Why Jesus is the only way to God

[Heidi]

God's nature is sinless and so was Christ's. The Muslims even admit this. But Mohammed displayed only human qualities like any worldly leader. Unless the Muslims believe their god is a murderer and pedophile, why would they believe that Mohammed displayed the traits of God? And most of all, why would they believe a sinner over one who was sinless? :o This is beyond any rational thinking.

God by nature is supernatural so why would anyone who claims to be from God not have supernatural qualities?

 

[Agarash]

well if this statement is true

why would they believe that Mohammed displayed the traits of God

then i am also confused with you. but as far as i know, htey only view mohammed as a prophet, like jesus.

And I dot think it doesn't comes down to believing a sinner over a non sinner. For them its the way you were brought up... from little, like so many christians i know also, they are brought up believing what they believe. never questioning those things they were taught.

the only thing we can hope for is that these people start to question their religion, even christians!! question everything, and only the true shall remain. all sin and evil and wrong will perish.

 

[warner]

well if this statement is true

why would they believe that Mohammed displayed the traits of God

then i am also confused with you. but as far as i know, htey only view mohammed as a prophet, like jesus.

And I dot think it doesn't comes down to believing a sinner over a non sinner. For them its the way you were brought up... from little, like so many christians i know also, they are brought up believing what they believe. never questioning those things they were taught.

the only thing we can hope for is that these people start to question their religion, even christians!! question everything, and only the true shall remain. all sin and evil and wrong will perish.

I agree with agarash here that Christians don't question their beleif,the Bible says "prove all things" yet Christians follow blindly.
Peace

 

[Muhsen]

God's nature is sinless and so was Christ's. The Muslims even admit this. But Mohammed displayed only human qualities like any worldly leader. Unless the Muslims believe their god is a murderer and pedophile, why would they believe that Mohammed displayed the traits of God? And most of all, why would they believe a sinner over one who was sinless? :o This is beyond any rational thinking.

God by nature is supernatural so why would anyone who claims to be from God not have supernatural qualities?

You only recognize this quality, God's nature is sinless!!!
What about other qualities

The qualities of God almighty are:
- The true God is creator, not created.
- This true God is one. not three or more ! he has no partners nor equals
- This one true god is invisible, no one can see him in this life .he is not physically manifested or incarnated in other forms
- This one true God is eternal, he does not die or change.
- This one true God is not in need of anyone like food, drink, or help. But others are in need of him.
- This one true God is unique in his attributes, no one is like him. No human or animal descriptions can be attributed to him.

So these are not qualities of Jesus, peace upon him.

 

[Heidi]

well if this statement is true

why would they believe that Mohammed displayed the traits of God

then i am also confused with you. but as far as i know, htey only view mohammed as a prophet, like jesus.

And I dot think it doesn't comes down to believing a sinner over a non sinner. For them its the way you were brought up... from little, like so many christians i know also, they are brought up believing what they believe. never questioning those things they were taught.

the only thing we can hope for is that these people start to question their religion, even christians!! question everything, and only the true shall remain. all sin and evil and wrong will perish.

Sorry, but I was brought up as an atheist and became a Christian when I was 38 years old. So I definitely am capabale of admitting I was wrong! But now that I have received the Holy Spirit I not only know there's a God, but I know exactly who he is! :D

 

[Agarash]

if i may ask, why did you become a christian? there are so many religions.. why christianity...

 

[Heidi]

God's nature is sinless and so was Christ's. The Muslims even admit this. But Mohammed displayed only human qualities like any worldly leader. Unless the Muslims believe their god is a murderer and pedophile, why would they believe that Mohammed displayed the traits of God? And most of all, why would they believe a sinner over one who was sinless? :o This is beyond any rational thinking.

God by nature is supernatural so why would anyone who claims to be from God not have supernatural qualities?

You only recognize this quality, God's nature is sinless!!!
What about other qualities

The qualities of God almighty are:
- The true God is creator, not created.
- This true God is one. not three or more ! he has no partners nor equals
- This one true god is invisible, no one can see him in this life .he is not physically manifested or incarnated in other forms
- This one true God is eternal, he does not die or change.
- This one true God is not in need of anyone like food, drink, or help. But others are in need of him.
- This one true God is unique in his attributes, no one is like him. No human or animal descriptions can be attributed to him.

So these are not qualities of Jesus, peace upon him.

You just described Jesus exactly!! Jesus never said he was greater than His Father. Never! He said God was living in Him. Is God living in Mohammed, Mushen? Or is Mohammed just guessing about God? He thought he was when he said he didn't know if his visions came from God or the devil! Don't you believe Mohammed when he said he wasn't sure? Why not? Was Mohammed lying when he said he wasn't sure? yes or no. Or was he just confused? So if Mohammed himself was confused, then how can his followers not be confused as well? Another guess? Sorry, but I won't gamble my soul on a guess. You can if you like.

 

[Heidi]

What you don't understand, Mushen, is if the core of your religion is based on confusion, then your whole religion is! That's why Jesus said that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Your whole religion is based on the testimony of one man, Mohammed, who was an aggregious sinner. Yet you believe him over a man you consider sinless! That in itself is irrational! Why do you do this? Because other fallible human beings told you to? That is called brainwashing and is not based on rational thinking.

Christianity is based on the testimony of a sinless man. So how can it be false? If you say Jesus wasn't sinless then you are contradicting the Koran. So again, why do you trust a man who was confused about his own visions of allah over one who by the admission of the Koran, never lied? It's absolutely preposterous! There is no justification for this except irrationality. Your choosing Mohammed over Jesus then is deliberately choosing a liar over one who never lied. Mohammed lied because he said that his visions came from both the devil and God which cannot be true. So one of those statements is false.

 

[TheStudent]

no, YOUR christianity is based on the accounts of 4 men who never met jesus. look in your bible and what does it say: The Gospel 'ACCORDING' to matthew, mark, luke and john.

where is the Gospel of Jesus?

and where and when did Muhammed, pbuh, EVER sin? Not once. he lived according to the laws of God. Here is a man that would give away so much that EVERY night after evening prayers he would give away ALL of the money he had to anyone who asked, such was he faith in God. Here was a man who commanded such great wealth and respect that he didnt use it to build a palace, as any other charlatan would, but gave it away to the poor. in a time when muslims were properous , his wives COMPLAINED to him about the poor condition that they lived in. It is reported that in his home was nothing more that a sheepskin rug and a bowl to eat from. His personal secretery who was by his side for 11 years reported that he never ONCE said NO to anyone who asked him of anything. Here was a man who would forgive not only his friends, but his ENEMIES. he even forgave the man who KILLED his beloved UNCLE! this is why Muhammed is called 'The Mercy of mankind'. His mission wasnt to punish or condemn, but to SAVE man from himself. To save man from his sins and to guide us all back to the straight path.

 

[Heidi]

if i may ask, why did you become a christian? there are so many religions.. why christianity...

Because I receieved the Holy Spirit. I had wanted to believe Christianity for years but could not. It didn't make sense to me. Then i asked God to help me. Suddnely it felt like someone had placed a hand on my back, heat rushed from my neck to my toes, and when I opened my eyes, the sun streamed in from the window that it was almost blinding. Now the sun had been there all the time because there wasn't a cloud in the sky, but now it was brilliant. I opened the bible and every word looked crystal clear to me. Ever since then, I understood the bible. And this was not by my own effort because I had wanted to believe it for years, but could not. Ever since that day, I walk by that light and it has never left me. Not once. Being born again of the Holy Spirit opens our eyes so we see the world differently. Again, this was not by my own effort. Then when i read Paul's words about the light he received, it made complete sense to me. I know what the bible means by walking by the light instead of walking in darkness.

So I now know that God is real and what Jesus meant by sending us the Holy Spirit. God isn't just some vague mist in the sky whom people hope exists. He is as real as anything around us. Christianity is the only religion that sends us the Holy Spirit which is why it is the only one from the true God. All other religions are man-made because they do not have this miraculous power from God through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Heidi]

no, YOUR christianity is based on the accounts of 4 men who never met jesus. look in your bible and what does it say: The Gospel 'ACCORDING' to matthew, mark, luke and john.

where is the Gospel of Jesus?

and where and when did Muhammed, pbuh, EVER sin? Not once. he lived according to the laws of God. Here is a man that would give away so much that EVERY night after evening prayers he would give away ALL of the money he had to anyone who asked, such was he faith in God. Here was a man who commanded such great wealth and respect that he didnt use it to build a palace, as any other charlatan would, but gave it away to the poor. in a time when muslims were properous , his wives COMPLAINED to him about the poor condition that they lived in. It is reported that in his home was nothing more that a sheepskin rug and a bowl to eat from. His personal secretery who was by his side for 11 years reported that he never ONCE said NO to anyone who asked him of anything. Here was a man who would forgive not only his friends, but his ENEMIES. he even forgave the man who KILLED his beloved UNCLE! this is why Muhammed is called 'The Mercy of mankind'. His mission wasnt to punish or condemn, but to SAVE man from himself. To save man from his sins and to guide us all back to the straight path.

This argument is as old as Christianity itself. It was also prophesised by Jesus. Johm and Matthew did indeed witness his life & death. John was a disciple himself. Luke was a scribe who wrote down everything the disciples told him, and Mark was an apostle. So who are you that you know better than them? :o

But I'm sure you believe authors of books on Caesar, Alexander the Great and any other historical figure even though these authors wrote down those events hundreds of years later!

 

[Heidi]

And if you are a Muslim, The student, I suggest you read the haddith where Mohammed himself admits he murdered and had sex with a nine years old girl. If you don't consider those sins, then you are no different than what psychiatrists call a sociopath.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Tensions need to drop in this thread. I will lock this thread and hand out warnings if it becomes necessary.

 

[Agarash]

dont worry mod, were just having a nice discussion here...

heidi>>>

that was great to read, what you said. If people only open up their hearts. If only yhey are willing to see the truth.

TheStudent>>>

no, YOUR christianity is based on the accounts of 4 men who never met jesus. look in your bible and what does it say: The Gospel 'ACCORDING' to matthew, mark, luke and john.

well Heidi said it, the gospels were all written by respectable people. who were eye witnesses. and there are a few things you should know on this:

- would you write a book, and preach events on jesus if you know it will cause your death if you know it was false?
- the gospels can be confirmed by NON-BIBLICAL sources who also wrote about jesus. about his life, his crucifixion, the widespread growth of the religion... just about everything was written by non-christians like josephus, pliny the younger... etc.

so i really think if you dispute the validity of the NEW TESTAMENT you are fighting a losing battle, it has been proven that the disciples were sane when they wrote what they did, and there are plenty of sources to back it up.

 

[Muhsen]

What you don't understand, Mushen, is if the core of your religion is based on confusion, then your whole religion is! That's why Jesus said that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Your whole religion is based on the testimony of one man, Mohammed, who was an aggregious sinner. Yet you believe him over a man you consider sinless! That in itself is irrational! Why do you do this? Because other fallible human beings told you to? That is called brainwashing and is not based on rational thinking.

Christianity is based on the testimony of a sinless man. So how can it be false? If you say Jesus wasn't sinless then you are contradicting the Koran. So again, why do you trust a man who was confused about his own visions of allah over one who by the admission of the Koran, never lied? It's absolutely preposterous! There is no justification for this except irrationality. Your choosing Mohammed over Jesus then is deliberately choosing a liar over one who never lied. Mohammed lied because he said that his visions came from both the devil and God which cannot be true. So one of those statements is false.

What you don't understand, Heidi, is the core of your religion is based on polytheism,
And my core religion is based on monotheism, the true message of Jesus, which has been changed by men,

And Mohammed lied because he said that his visions came from both the devil and God which cannot be true..

Don’t think you post this false statement in each post?
Where is your proof I challenge you to prove that.

 

[Agarash]

well friend, you post this also the whole time:

the true message of Jesus, which has been changed by men

. then i must challenge you to prove this also.

 

[Muhsen]

Contradictions and proofs of Historical Corruptions in the Bible:

Read:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac6.htm

 

[Muhsen]

Contradictions Within the Bible

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/Paulianity/contra.html

 

[Agarash]

muhsen>>>

well i dont appreciate reading links that go to links that go to links, i will read those (which by the way reeks with sarcasm and prejudice).. and I hope that you will now also consider to read my posts and links, seeing as this can take an eternity, im only going to talk about the gospel of Mark (for now), so just to recap, you claim that the gospel has been corrupted, and i claim that it is true... (also let me just say that the debate of the new testaments historical accuracy has been fought before, and the winner has always been the bible, so i dont claim to have all the answers, but i will try...)

from your links, it would seem that the only 3 (very old) problems with the gospel of mark is
1. we have no evidence that proves that John Mark was the sole author of this
2. the Gospel has some suspicions in it concerning ONEverse:Mark 16:9-20
3. it was written in the 3rd century by Constantine and his church by their own words


point 1 and point 2
please read:

The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. If this tradition is correct, Mark would have had abundant opportunities to obtain information from Peter and other apostles about Jesus and his ministry. Papias' authority is this was a certain John the Presbyter. While the text of Papias is no longer extant, it was quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea, as follows:

"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."
Even in the brief glimse Eusebius permits, Papias states, once unequivocally, that the Mark he was referring to was a "sayings" gospel, not the narrative that we know: in it, Papius tells, Mark had "no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings." "Deeds" appears in Eusebius' quote that "it was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ."

All this goes to say that we know little of the author of Mark or its geographical origin. The above arguments do suggest that historical Mark and Peter were connected, but question the traditional reasons for assuming that Mark was the actual author of this gospel.

so here we can clearly see that Mark had a close relationship with peter, and had plenty of time to ensure he wrote down precisely what was accurate.

also...

the evidence indicating that the Gospels that we have today are the same as the original texts is overwhelming. 'The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt (Bruce).' Since we do not have the originals, the best way to determine the accuracy of our copies as compared to the original is with the multiplicity of the copies and the length of time between the original and the oldest surviving copy. Having lots of copies allows for cross checking between copies. They may then be determined reliable or unreliable depending on the discrepancies between the copies. The length between the original and the earliest copies also help determine reliability. For example, Homer's Iliad has about six hundred fifty surviving Greek manuscripts. These were copied in the second and third centuries, which places them about nine hundred to a thousand years after they were originally written. A Roman historian by the name of Tacitus wrote The Annals of Imperial Rome around 116 AD, the earliest and only copy is from about 850 AD (Christ 77-78).

In contrast, more than five thousand Greek copies of the original manuscripts have been found, the earliest which date to somewhere between one hundred and one hundred fifty AD!!!!!, which places it between twenty and one hundred years later than the original. Manuscripts in other languages, including Latin, Ethiopian, Slavic, and Armenian, bring the total to about twenty-four thousand manuscripts (Christ 79-81). These copies also contain only a few minor discrepancies. These are so rare and minor that scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix concluded that 'The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other greater book Æ a form that is 99.5 percent pure (qtd. In Christ 85).' 'The textual evidence decisively shows that the Gospels were written and circulated during the lifetime of those who witnessed the events. Since there are so many specific names and places mentioned, eyewitnesses could have easily discredited the writings. The New Testament would have never survived had the facts been inaccurate (Zukeran).'

there are ancient, non-Christian documents supporting the besides the Gospels that supported the Gospels. For example, Josephus, a Jewish historian from the first century, also wrote about Jesus, such as in the following passage called the Testimonium Flavianum:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared (qtd. in Christ 103-104).

While most scholars agree that the phrases 'if indeed one ought to call him a man,' 'He was the Christ,' and 'On the third day he appeared to them restored to life' were inserted by early Christians, the rest is accepted as written by Josephus and plays an important part in buttressing the Gospels as a corroboration by a non-Christian.

There is also an extremely important piece by the Roman historian Tacticus, which helps confirm another basic premise in the Gospels.

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of the hatred of mankind (quoted in Christ 107-108).

Not only does this state that Nero persecuted Christians for the fire that he started in Rome, but it also confirms the crucifixion story.

point 3 (this is applicable to the entire bible, not only mark)
i find this argument very weak...YOUR own links only mentions this as "highly probable" and "may have been" .. there is no proof for this, so that it why it is considered not being a fact. but a theory. the theory is based on the authors referring to themselves as "HE" and not "ME" for example: these people say that

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

. do the theory is why did matthew refer to himself as "HE" and not "ME" .. common.. this argument is so weak i dent even know why i am wasting my time on this.

so my friend, i can go on and on and on... and you must ask yourself this one.. ONE VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION:does all the information i have that taught me that the bible is corrupted really hold value??? this is very important. please Muhsen.. truly ask yourself this question. those links you post really have arguments that are so old...its been debated so many times and the bottom line has always been this:

does this information i have which states the bible is corrupted really hold value??does it really prove that the message of a jesus, the messiah...really changed?

peace

 

[warner]

dont worry mod, were just having a nice discussion here...

heidi>>>

that was great to read, what you said. If people only open up their hearts. If only yhey are willing to see the truth.

TheStudent>>>

no, YOUR christianity is based on the accounts of 4 men who never met jesus. look in your bible and what does it say: The Gospel 'ACCORDING' to matthew, mark, luke and john.

well Heidi said it, the gospels were all written by respectable people. who were eye witnesses. and there are a few things you should know on this:

- would you write a book, and preach events on jesus if you know it will cause your death if you know it was false?
- the gospels can be confirmed by NON-BIBLICAL sources who also wrote about jesus. about his life, his crucifixion, the widespread growth of the religion... just about everything was written by non-christians like josephus, pliny the younger... etc.

so i really think if you dispute the validity of the NEW TESTAMENT you are fighting a losing battle, it has been proven that the disciples were sane when they wrote what they did, and there are plenty of sources to back it up.

Hello Agarash,
I am afraid i will have to disagree with you over this.There has been controversy over who the Gospel authors really were. John was not the the disciple who jesus Loved, there are concerns that his Gospel was Written by John mark the same person who wrote the Gopsel of Mark under a different name. Some of your answers lie in the Bible commentaries and footnotes themselves.May be a read will help clear some confusion there mate.The Gospel of mark had been added to, Older manuscripts have revealed that 11 verses from Mark 16 were not in the Original and were later additions. Read this:They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

Luke was Paul's friend and scribe.

Read what the New advent Encyclodia says:

IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT

No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author--all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies.

there are loads of others , too.
Take a deeper look at this, you will see , i can provide you more evidence if required.
Peace