Is Jesus God?

Saved wrote: asep48garut60 wrote: In Muslims belief, Jesus is a messenger of Allah, like the other messengers. Let us run the command of God by way of our respective religions, we are created by God, and we are commanded to worship Him. Quran 21:92 �Truly! This, your Ummah (Monotheism religion) is one religion, and I am your Lord, therefore worship Me." Regards, Asep Yes, I understand the Muslim position, I am tying to explain the Christian position. We know Jesus is not God the father, but in both the Bible and the Quran He is considered to be the Word of Allah/God. Jesus is the Word Allah used to create all things including the virgin born body of Jesus! The reason He was born of a virgin was because He is Word of the father/God now in flesh appearing. He makes the father known. That is what He meant saying "The father and I are one." They are one in more than just purpose. The idea of monotheism originates with Judo-Christianity; so, saying God is one is not giving new information to Jews or Christians. We know it better than anybody!!! I admit we associate Jesus to God as His Word. I know you don't believe Muhammad is Allah's Word and just a mere messenger creation, but why do Muslims associate Muhammad to Allah in the second part of the shahadah. I haven't gotten a straight answer to this. You must mention Muhammad with Allah and obey him like you do Allah or your cannot be a Muslim. When a Muslim implies that Christians are polytheists, we feel that Muslim is merely projecting. Tell me how does one know that the virgin birth story of Jesus in the Quran wasn't imperfectly borrowed from the NT Bible and even the concept of Monotheism for that matter? To us Christians Jesus is not a messenger as much as he is the Message. The soul that rejects this will die a spiritual death according to the gospel Allah sent for guidance and light. Jesus said, "I am the light of the world," he also said, "I am the Truth" (Not one who just shows the truth), and if we accept this, we don't walk in darkness and deception. We accept it with all our hearts, minds and souls. Like Allah told Satan to prostrate before Adam in the Quran, we prostrate before (the last Adam) Jesus, because He is the Word God used to create us, and He is worthy of this honor that Muslims seem to keep from Him. PBUY Regards, Saved

Interesting Saved. Now we have both the Muslim and the Christian position.

Edited by 2Acts - 26 January 2017 at 1:42pm

Is is very telling tha Prophet Muhammad,saw, said that one must not compare the greatness of one Prophet with another. There is a very beautiful Hadith to this effect.   Each was great in his own way, each had a purpose and each were sent to his own people, and all had a common message. God is One. Prophet Muhammad,saw, however was sent as the seal of the Prophets and was sent for all mankind.

There is much debate concerning the life of Jesus and much of this debate has been caused due to the misunderstanding of where the Christians original understanding of his life came from.

We know the Jesus was born, lived, and was killed by the Romans. What a lot of people either don�t know or forget to question is who was Jesus in life. Jesus was a Jew and as it is stated in Mathew he did not come to over turn the laws of G-d (as practiced by the Jews) but rather reinforce the laws among his people.

After his death his message spread like wild fire among the people and for a time there were dozens of �Christian� sects all across the Mediterranean and Mid East.

Now lets uncover a lie that is the �Holy Roman Empire�. Rome was in decline and withdrawing from many of its strongholds across the western world. It is speculated that this is the purpose behind the Council of Nicaea, which took place in 325 AD.   It comprised of Roman scholars and a handful of then Christian converts. It was here that it was decided which of the circulating texts about Jesus life would make up the New Testament.

It was also here that it was strongly argued whether or not Jesus needed to be divine. Let me explain. Much of Roman citizenship comprised of Pagans they worshiped the Greek pantheon where it was believed that Zeus frequently had �magical� children with mortal women. The Romans entwined this belief with the Jewish belief of profits and the �Divine� version of Jesus was born as was the holy trinity. Rome then spent many years destroying all other evidence of Jesus� life along with any who would not convert to their version of this religion.

So today�s Christians all follow the Catholic format of Christianity, despite there now being more information on his life due to archaeological finds, much of this information in direct conflict with what the Catholics teach.

kweit38 wrote: There is much debate concerning the life of Jesus and much of this debate has been caused due to the misunderstanding of where the Christians original understanding of his life came from. We know the Jesus was born, lived, and was killed by the Romans. What a lot of people either don�t know or forget to question is who was Jesus in life. Jesus was a Jew and as it is stated in Mathew he did not come to over turn the laws of G-d (as practiced by the Jews) but rather reinforce the laws among his people. After his death his message spread like wild fire among the people and for a time there were dozens of �Christian� sects all across the Mediterranean and Mid East. Now lets uncover a lie that is the �Holy Roman Empire�. Rome was in decline and withdrawing from many of its strongholds across the western world. It is speculated that this is the purpose behind the Council of Nicaea, which took place in 325 AD.   It comprised of Roman scholars and a handful of then Christian converts. It was here that it was decided which of the circulating texts about Jesus life would make up the New Testament. It was also here that it was strongly argued whether or not Jesus needed to be divine. Let me explain. Much of Roman citizenship comprised of Pagans they worshiped the Greek pantheon where it was believed that Zeus frequently had �magical� children with mortal women. The Romans entwined this belief with the Jewish belief of profits and the �Divine� version of Jesus was born as was the holy trinity. Rome then spent many years destroying all other evidence of Jesus� life along with any who would not convert to their version of this religion. So today�s Christians all follow the Catholic format of Christianity, despite there now being more information on his life due to archaeological finds, much of this information in direct conflict with what the Catholics teach.

You have your facts wrong. There is no misunderstanding. The history is clear. Any misunderstanding simply results from conspiracy theorists who like to misrepresent the historical facts so as to suit their own world view.

You are wrong in your understanding of what the intention of Jesus coming to earth was. It was not to reinforce the laws of his people � but rather to fulfil to law. And to fulfil the law by himself !
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.� Mathew 5.17.
With all respect Kweit if you are going to quote the Bible you need to do it correctly.

You need to research the Holy Roman Empire and the Council of Nicaea better. The Canon (which of the circulating texts about Jesus life would make up the New Testament) was not discussed at Nicea at all. The canon was pretty much determined long before The Council of Nicea.

You say Rome then spent many years destroying all other evidence of Jesus� life along with any who would not convert to their version of this religion. I challenge you to support this with historical fact.
The way conspiracy theorists present the Council of Nicea is historicaly incorrect. The canon was not set at Nicea and there is no evidence for the burning of Gospels at Nicea or any other time in the history of Christianity. Even if someone had the desire, the task would have been impossible. A conspiracy to change the New Testament would require several steps:

And these steps would have would have been impossible ! this would have required the authorities to gather every possible copy of the original New Testament and burn them. By the fourth century the New Testament was in the Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Gothic and Ethiopic languages. Christendom itself extended beyond these tongues into places as far removed as Britain, Armenia, half way down the coast of East Africa and all the way to India.
There was no circle of people powerful enough to seize every single copy of the Scriptures in every church in the world to falsify the New Testament. At this time in history there were many independent Christian churches and under the jurisdiction of no human being. Many of these churches were outside the realm of the Roman empire. We have manuscripts and fragments from the New Testament which are older than AD 325. Did the conspirators also forge these?

Further to that the authorities would also need to forcibly change the practices and beliefs of Christians from around the world. To make the new New Testament accepted, the conspirators would have had to force believers to adopt new customs and ceremonies such as communion (symbolic of the crucifixion of Jesus), baptism (symbolic of the forgiveness of sins in Christ), and religious belief in the Cross. What were the older ceremonies? Why do we have no record of them? How could anyone bring about such a dramatic change without any evidence of controversy? Currently 5800 fragments and partial copies exist. How many more would there have been back then that would have needed to be destroyed or changed by this small group of conspirators? I don�t believe that history would not have recorded this attempt by the conspirators.

Also the authorities would have to remove all traces of the original New Testament. Not only were there the copies of the New Testament, but many writers had already quoted extensively from it in the first, second and third centuries. We know of over 32,000 of these quotations! If the conspirators were going to make their job perfect, they needed to find and destroy any writings that quoted from the original New Testament, replacing them with quotations from the new and corrupt one.

This is all impossible. In the way conspiracy theorists would have us believe, a conspiracy against the original teachings of Jesus had to completely reconstruct a fraudulent history and convince the rest of the world it was true. The job was obviously so good and perfect that the only ones to discover it are a handful of Muslims, New Age conspiracy theorists and academics. Where is the evidence ?


Edited by 2Acts - 18 February 2017 at 5:10pm