What Is ISLAM?

[basics]

PointOfViewGun,

" God did not gave a son there. That's false based on the Bible itself. Certainly not by Quran. God didn't lose its ability to reach Jesus. Jesus has the power to come back to Earth at any point in time and space. There is no sacrifice."

So, all the prophets as well as God Himself are wrong yet they all told of Him on the cross. When Jesus became sin His Father could only apply justice to Him and that was at the cross on which He paid with His life the price God demands of all sinners. Now that He is risen, of course He will come back to judge all things but only at the time His Father has set.

" Muhammad offered Allah's message. He didn't need to offer anything. You are using arbitrary criteria that makes no sense."

And what was that message? If the message was not needed then why offer it?

" It still needs to follow a path of logic. It currently does not. Crucifixion symbolizing Jesus' sacrifice doesn't somehow validate what he did as a sacrifice."

What could be more logical than sinners not being allowed into heaven unless their sins were gone in the eyes of God and that before they die because logically they can not enter if they die in their sin. The price for sin is death, death in the blood meaning that the blood of Jesus Christ covered that price on the cross when He bled and died on it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Oh, its not illogical to do that at all. It makes the best sense. Though do not get confused by it. There are two sides to it. One side is how a god letting itself be crucified is not a sacrifice. The other side is how Bible itself completely invalidates the reason for that "sacrifice" by itself. It's not just me saying that it's a fact. It's people's failure to address any of the arguments that make it a fact.

I get you think you’ve got it all worked out, but the reason no one is really taking you up on it is because it’s a waste of time. I might as well use the Quran to argue Allah isn’t real. It’s not even a matter of cherry picking verses. Nothing in the Bible supports your “argument.”

[PointOfViewGun]

So, all the prophets as well as God Himself are wrong yet they all told of Him on the cross. When Jesus became sin His Father could only apply justice to Him and that was at the cross on which He paid with His life the price God demands of all sinners. Now that He is risen, of course He will come back to judge all things but only at the time His Father has set.

It's not necessarily God being wrong but the Bible being wrong. You should not confuse the two.

And what was that message? If the message was not needed then why offer it?

The message is the Quran. Nothing more. Nothing less. You are playing with scopes here though. Muhammad didn't need to offer anything as an individual. It was Allah's decision to offer the message to the humankind. It did not need to offer it.

What could be more logical than sinners not being allowed into heaven unless their sins were gone in the eyes of God and that before they die because logically they can not enter if they die in their sin. The price for sin is death, death in the blood meaning that the blood of Jesus Christ covered that price on the cross when He bled and died on it.

The Bible, as well as the Quran, points at the individuality of sin. It is specifically pointed out in both books that sin can not be transferred from one person to the other. Having part of your ideology that everyone carries Adam and Eve's sin is not compatible with that idea. You can try to dance around that all day long.

I get you think you’ve got it all worked out, but the reason no one is really taking you up on it is because it’s a waste of time. I might as well use the Quran to argue Allah isn’t real. It’s not even a matter of cherry picking verses. Nothing in the Bible supports your “argument.”

Failing to address those arguments is not people not taking me up on them. Multiple people tried it already. basics have been dancing around it for pages now. Why you resort to such petty arguments is beyond me. You can indeed use the Quran to invalidate something the Quran says. It's the most logical and sensible path of argumentation. Ezekiel 18 does support what I'm pointing out though. You can ignore that all you want.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Nothing in Ezekiel supports your argument “invalidating” Jesus’ sacrifice. I already addressed Ezekiel 18. In this chapter, God asserts authority over all mankind and the individual is responsible to obey “God’s statutes,” including, at the time, atonement for sin through repentance and observance of the proper rituals. The context of the message is to rebuke Hebrew sayings about curses and cursed bloodlines, where God reminds his people that he wants all to turn from their sin and repent, and does not take pleasure in the suffering and death of sinners. Thanks to Jesus’ sacrifice, those sacrificial rituals are no longer required, as I said. It doesn’t say anything about the “validity” of Jesus’ sacrifice, even if one ignores the rest of the Bible and just looks at that one book. Ezekiel 34-37 discusses God’s plan to restore Israel, and includes prophecies of Jesus’ ministry on Earth:

And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
20 Therefore thus saith the Lord God unto them; Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat cattle and between the lean cattle.
21 Because ye have thrust with side and with shoulder, and pushed all the diseased with your horns, till ye have scattered them abroad;
22 Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey; and I will judge between cattle and cattle.
23 And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.
24 And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the Lord have spoken it.
25 And I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land: and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods.

And again in Chapter 37:

22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.
23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
28 And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

Ezekiel prophesies the coming of a “shepherd” from the royal line of David, a prince of peace who guides the people in righteousness forever. This is referenced by the angel who visited Mary:

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Jesus also refers to himself as the shepherd, and foreshadows his sacrificial death in that capacity.

7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Notice also Jesus acknowledges his willing choice to sacrifice himself for the sheep, having the power to “lay down his life and take it back again,” in accordance with God’s will. Your argument isn’t Biblical, obviously, so let’s not pretend otherwise. Biblically speaking, God isn’t bound to your personal premises, regardless of whether or not you’re convinced of the “validity” of what he says and does.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nothing in Ezekiel supports your argument “invalidating” Jesus’ sacrifice. I already addressed Ezekiel 18. In this chapter, God asserts authority over all mankind and the individual is responsible to obey “God’s statutes,” including, at the time, atonement for sin through repentance and observance of the proper rituals. The context of the message is to rebuke Hebrew sayings about curses and cursed bloodlines, where God reminds his people that he wants all to turn from their sin and repent, and does not take pleasure in the suffering and death of sinners. Thanks to Jesus’ sacrifice, those sacrificial rituals are no longer required, as I said. It doesn’t say anything about the “validity” of Jesus’ sacrifice, even if one ignores the rest of the Bible and just looks at that one book. Ezekiel 34-37 discusses God’s plan to restore Israel, and includes prophecies of Jesus’ ministry on Earth:
And again in Chapter 37:
Ezekiel prophesies the coming of a “shepherd” from the royal line of David, a prince of peace who guides the people in righteousness forever. This is referenced by the angel who visited Mary:
Jesus also refers to himself as the shepherd, and foreshadows his sacrificial death in that capacity.
Notice also Jesus acknowledges his willing choice to sacrifice himself for the sheep, having the power to “lay down his life and take it back again,” in accordance with God’s will. Your argument isn’t Biblical, obviously, so let’s not pretend otherwise. Biblically speaking, God isn’t bound to your personal premises, regardless of whether or not you’re convinced of the “validity” of what he says and does.

Where did you address Ezekiel 18? You didn't even refer to it...

[Lord Thesaurian]

And I suppose that was a different PoVG quoting my discussion of it, both in the prior post and in the other thread? If you’re going to try to use the Bible to “invalidate” Jesus’ sacrifice, you should probably come prepared with something more substantial than a single chapter that has nothing to do with it.

[PointOfViewGun]

And I suppose that was a different PoVG quoting my discussion of it, both in the prior post and in the other thread? If you’re going to try to use the Bible to “invalidate” Jesus’ sacrifice, you should probably come prepared with something more substantial than a single chapter that has nothing to do with it.

Lack of an argument is not an argument. Simply saying "I’m not sure what Ezekiel 18 is supposed to prove" in the other thread doesn't really classify as you addressing or having a discussion on Ezekiel 18 in the face of me making specific points about what the Ezekiel 18 says. It is a matter of fact that you have not addressed any part of it. Also, saying that a chapter that explicitly passes judgment on responsibility of sin from father to son, akin to what the Quran says, as a chapter that has nothing to do with humans today carrying the sins of Adam and Eve is not a good argument either. It seems to all boil down to one thing; gainsaying is not an argument.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Lack of an argument is not an argument. Simply saying "I’m not sure what Ezekiel 18 is supposed to prove" in the other thread doesn't really classify as you addressing or having a discussion on Ezekiel 18 in the face of me making specific points about what the Ezekiel 18 says. It is a matter of fact that you have not addressed any part of it. Also, saying that a chapter that explicitly passes judgment on responsibility of sin from father to son, akin to what the Quran says, as a chapter that has nothing to do with humans today carrying the sins of Adam and Eve is not a good argument either. It seems to all boil down to one thing; gainsaying is not an argument.

You’ve repeatedly claimed Ezekiel 18 is an example of the Bible “invalidating” Jesus sacrifice, when that chapter has nothing to do with Jesus’ sacrifice. It’s been explained to you multiple times what that chapter is about. Jesus even alludes to prophecy from Ezekiel when discussing his purpose, his sacrificial death, and resurrection. There’s no “argument” to be had. You’re simply incorrect.

[PointOfViewGun]

You’ve repeatedly claimed Ezekiel 18 is an example of the Bible “invalidating” Jesus sacrifice, when that chapter has nothing to do with Jesus’ sacrifice. It’s been explained to you multiple times what that chapter is about. Jesus even alludes to prophecy from Ezekiel when discussing his purpose, his sacrificial death, and resurrection. There’s no “argument” to be had. You’re simply incorrect.

Ezekiel 18 says sins of a father doesn't get transferred to the son. Jesus' sacrifice requires sins of a father to be transferred to the son. That have not been addressed even once so far. Islam doesn't have this contradiction.

[basics]

PointOfViewGun,

Note what you wrote there, " the sins of the father don't get transferred to the son," so what exactly does that mean? Well it depends on what sins the father does but nonetheless the son will sin with his own sin, why? Because God handed all creation over to sin under the control of Satan and father and son are bound in it. All, fall short of the Glory of God, how? Because everyone by fallen nature can't stop sinning and that all began with the fall of Adam and Eve. Jesus does not require any such thing because everyone is a sinner. There is no contradiction and yet Islam rqeuires God's mercy for what? All them that die in their sin go to hell for all eternity and it doesn't matter what the sin was for there is no league table in it. Only the blood of Christ shed at Calvary can change that.

[Knight of Heaven]

God did not gave a son there. That's false based on the Bible itself. Certainly not by Quran. God didn't lose its ability to reach Jesus. Jesus has the power to come back to Earth at any point in time and space. There is no sacrifice.




Muhammad offered Allah's message. He didn't need to offer anything. You are using arbitrary criteria that makes no sense.




It still needs to follow a path of logic. It currently does not. Crucifixion symbolizing Jesus' sacrifice doesn't somehow validate what he did as a sacrifice.

What Logic? if you believe in God or Allah or whatever, then at some point along the way logic gets replace by belief or faith. That is the point of religion, any religion.

But for the sake of the argument, i believe for Christians is that the soul is immortal, not the flesh, not our bodies. Hence for the sacrifice of the body, and blood of Christ. But the spirit leaves on, ( the resurrection). Losing the mortal body is still a sacrifice.

Whenever you are a believer or not i think this is the gist of it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Jesus' sacrifice requires sins of a father to be transferred to the son.

Citation needed.

[Cope]

Citation needed.

It is worth noting that there is a difference between individual sins (the subject of E18) and the inherent human imperfection which preordains sinfulness and mortality. The origin story itself is an allegory for man's coming of age and his development of self-awareness and agency.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It is worth noting that there is a difference between individual sins (the subject of E18) and the inherent human imperfection which preordains sinfulness and mortality. The origin story itself is an allegory for man's coming of age and his development of self-awareness and agency.

The existence of sin is preordained by the consequences of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. The Bible is clear, however, that each individual is responsible for their own choices, and God does not cause anyone to sin. Jesus explained it this way:

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

People are not responsible for sins committed by others, but that does not preclude the righteous from suffering as a consequence of sin’s existence. And John later wrote:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

So, if Jesus' sacrifice requires sins of a father to be transferred to the son, I’d be interested to know where the Bible says that.

[basics]

Jesus' sacrifice was pre-ordained because there was no-one else who could remove the blight of sin from off any individual. God chose a people to be saved before He even made creation, why? Because He is a Sovereign God able to do whatever He wills. We are part of that story yet throughout it all He is the Central Being consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore, pronouncing sin into the world the nature of all things changed meaning in our case every single person was responsible and accountable for their own sin. So, by nature sin is passed on from parents to children meaning that a child does not necessarily do the same sinning as his or her parents but is still under the curse of sin. To remove that Jesus Christ the Son of God came into the world to make the sacrifice for sin which He did at Golgotha and after three days in the grave He rose again to be seen by over four hundred people. The time from then until His ascension He used to prepare His disciples for their task in replacing Him here on earth which began at Pentecost.

[PointOfViewGun]

Citation needed.

You're asking for citation for a basic logic point?

[conon394]

Jesus' sacrifice was pre-ordained because there was no-one else who could remove the blight of sin from off any individual. God chose a people to be saved before He even made creation, why? Because He is a Sovereign God able to do whatever He wills. We are part of that story yet throughout it all He is the Central Being consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore, pronouncing sin into the world the nature of all things changed meaning in our case every single person was responsible and accountable for their own sin. So, by nature sin is passed on from parents to children meaning that a child does not necessarily do the same sinning as his or her parents but is still under the curse of sin. To remove that Jesus Christ the Son of God came into the world to make the sacrifice for sin which He did at Golgotha and after three days in the grave He rose again to be seen by over four hundred people. The time from then until His ascension He used to prepare His disciples for their task in replacing Him here on earth which began at Pentecost.

Assuming you were at weekly the meeting of all powerful omniscient beings that plan would pretty much get a thumbs down from your peers. Unless cruelty was just sort of the the point.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You're asking for citation for a basic logic point?

I’m asking you where in the Bible it says Jesus' sacrifice requires sins of a father to be transferred to the son.

[conon394]

I’m asking you where in the Bible it says Jesus' sacrifice requires sins of a father to be transferred to the son.

As soon as you choose to interpret it as say Augustine did original sin is sort or of an inherited thing. Everlasting blood attainder

[basics]

conon394,

Quote, " Assuming you were at weekly the meeting of all powerful omniscient beings that plan would pretty much get a thumbs down from your peers. Unless cruelty was just sort of the the point."

Of course they would give it a thumbs down but only because once under sin they would be enemies of God. If they happened to be in His presence in heaven they would and must have been sinless otherwise they wouldn't and couldn't be there.

Quote, " As soon as choose to interpret it as say Augustine did original is sort or of an inherited thing. Everlasting blood attainder."

God chose blood to be the price for sin, why? Because as God says, blood is the life of anything that lives and that is why the blood of Christ is the cleansing factor in salvation. The Gospel is all about Jesus' blood being shed to take away sin and only to those who believe it by being born again of the Spirit of God. Luther, Calvin and Augustine saw this as being the core of salvation and why the reformation came into effect.