the apostolic preaching and teaching was written down.
      1 Thessalonians 2:13
      2 Thessalonians 2:15
      1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16 – the message of the cross / gospel is inspired by the Holy Spirit, who searches the deep things of God and the mind of the Spirit.

      Galatians 1:6-9 and the whole book of Galatians:

      “I said to you and NOW I am Saying to you” = “now I am writing to you” this apostolic authoritative teaching.

      Jude 3 – “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”

      2 Peter 3:16 – all of Paul’s letters are Scripture on par with OT

      2 Peter 1:19-21 – the Holy Spirit moved and guided the men/prophets to write Scripture.

      2 Peter 3:1 – “this is the second letter I am writing to you”

      2 Peter 1:12-18 – “I am being diligent to write to you so that when I am gone, you will have something to remind yourself in the truth and stir up your minds to remember the truth.

      Like

    • There is no verse in the NT that explicitly says this new canon of scripture is the Word of God. Don’t try and pull the wool over people’s eyes Ken.

      Like

    • You are limiting doctrine to one verse and you demand explicit words.

      it is you who are pulling the wool over people’s eyes, because of your wooden anti-intellectual demands for exact words and demands for something has to be in your words and only one verse.

      A more intellectual approach is to look at all the relevant Scriptures.

      your wooden Fundamentalism is pitiful.

      Like

    • lol. Ken your argument lacks scriptural support – and deep down you know it

      Like

    • lol. actually, you know deep down that I am right. You suppress the knowledge of the truth by being busy with attacking the Bible. Romans 1:18; 2 Timothy 2:24-26

      Like

    • you have a number of WITNESSES burning HOLES in your pocket , but look how PATHETICALLY paul writes

      mark writes

      matthew writes

      and then from thereon the story makes the resurrection more FLESHY

      does any of this make sense?

      Like

    • “all 27 books of the NT are inspired (God -breathed) records of reality / history /fact / truth.”

      the biggest killer of your religion are the so called resurrection accounts.

      many jews believe in coming back to life , but they don’t need jesus to prove it.

      jesus’ “resurrection” just brings doubt doubt and doubt

      quote :

      First, I think a distinction has to be drawn between “physical” and “bodily” resurrections. They are not necessarily the same thing. A soma does not have to be made out of meat. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, makes it clear that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” Physical bodies rot away and are replaced by “heavenly bodies,” which are not the same as “Earthly bodies.” There are both (somata epourania and somata erigeia), “but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.” Paul thinks that “Heavenly bodies” are material, not immaterial, but he does not think they are the same physical bodies people lived and died with. “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” (1 Cor. 15:44). He uses both the terms pneumatikos and epouranios) to refer to resurrection bodies and explicitly says in 15:45 that Jesus was turned into a pneuma. So the use of the word “body” can be misleading. Paul thought “spiritual bodies” were made of something, that they had substance, but that it was not the same substance as physical bodies, which rotted away. He uses the analogy of plants growing out of seeds. Spiritual bodies emerge from dead physical bodies. So Paul thought Jesus rose as a “spirit” (again, he explicitly says so in 15:45), but that a spirit was still a material “thing” in some sense.

      Now if that is established, then the question is what did Paul mean by “raised.” I think it is significant that Paul says nothing about a secondary “ascension” event after the resurrection. Paul does not say that Jesus got up from his slab, walked around talking to people, and having them finger his nail holes and eating fish for a while before sailing up o the sky, just that he was “raised.” then was “seen” by a succession of people ending with himself. Paul does not say exactly what anyone saw, or where or in what context and he does not say there was any difference between the nature of Jesus’ appearances to Peter and James et al and to himself. I think it is very significant that he does not say anything about an intervening ascension between the appearances to the others and to himself. He draws no distinction between what they saw and what he saw. He does not say they saw a physically resuscitated Jesus, then Jesus went to Heaven, then appeared to Paul in visions. Just that they saw him and then he saw them. Without any knowledge of the Gospel narratives, the most reasonable inference is that everybody else saw visions just like he did. For Paul, the resurrection and the ascension were the same thing. There was not a physical resuscitation followed by an acsension, just an ascension straight from the grave – an apotheosis or exaltation followed by visions of Jesus in Heaven (I say I think they saw him in heaven based on Paul’s claim in 2 Corinthians 12 that that’s where he saw Jesus). The physical interlude on Earth was then a later accretion. I think it was possibly introduced as a means to counter Docetic beliefs, but I’m not married to that explanation. If you really look at it, the appearance narratives of the Gospels get progressively more “physical.” Mark, of course, has no appearances. Mathew has a brief on an unnamed mountain in Galilee which appears to simply be an attempt to stick an ending on Mark and probably to rehabilitate the disciples after Mark deprives them of any witness to the resurrection. Luke has a hodgepodge of shape shifting appearances and disapparations and John has Thomas sticking his fingers into Jesus’ wounds to show that he has a solid body and is not an immaterial spirit.

      So the TL:DR of my thesis is that the original belief was simply that God had raised Jesus up to Heaven after his death. This event was perceived by some means (visions, dreams, inference from scripture, ecstatic mystic states, etc), then it got inserted that Jesus literally walked around on Earth for a day or forty before he got beamed up.

      end quote

      your religion was an evolving one

      Like

  44. Sahih International: For those who do not believe in the Hereafter is the description of evil; and for Allah is the highest attribute. And He is Exalted in Might, the Wise.

    Sahih International: And if Allah were to impose blame on the people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left upon the earth any creature, but He defers them for a specified term. And when their term has come, they will not remain behind an hour, nor will they precede [it].

    Yusuf Ali: If Allah were to punish men for their wrong-doing, He would not leave, on the (earth), a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term: When their Term expires, they would not be able to delay (the punishment) for a single hour, just as they would not be able to anticipate it (for a single hour).

    Sahih International: And they attribute to Allah that which they dislike, and their tongues assert the lie that they will have the best [from Him]. Assuredly, they will have the Fire, and they will be [therein] neglected.

    Sahih International: By Allah , We did certainly send [messengers] to nations before you, but Satan made their deeds attractive to them. And he is the disbelievers’ ally today [as well], and they will have a painful punishment.

    //////////

    ken, can you tell me that according to the quran what was the DHULM of the prophets .

    since you think that verse includes prophets, infants, unborn, believers, disbelivers etc etc

    can you tell me what was the DHULM of the prophets and if the quran has ever used the word dhulm for the prophets of God

    you definitely going to be busy on this one.

    Like

  45. RM said :”Why? What this statement has to be with Crufixion. But suppose it is? How does these teach you that you MUST believe in CR to be saved? Why jumped from one to another?”

    I reply:

    And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

    27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

    28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

    Jesus Explains the Prophecies

    Luke 24 v 19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

    25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

    John 20 v 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

    Like

    • At best these verses say TC happened. Where does it say the vehicle for salvation is to believe in RC? As I have said earlier, there are dozens of different events that took place in Jesus’ life time. Like cursing Peter as Satan, cursing the fig tree, riding donkey into Jerusalem, turning water into wine. You don’t argue that believing in any of the those event leads you to salvation. Do you? why not?

      Did you not notice in John 20:31 that you quoted. It says “believe that Jesus is the Christ” and “believing ye might have life”

      That is the same pattern everywhere. Jesus is asking you to believe in him , some places it says in the one who sent him and 100+ places to do good deed. That is how u are saved. There is not a single verse that says you have to by believe in his CR to achieve salvation.

      Like

  46. I celebrate the Lord’s Supper to affirm my belief that his CR, as you refer to it, is the vehicle of remission of my sins.

    “28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins”

    Those who don’t are disobeying his commands.

    He didn’t institute the remembrance of any other aspect of his life did he?

    Like

    • How do you know it is BELIEF in CR vs accepting the fact that Jesus suffered for his message and we likewise have to willing to suffer to follow his message and be saved by following him (ie. get our sins re-mmissioned) ? Where does he say you must believe in “shedding of the blood” to be saved? What makes you think that BELIEF “shedding blood” is central?

      and what do you do about 100+ verses that teach salvation through faith in him and his God and doing good deed? What do you with the final judgment (matthew 25) where he will judge based on what people do as opposed to their belief in CR. Read the chapter again.

      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=ESV

      Like

    • To be clear we don’t have dispute that Jesus ,suffered and paid by his blood for “remission”.. The question is how/? you are claiming that “BELEIF” in “shedding blood” in of itself is the vehicle for your salvation without any evidence.

      For me “suffering:” shedding of blood” of Jesus etc is no different that “shedding of blood” by past prophets like John , who was killed, and later prophet like Muhammad PBUH , he went to Taif and was severely beaten.

      Like

    • ESV: Institution of the Lord’s Supper
      26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the[c] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26)

      Hey madmanna: Do you think Jesus also needs salvation in the next life? Because he too will drink it new with you?

      Like

  47. “Deep down; you know Bauckham and I are right on this issue on Mark 10:18, also:”

    lol

    Like

  48. @RM

    Remission or forgiveness of sins by his blood is clear from the text of the Lords Supper. We also know that the word blood and body refer to his crucifixion. Jesus says he is laying down his life for others on a number of occasions.

    This puts you on the horns of a dilemma. Either it is a remission of his own sins or the sins of others.

    The islamic texts and teachings allows for neither of these choices.

    I think your only way out now is to claim that the phrase “remission\forgiveness of sins” is a scribal interpolation. The only face saving option left for you?

    Like

    • @MM :I think your only way out now is to claim that the phrase “remission\forgiveness of sins” is a scribal interpolation”

      I already explained to you in so many words? are you thick? Does Jesus need salvation because he too will drink from that vine? Why pick and choose?

      Do you see MM, every single evidence you have brought has been proven to be feckless. So the sooner you realize that your salvation “theology” in not the one taught by Jesus.

      Like

  49. @RM

    I proved from the bible that the crucifixion of Jesus is for the remission of sins and Jesus commands us to celebrate this fact in covenant with him.

    Your tirade in response did not contain any counter proof.

    I will wait patiently, dv.

    Liked by 1 person

Trackbacks

  1. Does Mark 10 Refute the Deity of Christ? | Allan Ruhl
  2. One of a Muslim’s favorite scholars refutes Islamic mis-use of Mark 10:18 | Apologetics and Agape
  3. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  4. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  5. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  6. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  7. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  8. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  9. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  10. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  11. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  12. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  13. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  14. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  15. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  16. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  17. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog
  18. A thread at the blog of Paul Williams, bloggingtheology.net in which I took part | Badmanna's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: