Who is the comforter

Hi Truthnowcome,

This is the conclusion from the last two posts:

This is the point I want to make: --- That Jesus was not preexistant in heaven, but was born on earth. --- Many Christians don’t agree with this, though there are no Scriptures to support that Jesus came down from heaven. They make the mistake of believing that Jesus Christ was one person and couldn’t be divided, --- However, Jesus said in John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I say to you, ‘you must be born again.’” --- Neither the Holy Spirit (the Comforter) nor Christ could be seen, so they came from God to express themselves through the physical Jesus.

--- As the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, could indwell the apostles on, and after, the Day of Pentecost, so Christ, the Son of Man, who came down from heaven, could indwell Jesus and speak through him, while they were together on earth, But after the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles and disciples in the upper room and “they were filled with the Holy Spirit,” who is the Comforter.

2Acts wrote: You are wrong on the point of Muslims quoting the Bible to support Muslim arguments. Truthnowcomes original post and quote of Matthew 6:9, 1John.2: 1 and John 14.16 at the start of this thread being an example. He was not quoting it to correct Christian understanding but rather he was quoting it to build his own Muslim case of Mohamad as the “comforter”. When a Muslim argument is based on inferring a Christian scripture to be truth (as Truthnow-comes) has done in this instance they create an unsound foundation to their argument due to not adequately determining criteria for “truth and lies.” And until Muslims do so they have no authority to quote from the Bible at all by simply picking and choosing what suits. And no the circular argument logical fallacy of “truth being what lines up with the Quran is not good enough.”

You are not listening, so, let me put it to you in another way - only 2 reasons WHY a Muslim would quote a Biblical verse or verses – 1. because he’s having a debate with a Christian and 2. Because he wanted to show to the Christians that they have often misinterpreted (or read out of context) their own scriptures. Have you seen or heard a Muslim quoting Christians’ scriptures while debating with another Muslim ??

2Acts wrote: You are not correct with John 10.30 in Jesus saying Jesus and God were one in “purpose”. Cross reference to John 15.5 where Jesus said "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing… Obviously this is about being one in substance, not merely one in purpose.

Cross-reference to John 10:30 is John 17:21 - “I pray that they will all be one, Just as you and I are one”. In John 17:21, Jesus was praying to God Almighty to make all his followers/disciples as one in purpose, just as he was one in purpose with God Almighty. Were you thinking Jesus was praying to God to make all his followers Gods too ?? See what I mean when I said Christians like you always misinterpret your own scriptures ??

As for John 15:5, do you always take the words of Jesus literally ?? Jesus was referring to people like you when he said “This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:“ ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.”’ Matthew 13:13-15. But, I am sure you STILL will NOT understand what Jesus was saying here too.

2Acts wrote: Once again your quote of John 5.30 has been taken out of context.

You mean just like your understanding of “my Father and I are one” to mean God Almighty and Jesus is the one and same person and Jesus was praying to God to make all his followers Gods too ??? See what I mean when I said Christians like you always misinterpret your own scriptures ??

2Acts wrote: Read back to John 5.24 through to 5.30 and you will note Jesus claiming far more than just being “one in purpose”. He ac-tually claims he will judge the earth as Son of God and raise the dead.

Again, this reflect your lack of understanding of your own Bible. I don’t really blame you as you have been taught to believe whatever was told to you by your church, Christian scholars, etc. In John 5:27, Jesus said that God Almighty has given him the authority to judge because he is the son of man. Where did he said (or he claimed as you had claimed) he will judge the earth as Son of God and raise the dead ?? Those are your OWN words or the words of your church, not Jesus – I am beginning to believe that Christianity was built on the words of other people, NOT God Almighty or Jesus.

2Acts wrote: He takes this further in John 11.25 where he said "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die… Obviously far more here thanjust being “one in purpose”, but rather being one in substance.

Obviously, Jesus was not saying he’s God or one in substance with God. Read in context, NOT just a verse.

2Acts wrote: And yes you are partly correct in saying “anyone who said I seek not my own will but the will of God IS a true servant of God and he and God are one in purpose and mission. Only partly correct because they will become “sons” (small “s”) of God (in substance, not just purpose) through adoption though The Son (Capital S ) of God. Again you are partly correct in saying “ if Jesus meant to say he’s God when he said “I and the Father are one” then Jesus must be asking God to make all his followers Gods or equal to God too when he said “I pray that they will all be one, Just as you and I are one (John 17.21).” As stated above you are only partly correct because his fol-lowers will become “sons” (small “s”) of God (in substance, not just purpose) through adoption though The Son (Capital S ) of God. To clarify this further when Jesus quoted Psalm 82.6 (John 10.34.) … Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law, I said, you are gods? That’s why it should not be so difficult for people to understand the divinity of Jesus as The Son of God. You also Jerry can become a “son of God”.

How many times must I tell you that in Greek and Hebrew, there’s no such thing as small or capital letters so, it really does not matter whether the English-translated Bibles you have today capitalized the ‘s’ or not. Surely, you cannot be thinking the original scriptures were in English ??!!

2Acts wrote: Suras 5:46. S. 57:27, 10. 94, 5:48, 3:3 make it clear. The Injeel (Gospels are God inspired and true and its enough of an indirect injunction for any Muslim (not just validating for Christians and Jews) to regard them seriously. And just highlighting the Muslim con-fusion on this point further, is the fact that the Injeel is not actually the same basic message as the Quran as you claim. Good luck sorting out the “truth and lies”!

And what do you think is the basic message of the ‘Injeel’ IF it’s not the same as the Quran ?? That Jesus is God Almighty ?? And you want to highlight the Muslim ‘confusion’ when you can’t even sort out your own confusion ???

2Acts wrote: Your definition of sin being not a state of imperfection but rather act of disobeying God is a Muslim definition. That is not relevant to this discussion as it is the Christian view of sin that is being discussed.

OK, so, let’s discuss the Christians’ view of sin. Are you saying disobeying God is not a sin to the Christians ??

2Acts wrote: You remark no wonder I think Jesus was God. No, God the Son actually !

Well, if Jesus is God the Son, then, there’s already 2 Gods (the Father and the Son). Yet, Jesus said God is One !! No wonder you are confused ! Not surprising tho', as you are taught to rely on other people's words rather than Jesus' own words !

2Acts wrote: Regarding Ephesians 2.2 the point being the ruler of the kingdom of the air (Satan) is at work. It is not a 50 /50 playing field where simple choices determine righteousness. The cards are stacked.

Well, Ephesians 2:2 did say ‘dead in your transgressions and sins, which you used to live when you followed…..’, NOT ‘BORN WITH transgressions and sins, which you INHERITED…’, which means sin is NOT inherited as you are made to believe.

2Acts wrote: But any way as it’s the words of Jesus you require in Luke 11.13 he said- If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him? (Lk 11:13)

What has Luke 11:13 got to do with Ephesians 2:2 ??? Try reading Luke 11:13 in context before trying to mix-match it with Ephesians 2:2.

2Acts wrote: The Greek expression poneroi hyparchontes. Poneroi is defined in the Greek lexicon as “bad, of a bad nature or condi-tion.”   And hyparchontes is translated as “from the very beginning” or “being inherently.” Of coarse we all make choices around sin. However the Christian view of original sin (which is what you wanted evidence for and of which I have adequately provide) clarifies there is a power of sin in the world that influences humanity. Its not a straight 50 / 50 decision.

Evidence you have adequately provided ??! You mean to say evidence which you have adequately provided to show that you read your scriptures out of context most of the times ??

2Acts wrote: Also as Jesus also validated the Old Testament the Old Testament verses are worthy of further discussion. The words “Ivveleth” in Proverbs 22.15 is clear in its context. A lack of piety is evil. And as Proverbs 22.15 implies, it is bound up in the heart of children. Your interpretation is simply rambling conjecture departing from the inherent meaning of the verse.

Yes, Proverbs 22:15 is clear in context, so, why can’t you still understand it ?? Your interpretation is simply rambling conjecture departing from the inherent meaning of the verse.

2Acts wrote: Regarding Genesis 8.21 again your interpretation is simply rambling conjecture departing from the inherent meaning of the verse. The verse is clear. A curse resides on the earth. It appears everything is a figure of speech for you to the point reality can be any-thing you choose.

You mean to say,to you - all Jesus’ words should be taken literally ?? No wonder Jesus said of people like you have fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah – “In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:“ ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving…..”.

2Acts wrote: In terms of people made in the image of God it means partly divine. Genesis 1.27,Jesus quoted Psalm 82.6 when he said in John 10.34. Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law, I said, you are gods? That’s why it should not be so difficult for people to understand the divinity of Jesus as The Son of God.

Again, your response reflects your inability to understand Jesus’ words. In John 10:34, Jesus was responding to the Jews who said that he claimed to be God the Son. In saying he’s the son of God, Jesus was actually saying he’s ‘the servant of God’ and not God the Son. So, when the Jews claimed he claimed to be God the Son, Jesus told them why are they claiming that when it’s also written that they are all gods and if calling them ‘gods’ don’t make them really a God, so, why are they claiming him referring himself as ‘son of God’ make him God the Son ? Obviously, when you are not blinded by your church’s preconceived belief, then, it should not be so difficult for people to understand the divinity of Jesus as God the Son is simply NOT true.

2Acts wrote: Regarding Isaiah 6.8 you have completely missed or evaded the point. The point the plurality of God. “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” (plural!) … Isaiah 6:8.

And you missed the whole point, the ‘us’ in Isaiah 6:8 was referring to the people/kingdom of King Uzziah, NOT to God Almighty. As I said before, in the Old Testament, God Almighty is referred to ‘L-O-R-D’ (all CAPITALS) and human-tittle ‘lords’ are referred as ‘L-o-r-d’ (only ‘L’ was capitalized).

2Acts wrote: Actually you are wrong when you say no earthly ruler ever has divine qualities or attributes. There is One who perfectly fits with Isaiah 42.1, that being Christ Jesus, The Messiah. His life fits perfectly with Isaiah 42. You tell me who Isaiah 42 refers to. Certainly not Mohamad that’s for sure.

Well, Isaiah 42:1 read “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight,..”. There’s nothing divine about ‘my servant’ and ‘My chosen one’, other than God chose whoever He wishes to be His chosen representative. So, who said ‘servant of God’ is not synonymous with ‘son of God’ ??

2Acts wrote: I repeat you are wrong about Mathew 3.17 as refer-ring to a servant. The word used in the Greek is “Huios” which means “Son” not servant as you claim. While “Huios / Son ” is used in other con-texts it means Son in the general context of the offspring of men, and in a wider sense, a descendant, or one of the posterity of some-one, and in this sense, of God The Father.

Well, of course, If you read Matthew 3:17 it refers to the Greek word ‘huios’ which means ‘son’, and when you read Isaiah 42:1, it refers to the Hebrew word ‘av-di’ which means “servant, slave’ - http://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/42-1.htm So, Matthew 3:17 was actually a reference to Isaiah 42:1 and because the NT gospelists wanted to project Jesus as God the Son, they replaced the word ‘servant’ with ‘Son’ in Matthew 3:17. Unless you believe Isaiah 42:1 was NOT a reference to Jesus, then, I repeat, you are wrong and do not understand your own scripture, as always.

2Acts wrote: In terms of Luke 22.66 you claim the Chief Priests “ falsely “ convict him of blasphemy. You need to prove your claim. The verses are clear, the Chief Priests genuinely believed what they were doing was convicting a blasphemer. You need to prove differently from the scriptures as opposed to vague conjecture on your part.

Well, go and read the whole of Luke 22 again. You mean to say the Chief Priests were right about Jesus that he did commit blasphemy ?? And why did Jesus need to pray to God Almighty to save him from his accusers if he’s also God ?? And why did Jesus need to pray to God Almighty to save him from his accusers if he came to die for your sins anyway ??? You are right the verses are clear but obviously you are not clear in the understanding of your own scriptures.

2Acts wrote: And in terms of your statement he never claimed to be The Son of God it is clear in Luke 22.66 and Mark 14 He said he is the Son of the Blessed One (in this context an exclusive Title) , and he refers to himself as the figure of God who will return to judge the world in Daniel 7.13 -15, With your point on Luke 22.70 it needs to be understood in the context of the whole story. Jesus knew the Sanhedrin were mocking and cyni-cal and because of this throughout this whole incident he refused to answer them directly. If you cross reference to Mathew 27.11 -14 you will see the same lack of directness. However the point being that both Pilate and the Sanhedrin all took it as a lack of denial from Jesus that he was making Himself equal to God. It was enough for them all to have him condemned.

Suppositions and more supposition from you. Even if you cross-reference to Matthew 27:11-14, it’s obvious that Jesus was so frustrated with the Jews of not listening to him (of explaining of who he is) that he decided not to respond anymore to their questions.

2Acts wrote: Regarding John 6:38; 8:23 Jesus himself said: “I have come down from heaven.”. So when you say he was created by God who is in heaven, it means – He came down from heaven. Non created as humans are on the earth. Not created like a son of Adam. John 6.38 and 8.23 imply preeminence John in his gospel consistently stresses the preeminent nature of Jesus as the preeminent Word of God throughout his gospel. You need to stick with the literary context and read the whole Gospel and you will see this for yourself.

Well, John is NOT Jesus. You need to stick with the literary context of what Jesus really said in John 6:38, John 8:23 and in the whole gospel and you will see that Jesus NEVER claimed to be God. But alas, you, like most Christians today, never listened to Jesus and if you did, you took Jesus’ words literally.

2Acts wrote: There is some truth in what you say in that if Je-sus came to die for the sins of mankind, then the Jews and the Ro-mans who killed him were doing the noble thing and should be re-warded in heaven for him. In a way they were conforming themselves to Gods will and it wont be held against them. Jesus himself said on the cross they are forgiven as they do not know what they do. And if you look at Pilates attitude through out the trial he comes across as righteous.

Not really. The Jews and the Romans wanted to kill Jesus NOT be-cause they were obeying or conforming to God’s Command (another supposition of yours ??), BUT because Jesus was preaching to them to worship ONLY to the ONE true God – God Almighty, whom he called ‘Father’.

As for Pilate’s attitude, well, Pilate knew of Jesus’ innocence and he knew (or suspect) of the Jews’ plan to falsely convict Jesus of blasphemy and that’s why he came across as righteous.

2Acts wrote: Jesus was very clear in Mathew 16.21 that he must die as per Gods purpose. He made it clear to those who were of understanding. As I have said in terms of the Chief Priests he refused any precise clarification to them due to their mocking cynicism.

Not really. Christians seemed to have this misconception that every time Jesus said he had to suffer, they understood that to mean Jesus is saying that he must suffer thru the agony of crucifixion before he ‘died’ and ‘rise again’. This is what the Christians are taught to believe but, this is far away from the truth and not what Jesus meant when he said he had to suffer. What Jesus meant by that statement was the fact that all prophets, in carrying and conveying the Message of God to the people, will endure sufferings, persecutions, abused, etc, at some point of their life and some were even killed. He there-fore, accepted this fact that he too, like all the prophets before him, will endure sufferings as he too is carrying and conveying the Mes-sage of God to the people. This is a fact which Jesus also made when he ends his final beatitude with “Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” – Matthew 5:12 NIV

2Acts wrote: I asked you to show from your scripture that Moham-ad said, and NOT other people said, or implied, that he is the comfort-er as Jesus promised. You have not adequately done so from the Quran verses you have quoted. There is nothing in where you have quoted from the Quran where either Allah or Mohammad directly said “ I, Mohamad am the Comforter as promised by Jesus”. Considering Mo-hamad came after Jesus it would have been reasonable for him to di-rectly identify himself as “The Comforter”. So until you provide direct evidence that Mohamad said this all of your arguments requiring direct words from Jesus to do with the trinity or original sin are logical fallacy of special pleading.

I have already shown you that God Almighty Himself have revealed in the Quran that Muhammad is the Comforter as referenced by Jesus. So, why would Muhammad himself need to say he’s the Comforter when God Almighty had already confirmed that ??? We know Jesus NEVER claimed to be God and did God Almighty Himself confirm Jesus is God too ?? Ahh, I see you are still under the spells of the gospelists and your scholars into believing Jesus is God the Son by their usage of capitalized ‘S’ in ‘Son of God’ when the Greek and Hebrew have no distinctions between capital and non-capital letters. As I have said many times, ‘son/Son of God’ simply means ‘servant of God’ in the scriptures.

2Acts wrote: Its also interesting to note you have contradicted yourself in your motive for quoting Bible verses. Up to now your ra-tionale for quoting the bible is to “ - only quote the Bible when we want to correct your lack of understanding to your own scripture.” However just like Truthnowcome you have used John 14:16 and John 16:13 to support an Islamic proposition !

Hmmm, how did I contradict myself here ??? Care to explain ??

2Acts wrote: As I said you have contradicted yourself plus be-cause you have not yet identified how to determine the difference in “truth and lies” in the Bible you have no authority to quote from the Bi-ble for your argument. And don’t give me the circular logic fallacy ar-gument that “what ever lines up with the Quran”. The circular logic fail-ing of this argument has already been pointed out to you.

You obviously do not understand what you read (and thus, your lack of understanding of your own Bible), so, please refer back to my response in regards to the identification of ‘truth and lies’.

2Acts wrote: You claim I have not shown you the words of God saying He is a ‘3-in-1’ God, or the words of Jesus saying that. As I have just said in the light you have not done so with Mohamad saying he was the comforter, this is special pleading on your behalf.

Is it my fault that you cannot understand what you read ??? And, yes, you STILL have NOT shown me that God Almighty said He’s a ‘3-in-1’ God.

2Acts wrote: But just to play your game I repeat the ‘trinity” is not directly mentioned in the Bible and is a mere doctrine only. However Jesus consistently validated the Old Testament and it is adequately attested to in the Old Testament verses I have provided.

Okay, humor me – which OT did Jesus consistently validate ???

2Acts wrote: You say the criteria for Muslims to determine what is truth and what are lies are what that does not contradict the Quran. Once again you fall into the pit of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning .ie. (the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with). You need to do better than this. My point stands - you still have not adequately determined your Muslim criteria for determining which is “truth and which is lies”. Until Muslims do so they have no authority to quote from the Bible and simply pick and choose what suits.

Hey, why blame me when you have faulty logic and cannot understand what you read ??

2Acts wrote: You say the Quran, like the Bible, contains stories, God’s Commands and lessons that should be understood in the con-text of the times. While you claim these are universal and eternal however you are wrong. Christians do not believe the Bible to be a direct and word for word literal Word of God. Rather Christians see the Bible as the “inspired” Word of God written by men in the cultural and historical context in which the writings were produced. It is the broad principles of revelation that are timeless and eternal. That is not how Muslims see the Quran. Muslims see the Quran as a word for word, direct and literal recitation of Gods word in absolute form. Because you state the violent directives and verses in the Quran need to be understood in the context of the times you are implying the Quran is not a literal, eternal, universal, absolute message for all people for all time.

Well, the Bible words are NOT the inspired Words of God, BUT rather, they are the words of the writers/gospelists who may or may not, have the divine inspirations to write, BUT the words used are still their own words NOT God’s inspired Words – and that’s why they can be ‘influenced’ to write something else other than what God had inspired them to write, as confirmed by Jeremiah 8:8.

2Acts wrote: You ask where did I learn that Muhammad tortured his enemies. As I have said it is attested to in Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261. And don’t try to say the Sahih hadith are not re-liable. Hadith and Sahih hadith in particular have been a primary source of Islamic jurisprudence for centuries. So don’t try to evade the point by saying hadith is not reliable.

Who's evading ?? As I said before, the hadiths, like the Bible, are written by men. For the hadiths to be reliable, they must be in accordance with the Quran. If the words of other people in the Bible are to be reliable, they need to be in accordance with the words of Jesus. As it turned out to be, you and most of the Christians today are taught to rely more on the words of other people than the words of Jesus.

2Acts wrote: Regarding violence in the Old Testament, you ask is not the Old Testament part of the Bible? As I explained the Old Tes-tament is only a partial revelation of Gods nature. Jesus as revealed in the New Testament is the final revelation and Jesus preached to “love ones enemies”. This command to love is the final and full revela-tion of God.

In other words, the OT was about God Almighty and the NT (especially the gospel of John) was about Jesus and making him God too. I guess Jeremiah was right when he prophesized "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD, "when actually the LYING PEN of the scribes has HANDLED IT FALSELY?””. You don't need to have a PhD to know what 'lying pen' and 'hamdled it falsely' means, do you ??

2Acts wrote: Christians believe Jesus to be a “revelation”. But whether you believe him to be or not is besides the point. The fact re-mains his message was about “loving ones enemy”. You will not find anywhere where he ordered his followers to violence.

From a holy scripture (Muslim’s or Christian’s) standpoint, ‘violence’ is associated to unnecessarily and unprovoked physical confrontation, transgressions, and ‘fighting’ is associated to in defense of God’s Honor and Name. ‘Fighting’ does always mean physical confrontation or physical fighting, BUT, it can also refer to verbal confrontation (just as we are engaged in now), non-violence protests or just in thoughts when one is incapable to physically protest or engaged in verbal confrontation. Physical confrontation/physical fighting can be the only option when one is physically attacked and all non-physical options have been exhausted. So, in the case of Jesus, when only one of his disciples drew his sword to prevent the Jews from arresting him, Jesus told that disciple to put back his sword as, being a practical man, Jesus knew it would be suicidal for only one man to fight a group of armed soldiers who came to arrest him. You need to understand how Jesus think - he did expect his followers to fight for him but he did expect them to fight as a united group of believers, NOT just one man to fight for him.
Christians seems to have this false perception that no matter what your enemies do to you or your loved ones, you should just smile and pat your enemies’ backs. So, if someone came into their house and rape their wives and daughters, they should just sit back and watch and do nothing. Fact is God Almighty is most loving and forgiving but He did create hell to put those who sin and transgress in, or in the other words, sinners and transgressors will be punished if they did not seek repentance over their sins. What does that tell you ??

2Acts wrote: Regarding Luke 22.36 there is no contradiction with Mathew 5.38, Luke 9.56 and Mathew 5.54. The reason being as I already explained to you, but I will explain it to you again. In 22.26 Jesus instructed his disciples to get swords simply to assure the fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12 as per the prophecy he was to be considered a lawbreaker or transgressor. As a side note you should read Luke 22.36 in the context of Isaiah 53. You will note Jesus claims to be the Messiah who will … he will bear their iniquities ... bear the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors ... He obviously was more than just a mere prophet

What ??!! Are you saying Isaiah 53:12 was prophesizing Jesus as a transgressor and therefore to fulfill this prophesy, Jesus instructed his disciples to get swords ???!! So much for your ‘understanding’ of your own scriptures !!

2Acts wrote: You were the one who started the faulty line of rea-soning (fallacy of omission) by stating because Jesus never spoke of fighting it does not mean one doesn’t believe in fighting. My mention of UFOs and flying pigs was simply illustrating the futility of your logic through satire. You need to take responsibility for your faulty logic or keep a better track of your posts.

Even your satire ‘about UFOs and flying pigs’ are irrelevant unless you expect Jesus or the people of his times to have heard of such satires, let alone believe in one. So, you need to take responsibility for your faulty logic or keep a better track of your posts.

2Acts wrote: Have a good read of what I said Jesus talked about fighting when he said to love our enemies (Mathew 5.43). you are either not reading my replies properly or again being evasive. Lets break your reasoning down regarding John 18.36 (yes 36, not 38, a mere typo). This will be a helpful exercise to illustrate your bizarre and disingenuous logic. You get things correct through to your second point where you state because they did nothing, Jesus said his kingdom is NOT of this world. Here your logic deviates through a logical fallacy of a non Sequitur –(meaning literally, "It does not fol-low”). Healthy logic dictates they didn’t fight because Jesus never set an example and gave them instruction to not fight.

Then, you REALLY cannot understand what you read. If Jesus never expect his followers not fight the Jews/Romans to stop them from arresting him, then, Jesus WOULD NOT have said “If it were, my servants WOULD FIGHT to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders,”. He did NOT say “My servants would not fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders as I never set an example of fighting to them” - he NEVER said that or anything to that effect, did he ?? So, it turned out to be your so-called ‘healthy’ logic was NOT THAT healthy after all !!

2Acts wrote: Then you partly recover again in stating BUT if it were (his kingdom), his servants would fight to prevent his arrest. My advice Jerry is forget the “BUT “ as we all know anything after but is ‘BS’. Your use of hypotheticals are one of your techniques that lead your arguments into disingenuous confusion.

Wow, why such language when you have shown, again and again, you just cannot understand your own scriptures ??? Everything you have explained only confirmed your lack of understanding. Fact is, even if I put the word ‘BUT’ to Jesus’ words, it would NOT change the fact that Jesus did expect his followers to fight to stop the Jews/Romans from arresting him - “(BUT) If it were, my servants WOULD FIGHT to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders,”. So, I guess, to borrow your own term, the ‘BS’ is really after everything you said !!

2Acts wrote: Any way. Unfortunately, you then go on to use a triple negative as a means to confuse your audience (and yourself) even further, in stating – it’s not “because his kingdom is not of this world, he does not expect his servant to fight for him ,and then you finish with a fantastic backward flip of logical gymnastics in saying- but ra-ther, Jesus DID EXPECT his servants to fight and prevent his arrest. Excellent Jerry! A beautiful fallacy of ambiguity. Well done ! Really, if you are to be taken seriously in the area of apologetics you need to be doing a lot better than this. If indeed Im correct and you purposely employ these smoke screen tactics to confuse, mislead and twist then you have no place on this forum.

Congrats !! Again you proved that you just cannot understand what you read !! Well done !!

2Acts wrote: Just read John 36 honestly, and you will plainly see he is saying because His kingdom is not of this world he does not expect his followers to fight. Its quite simple really. Just quit the denial, evasion and riddles.

Yes, its really quite simple. As I said earlier, if Jesus never expected his followers to fight the Jews/Romans to stop them from arresting him, then, Jesus WOULD NOT have said “If it were, my servants WOULD FIGHT to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders,”. The phrase ‘would fight’ tells us Jesus expect his disciples to fight. But then again, you have proven time and time again, you just cannot understand what you read. Sad. Really, if you are to be taken seriously in the area of apologetics you need to be doing a lot better than this and stop trying to prove to me time and time again, that you cannot understand what you read - I am fully aware of that !!

2Acts wrote: Oh really, two reasons now for Muslims using the Bible ! First it was one, now its two. You like to move the goal posts don’t you ! My point stands ”. You using Christian scripture Is not valid due you not adequately determining criteria for “truth and lies.” And until Muslims or you, do so you have no authority to quote from the Bible by simply picking and choosing what suits. And no the circular argument logical fallacy of “truth being what lines up with the Quran is not good enough. You have not been able to prove differently.

Well, the number of reasons is not the objective here, BUT, its WHY a Muslim would quote a Biblical verse. Why do you think a Muslim would quote a Biblical verse ?? And what’s your criteria to determine “truth and lies” ?

2Acts wrote: You are wrong about John 10.30, 15.5 and 17.21. have a good read. Jesus says in 15.5 I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. Look at the imagery of the parable. A vine is a living substance or organism. A branch is a living extension of the same substance. Fruit is a further living extension of the same substance. Jesus tells his followers to “remain in me . To “remain in me”, means … to remain in ME. Not just simply remain in his purpose. And yes in a way as his followers become one with the branch and the vine they also become one with God. In a way they will be come as like “Gods” too. That’s what the term “Born again “ means. You have not even been able to refute or explain any of the verses I have quoted and please tell me exactly how could I take John 15.5 literally? It is obviously figurative. But the meaning is obvious – God The Father, Jesus Christ God The Son and his followers all become one in substance.

You would have taken John 15:5 literally IF you believe God Almighty and Jesus are one and same entity or they are equal.

“To remain in me” simply means to remain in the guidance circle of Jesus or in other words, to continue to be attached to the preaching of Jesus, or figuratively speaking, like a branch is attached to the vine – just as the branch which is attached to the vine will bear fruits, so will the disciple who remain attached to Jesus’ preaching will reap the reward in the afterlife.

2Acts wrote: Matthew 13:13-15 “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand” applies to you. I will be interested to see how you try to weedle and riddle your way out of this.

A good example of “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand” will be when one read, say, John 10:30 or John 15:5, they understand those verses to mean that God Almighty and Jesus Christ are one and same person. If your understanding of those verses is such, then, you are said to be one of those who “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand” – are you one of those people ??

2Acts wrote: You claim it is my words in my mention of John 5.27. You are wrong again. Lets read from John 5.24 to John 5.30 - “Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. So as you can see these are the words of Jesus as detailed in the In-jeel. Not my words or the words of the church as you claim. So you tell me, which human “prophet” has the power to call the dead from their graves and to judge? There have and are no human beings with that ability.”

Well, you left out John 5:24 in your quote, despite writing “Lets read from John 5.24 to John 5.30”. I assume that’s unintentional, BUT, John 5:24 is key in understanding the following verses (John 5:25-30) which you quoted.

In John 5:24, Jesus said “Very truly I tell you, who-ever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life”. In other words, Jesus was saying that whoever listen to him and believe in God Almighty who sent him will have eternal life. The phrase ‘believe in him who sent me’ can only be a reference to God Almighty as Jesus could not be saying he sent himself!

So, when your understanding is based on what Jesus said (NOT on what other people said), then you should also understand that Jesus was also referring to the voice of God Almighty when he said “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out” – John 5:28-29, as Jesus clearly did not say “… when all who are in their graves will hear my voice and come out”.

So, to your question, ‘which human “prophet” has the power to call the dead from their graves and to judge?’, the answer is, no one, as only God Almighty has the power to do that.

2Acts wrote: So continuing onto to John 11.25 obviously John 11.25 is also about this. And I must add you haven’t even been able to refute John 11.25. You need to just stop blindly accepting what your Imams and Mullahs tell you and read the whole Bible with an open mind.

John 11:25 reads ‘Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die”’. Yes, it did imply a resurrection, but, the question is - what was Jesus’ understanding when he said “I am the resurrection and the life”?? First of all, you should know that every Muslim and Christian believe in the Day of Judgment and anyone who believe in the Day of Judgment, will believe in the Day of the Resurrection, that is, the day when all the dead will be resurrected to be judged by God. So, every time Jesus spoke or implied a resurrection, it’s crucial that we know which resurrection was he referring to – was it a reference to his own ‘resurrection’ on earth as all Christians believed, or a reference to the resurrection at the Last Day before the Judgment ?? To know this, we need to go back to John 11 and understand WHY Jesus said “I am the resurrection” -

‘“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”’ – John 11:21-26

We can clearly see when Jesus said “I am the resurrection and the life”, he was responding to Martha who had said earlier she knew her brother will rise again at the last day, that is, the day of the Resurrection. This tell us that Jesus, in saying “I am the resurrection and the life” was also referring to the Day of the Resurrection of the last day as he was responding to Martha’s statement and NOT about himself rising from the dead on this earth. Now, you may say “Still that did not explain WHY Jesus said ‘I am the resurrection and the life”. The explanation is simple – the Day of the Resurrection also marks the coming of the Judgment Day - so, when Jesus said ‘I am the resurrection”, he’s saying he’s the Sign for the Day of Resurrection. In other words, when Martha said she knew her brother will rise again in the last day ie. in the Day of the Resurrection, Jesus informed her that he’s the Sign of the Resurrection that is, his second coming will mark the coming of the last day when the dead will be resurrected. Its like the Angel of Death saying “I am death” which would mean he’s the sign of death and if he comes calling on you, then, you knew death is not far away from you. This also explain why Jesus said “The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die” in the same breath as “I am the resurrection and life”. In other words, Jesus was telling Martha and those present not to fear for those who had died earlier for if they had died believing in him as the messiah and prophet of God, they will continue to live on in the kingdom of heaven, and those who are still living (a reference to Martha and those still living at that time) and these people believe in him as the messiah and prophet of God, will not die – which, of course, does not mean they will live forever in their earth life, but it means after their earthly death, they too will continue to live on in the kingdom of heaven, which Jesus often refers to as the ‘everlasting life’.

So really, you need to just stop blindly accepting what your church and your preachers tell you and read the whole Bible with an open mind to understand what Jesus really said and NOT what other people claimed what Jesus said.

2Acts wrote: In my mentioning of John 17.21, Psalm 82.6 and John 10.34 there is no need to get upset over the use of a small ‘s’ or a capital ‘S’ as I simply made that distinction for your understanding. The actual scriptures I quoted are not effected by a small or capital ‘s’. So it’s a non issue.

I am not upset as whether you capitalized the ‘S’ in the phrase ‘S/son of God’ or not, it means the same, that is, it means ‘servant of God’, BUT, to you and the Christians, a capitalized ‘Son of God’ means God the Son, so, it’s an issue to you and the Christians if the translators of the English-translated Bibles did not capitalized the letter ‘s’ when referring to Jesus as the ‘son of God’.

2Acts wrote: However when it comes to understanding the distinc-tion between a small ‘s’ or capital ‘S’ and any distinction made in either the Greek or Hebrew I understand it better than you.

For you to say “…. any distinction made in either the Greek or Hebrew I understand it better than you” only show that you knew nothing about Greek or Hebrew alphabets as, (again) there’s NO DISTINCTION of small and capital letters in Greek and Hebrew alphabets.

2Acts wrote: Regarding the Injeel and Suras 5:46. S. 57:27, 10. 94, 5:48, 3:3 any contradiction between what the Injeel says and Muslim doctrine is your problem not mine. I have provided may verses that you have been unable to refute. The best you can do is resort to rid-dles.

What verses have you provided that I cannot refute ?? And what contradiction are there between what Jesus truly said and the Muslim doctrine ?? Fact is, any contradiction found between what the Bible said and the Muslim doctrine are NOT what of Jesus had said, but rather, those of what other people claimed of what Jesus said in the Bible, especially when Jesus himself NEVER made those claims himself and neither did God Almighty made those claims on Jesus' behalf.

2Acts wrote: You ask if I am saying disobeying God is not a sin to the Christians ? of course disobeying God is a sin. However sin goes much deeper than mere disobedience.

Care to elaborate further, that is, if you can ??

2Acts wrote: And in terms of your point that “if Jesus is God the Son, so there must be 2 Gods, but Jesus saying God is one”… my advice to you is don’t make life difficulty for yourself. It is not hard to conceptualise One God with more than one aspect. I think you pur-posely make it hard for yourself as that’s what your Imams and Mul-lahs do.

Well, instead of just being good at giving ‘advice’, why don’t you, for once, address or try to refute – “if Jesus is God the Son, so there must be 2 Gods, but Jesus said God is one”, can you ??

2Acts wrote: Regarding Ephesians 2:2 once again you miss (or evade) the point. The point being the ruler of the kingdom of the air (Satan) is at work. It is not a 50 /50 playing field where simple choices determine righteousness.

Who’s talking about a 50/50 playing field ?? And once again you miss (or evade) the point. The point is NOT about “being the ruler of the kingdom of the air (Satan) is at work”, but the point is, original sin is NOT a divine teaching as no one is born with sin and that’s why Jesus, or any prophets of God, has ever preached original sin.

2Acts wrote: And in terms of Luke 11.13 I never made a direct comparison with Ephesians 2.2. and what verses exactly do you recommend I read Luke 11.13 in context with? You are not clear. You need to stop being evasive and refute Luke 11.13 which you have not been able to do.

Try reading Luke 11 in total to understand Luke 11:13 in context and not just Luke 11:13 – that’s what I mean.

2Acts wrote: I have broken down the Hebrew in Proverbs 22.15 and your only response is “rambling conjecture”. As well as provide you with relevant verses around the doctrine of original sin I have pro-vided a detailed explanation in the Greek terms of poneroi hyparchon-tes. You have not been able to refute what I have provided and simply make a pathetic response of “reading scriptures out of context”. You need to refute the verses and / or linguistic meaning I provide rather than make baseless claims. You need to do better than this.

Actually, your “explanation” of original sin IS rambling conjecture – heck, you cannot even prove Jesus, or any other prophets of God before him, ever preached original sin !! So, your so-called ‘detailed explanation’ is actually repetition of what other people preach to you and NOT what Jesus preach to you - you need to do better than this.

2Acts wrote: And do I say to take all of Jesus words literally? Yes and no. It depends on the literary context. Let me define literary con-text for you. It consists of understanding the literary genre that the book of the Bible exists in. Why is Genre Important? Genre is the cov-enant between the author and the recipient. Surrounding Text. Sur-rounding text starts with the passage itself and slowly works outwards.

“Yes and no” ?? Exactly what I mean when I said the Bible is a Book of truth and lies !! If you can understand why Jesus’ words can be taken figuratively and some, literally, depending on the literary context, then why can’t you understand that the Bible can also be a book of truth and lies, depending on the context and whose sayings are being narrated ??

2Acts wrote: You are wrong about John 10:34. Read back a verse to John 10:33. The Jewish leaders accuse him of claiming to be God where they say - “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they re-plied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” John 10.33. If you want more proof he was accused of blasphemy then read the following where it is clear the Jewish leaders were ac-cusing him of blasphemy – (John 10:33) “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (Luke 5:21) The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mat 26:65) Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

Well, in the above verses you quoted, WHO exactly was making those claims (of Jesus claiming to be God) ?? Jesus himself ?? No, it was the people – the Jews, the chief priests, etc, NOT Jesus. Are you saying just because the Jews, who wanted to get rid of him, claimed that Jesus, a mere man, claimed to be God, therefore, it must be true ?? In other words, if people claim that you, a mere man, claimed to be Satan, therefore, it must be true that you are Satan ?? As I have said many times, listen to what Jesus claimed of himself and NOT of what other people claimed of him on his behalf.

2Acts wrote: And then read on into John 10.36 where Jesus says - “ what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy be-cause I said, ‘I am God’s SON?” In the Greek the word is “huios” meaning … Son … not servant ! So because you have your initial premise wrong the rest of your argument falls apart into riddles.

Well, capitalizing all the letters as ‘S-O-N’ don’t make Jesus God the Son – never did and never will.

Again, if you read John 10:36 in context, Jesus was asking the Jews why do they accuse him of blasphemy (claiming to be God the Son) when he said he’s God’s son when it’s was also written in their law that they are all ‘gods’ and yet none of them claimed to be God. So, if it was written in their law that they were all gods and none of them considered that as blasphemy, then, Jesus saying he’s ‘the son of God’ cannot be blasphemy too, but, yet, the Jews are accusing him of blasphemy ! That’s what John 10:36 in context was, but because you have your initial premise wrong (that Jesus is God the Son) the rest of your argument just falls apart, as always.

2Acts wrote: Regarding the plurality of God in Isaiah 6.8 your ex-planation of it referring to the people of King Uzziah and not God does not make sense. The reason for this is that if you read on to Isaiah 6.9 you will see God is wanting Isaiah to go and preach to the people of King Uzziah. So why would the “us” be the people of King Uzziah when He is asking Isaiah to go and preach to people of King Uzziah ?

Well, ask yourself this - in Isaiah 6:8, who was ‘I’ and who was ‘the Lord’ ? In Isaiah 6:9, ‘the Lord’ was not a reference to God Almighty because, as I have told you before, in the OT, God Almighty is always referred to ‘L-O-R-D’ – all letters are capitalized (for example see Isaiah 6:3).

2Acts wrote: And its interesting that you are using capitals and lower case now! I have only ever used them to make a distinction to clarify understanding while you have contradicted yourself in using them to reference scripture. You are the one that says in Greek and Hebrew, there’s no such thing as small or capital letters. Like I say you have contradicted yourself and you need to keep better track on your previous posts.

Not really. I only use capital or upper and lower case to reflect your understanding in accordance to what the gospelists want you, as a Christian, to understand, that is, when they translate the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to English. Else how can I refute you or have a discussion with you if I do not know your ‘understanding’ of your Bible in the first place ??

2Acts wrote: I agree Isaiah 41 does not clearly define divine qualities. But it does fit with the life of Jesus. In terms of a ruler with divine eternal qualities you are better referring to Isaiah 53-

Well, Isaiah 53 is not a conclusive reference that it’s about Jesus, as even among the Christians, they seemed divided as who the ‘Suffering Servant’ was. One group said Isaiah 53 was about Jesus while the other group said its about the sufferings of the Jews seen collectively as one person or one nation, which is not uncommon in the Scripture - http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html

2Acts wrote: So we finally agree in Mathew 3.17 it is not referring to a servant but so (Huios) and Im not disputing Isaiah 42:1 in that it refers to the Hebrew word ‘av-di’ which means “servant, slave’ . But your connecting Isaiah 42.1 with Mathew 3.27 is only indirect and tentative. What is your basis in stating Matthew 3:17 was a direct reference to Isaiah 42:1? You need to prove it.

Finally agree ?? Not really. I said Matthew 3:17 uses the word ‘son’ BUT it’s a reference to a servant (of God). It's like if I tell you to fly a kite, it's clear that I don't mean for you to really get a kite and fly it, but, I was asking you to go away. So, you can say 'go fly a kite' is synonymous with 'go away'. Likewise, 'son' in Matthew 3:17 is synonymous with 'servant' in Isaiah 42:1. You can prove this by reading Isaiah 42:1 and Matthew 3:17 side by side :
“Hre is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight” - (Isaiah 42:1) and
“This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17)

Swapping Isaiah 42:1 with Matthew 3:17 will not alter the meaning or the intention of the passages of Isaiah 42 and Matthew 3 respectively. For example, Isaiah 42:1 can be read as “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” and Matthew 3:17 can be “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight”. Did you see any difference in the meaning of those verses in their respective passages even when the verses are swapped ??

2Acts wrote: There is a closer connection between Isaiah 40.3 and Psalm 2.7 with Mathew 3.17 than Isaiah 42:1.

Isaiah 40:3 does not even come close to Matthew 3:17 and as for Psalm 2:7, what makes you think it was about Jesus and not David ?? Let’s see whether you understand your own Bible or you just rely on whatever your church and your preachers told you to believe. Heed Jesus’ advice – ‘test all spirits’, or in other words, do not simply believe everything your so-called preachers and scholars tell you to believe.

2Acts wrote: You have no proof the NT gospelists wanted to project Jesus as God the Son so they replaced the word ‘servant’ with ‘Son’ in Matthew 3:17. Without proof all you have is a conspiracy theory. The other thing you need to know is that Christians have always referred to Jesus as The Messiah as both “Son” and “servant”.

Well, as they say – ‘the proof is in the pudding’, so, go and read TO UNDERSTAND what Jesus really said (and NOT what other people said) in your own scripture.

2Acts wrote: ….and as I have told you a few times now Jesus was God the Son, not God the Father. However I presume you are refer-ring to Luke 22.42. if you have a good read he was not asking to be saved from his accusers but rather he was asking to be removed from being the the suffering generally.

Again, your response only reflected your level of ‘understanding’ of your own Bible. Asking to be removed from the suffering IS asking to be saved. You must understand Jesus expected, as his enemies close in on him, that he will be captured and will be put on a false trial and put to death by crucifixion, which is, the capital punishment of the day. Thus, in this context, suffering is the ordeal of being persecuted, captured, being put to trial, abused and eventually, the crucifixion, which will lead to a very painful and slow death. So when Jesus prayed to God to remove the sufferings, he’s talking about the whole ordeal process of the predicament he’s in. Camprante ?

2Acts wrote: However you will also note he said “your will be done”. You like most Muslims don’t understand the idea of the hypo-static union which is the dynamic between the human and divine elements of Jesus. There were times when the human aspect of his nature were at the fore and other times when his divine nature were more evident.

Before you make any accusation on Muslims, perhaps, you should first explain your understanding of the phrase “yet not my will, but yours be done” as you quoted above, can you ??

2Acts wrote: Yes Luke 22.66 is clear however you have not been able to refute what I have presented. The understanding of Jesus being accused of blasphemy is clear, but you simply choose to cloud your own understanding. This is denial on your behalf. The suppositions are all yours. You have not been able to refute Luke 22.66

Are you telling me Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he’s God the Son ?? That’s your ‘clear understanding’ of Luke 22:66 ?? See what I mean when I said you cannot understand what you read in your own Bible. However, to be fair to you, why don’t you tell me what’s your understanding of Luke 22:66 and see whether I can refute your ‘explanation’ or not.

2Acts wrote: ….and in relation to Matthew 27:11-14 you are wrong in that Jesus had been attempting to explain to them who he was.

You should learn how to understand what you read as I never said, in Matthew 27:11-14, Jesus was attempting to explain to them who he was, BUT, I said “it’s obvious that Jesus was so frustrated with the Jews of not listening to him (of explaining of who he is) that he decided not to respond anymore to their questions”. How do I know this ? Simple – the fact that Jesus told the chief priests and the teachers of the law that they would not believe him if he said he is the Messiah (Luke 22:67), tells us Jesus was already frustrated of telling them that he’s the Messiah and NOT God the Son - a fact which they would not believe (“if I tell you, you will not believe me”). And how do I know Jesus said he’s NOT God the Son ?? Because when he was asked whether he’s the Son of God, Jesus told them, “You said that I am” (Luke 22:70). In other words, Jesus responded that it was them, not him, who said he’s the Son of God.

2Acts wrote: If you knew the Gospels you would know Jesus never explained things clearly to the Jews (religious elders). You need to prove your claim that he did.

When did I claim Jesus’ explanations to the Jews are always clear to the Jews ?? I said (or to that effect) Jesus always, or at most of the times, spoke in parables and that’s why most of his words should not be taken literally, BUT, most Christians (like yourself)took his words literally and that’s why they think Jesus is literally the Son of God when he said 'the Father and I are one'.

2Acts wrote: The verses are clear, the Chief Priests genuinely believed what they were doing was convicting a blasphemer. You need to prove differently from the scriptures as opposed to vague conjecture on your part.

Yes, the verses are clear (but obviously not to you) – the chief priests were trying to get rid of Jesus by falsely accusing him of blasphemy, that is, they persisted that Jesus had claimed to be God the Son, which Jesus never did and he denied that claim by saying it was only them who had said so (Luke 22:70).

2Acts wrote: Your attempt to refute my quote of John 6.38 and 8.23 by saying John is not Jesus is weak. John was a best friend of Jesus and an eye witness to the events. He was far more knowledge-able of what Jesus said and did than you.

When I said “John is not Jesus”, I was referring to the writer of gospel of John (that is, John ‘whoever’, as no one can be certain who really wrote the gospel of John), and not John the Baptist. Then again, even if John the Baptist or St. John, was the author of the gospel of John, they are still not Jesus, so, how can saying ‘John is not Jesus’ is weak ?? It's more likely it’s your logic that’s weak.

2Acts wrote: And yes, yes, as established and well known by Christians before Islam ever came on the scene was that Jesus never directly said “I am God”. However as stated he always talked indirectly often through parables as a means of sifting out people who had the discernment of God. Obviously you are not one of those. You are of the same mind and spirit of the Jewish elders at the time. As I have said and proven Jesus never directly said “I am God” but he implied it in his talking in parables, and he said enough to have him-self killed for blasphemy and as I have also displayed he often re-ferred to himself with divine and eternal qualities. You need to accept the Bible as it reads not try to weedle and riddle your way out of it.

Which sayings of Jesus, directly or indirectly, that you think implied he was claiming to be God ?? On the other hand, how can Jesus be killed for blasphemy if he’s God ?? Blasphemy simply means the act of someone claiming to be God or equal to God. So, if he’s killed for blasphemy then, he’s not God, but only someone who claimed to be God, which was what the Jews accused him of. Moreover, can you kill God ?? Let see how you try, to borrow your phrase - ‘to weedle and riddle your way out of this’.

2Acts wrote: In terms of your claim the Jews and Romans wanted to kill Jesus for preaching to them to worship only the One true God whom he called ‘Father’ you have provided no proof and you have been unable to refute my evidence that it was because of blasphemy. Your position is Muslim wishful thinking and one that you parrot after listening to your Mullahs. Don’t make claims unless you provide proof.

Well, the proofs are in your own Bible, BUT, you cannot understand them as your mind have been ‘preconceived’ to believe Jesus is God. If you think Jesus was NOT preaching to them about God and to worship only the One true God, then, what was Jesus preaching to them ?? That he’s God and he came to die for your sins ?? Prove that’s what Jesus was preaching to them - I doubt it, but, you can try.

2Acts wrote: And you haven’t even addressed the point I made about Jesus referring to himself as the figure of God who will return to judge the world in Daniel 7.13 -15. And your statement regarding Pi-late falls apart because you have not proven the above.

If you want me, or anyone, to address a point you made, first, make sure your point is correct in connection with the Biblical verse you quoted in making your point. Daniel 7:13-15 reads, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of point sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. “I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me.”” NIV.

It should be obvious to anyone (maybe other than you) reading Daniel 7 that it was about Daniel’s dreams and thus, it was Daniel’s words and NOT Jesus’ words that you're reading in Daniel 7. If it’s NOT Jesus’ words, then, it’s not Jesus who was “referring to himself as the figure of God who will return to judge the world” as you ignorantly claimed above. So, get your facts right first before asking anyone to comment on your ‘points’.

2Acts wrote: You should know that Jesus said the sign of Jonah would be given and that the temple will be destroyed and restored in three days (meaning himself).

Again you made comments without elaborating further. So, what’s your understanding of ‘the sign of Jonah’ and the ‘the temple will be destroyed and restored in three days’ and who said Jesus was talking about himself when he said that ?? Did Jesus himself said that or was it the gospelists who planted that thought in your head ??

2Acts wrote: But if you want something less abstract read Mathew 20.19 – As Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside and said, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes. They will con-demn Him to death and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life.”… Matthew 20:19 For someone who claims to know the Bible so well I thought you would know that.

If you are suggesting that Jesus here predicted his death, I will tell you that he did not predict his death BUT, under the circumstances he was in, he expected to be arrested and condemned to death. Matthew 20:19 you quoted tells us Jesus was fully aware of what his enemies had in store for him. If you want to refute that, you need to show that when Jesus said he will be betrayed and killed, he was totally unaware that the Jews hated him and wanted to capture and kill him.

2Acts wrote: So your conclusion in Matthew 5:12 where Jesus said “Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” is obviously out of context. One again you pick and choose what you want without attending to the wider context of Mathew.

Not really. The fact that Jesus said “for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” clearly showed that Jesus understood that carrying the message of God to the people will be burdened with hardship and to some, will cost their lives and thus, his disciples can expect him, as their prophet, to go thru the same hard-ships and sufferings, just as all the prophets before them. If you disagree, then perhaps you can explain why Jesus said “for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you”.

2Acts wrote: You say you have shown me that God has revealed in the Quran that Mohamad is the Comforter as referenced by Jesus. Firstly I don’t believe in the Quran, so there is no point in referencing it to me.

Well, because you don’t believe in the Quran, that’s why we Muslims quote the Bible when debating with Christians like you, unless they asked for proofs from the Quran. If you can recall, it was you who asked me for proofs in the Muslim Scripture that Muhammad said he is the Comforter as mentioned by Jesus. I said Muhammad need not said he was the Comforter as God Almighty Himself had said so in the Quran and I have provided the Quranic verses. Now, you said there is no point in referencing it to you because you don’t believe in the Quran ?? Then, why ask for proofs in the Quran ??

2Acts wrote: And where ever you have referenced Jesus I have refuted your points and all you have dome is reply with riddles or baseless accusations.

That’s really quite comical, especially coming from someone who hardly can understand what he read in his own scriptures !!

2Acts wrote: As you have not shown me where Mohmad directly said “I am the comforter” your position is hypocritical. Ive already stated to you Jesus did not directly say “I am God” but I have provided ample evidence that he was crucified for blasphemy and that he made claims about himself that inferred divine and eternal qualities. You have not been able to provide any such evidence for Mohmad saying “ I am the comforter”.

As I said, Muhammad need not said he was the Comforter as God Almighty Himself had said so in the Quran. You can say you don’t believe the Quran, which is fine, but, the point is, despite conceding Jesus himself NEVER said he’s God, you cannot even show from the Bible, God Almighty saying Jesus is God or part of a triune God. So, your position on this is hypocritical as you are not able to show neither Jesus nor God have ever claimed Jesus is God.

BTW, Jesus being accused of blasphemy is not proof that he is God and when did Jesus “make claims about himself that inferred divine and eternal qualities” ?? I think you missed (or most likely, ignored) the fact that Jesus said, “By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me”.

2Acts wrote: You ask how did you contradicted yourself in your quoting of Christian scripture. As I said you have contradicted yourself in that initially you said “ – Muslims only quote the Bible when we want to correct your lack of understanding to your own scripture.” However just like Truthnowcome you have used John 14:16 and John 16:13 to support an Islamic proposition. The explanation is clear. You are just being evasive.

You need to brush up on your logic and rationale when presenting your arguments. In correcting your lack of understanding to your own scripture like John 14:16, John 16:13, etc, it, obviously, will also support the Islamic proposition too, as we are Muslims. Likewise, for example, if someone come to you and said the 10 Commandment was given to Jesus Christ, not to Moses, you, of course, will correct his lack of understanding of the Torah and in doing so, you are also supporting your Christian’s proposition too. So, how can you say that’s contradicting and being evasive ??

2Acts wrote: In regards to your identification of truth and lies when it comes to your use of the Bible, as you seem to lose track, or are be-ing evasive of what you say let me remind you. Your rationale for truth and lies was the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, that if the Bible does not line up with the Quran then it is a lie. As already proven to you this in not a valid argument due its circular reasoning.

What ‘circular reasoning’ are you rambling about ?? I said, for the Muslims, the truths, irrespective from which source, must be in accordance with the Quran (which all Muslims took as the literal Words of God) and for the Christians, the truths must be in accordance with what Jesus himself said and NOT what other people said or claimed. So, which teaching of Jesus that you think are not in accordance with the Muslim doctrine ?? That Jesus is God and he died for the sins of mankind ?? Jesus NEVER preached those teachings and neither have any of the prophets before him.

2Acts wrote: You claim I have not shown you the words of God saying He is a ‘3-in-1’ God, or the words of Jesus saying that. As I have just said in the light you have not done so with Mohamad saying he was the comforter, this is special pleading on your behalf.

It really does not matter whether you believe in the Quran or not, but the fact is, I have shown you that God Almighty, in the Quran, confirmed Muhammad is the Comforter as spoken by Jesus. Muhammad need not say that himself as God Almighty have said that. You, on the other hand, has NOT been able to show me that God is a '3-in-1' God, not only from Jesus but also not from God Himself in your own Bible ! So, what nonsense ‘special pleading on my behalf’ are you talking about ??

2Acts wrote: You ask which Old testament did Jesus refer to? THE Old Testament. The torah and tanakh. How can you say the Bibles words are not the inspired Word of God when your Quran validates the truth of the Bible in Suras 5:46. S. 57:27, 10. 94, 5:48, 3:3.

The Quran only confirmed that God gave the Psalms to David, the To-rah to Moses and the Injil to Jesus, it DOES NOT confirm the Bible of today. 1400+ years ago, when the Quran was revealed to Muhammad, God Almighty confirmed in the Quran that He gave the Psalms to David, the Torah to Moses and the Injil to Jesus and thus, confirming the truths of those manuscripts given at that time. Today, no one can confirm that we still have the original Psalms, Torah and Injil. Even the oldest manuscripts found are said to be copies, not the original. So, as I've always said, what you have in the Bible today is a mixture of truths and lies.

2Acts wrote: And in regards to the Bible being “influenced” the Bi-ble is the most reliable of all ancient manuscripts which I am happy to demonstrate if you require.

I am not saying the Bible is 100% corrupted, but, I am saying the Bible is a mixture of truths and lies, so, how can anyone say it’s reliable when one can question or dispute the credibility of some of its passages ? Take Matthew 28:19 for instance which reads, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. ‘Baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy spirit’ is, of course, a Trinitarian Baptismal formula. The problem here is that, this only happened in Matthew 28:19 and nowhere else. Jesus himself could not have given such instruction to his disciples after his supposedly ‘resurrection’ as the New Testament only knew one baptism which is only in the name of Jesus Christ as evidenced in the book of Acts and Paul’s epistles such as Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15.
In short, many Christian scholars believe Matthew 28:19 was added at a later stage. In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. James Orr)(1915) Vol. 4 at 2637, under “Baptism,” it says: “Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation,...and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus”.

Even Roman Catholicism’s Jerusalem Bible (N.Y.: 1966), a scholarly Catholic work, confesses at page 64 note g: “It may be that this formula, [i.e., the Trinitarian Baptismal Formula of Matthew 28:19] so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing ‘in the name of Jesus,'”.

So really, how reliable is the Bible of today when even the Christian scholars question some of what was in the Bible such as Matthew 28:19 ??

2Acts wrote: Regarding Mohamad torturing his enemies like I said the Hadith and Sahih hadith in particular have been a primary source of Islamic jurisprudence for centuries. So don’t try to evade the point by saying hadith is not reliable.

The primary source of Islamic jurisprudence is the Quran. Hadiths and other Islamic sources are secondary sources, and that too, must be in accordance with the Quran. The hadiths are documentations of the sayings and the practices of the Prophet and they are written by people said to be his close companions. You can say the hadiths are very much similar to the Bible, that is, they are written by men. There are thousands of hadiths written, some by his true close companions, some by other people who may not know the Prophet personally but heard of his stories and some by his enemies out to discredit him as a prophet of God. The moral characteristics of the Prophet is well documented in the Quran. For instance, the Prophet, among other things, is, gentle to the people (Quran 3:159), kind, merciful and concern for the people (Quran 9:128), etc. So, if I read a hadith that says the Prophet tortured his enemies, then, I will be wary of that hadith as it does not connect to the characters of the Prophet as described in the Quran. Likewise, the Christians believe the Bible portrays Jesus as a peace-loving man, so, if someone came to you and said Jesus demanded that those who opposed him as their king should be killed in front of him and he quoted Luke 19:27 to prove his point, then, you should be wary of that person’s claim as it does not connect to the characteristics of Jesus as a peace-loving man in the Bible. Can you understand what I am trying to tell you ??

2Acts wrote: But if as you say hadith must be in accordance with the Quran, im sure you are well aware of the dozens of violent verses in the Quran. For example -S 2:190,S2:191, 2:193, S2:216, S4:74, S4:89, S4:95, S 8:60,S 8:65,S 9:14.And don’t give me a defence that these should be viewed in the historical context of the day. Because if you do you that would be saying the Quran is not the absolute Word of God for all times to all people.

Not really, stories from the Quran, the Bible or any other holy scriptures of any faith, SHOULD be viewed in the context of the time, cultures, traditions and practices of the society of that time. If you do not consider these factors, then, you will not be able to spot reality from the perception. For example, Christians believe Jesus was born on December 25 or sometimes in winter time - that’s not a fact but more of a perception as the Bible NEVER stated Jesus was born on December 25 or in winter times. The Bible, however, did give a clue that it cannot be during winter times as the shepherds were out in the fields keeping watch of their flocks at the time Jesus was born (Luke 2:8). If you have considered the weather conditions at that time of the year in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born, then, you should know shepherds never went out to the fields in winter time, which tells us Jesus cannot be born in winter times or December 25. So, the question is, why do Christians still celebrate Christmas on Dec 25 as the birth of Jesus ??

2Acts wrote: Regarding the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament you are partly correct in saying the Old Tes-tament was about God and the New Testament was about Jesus. However what you should know is the link between them in that the Old Testament carried many prophetic verses about the coming Messiah which Jesus fulfilled.

Yes, about the coming Messiah, but NOT about God becoming a man or vice-versa. So, yes, Jesus fulfilled the prophetic verses of a coming prophet/Messiah. The NT, however, used most of the OT verses which only applied to God Almighty and apply them to Jesus too and in doing so, imply that Jesus is God too, which in it's true sense, is blasphemy.

2Acts wrote: In regards to your quoting of Jeremiah your are actually referring to Jeremiah 8.8 which is a common and tired old Muslim argument. Let me explain it to you. It is clear Jeremiah was simply rebuking the scribes for their traditions that led people astray from the word of God.

Well, you can deny but you can’t ignore the significant prophetic meaning of that verse. Jeremiah 8:8 clearly said ““‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”. Likewise, the Christians today think they have the law of the LORD in the Bible, when the lying pen of the scribes (and the translators) has handled it falsely.

2Acts wrote: The preservation of the Word was never at risk Con-sider these points - 1. Other godly men also had copies of the Torah in their possession. Eg. the prophet Daniel. Plus other prophets affirm that the book of Moses was still available during their day.eg. Nehemiah 8:13-14,18. This occurred approximately 430 B.C., nearly 180 years after Jeremi-ah. 2. The Lord Jesus and his followers quoted from the Torah as we know it today and never thought that it was corrupt (cf. Matthew 4:4,7,10; 22:31-32d. 3. Even Jeremiahs enemies knew that the Law could never disappear. Jeremiah 18:18.     4. If you read Jeremiah 36: 1-7, 20-32, 27-32.You will see that If God was capable of restoring the revelation given to Jeremiah after it had been destroyed, then God would also have been capable of restoring the original Torah. 5. Jeremiah said …“ If you do not listen to me and follow MY LAW …. So how could Israel follow the Law, i.e. the Torah, if it had been corrupted? Jeremiah 26:4-6

You seem to be confused between an original and a copy or copies of the original. There will always be one original (that is, it came direct from the divine source) which cannot be altered and there will always be copies of the original which can be altered, depending on the understanding and intention of the scribes tasked to copy the original. So, you are quite right when you said Jeremiah (in Jeremiah 8:8), rebuked, or rather God told Jeremiah, to remand the scribes of their traditions of copying the original and adding their own words to the copy, which was normally done based on their understanding of the original manuscripts or the scribes have other motives, and in doing so, they led the people astray from the true path of God. What we can learn from Jeremiah 8:8 is that, the tradition of editing the original (probably in parts and not in total) was already in practice by the scribes even in the times of Jeremiah. Although we can conclude Jeremiah did remand the scribes, the Bible made no mention that the scribes had truly abandoned their traditions of editing what they are copying from the original. If the scribes had truly abandoned their traditions of editing what they copied, then, today, there would not be questions on the integrity of some of what was in the Bible, such as Matthew 28:19 mentioned earlier.

2Acts wrote: And in your claim that Jesus knew it would be suicidal for only one man to fight a group of armed soldiers and that he ex-pected is nothing but pure conjecture.

You mean to say Jesus did not know that for one man to face a group of trained and armed soldiers would be suicidal ?? You must be thinking Jesus must be as naïve as you. Well, I don’t think Jesus was that naïve as you think he was.

2Acts wrote: I have already proven to you Jesus said to love ones enemies and “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword”. My argument is supported by the words of Jesus. Your argument is nothing but hypothetical conjecture.

Yet he asked his followers to get swords ! Your argument is pretty contradicting, isn’t it ?? And your argument get sillier when you said the reason he asked his disciples to get swords was because he wanted to fulfill a prophecy !! If that’s not hypothetical conjecture, I don’t know what is.

2Acts wrote: If you want conjecture maybe Jesus didn’t want them to pull a sword because he might have dropped it on his foot and they would have to go to hospital but they didn’t have ambulances back then … !

….AND your arguments get sillier by the minutes.

2Acts wrote: Regarding Christian pacifism and the ethics of self defence what you need to realise is “loving ones neighbour” is an ide-al to strive for. Reality will always dictate a practical and reasonable response to aggression. But to have such a high ideal to strive for is honourable and has a moderating influence on society.

Sure. But Jesus considered ‘loving your neighbors’ only as the second important commandment. The first and most important commandment, according to Jesus is, God is One (Mark 12:28-31). If you cannot even get the first and most important commandment right, flapping your lips about ‘love thy neighbors’ really sounded hypocritical.

2Acts wrote: That is something Muslim society would benefit from considering the Muslim world is in such a mess today.

Well, yes, not only the Muslims, but everyone can benefit by adhering to that second most important commandment. However, I don’t think the Muslim world is really in such a mess as in the Christian world involvement in sexual abuse. Here’s some of the recent reported cases:

-In May 2018, the archbishop of Adelaide, South Australia, became the most senior Catholic in the world to be convicted of concealing child sexual abuse

-A man considered the Church's third-ranked official, Vatican treasurer Cardinal George Pell, is due to go on trial in Australia on charges of historical sexual offences, which he denies

-Vatican police arrested a former Holy See diplomat in April 2018 for suspicion of possessing child pornography

-In Chile, 34 Roman Catholic bishops offered to resign in the wake of a child sex scandal and cover-up

2Acts wrote: That You ask what does it tell me when God created hell to put those who sin and transgress in, if they did not seek re-pentance over their sins ? I don’t know. What is it supposed to tell me ?

You don’t know ?? OK, I will tell you. It means God Almighty, although Loving and Merciful, will still punish His servants who sin and do not obey His Laws and who do not repent and seek forgiveness over their sins. It means God Almighty is very practical – He’s Loving, yet firm in His Judgment and punishment, He’s Merciful, yet strict to those who sin and break His Laws. As such, God Almighty would expect man to be practical too in their relationship with their fellow mankind. Yes, you should love and treat one another the same way you want to be loved and treated (love thy neighbors), but, that does not mean you should just smile and watch your loved ones be abused or that you should not defend yourself, even if you are capable to. Christians, in saying ‘Love thy neighbors’, in theory, seems to suggest that but, in practice, they do not practice what they preached. If they do, then, Christian nations such as the US should not have invaded Iraq or killed Ben Laden in retaliation of 9-11 attack. They should have invited Ben Laden and offered their other cheeks for Ben Laden to slapped them, which was what Jesus preached in Luke 6:29, but, that’s not what happened. So, what happen to the 'offer the other cheek' and ‘love thy neighbors’ which Christians love to brag about ??

2Acts wrote: You ask was Isaiah 53:12 prophesying Jesus as a transgressor and therefore to fulfil this prophesy, Jesus instructed his disciples to get swords. Yes that’s it exactly. What’s your problem here ?

Please, stop making yourself sillier than you already are with such comments. True prophesies are not fulfilled intentionally. What that means is that if Isaiah 53:12 was a true prophecy of Jesus Christ be-coming a transgressor, then, Jesus Christ will be a transgressor with-out him having to do anything to fulfill it, or in other words, Jesus be-came a transgressor, not because he planned or wanted to be a transgressor, but, unforseen circumstances will make him a transgressor, if that’s what Isaiah 53:12 had prophesized. If that happened, then, it’s said the prophecy (Isaiah 53:12) was a true prophecy. So, let me ask you this - did that happened ? Was Jesus Christ ever a transgressor in his lifetime on earth ?? If so, how was he a transgressor ?? Guess the problem is more of your problem rather than mine.

2Acts wrote: You state Jesus did not say “My servants would not fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders as he never set an example of fighting to them”. Your use of double negatives and hypo-thetical conjecture doe nothing to mask your logical fallacy of a non Sequitur –(meaning literally, "It does not follow”). Your argument is clumsy and deviates from healthy logic and scripture.

Well, did Jesus say “My servants would not fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders as he never set an example of fighting to them” ?? Obviously, he did not, nor did he even imply that - I know that and you know that too. So, for once, please respond with ‘logical facts’, if you do have any, instead of masking your lack of logical facts by accusing others of “logical fallacy of a non Sequitur”.

2Acts wrote: I have already proven to you through scripture Jesus said to love ones enemies and “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword”.

Are you implying Jesus is someone who would never ask his disciples to get swords as “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword” ?? Yet, not that long ago, you have said Jesus asked his disciples to get swords because he wanted to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12 !! Now, that’s a good example of an argument that is clumsy and deviates from healthy logic and scripture !

2Acts wrote: My argument is supported by scripture while your argument is nothing but hypothetical conjecture and logical fallacies.

You mean like when you claimed Jesus asked his disciples to get swords to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12 ?? I will say that’s the kind of argument which is nothing but hypothetical conjecture and logical fallacies.

2Acts wrote: In conclusion you have improved somewhat in not falling into the trap of logical fallacies but you still do however resort to convoluted riddles as a means of evasion. There is nothing new in what you have to say and my advice to you is don’t just rely on the in-terpretation of your Mullahs and Imams but approach the Bible with an open mind.

Since you are in the mood of giving advice, I hope, you are also in the mood of receiving advice too. So, my advice to you – approach the Bible with a clear mind and read to understand your own Bible without the preconceived mindset that Jesus is God and he came to die for your sins. If you still approach the Bible with that same mindset, then, you will NEVER be able to see that Jesus NEVER claimed nor did he ever imply he’s God or came to die for your sins and nether have God Almighty ever claimed that too on behalf of His servant, Jesus Christ, who is just a prophet – a great and unique prophet, but, nevertheless, still a prophet who only serve and worship the One and Only God Almighty.

jp the unitarian wrote: Hi Jerrymyers first off I am not a trinitarian so we will probably under-stand each other, so I was reading some of going back and forth with a trinitarian, that will be endless I can tell you now because it is of Allah (Yehovah) not by man that they are this way. So as it goes I was read-ing your last part in which you state Yeshua did not come to die for our sins, but as you seem to know the Bible you would know that he did, while this was all said by Yeshua in parables, the explanations by the apostles are clear. John 12:23 And יהושע answered them, saying, “The hour has come for the Son of Aḏam to be esteemed. (TS98) John 12:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit. (TS98) John 12:25 “He who loves his life shall lose it, and he who hates his life in this world shall preserve it for everlasting life. (TS98) John 12:26 “If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me. And where I am, there My servant also shall be. If anyone serves Me, the Father shall value him. (TS98) John 12:27 “Now I Myself am troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this reason I came to this hour. (TS98) John 12:28 “Father, esteem Your Name.” Then a voice came from the heaven, “I have both esteemed it and shall esteem it again.” (TS98) John 12:29 So the crowd who stood by and heard it were saying there had been thunder. Others said, “A messenger has spoken to Him.” (TS98) In this verse John 12:24, Yeshua tells us unless a grain falls into the ground and dies, in other words the grain must die to bear fruit, in this Yeshua speaks of his impending death, as he himself says "what shall I say father save me from this hour" and then continues with " but for this reason I came to this hour", in other words he came to die on the cross, by this he would glorify his father Yehovah. The reason he came is evi-denced by Allah (Yehovah) himself by his speaking from heaven, there is no better evidence then the father himself Allah (Yehovah) speaking out for his son Heb 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself similarly shared in the same, SO THAT BY MEANS OF HIS DEATH HE MIGHT DESTROY HIM HAVING THE POWER OF DEATH, THAT IS, THE DEVIL, (TS98) Heb 2:15 and deliver those who throughout life were held in slavery by fear of death. (TS98) Heb 2:16 For, doubtless, He does not take hold of messengers, but He does take hold of the seed of Aḇraham. (TS98) Heb 2:17 SO IN EVERY WAY HE HAD TO BE MADE LIKE HIS BROTHERS, in order to become a compassionate and trustworthy High Priest in matters related to Elohim, to make atonement for the sins of the people. (TS98) Heb 2:18 For in what He had suffered, Himself being tried, He is able to help those who are tried. (TS98) in hebrews 2:14 It tells us that "so that by means of His death He might destroy him having the power of death, that is, the devil,: In this we can clearly see that it is by means of his death that he rendered the devil powerless (the greek word for this destroy here actually means to rebder idle or useless) and this is what he did By dying as a completely innocent man he died for all because he obeyed Allh (Yehovah) till death on a cross (Phil 2:8). The reason go much further but this the basics, when you understand how this was done you will see Allah's (Yehovah's) wisdom is beyond question.

Hi 'jp the unitarian',

Glad to know you are a Unitarian. Well, at least, you don’t believe Jesus is God or equal to God. Nevertheless, you do believe Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind. If you read the Bible carefully AND without the preconceived mindset that Jesus died for the sins of mankind, you will clearly see that Jesus NEVER did or intended to say he came to die for the sins of mankind nor did he ever said he was crucified and resurrected.

As a Unitarian Christian, I would think, you should, first and foremost, believe in the Words of God, then followed by the teaching of His prophets, and you, like the Muslims, must also believe that a chosen prophet of God would NEVER say or do anything that would be in contradiction to God’s Words or against His Decree.

In Ezekiel 18:20, God told Ezekiel, “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

In Psalm 49:7, we are told “No man can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him”.

Still in Deuteronomy 24:16, we are told “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin”.

In other words, God Almighty had clearly declared no man can sacrifice his life for another man’s sin. If this is so, do you think a faithful servant and a prophet of God like Jesus would think he could sacrifice his life and die for the sins of ALL mankind ?? Obviously not. If Jesus would not go against any Commands or Decree of God, then, obviously, the verses you quoted, such as John 12:24 and John 12:27 are misunderstood or misinterpreted.

The context of John 12:24 is similar to the context of John 15:5. In John 15:5, Jesus talked about the need of his people to be within the guiding circle of his preaching for them to reap (later) rewards (bear fruits) and he used the analogy of the branch and the vine, saying the branch need to remain attached to the vine for it to bear fruits.

Similarly, in John 12:24, Jesus used the analogy of a wheat seed, saying, the seed need to be detached (fall out) from its main stalk in order for it to produce more seeds (bear more fruits). From these 2 analogies, you can begin to see the 2 main criteria, as outlined by Jesus, for one to truly understand and benefit from his teaching – one, his disciples need to constantly remain within his guidance (just as a branch need to be attached to its vine to bear fruits) and second, sacrifices are required by messengers/prophets of God to achieve bigger and greater rewards for mankind (just as a seed need to be detached or fall out, to produce more seeds). Sacrifices here refer to the abuses, persecutions, sufferings, rejections, etc that prophets of God must endure in their quest to bring the message of God to the people and yes, in some cases, they are killed for just preaching the message of God.

Was there anything about ‘Jesus MUST or NEED TO DIE for man’s sin’ in John 12 ?? No, it was only perceived as such because of a preconceived mindset that Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

What about John 12:27 where Jesus said it was for this reason that he came to this hour ?? Well, what ‘reason’ did Jesus come for and find himself in that critical ‘hour’ ?? Obviously, Jesus knew the Jews wanted to get rid of him and thus, he did EXPECT to be arrested, falsely charged and sentence to death. In other words, Jesus expected to be killed and clearly he had accepted his fate, not to his own will but, to the Will of God if that is so, but, was Jesus willing to die ?? Again, obviously not as if that is so, he would not have prayed to God earnestly to save him from his ordeal and he would not have questioned the Jews for wanting to kill him when all he did was preaching the truth from God (John 8:40). So, if Jesus was not willing to die and he questioned the Jews for wanting to kill him, then, what ‘reason’ was Jesus referring to when he said “But for this reason I came to this hour” ?? The obvious ‘reason’ Jesus was referring to was the reason he was sent to the Israelites and that is, to bring them out of their sinning ways and guide them back into the path of eternal life. It’s for this reason, he was abused, persecuted as many saw his preaching and teaching as a threat to their own ways as taught by their fathers and forefathers and so on, and thus, it’s for this reason, Jesus found himself in that ‘hour’.

As for Hebrew 2 verses you quoted, well, those are NOT the Words of God Almighty nor are those the words or the teachings of His prophet, Jesus. So, you should not be believing and accepting the words and teachings of other people without first validating their words/teachings with the Words of God Almighty or the teaching of His prophets like Jesus. Didn’t Jesus say to test all spirits and not to simply accept their words ??