Are Muslims okay with Muhammed actions?

[Scardinoz]

Somebody raised an important issue earlier in this thread. The point is significant for Christians but I’m not sure how significant it will be form Muslims. If our Islamic guests will humor us for a moment, this is a key note for Christians to consider.

Matthew Chapter 7, Verses 15-20 - The words of our Lord, Jesus Christ

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Galations Chapter 5, Verses 22-23 tells us…

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

The fruit of the spirit are explained in scripture as being:
love
joy
peace
longsuffering
gentleness
goodness
faith
meekness
temperance

Using the Bible as our reference, which of these 9 fruit did our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus, produce? Now, using the Quran as our reference, which of these nine fruit did the self-proclaimed prophet bear?

 

[planten]

Then you just admitted willful ignorance of the subject you’re discussing. If I had mentioned at any point during these debates, “I did not study the Koran because I am not a Muslim,” every Muslim on this forum would be all over me and lose every respect for my opinion. And they’d have every right to. You don’t enter a debate and then admit that you didn’t study the topic you’re arguing against.

Read patristics. Also, people say God is a mystery because we cannot fully understand God - no one can. Even Jews and Muslims believe this, so I do not understand why Muslims keep bringing this up as if it were weird theology.

When christians do not understand Trinity themselves, why do you blame us? The Christians admitted that it was difficult to explain Trinity. So why have such a complex formula in your bag? Religion should be simple.

I’m sorry, but you’re presenting misguided exegesis. Christ’s use of “I AM” (or the original Greek ego eimi) is a direct reference to God’s use of " I AM" to Moses in Exodus 3:14. It was a reference to God’s eternal nature - God is never “was” but only “is,” because He has always existed. This is why Christ says, “Before Abraham was…” then jumps to the present tense. BEFORE Abraham was, I am. Not THEN Abraham was, now I am, as you wrongfully propose, but BEFORE Abraham was. If you study the original Greek, the language is especially clear. Christ is speaking of His existence before Abraham was, and uses a title that before had solely been used by God. Either Christ was divine, or He needed to study His grammar again.

**That is also unbelievable. Jesus said “I AM”. Is that good?? Why he did not tell what he meant?? If he had said “I am God” or “I am son of God” then it would have been meaningful. I cannot allow you take whatever meaning you like out of meaningless sentences of the bible. Ask any one about “I AM”. Does it mean anything?? I cannot allow you have undue and unlimited liberty with words.

I know you will run to bibleOT for some similar words there. But that means nothing. Those words were not to be used for Jesus. B W I cannot believe what you are trying to teach. Pardon me. Your case is weak.**

Also, please respond to the other passages I presented, which you’ve ignored.

Your post must have been extra ordinarily long. I could not reply in one go. You please present your case again, one piece in one post. I will try to reply.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I was curious to find out if Muslims are actually comfortable with how Muhammed behaved himself. I know that there are quite a lot of Muslims that devout themselves to God. Which I highly respect, really…I do. I don`t believe every Muslim is a terrorist, but I am eager to see if these God-fearing Muslims actually justify Mohammeds actions. So let me ask you the questions.

Do you really believe it was okay for Mohammed to have a relationship with a 6 year old girl while he was 51?! And, do you believe it was okay for him to have sexual intercourse when she was 9 while he was 53?! A lot of you are complaining about the mystery of The Holy Trinity but I know that none of you would be okay if your 6 year old niece, cousin, sister, was going to to undergo a relationship with an over aged man. Some of you ** actually ** think it was common for older men to marry younger wives. But let me stress that there is a huge difference between a 14 year old marring a 30 old then a 53 sleeping with someone who is still entertained with playing barbie dolls. Just like how there is a difference nowadays if a 16 year old goes out with a 10 year old and a 26 year goes out with a 20 year old. So, can you please answer me honestly. Do you really believe its okay for a 53 year old to take a 9 year old as a wife?

What about the killing that Mohammed participated in. Did he not kill unjustly. Did he not hate the Jews? I mean, I will be honest, I have no evidence of such crimes but its because I have done no research. But hearing from other non-Muslims its pretty clear that Mohammed isnt somebody that you want to bearound if youre not on his side. I also see lack of Muslims defending his actions. They just point to the OT and think you can compare the wars that happened during THAT time to Mohammeds unlawful actions. There is a muslim woman on this forum who spends a lot of time studying Islam, but when she was challenged to debate on Mohammeds behaviour, she litterly backed out and said “it will be a waste of time”. So come on Muslims, let uss be honest here: Was Mohammed really a peacfull person? If you love Islam because it expresses peace, then youre my brother and sister. But how come Mohammed didnt do the things what you guys claim Islam is, a peacful religion?

Was he married to the girl? Yes. What age is okay to enter into marriage? Tell me what God says about it. Granted, in my lifetime this sounds very very sick.

Perhaps you will be sick when you look up the age of consent Vatican State has. Still trying to figure out who is having sex there at 12 years of age anyway, that does not even have to be married either…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

When christians do not understand Trinity themselves, why do you blame us? The Christians admitted that it was difficult to explain Trinity. So why have such a complex formula in your bag? Religion should be simple

Christians who do not understand their faith’s doctrines are just as bad as Muslims who do not understand their faith’s doctrines - that’s neither here nor there. My point is, you continually criticize the Trinity and Christian belief on this forum, then admit that you don’t even study it, with the excuse, “Well I’m not Christian.” You’ve basically shown everyone here that you do not respect them enough to try to even have an equal understanding of what they believe.

That is also unbelievable. Jesus said “I AM”. Is that good?? Why he did not tell what he meant?? If he had said “I am God” or “I am son of God” then it would have been meaningful. I cannot allow you take whatever meaning you like out of meaningless sentences of the bible. Ask any one about “I AM”. Does it mean anything?? I cannot allow you have undue and unlimited liberty with words.

What is meaningful about Christ’s use of “I AM”? Well planten, with all due respect, you seem to be the only one who doesn’t get it. Christ understood it, that’s why (as I pointed out in my post) the language He used was precise: “BEFORE Abraham was” (as in before Abraham existed) “I AM” (as in I existed). The ancient Jews understood it, that’s why they tried to stone Him - He had used the name of God, applied God’s eternal nature to Himself, and suggested divinity. Every Christian understands that and realizes the importance of that passage. The only people who do not get it are those with willful ignorance.

Also you’re using a common Muslim strawman: “Did Jesus ever say He was God?” This is a logical fallacy that falls flat on its face. First, it presents a false dilemma where it invents a situation (Jesus has to say the exact words, “I am God”) and demands we prove it. Second, it can be used against itself: Jesus may have never said, “I am God,” but neither did He say, “I am just a prophet,” nor “I am the Messiah.” So, by a Muslim’s own argumentation, Jesus is neither God, Messiah, nor Prophet! Third, a person doesn’t have to make a statement to prove a trait of theirs is true - this would be like saying, “I won’t believe Hitler was racist unless someone can quote him saying, ‘I am racist’!” Likewise, if I made the statement, “I am God,” that would not make it true, nor would it mean you would have to worship me. As I said, it’s a silly logical fallacy that may work when you’re speaking to other Muslims, but falls flat on its face in serious debate with non-Muslims.

But if you’re looking for a situation where Jesus is identified as the “Son of God,” I can provide scripture for you:

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." [Matthew 16:15-17]

And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said…” [Matthew 26:63-64]

Notice that in the first passage Jesus doesn’t say to Peter, “Don’t call me that!” Neither when He’s being interviewed by the high priests does He reply, “Uh, no, I’m NOT the Son of God.” He accepted the title “Son of God.” He accepted it. Therefore you have your evidence of that. Congratulations, sir.

Your post must have been extra ordinarily long. I could not reply in one go. You please present your case again, one piece in one post. I will try to reply.

Careful on how many times you use the “your post was too long” excuse. Remember your options are always: 1) go to the previous page, highlight the passages cited, then copy and paste them to your post; 2) follow my previous advice of shortening your quoted sections or leaving them out for the sake of space; 3) respond with another post. But for the sake of discussion I will quote the passages again:

Now Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met Him, but Mary was sitting in the house. Now Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die…” [John 11:20-26]

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. [John 17:5]

Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.” [Matthew 9:2]

In the latter passage, Christ gets in trouble by the pharisees, since only God can forgive sins. Mohammad would agree with this, since he taught a dua that asked God for forgiveness, for only God can forgive sins. Therefore, according to both the pharisees and Mohammad, if Jesus was merely a man, he was also a great sinner.

 

[seraphime2008]

When christians do not understand Trinity themselves, why do you blame us? The Christians admitted that it was difficult to explain Trinity. So why have such a complex formula in your bag? Religion should be simple.

Under whose criteria that religion should be simple? Do you mean understanding God should be simple? How are you coming to such lazy attitude? Even you live a 500 year of time, you wouldn’t understand completely all the mystery of God. You assume that by Muslim understanding that Koran was put in “simple” manner, that would also mean that understanding God should be simple…Then you’re putting yourself as an arrogant in front of God yourself! Beware that you’ll be tested in your life time! I myself am not sure that you comprehend your concept of oneness of God. Is God a being that flying all over the atmosphere perhaps? What? Have you really met Him in person that you think you know Him?

That is also unbelievable. Jesus said “I AM”. Is that good?? Why he did not tell what he meant?? If he had said “I am God” or “I am son of God” then it would have been meaningful. I cannot allow you take whatever meaning you like out of meaningless sentences of the bible. Ask any one about “I AM”. Does it mean anything?? I cannot allow you have undue and unlimited liberty with words.

I know you will run to bibleOT for some similar words there. But that means nothing. Those words were not to be used for Jesus. B W I cannot believe what you are trying to teach. Pardon me. Your case is weak.

Look up in the Bible and read carefully, if you’re honest then you’ll find out.
*Mat 11:27 "All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. *

*Mat 12:8 “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” *

*Mar 9:7 And a cloud came and overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!”
Mar 9:8 Suddenly, when they had looked around, they saw no one anymore, but only Jesus with themselves. *

*Mar 14:61 But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
Mar 14:62 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” *

*Joh 10:30 “I and My Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods’?”
Joh 10:35 "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
Joh 10:36 "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming’, because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Joh 10:37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
Joh 10:38 “but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Joh 14:7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
Joh 14:8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
*

And here’s some other verses that Jesus gospel had to be spread all over the nation, not only to Jews, as you think:

*Mar 14:9 “Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”
*

*Mar 13:10 "And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. *

*Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
*

And if you still don’t get it, I am sorry, you’re just one depicted as having eyes but doesn’t see, having ear but doens’t hear.
I can only pray that you will be free from all things hindering you to see the truth.

 

[elwill]

Under whose criteria that religion should be simple? Do you mean understanding God should be simple? How are you coming to such lazy attitude? Even you live a 500 year of time, you wouldn’t understand completely all the mystery of God. You assume that by Muslim understanding that Koran was put in “simple” manner, that would also mean that understanding God should be simple…Then you’re putting yourself as an arrogant in front of God yourself! Beware that you’ll be tested in your life time! I myself am not sure that you comprehend your concept of oneness of God. Is God a being that flying all over the atmosphere perhaps? What? Have you really met Him in person that you think you know Him?

Look up in the Bible and read carefully, if you’re honest then you’ll find out.
*Mat 11:27 "All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. *

*Mat 12:8 “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” *

*Mar 9:7 And a cloud came and overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!”
Mar 9:8 Suddenly, when they had looked around, they saw no one anymore, but only Jesus with themselves. *

*Mar 14:61 But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
Mar 14:62 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” *

*Joh 10:30 “I and My Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods’?”
Joh 10:35 "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
Joh 10:36 "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming’, because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Joh 10:37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
Joh 10:38 “but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Joh 14:7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
Joh 14:8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
*

And here’s some other verses that Jesus gospel had to be spread all over the nation, not only to Jews, as you think:

*Mar 14:9 “Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”
*

*Mar 13:10 "And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. *

*Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
*

And if you still don’t get it, I am sorry, you’re just one depicted as having eyes but doesn’t see, having ear but doens’t hear.
I can only pray that you will be free from all things hindering you to see the truth.

you have to understand the complexity which we see in christianity
for example
Jesus clearly gave evidence of a limitation on his knowledge when he said,
“but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32 and Matt 24:36)

so how jesus is God while his knowldege is limited ?
and how he said that the father only knows that day while he and the father are the same one God as christians believe

how you believe that jesus is the God while he says
“Verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seethe the Father do…” (John 5:19)
please define for me the trinity according to this vese if you can

Again he said, “I can of mine own self do nothing: As I hear I judge, and my judgment is just because I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which has sent me.” (John 5:30)
who is the father and who is the son , absolutely they are two different identity , yet christians believes that they are one which make it impossible to understand such verses

is God have a God ! why then he said “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46)
or may be he forgot that he himself the God who sent himself to torture himself by his creature , so that he can give himself the right to forgive them for the sin of thier father , as for in his view someone must to be punished , so that he punished himself or his son because he loves his creature , what a nonsense

i think that i need alot of prayers from you to see the christianity as the truth , as for someone need not his mind in this case

 

[seraphime2008]

you have to understand the complexity which we see in christianity
for example
Jesus clearly gave evidence of a limitation on his knowledge when he said,
“but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32 and Matt 24:36)

so how jesus is God while his knowldege is limited ?
and how he said that the father only knows that day while he and the father are the same one God as christians believe

That’s why I said that understanding God is not as simple as opening a book and read the whole content and nod your head…Who ever said that, that’s why perceiving God is not that simple as you want to put it…you yourself who wants to get simple easy to digest answer who wants to have a satisfying answer according to your own pre-conception.

As we keep repeating ourselves here, the Trinity is our understanding that God in one but have three different personalities. As what you asked about the Final Day, why Jesus as the God the Son didn’t know the answer, I think I will just reply as my own understanding not as the person of authority of course: The time will always be a secret for us human, if Jesus said that He knew and all the people then keep asking and that it should be revealed as well as information in the Bible, then you will not be prepared, you will just rely on that date…and it’s not good for the soul. Don’t you think? Imagine what will happen in this world if Jesus ever mentioned that!
My other belief is that human being will also actively take part in making that time comes!

As for the rest of your questions…I think it’s been answered else where, and this has becoming out of topic, try new thread . This is about Muhammad’s action. Stay focus!

 

[koranist]

Herbert Berg-PhD

*Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur’an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra’y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur’an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths.These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra’y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra’y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too “found” hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools’ founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that “where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses.”

In summary, Goldziher sees in hadiths “a battlefield of the political and dynastic conflicts of the first few centuries of Islam; it is a mirror of the aspirations of various parties, each of which wants to make the Prophet himself their witness and authority.” Likewise,

Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever field. What we learnt about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law, dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra’y or hawa, every sunna and bid`a has sought and found expression in the form of hadith.

And even though Muslim traditionalists developed elaborate means to scrutinize the mass of traditions that were then extant in the Muslim lands, they were “able to exclude only part of the most obvious falsifications from the hadith material.” Goldziher, for all his scepticism, accepted that the practice of preserving hadiths was authentic and that some hadiths were likely to be authentic. However, having said that, Goldziher is adamant in maintaining that:

In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation immediately following the Prophet’s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections.

Schacht asserts that hadiths, particularly from Muhammad, did not form, together with the Qur’an, the original bases of Islamic law and jurisprudence as is traditionally assumed. Rather, hadiths were an innovation begun after some of the legal foundation had already been built. “The ancient schools of law shared the old concept of sunna or ‘living tradition’ as the ideal practice of the community, expressed in the accepted doctrine of the school.” And this ideal practice was embodied in various forms, but certainly not exclusively in the hadiths from the Prophet. Schacht argues that it was not until al-Shafii that ‘sunna’ was exclusively identified with the contents of hadiths from the Prophet to which he gave, not for the first time, but for the first time consistently, overriding authority. Al-Shafii argued that even a single, isolated hadith going back to Muhammad, assuming its isnad is not suspect, takes precedence over the opinions and arguments of any and all Companions, Successors, and later authorities. Schacht notes that:

Two generations before Shafii reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafii to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.

Based on these conclusions, Schacht offers the following schema of the growth of legal hadiths. The ancient schools of law had a ‘living tradition’ (sunna) which was largely based on individual reasoning (ra’y). Later this sunna came to be associated with and attributed to the earlier generations of the Successors and Companions. Later still, hadiths with isnads extending back to Muhammad came into circulation by traditionists towards the middle of the second century. Finally, the efforts of al-Shafi`i and other traditionists secured for these hadiths from the Prophet supreme authority*.

Only the Koran speaks.

 

[planten]

Seraphime, your post #991 is too long. I will reply to your first point only against the idea that religion should be simple. You do not like that religion should be easy to understand.

Seraphime wrote: Under whose criteria that religion should be simple? Do you mean understanding God should be simple? How are you coming to such lazy attitude? Even you live a 500 year of time, you wouldn’t understand completely all the mystery of God. You assume that by Muslim understanding that Koran was put in “simple” manner, that would also mean that understanding God should be simple…Then you’re putting yourself as an arrogant in front of God yourself! Beware that you’ll be tested in your life time! I myself am not sure that you comprehend your concept of oneness of God. Is God a being that flying all over the atmosphere perhaps? What? Have you really met Him in person that you think you know Him?

** I am again requesting you to make religion simple for all people to understand. Do not please involve people into mystries like Trinity that there are three gods yet One God. I am quite well and I would request you also not to try to do any Ph.D. in theology.

I can understand about the Unity of God that God is One. That is the truth and that is the end of it. It is good for you too because you also finally return to One God only. Elwill had explained different things to you very well from the verses of the bible that The God and Jesus are not one. When Jesus says “father and I are one”, that is metaphorical. Not real and literal. All the other good words of Jesus that you posted are quite good with us. No harm. But please do not take the words “Son” and “father” as literal.

Remember that Jesus was just a messenger to the people of Israel. He was sent. The one who is sent is a messenger.

I know that when it comes to the brothers of Jesus you do not take that literally and do not admit that there were any brothers of Jesus. I hope you understand. In future if you have any problem, please come with one problem at a time. If you want to teach me something from the bibleNT then present one things at a time. Not a whole lot. That won’t help you (won’t help me too.)**

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

so how jesus is God while his knowldege is limited ?..please define for me the trinity according to this vese if you can

You are misunderstanding the roles within the Trinity: the Father sends out, the Son blesses, the Holy Spirit sanctifies. It was the Word of God, the Son, Who was incarnated in the flesh and humbled Himself so that we could be glorified with God again.

is God have a God ! why then he said “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46)

Christ was quoting Psalm 22. Read the whole psalm - it’s a Messianic prophesy. The very first verse may surprise you

or may be he forgot that he himself the God who sent himself to torture himself by his creature , so that he can give himself the right to forgive them for the sin of thier father , as for in his view someone must to be punished , so that he punished himself or his son because he loves his creature , what a nonsense

He was the sacrificial lamb sent to bless the people of their sins through one final sacrifice, and to unite them with God after they had been separated in the Fall of Man. I also find it a bit sad that you find self-sacrifice for other people to be “nonsense.” As Christ said, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11), and “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 15:13).

I am again requesting you to make religion simple for all people to understand. Do not please involve people into mystries like Trinity that there are three gods yet One God. I am quite well and I would request you also not to try to do any Ph.D. in theology.

The Trinity IS easy to understand: One Being of God revealed through three Persons united by one Essence. Christians have believed this since the apostolic period because of the revelation shown in the New Testament. They didn’t just say, “Well I don’t fully understand that, so I’m gonna throw it out.” The only people who do not understand it are those who choose to ignore the explanations given to them and just keep repeating “I don’t get it!” over and over again.

I can understand about the Unity of God that God is One. That is the truth and that is the end of it. It is good for you too because you also finally return to One God only. Elwill had explained different things to you very well from the verses of the bible that The God and Jesus are not one. When Jesus says “father and I are one”, that is metaphorical. Not real and literal. All the other good words of Jesus that you posted are quite good with us. No harm. But please do not take the words “Son” and “father” as literal.

Very well, let me ask a question: would Mohammad have ever said “I and Allah are one”? Would a Muslim ever be allowed to call Allah their Father, let alone to say, “I and the Father are one”? I am a bit confused by Muslim apologetics because they denounce any idea that God would have a Son, then seem to not mind Christ calling God His Father nor letting Himself be known as God’s Son, saying it’s metaphorical.

Remember that Jesus was just a messenger to the people of Israel. He was sent. The one who is sent is a messenger.

Christ mentioned He was sent to the lost sheep of Israel during His earthly ministry. However, as Christ Himself said, it was destined for his ministry to expand to the entire world.

Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. [Matthew 21:43]

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. [Matthew 28:19-20; emphasis mine]

While we’re on the subjects of passages, I’ll repeat the ones I gave in my post at the end of the previous page - a post which you seem to have completely ignored Again, please explain to me what prophet or mere messenger would talk in such a fashion:

Now Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met Him, but Mary was sitting in the house. Now Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die…” [John 11:20-26]

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. [John 17:5]

I have never known any simple “Messenger” to have spoken this way about themselves, or in relation to God.

Also, one more thing…

Seraphime, your post #991 is too long.

Stop complaining about posts being too long. No one cares, and everyone knows that you use it as an excuse to avoid certain arguments. Either do what everyone else does to handle the post-size limit, or stop bringing it up.

 

[elwill]

You are misunderstanding the roles within the Trinity: the Father sends out, the Son blesses, the Holy Spirit sanctifies. It was the Word of God, the Son, Who was incarnated in the flesh and humbled Himself so that we could be glorified with God again.

what is the relation between Jesus and the father ? are they the same one , or two different persons
will we see one God in the hearafter or will we see jesus separated than father ?

when God incarnated in flesh of jesus , was the father in heavin separated than the one inside jesus ? does that mean that God divided himeslf into two parts or it was he himself is in earth?

Christ was quoting Psalm 22. Read the whole psalm - it’s a Messianic prophesy. The very first verse may surprise you

wow , you are right , then may be he was quoting it

what about this one ? was he quoting from OT either ?
“O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt.” (Matt 26:36-39)

He was the sacrificial lamb sent to bless the people of their sins through one final sacrifice, and to unite them with God after they had been separated in the Fall of Man. I also find it a bit sad that you find self-sacrifice for other people to be “nonsense.” As Christ said, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11), and “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 15:13).

what is nosense to me is that God was very angry from adam and all his sons because he disobeyed him and ate from forbidden tree , and because God is love and full of mercy he sent his son to be punished instead of adam and his innocent sons , then after that sacrifice , the people can disobey him as for he will be not anger anymore from thier sins because he allready punished his innocent son and forgave all humankind sins

The Trinity IS easy to understand: One Being of God revealed through three Persons united by one Essence. Christians have believed this since the apostolic period because of the revelation shown in the New Testament. They didn’t just say, “Well I don’t fully understand that, so I’m gonna throw it out.” The only people who do not understand it are those who choose to ignore the explanations given to them and just keep repeating “I don’t get it!” over and over again.

the problem is that jesus himself never preached the trinity or explained it

Very well, let me ask a question: would Mohammad have ever said “I and Allah are one”? Would a Muslim ever be allowed to call Allah their Father, let alone to say, “I and the Father are one”? I am a bit confused by Muslim apologetics because they denounce any idea that God would have a Son, then seem to not mind Christ calling God His Father nor letting Himself be known as God’s Son, saying it’s metaphorical.

many people and many prophets called God " father" and many people named in the bible as a sons of God and children of God

**One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." **
Ephesians 4:6

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.”
John 17:20-22

so , jesus said " I and my father are one "
here he says " they all may be one " , what he meant ?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

what is the relation between Jesus and the father ? are they the same one , or two different persons
will we see one God in the hearafter or will we see jesus separated than father ?
when God incarnated in flesh of jesus , was the father in heavin separated than the one inside jesus ? does that mean that God divided himeslf into two parts or it was he himself is in earth?

Excellent questions

None in the Trinity can be separated. Each individual Person in the Trinity represents the fullness of God. They are united by a common Essence and Substance (something the Arians protested). They are not separate like you and I are separate beings, but are united in their threeness (which is what the word Trinity means: unity in three). Perhaps one way to explain this is God’s omnipresence: God is everywhere at all times - thus in the Trinity, it is possible for Him to be on earth as He could be in heaven.

wow , you are right , then may be he was quoting it

what about this one ? was he quoting from OT either ? [Matt 26:36-39]

No, not to my knowledge. What was going on here was a revelation of the hypostatic union, which I’ve discussed before: Christ was both fully human and fully divine, with a human will and nature and a divine will and nature. What we see here is a beautiful illustration of that: Christ’s human nature, sensing His oncoming death from His divine nature, seeks through His human will to escape from the pain and torture to come; yet His divine will submits itself to the Father.

One thing I often compliment Muslims on is that they have a better understanding of saying “God willing” (insha’allah) regarding matters than most Christians do. Everything we do is according to God’s will, and only by His will is anything done. This is one of the things that Christ showed us in the garden.

what is nosense to me is that God was very angry from adam and all his sons because he disobeyed him and ate from forbidden tree , and because God is love and full of mercy he sent his son to be punished instead of adam and his innocent sons , then after that sacrifice , the people can disobey him as for he will be not anger anymore from thier sins because he allready punished his innocent son and forgave all humankind sins

I may be misreading this (and I apologize if I am, it’s not intentional) but I think you are speaking about Original Sin? Well, you are speaking to an Orthodox - we do not believe in Original Sin but Ancestral Sin, which says we did not inherit Adam’s guilt but his sinful nature, ie. his will to disobey God. I’m pretty certain Muslims believe this as well.

Remember that, according to the Law, the Jews made sacrifices in the Temple. The sacrifices forgave their sins, but they still had to be loyal to the commandments. Christ’s sacrifice was for us all, and once and for all - the sacrifices of the Temple would not longer be necessary. Christians are also expected to be faithful. Christ’s sacrifice was to open the way for forgiveness and to purify us of our sins. The doctrine of solo fide (a distortion of the Reformed teaching of sola fide), which teaches all you need to do is believe and you’re good, is a distortion of what Christ taught, and I wouldn’t blame Muslims for being disgusted by it.

the problem is that jesus himself never preached the trinity or explained it

He didn’t have to - it was revealed at His Baptism and His Transfiguration. In both situations we hear the Father, see the Son, and find the Holy Spirit (in one instance in the dove, in the next a mist that envelops the disciples).

many people and many prophets called God " father" and many people named in the bible as a sons of God and children of God

Any Muslim ones? Would Mohammad had called Allah “father,” and would it be all right if a Muslim praying in the mosque referred to Allah as “father”? That’s what I’m curious about, because, as I said, in most of Islam there is a very staunch opposition to referring to God in family names. Incidentally, who referred to God as “father” in the OT? I know David did in prayers, especially in the Psalms, but these were, in fact, Messianic prophecies.

[Ephesians 4:6 quoted]

If you wish to quote Paul, you should review his use of an ancient Jewish prayer:

Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. [1 Cor 8:6]

Paul, who you must remember used to be a devout Jew, is quoting the Shema, an early Jewish creed of faith that included these words from Deuteronomy 6:4 which said “the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Paul explains the divinity of Christ using a prayer that every Jew at the time would have recognized: We do have one God and one Lord: one God, the Father, and one Lord, the Son, Jesus Christ.

[John 17:20-22 quoted]

so , jesus said " I and my father are one "
here he says " they all may be one " , what he meant ?

Christ was referring to His followers being one in mind, body and spirit. He was also referring to what the Orthodox call theosis, which is sometimes badly translated as “deification,” making it sound like the Orthodox believe what the Mormons do, which is we can all become gods. The doctrine of theosis was best explained by Saint Athanasius, who said (and pay very close attention to the words so you don’t misunderstand): “God became man so that man may become God…we are as God by imitation, not by nature.” In other words, by taking human flesh and breaking the gates of hell with a sinless nature, Christ redeemed us and permitted us to return to union with the Father, as we had at the beginning before the Fall of Man.

 

[elwill]

Excellent questions
None in the Trinity can be separated. Each individual Person in the Trinity represents the fullness of God. They are united by a common Essence and Substance (something the Arians protested). They are not separate like you and I are separate beings, but are united in their threeness (which is what the word Trinity means: unity in three). Perhaps one way to explain this is God’s omnipresence: God is everywhere at all times - thus in the Trinity, it is possible for Him to be on earth as He could be in heaven.

if all of them are represents the fulness of God , why then juses said that his father is greater than him and why his knowledge is limited . i can accept that the father represents the fulness of God , not jesus nor the holy spirit . unless if you have another defination for the " fulness of God"
by the way : fulness of God mean to me omniscient , in the case if you have another defination i hope you inform me

you didn’t tell me : will we see the son and the father separatly in hearafter or will we see him in his human nature only or will we see him in his divine nature only , the answer of this question will help me to understand your view more clear

No, not to my knowledge. What was going on here was a revelation of the hypostatic union, which I’ve discussed before: Christ was both fully human and fully divine, with a human will and nature and a divine will and nature. What we see here is a beautiful illustration of that: Christ’s human nature, sensing His oncoming death from His divine nature, seeks through His human will to escape from the pain and torture to come; yet His divine will submits itself to the Father.

well , but while God in his human nature according to christianity , he never asked his followers to worship him rather he always asked them to worship the father who sent him . and this is my religion in the fact , muslims worship only the father part of trinity
look , if someone said to you that God have cow nature (glory be to him ) , you will consider it great blasphemy .
it’s the same feeling we have when you say that God have human nature .
i just trying to transmit our view honestly

One thing I often compliment Muslims on is that they have a better understanding of saying “God willing” (insha’allah) regarding matters than most Christians do. Everything we do is according to God’s will, and only by His will is anything done. This is one of the things that Christ showed us in the garden.

i agree with you , my point is that this behaviour from jesus just show me that he wasn’t a God and never act as a God and never said " i am the God but in the human nature "

I may be misreading this (and I apologize if I am, it’s not intentional) but I think you are speaking about Original Sin? Well, you are speaking to an Orthodox - we do not believe in Original Sin but Ancestral Sin, which says we did not inherit Adam’s guilt but his sinful nature, ie. his will to disobey God. I’m pretty certain Muslims believe this as well.

i have limitted knowledge about the differes between the sects , so thank you for clarify this difference to me
anyway i’m agree with you that the sinfull nature is exist in human
but in islam the sins just need repentence with rightious deeds to be removed , it dosn’t need blood or sacrifices

Remember that, according to the Law, the Jews made sacrifices in the Temple. The sacrifices forgave their sins, but they still had to be loyal to the commandments. Christ’s sacrifice was for us all, and once and for all - the sacrifices of the Temple would not longer be necessary. Christians are also expected to be faithful. Christ’s sacrifice was to open the way for forgiveness and to purify us of our sins. The doctrine of solo fide (a distortion of the Reformed teaching of sola fide), which teaches all you need to do is believe and you’re good, is a distortion of what Christ taught, and I wouldn’t blame Muslims for being disgusted by it.

my problem isn’t about sacrifice of people for God , my problem is with sacrifice of God for himself

He didn’t have to - it was revealed at His Baptism and His Transfiguration. In both situations we hear the Father, see the Son, and find the Holy Spirit (in one instance in the dove, in the next a mist that envelops the disciples).

what do you mean by he didn’t have to explain trinity for them ? , are you mean that it was very clear to all his followers that he is the God in human nature ? do you mean that trinity was allready known to them during the life of jesus

 

[elwill]

Any Muslim ones? Would Mohammad had called Allah “father,” and would it be all right if a Muslim praying in the mosque referred to Allah as “father”? That’s what I’m curious about, because, as I said, in most of Islam there is a very staunch opposition to referring to God in family names. Incidentally, who referred to God as “father” in the OT? I know David did in prayers, especially in the Psalms, but these were, in fact, Messianic prophecies.

it’s kind of culture , may be the culture of jews or the culture of Greeks was to call God as father , but in arab culture they didn’t
anyway we have noproblem with cultures called God as father , as for it refere to same identity , so no problem with me
what is your problem that muslims dosn’t call thier God " father"

by the way , God was father for all in the tonque of jesus himself
didn’t he say
Stop clinging to me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren (disciples), and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’ (John 20: 17).

by the way , muslims believe that jesus ascended to his father and his God

If you wish to quote Paul, you should review his use of an ancient Jewish prayer:
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. [1 Cor 8:6]
Paul, who you must remember used to be a devout Jew, is quoting the Shema, an early Jewish creed of faith that included these words from Deuteronomy 6:4 which said “the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Paul explains the divinity of Christ using a prayer that every Jew at the time would have recognized: We do have one God and one Lord: one God, the Father, and one Lord, the Son, Jesus Christ.

what is the difference between lord and God ?
why he didn’t say : one God jesus and one lord the father ? why he didn’t say one God in three natures ?

Christ was referring to His followers being one in mind, body and spirit. ]

the same when he said " i and my father are one " he was refering to God being one in purpose

 

[planten]

**
The word Abb (father) was being used in earlier scriptures but not in real sense. The father son relation was considered very useful to understand love because father was the creator of the son.

This continued until the church brought in the father/son relation in a different way thus making the son (Jesus) a part of the father( The God.) That was a prominent drift from the original symbolic use of the word “Son” That was a major misuse of the father / son relation.

Islam uses the word “Rabb” instead of “Abb” Rabb is the creator and maintainer and promoter of all things material as well as spiritual, bodies and souls, animal as well as plants and ideas and diseases and planets and galaxies and cures and theories and angels and rust and dust, all inclusive in the universe. Rabb is the creator and maintainer, supporter of all those in the universe.

The word Abb was only limited to mankind and could not describe the God properly. Islam has used the word “Rabb” as for “Lord” and there is no need to think that God had a family or children.

The word Rabb is a very top class attribute of Allah covering everything (Aalamin). It has the love and mercy in it for all.

The next attribute, only for the living bodies, believing or non-believing, even atheists, dogs and donkeys, man and animal, plants etc, all living things are covered by the word “Al-Rehman.” That is the attribute of the Mercyful God for the living which Mercy is available to all living even if they are non-believers, non-praying bodies. The scope (area of action) for this attribute becomes smaller than that of Rabb. But those in this group (the living) do have benefit from the attribute “Rabb” too.

The next attribute of Allah is Al-Raheem. That attribute of Mercy is for the mankind only, not for other animals or plants. That attribute of Mercy of Allah is for smaller group (Mankind only), is for the those who believe in God (Allah). They may be Muslims or Christians or Jews or Hindus or people of any faith who believe in a God and pray to Him. They are benefitted by the Attribute “Al-Raheem”. God deals with them with His special Mercy when they pray and and call Him for help. Remember that this group of believing mankind gets all the benefits of the previous attributes “Rabb” and “Al Rehman” too. Atheists do not benefit from this attribute.

The next attribute of God is 'Maalik", the Owner, The Master. I will describe it in next posts later, God willing.

It is clear that Islam uses the word Rabb instead of Abb. There is no need of any unreal relation of father and son for God, the Creator of all. There is no need. It was good while it lasted. But there is no more need of that relation.

**

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

This continued until the church brought in the father/son relation in a different way thus making the son (Jesus) a part of the father( The God.) That was a prominent drift from the original symbolic use of the word “Son” That was a major misuse of the father / son relation.

Evidence. Quote something.

Early Church Fathers such as Ignatius and Polycarp believed in the Trinity. They believed Christ was divine. And they knew the apostle John. They were HIS disciples. So please, if you’re going to make a wild claim like that, back it up.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

it’s kind of culture , may be the culture of jews or the culture of Greeks was to call God as father , but in arab culture they didn’t
anyway we have noproblem with cultures called God as father , as for it refere to same identity , so no problem with me
what is your problem that muslims dosn’t call thier God " father"

I’m merely pointing this out because I find it ironic that Muslims denounce any family association with God, both in their apologetics and in their Koran, because they believe it’s associating others with Allah. Then when Jesus uses the word father they quickly say, “That’s just a metaphor.”

Incidentally, if it was common in the culture for people to call God “father,” why are there very few such examples of it in the OT? In fact there’s barely any at all.

by the way , God was father for all in the tonque of jesus himself
didn’t he say
Stop clinging to me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren (disciples), and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’ (John 20: 17).

God is the Father of all, just as we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises.” [Hebrews 2:10-12]

However, this family relationship is only through our belief in Christ being the Son of God. Also, Christ’s own relationship with the Father is far different, but I’ll get to that in a moment.

what is the difference between lord and God ?
why he didn’t say : one God jesus and one lord the father ? why he didn’t say one God in three natures ?

Because that would not have fit the Shema, and it would not have fit the rest of Paul’s writings. And God does not have three Natures, so Paul wouldn’t have said that.

the same when he said " i and my father are one " he was refering to God being one in purpose

That is Muslim presupposition based on - I’m sorry to say - passage cherry picking, ie. you accept what confirms the Koran, which is circular logic.

If Christ was speaking metaphorically, then please explain these passages to me - passages which planten has chosen to obviously ignore.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. [John 1:1-2; 14]

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. [John 17:5]

The last passage is especially shocking if Jesus were just a Messenger. He was asking God not only to glorify Him TOGETHER with God, but was claiming He had this glory before the world was, ie. before creation began. This is similar to what I was saying to planten earlier about Christ’s statement in John 8, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” Christ is saying before Abraham existed, He existed - there is no way to consider this just being a metaphor. The Jews tried to stone Jesus for doing so in John 8, and most likely had they heard what He said in John 17:5 they would have tried to stone Him again. In fact, I am certain if any one made this claim in Mohammad’s time, they would have been considered a blasphemer and been punished, since Christ is, in their eyes, making himself a partner with Allah.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Incidentally, if it was common in the culture for people to call God “father,” why are there very few such examples of it in the OT? In fact there’s barely any at all.

Slight clarificiation on his - I know of examples in Malachi and Isaiah, but the majority of them are in the Psalms of David and a prayer David gives during his reign - all of which, as I said, are Messianic prophecies.

 

[planten]

Slight clarificiation on his - I know of examples in Malachi and Isaiah, but the majority of them are in the Psalms of David and a prayer David gives during his reign - all of which, as I said, are Messianic prophecies.

**B W, I see most of the songs of Soloman as the prophesies for Muhammad. Jesus said, “Before abraham was, I AM.” or I am. It is complicated sentence. We cannot derive the meaning that jesus wa sbefore Abraham. The words of the sentence do not support it.

Also you had written the various works of the parts of Trinity as follows:

You are misunderstanding the roles within the Trinity: the Father sends out, the Son blesses

**, the Holy Spirit sanctifies

Do you mean the Father cannot bless? it seems you have made up these specialities yourself out of your mind.

But I do not argue with you about these things. You have good nature and you may believe as you like, same for others too. We should not blame any one for their beliefs only…

 

[elwill]

I’m merely pointing this out because I find it ironic that Muslims denounce any family association with God, both in their apologetics and in their Koran, because they believe it’s associating others with Allah. Then when Jesus uses the word father they quickly say, “That’s just a metaphor.”

jesus (pbuh) himself said in his tonque
** ‘I ascend to my Father and** your Father****, and my God and your God.’ (John 20: 17).

i don’t have a question more simple that that :
what jesus meant by saying " your father" ?

Incidentally, if it was common in the culture for people to call God “father,” why are there very few such examples of it in the OT? In fact there’s barely any at all.

well , i’m sure that calling God as father and calling rightious servents as sons and childerens are much but actually i don’t need to quote from OT , **i allready gave you example from NT in the tonque of jesus himself when he refered to thier God saying " your father " **

God is the Father of all, just as we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

yes , and god is the father of jesus just as all of his rightious servents and prophets

However, this family relationship is only through our belief in Christ being the Son of God. Also, Christ’s own relationship with the Father is far different, but I’ll get to that in a moment.

i have no problem with what you believe , my problem is that i can’t find these beliefs in your holy book , i prefer to discuss your beliefs through your holybook

i believe that the relationship between christ and the father is different , as for he is his prophet , jesus wasn’t just good teacher , no we believe that he is prophet and we believe that he ascended to the God and we believe that he will come back again in the end of time to kill the antichrist
absolutly , he have special realtionship with God but he dosn’t share him the divinity .

That is Muslim presupposition based on - I’m sorry to say - passage cherry picking, ie. you accept what confirms the Koran, which is circular logic.

no no no , this passage is one of the basic massages which christians uses as proof that jesus is God
i have noproblem if you want from me to quote the verse in its context

In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: “…Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are One.”

These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either’s hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God’s equal in everything. In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL…," in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.

If Christ was speaking metaphorically, then please explain these passages to me - passages which planten has chosen to obviously ignore.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. [John 1:1-2; 14]

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. [John 17:5]

we don’t believe in the bible to be entirely the word of God so we didn’t need to deal with it’s contradictions
it’s your book which you believed that it’s holy , so that it’s your mission to clarify the verses which we see contradicts your beliefs

you can give me ten verses to convince me that jesus is God , and i can give you hundred verse to convince you that he isn’t , but after all it’s you who believe that my verses and your verses are the truth so you have to deal with that problem

. This is similar to what I was saying to planten earlier about Christ’s statement in John 8, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” Christ is saying before Abraham existed, He existed - there is no way to consider this just being a metaphor. The Jews tried to stone Jesus for doing so in John 8, and most likely had they heard what He said in John 17:5 they would have tried to stone Him again. In fact, I am certain if any one made this claim in Mohammad’s time, they would have been considered a blasphemer and been punished, since Christ is, in their eyes, making himself a partner with Allah.

if you want my view about this verse , i think that jesus didn’t complete his statement , as for the jews didn’t gave him the chance to complete it because they stoned him quickly