The Second Coming has happened!!!!!

Yusuf Mirza

I am an Irish convert to Islam living in Galway.

I am a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. We are Muslims who believe that Jesus survived the cross and continued his mission to preach to the 12 tribes of the house of Israel, 10 of whom had been resettled as far away as modern day Afghanistan during the rain or Nebekaneser 500 years earlier.

Furthermore we believe that as Muhammad (saw) is the last Prophet and Islam the last Law that the Messiah will come from among the Muslims. He will be someone with Jesus's characteristics who will claim to be the Messiah.

That person was Hazret Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. We are in 198 countries with over 200 million believers and growing with our own channel
"MTA International" on Shy channel 787.


I would love to hear from anyone who would like to hear the message. Not interested in abuse or ridicule.:cool:

The view expressed on this thread are not necessarily the views of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat.


Wasalam
Yusuf

seamus

Moved from Helpdesk.

wes

Welcome to the board.

I don't know much about the Ahmadi Muslims, I know the general history of the faith coming out of Brisith occupied India.

philologos

This isn't consistent with what is prophesied in the Bible. Mind you many Muslims consider the Bible to be in grave error and suggest that the Injeel is in existence. The Injeel being the true Gospel, not the "corrupted" one that we use. I find it interesting, but the authenticity of the Bible has been debated by many including atheists, agnostics, and so on, and it still stands as a reputable text.

AbuBakr

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

I am an Irish convert to Islam living in Galway.

I am a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. We are Muslims who believe that Jesus survived the cross and continued his mission to preach to the 12 tribes of the house of Israel, 10 of whom had been resettled as far away as modern day Afghanistan during the rain or Nebekaneser 500 years earlier.

Furthermore we believe that as Muhammad (saw) is the last Prophet and Islam the last Law that the Messiah will come from among the Muslims. He will be someone with Jesus's characteristics who will claim to be the Messiah.

That person was Hazret Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. We are in 198 countries with over 200 million believers and growing with our own channel
"MTA International" on Shy channel 787.


I would love to hear from anyone who would like to hear the message. Not interested in abuse or ridicule.:cool:

Salams, brother Yusuf. It's good to see a new member of the Islam forum, and I see that you are an Irish revert to Islam. Of course, in Pakistan, as an Ahmadiyya, you'd be imprisoned for calling yourself a Muslim, but, insha'Allah, we are more open-minded in Ireland.

Yusuf Mirza

Well Jackass I prefer to show from the Qur'an my beliefs but from the bible it is quite evident that Jesus did not die. Here are some points;

*It is mentioned in Deuteronomy that "any Prophet that dieth on a stake is false and accursed from god"

*Jesus said that "This is an evil and adulterous generation. No sign shall be shown to this generation except the sign of Jonah, for as he spent 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale so shall the son of man spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the earth"
Now we know that Johan was a Prophet and his people rejected him. He was swallowed up by a whale and remained alive in it for 3 days. Then he came out alive on a foreign shore and a new people accepted his message. If Jesus died and was resurrected then this would be inconsistent with the sign of Jonah. Moreover this if what happened and Jesus was taken down alive, revived and went to the other tribes of Israel and they accepted his message.

*In the Garden of Getsemeny Jesus prayed all night to where blood came from his forehead. An angel appeared to him and "reassured him". What did the angel say "oh Jesus stop praying for you will surly die"? Is this reassurance? Then on the cross Jesus said "My God, my God why have you forsaken me" Now if he was told he would die then why was he forsaken? Wales the angel had promised him survival but being on the cross he could not see himself surviving and cried out.

*Jesus said his mission was to "gather the 12 lost tribes of the house of Israel" 10 of which were not in Israel. "Go nowhere among the gentiles but rather to the 12 lost tribes of Israel"

*After the crucifixion special herbal remedies were applied which are only used to treat wounds and not prepare a dead body. If Jesus was dead then why give him this medicine.

*When Jesus, after the crucifixion went to his apostles they thought he was a spirit. He said "Touch me. Dost a spirit have flesh and blood like a man?" He showed his fresh wounds and ate with the disciples.

*When Roman soldiers passed by he hid behind a rock.

*When he left he went up the mountain of Olives into the clouds which were lying low. He went with Thomas.

This is all from the bible and I shall give all references if you require and there is much more of course. Please reply if you do not mind. These references are all from bible.

As for the authenticity of the Bible you are extremely wrong and this book has been tampered with for over 1,800 years and all Christian scholars and theologians agree openly to this fact.

philologos

Yes, and Yusif Mirza if you read the Apostolic writings you will find that is explained totally. Jesus took upon our sins on the cross, he took on a curse which was meant to be on us, and he took our punishment. That's why Christians say that they have been "saved".

As for "My God, My God why have you foresaken me". That is a quote from David's Psalms. If you look to the Psalm that it is in (Psalm 22) it's a lot more clear.

"But I am a worm, and not human;
scorned by others, and despised by the people.
All who see me mock at me;
they make mouths at me, they shake their heads;
‘Commit your cause to the Lord; let him deliver—
let him rescue the one in whom he delights!’ "

"For dogs are all around me;
a company of evildoers encircles me.
My hands and feet have shrivelled;*
I can count all my bones.
They stare and gloat over me;
they divide my clothes among themselves,
and for my clothing they cast lots."

Now look to Matthew 27:35 "And when they had crucified him, they divided his clothes among themselves by casting lots"

"My God, my God why have you foresaken me" - was to cause the Jews to look to the Tanakh and see that God has fulfilled His word through Jesus Christ.

The Bible has been tampered with for 1800 years? Provide evidence. I know that 5 passages are disputed, however isn't it also true that Al Bukhari said that it was harder to compile the Qur'an than to move a mountain? And isn't it also true that Al Bukhari said that there were several different Qur'ans in existence and that they were ordered to be burned? How do we know that the Qur'an that we have now is the true Qur'an?

Yusif Mizra wrote:

*Jesus said his mission was to "gather the 12 lost tribes of the house of Israel" 10 of which were not in Israel. "Go nowhere among the gentiles but rather to the 12 lost tribes of Israel"

That was only for that time. Jesus told them to spread the Gospel to all nations after His death (Matthew 28, Mark 16).

Also Jesus spoke to the Gentiles in the Bible, such as the Syro-phonecian woman, the Roman centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his friend and so on. Peter also received a vision to preach to the Gentiles in the book of Acts.

If the Second Coming had already happened, we wouldn't be here right now according to the Bible:

Matthew 24:29-30- ‘Immediately after the suffering of those days
the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from heaven,
and the powers of heaven will be shaken.
Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. "

Not only does the Bible say that these things have to happen, the Bible also tells us not to believe anyone who proclaims the Messiah has come before these things have happened. If the Second Coming had happened already, the elect would already be in heaven.

Matthew 24:23 - "Then if anyone says to you, "Look! Here is the Messiah!" or "There he is" - do not believe it."

Matthew 24:26 - "If they say to you, "Look! He is in the wilderness", do not go out. If they say, "Look! He is in the inner rooms do not beleive it"

Yusuf Mirza

Well brother you have asked a few different questions there. Firstly lets look at what the bible says about atonement

* The father shall not be put to death for the children, neither the children put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sins. DEUTERONOMY 24:16

So clearly there is a problem here. As it sais that the fathers sin can not be inherited by the son.

*The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall he upon him. EZEKIEL 18.2 & 20


*But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden. GALATIANS 6.4/5

Again here there is the same renunciation of the doctrine of atonement.
So then there is the question of how one can become free from and shed sin.

*Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruits of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the record of his hand shall be given him. ISAIAH 3:10/11

*So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. MATTHEW 13:49/50

*And then he shall reward every man according to his works. MATTHEW 16.27

So we see clearly that the way to salvation is to be good and do good and then God shall forgive you your sins and there is no need for God to become man and die.

philologos

You're very selective in your passages. However you haven't answered my question. If these things haven't happened (as in Matthew 24), how can we say that the Messiah has returned?

I'll find more passages on the Christian view of atonement when I get home, it surely isn't as simple as that, considering that Jesus was both human and divine as written in the Bible (John 1, Phillippians 2). Jesus wasn't "just a man" in Christianity. He's the one who took on the iniquities of the people as in Isaiah 53.

Yusuf Mirza

Thats quite nieve though. You accept the writings of others who never met Jesus and came hundreds of years later to the actual words and teachings of Jesus himself.

*Why do you call me good? Thee is no one who is good but he who is in heaven. As I see and I hear I judge. Not my own Judgement but the judgement of the father who has sent me.

So clearly Jesus is making things clear lest someone should start to think that he is divine. He is doing God will not his own. He is just a messenger.

Here is an example of alteration on the bible;

MATTHEW 24.36
But of this day and hour knoweth no man, no, nor the angels of heaven, but my Father only. - Origionel

But of that day and hour knowth no man, no, nor the angels of heaven, not even the son but the Father only. - New revised versions

Here are some more temperings;

ACTS 20.28
Feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with the blood of his own.

Feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.

MATTHEW 24.36
But of this day and hour knoweth no man, no, nor the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

But of that day and hour knowth no man, no, nor the angels of heaven, not even the son but the Father only.

I CORINTHIANS 10.9
Let us not put the power of the Lord to test.

Neither let us tempt Christ.

ISAIAH 7.14 & MATTHEW 1.23
Behold, a young woman shall conceive a child.

Behold a virgin shall conceive a child.

ACTS 3:26
Unto you first Lord, having raised up his servant.

Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus.

ROMANS 9:5
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh came the Messiah. May God who is above all, be blessed for ever. Amen!

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is overall, God blessed for ever. Amen!

To them belong, the patriachs and of their are, according to the flesh, is Christ, who is God over all. blessed for ever. (CATHOLIC VERSION)

JUDE 1.14
Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints.

I saw the Lord come with his myrid of angels.

MARK 10:18
And he said unto them, Why callest thou me good?

Good, said Jesus. Why do you ask me about good?

Yusuf Mirza

these are just 10 of the thousands of mistakes and contredicions in the bible.
Old Testement first.

1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

* God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
* Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

* Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
* One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?

* Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
* Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

* Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
* Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

* Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
* Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?

* Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
* Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?

* Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
* Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)

8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?

* Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
* Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)

9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?

* After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
* Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)

10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?

* Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
* Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)

philologos

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Thats quite nieve though. You accept the writings of others who never met Jesus and came hundreds of years later to the actual words and teachings of Jesus himself.

Before I even look at your verses. There is no point arguing over translations which are phrased differently than the others. They still make the same point. If you want accuracy look to the Greek codex. It's like if several people translated the Qur'an it might look slightly different in words, but it is still the same.

You compare the KJV, with a more modern translation. They both argue the same thing, but yet are phrased differently. If you want to know 100% what a passage says get a Greek and Hebrew lexicon.

Anyhow, you have made a logical fallacy in quoting the Bible. You say it is corrupt, and then use a section to try prove me wrong on the divinity of Christ? Surely if the Bible is corrupt the section you quote could be more corrupt or just as corrupt than the pieces I use. A Muslim cannot use the Bible honestly in an argument if they don't believe it to be accurate and true. For example Muslims often quote a section from the Gospel of John, and then claim that the book is wrong to say that Jesus is the Son of God amongst other things.

Also it seems apparent to me that you are quoting sections from a website instead of using your own reading of the text. Don't believe everything you read on biased websites which intend to put forward an Islamic viewpoint of a Judeo-Christian text. There are many verses confirming the divinity of Christ in the Bible. If you are to use the Bible in quotations, you must be willing to suggest that the text is indeed true. Otherwise it won't convince me, if you don't give one passage the same value as another.

Yusuf Mirza

First let me make it clear that as a Muslim I believe that the Torah was given to Moses

by Allah but it was not preserved in its original form. As we see here in Jeremiah it is

written.

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law(Torah) of the LORD is with us’?

But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. “ ( Revised Standard

Version, Jeremiah 8:8 )


So here we see that the bible itself attests to the corruptness of the text.

If there are different translations that say wildly different things then which one to

chose? Let me show you one example.


In relation to the resurection of Jesus the original Greek was “stood up” but was changed to

“died and rose again”

"For if we are believing that Jesus died and he stood up …" (1 Thessalonians 4:14,

adapted from the Greek-English interlinear KIT). Nearly every translation of this clause

says he "died and rose again," which the Greek here does not actually say.

So here if we go back to the original Greek then you have to change what you believe

because the crux of your belief is compromised by false teaching from a corrupted text.

Whereas the Qur’an is in its unchanged and pure form of Arabic so whatever the

translation we have and learn to read the original. So whatever language it is translated

into, we have the Arabic on hand.

Jari

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

I am an Irish convert to Islam living in Galway.

Furthermore we believe that as Muhammad (saw) is the last Prophet and Islam the last Law that the Messiah will come from among the Muslims. He will be someone with Jesus's characteristics who will claim to be the Messiah.

That person was Hazret Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. We are in 198 countries with over 200 million believers and growing with our own channel
"MTA International" on Shy channel 787.


I would love to hear from anyone who would like to hear the message. Not interested in abuse or ridicule.:cool:


Wasalam
Yusuf

Mirza did not come with Jesus. merza died and jesus did not come yet than merza is not the messiah. wich prouves does merza has to make him messiah.

philologos

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

First let me make it clear that as a Muslim I believe that the Torah was given to Moses

As do all Christians. However the Torah is comprised of a narrative as well as the Law, such as explaning the Jewish conquest of Israel, and explaining the events that happened along the way from Egypt. We are meant to learn from the actions of the prophets as well as just the words.

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

by Allah but it was not preserved in its original form. As we see here in Jeremiah it is written.

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law(Torah) of the LORD is with us’?

But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. “ ( Revised Standard

Version, Jeremiah 8:8 )

Yusif, I want you to be honest with me, are you getting this from a website or are you thinking of this for yourself. A quick google tells me that this is a common argument.

Answering Christianity: http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/argument_of_jeremiah_8.htm

Answering Islam: http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/jer8_8_ss.html

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

So here we see that the bible itself attests to the corruptness of the text.

If there are different translations that say wildly different things then which one to chose? Let me show you one example.

Really? I think it indicates that a group of scribes may have corrupted the Torah, however does this say that the manuscripts which are contained within the Bible are corrupt? Whereas Al Bukhari makes it clear that the Qur'an was harder to compile than to move a mountain, and that there were multiple Qur'ans.

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

In relation to the resurection of Jesus the original Greek was “stood up” but was changed to

“died and rose again”

"For if we are believing that Jesus died and he stood up …" (1 Thessalonians 4:14,

adapted from the Greek-English interlinear KIT). Nearly every translation of this clause

says he "died and rose again," which the Greek here does not actually say.

So here if we go back to the original Greek then you have to change what you believe

No, I don't have to change what I believe infact. I don't change what I believe when you aren't providing proof that the Greek was changed. You are merely saying that varying translations have explained the same passage using slightly different words. It's irrelevant anyway as Paul talks about the Resurrection of Jesus in many more books, such as Phillippians chapter 2, and 1 Corinthians 15. Even if you found this one passage to be disputed, you would have to nullify the rest of the passages concerning the Resurrection both in the Gospels, the prophesies in the Tanakh, and the writings of St. Paul in the New Testament. It's not enough to think that the wording of one passage is incorrect without going through all the passages that concern the Resurrection. I personally think it's impossible to doubt the resurrection given that the early Church's history indicates that something extrordinary happened at Jerusalem. Also it has been historically verified that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.

As for "stood up" even if this is true. I doubt that it is, however. If you stand up after you die, surely that is the same as coming back to life? What is so improbable given the miracles discussed of in the Qur'an that Jesus would indeed be resurrected?

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

because the crux of your belief is compromised by false teaching from a corrupted text.

Whereas the Qur’an is in its unchanged and pure form of Arabic so whatever the translation we have and learn to read the original. So whatever language it is translated

into, we have the Arabic on hand.

Read Al Bukhari's Hadith (volume 6), it will raise some questions about the Qur'an and how it was compiled.

Also the Qur'an borrows from many unauthentic texts from the period. If you read Sura 5 Aya 110, you will find that it speaks of Jesus fashioning clay birds and breathing life into them, if you read the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (which is considered a heretical text) you will find the same things said about the clay birds.

My main questions are these though:

1) Why do you think that anyone apart from Jesus would be the Messiah?
2) Why do you think the Second Coming would happen in a different way as described in previous texts?
3) Why do you think that we should believe the Messiah when Jesus Himself told us not to believe that the Messiah has come based on the word of mouth.

You have been deviating from the main point.

Yusuf Mirza

Great question but that really takes me all over the place. We should start on if Jesus is Alive in Heaven or dead. Are you coming from an Islamic angle or a Chrstian one brother?

philologos

Why wouldn't Jesus be alive in the Kingdom of Heaven if He is the one who says that He is the door to the Kingdom of Heaven. We wouldn't know about the Kingdom if it wasn't for Jesus.

However, we have to make clear some things. If Jesus said that His Second Coming would be the end of all time, and the point whereby the angels will collect the faithful into the Kingdom of Heaven? How can there be time after the Second Coming? Read Matthew 24 in it's entirety of this.

Also if Jesus had not been crucified, and if Jesus had gone to Kashmir or to India and if He had not died how would it be His first coming rather than His Second Coming? He would be still living his fleshly life on Earth.

If you are going to use the Bible, you must believe that the piece from the Bible you are using is true. Also if the Bible has been corrupted, how are you not sure that the verse from Jeremiah and any of the other verses you use are not also corrupted? There isn't any theological evidence to suggest that the Bible has been corrupted, I have mentioned before there have been a handful of disputed verses most of which have now been resolved as being repetitions of already existing Biblical teaching.

Also you say that the Jewish Torah is corrupt, and yet you have still quoted from the book of Deuteronomy. Why quote from a book of "falsehoods"?

If you are to believe that the Second Coming already happened through this man, you are to disobey the command that Jesus gave concerning Messiah claimants before the Day of Judgement, and you are to say that Jesus was lying about the end times.

I'm coming from a Christian perspective, I believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and the Son of God.

Yusuf Mirza

Why wouldn't Jesus be alive in the Kingdom of Heaven if He is the one who says that He is the door to the Kingdom of Heaven.He was the door to the kingdom of heaven was for the Jewish people for did he not say "I have come not but to the 12 lost tribes of the house of Israel"? We wouldn't know about the Kingdom if it wasn't for Jesus. Budists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikes etc also know about the kingdom of heaven without Jesus.

However, we have to make clear some things. If Jesus said that His Second Coming would be the end of all time, and the point whereby the angels will collect the faithful into the Kingdom of Heaven? Show me where exactly Jesus has said this becouse this is a tall claim that you make brother. Nothing in that chapter mentions the end of time.How can there be time after the Second Coming? Read Matthew 24 in it's entirety of this.

Also if Jesus had not been crucified, and if Jesus had gone to Kashmir or to India and if He had not died how would it be His first coming rather than His Second Coming? Jesus will not return for a second coming. He said "you shall not see me again untill you say blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord" so he means someone else given the same name as John the Baptist was called Elijah.He would be still living his fleshly life on Earth.

If you are going to use the Bible, you must believe that the piece from the Bible you are using is true. Also if the Bible has been corrupted, how are you not sure that the verse from Jeremiah and any of the other verses you use are not also corrupted? Ahh but I dont have to becouse all i have to do is show reasonable dout meaning that the bible is corrupted so you can not take it as deffininive truth,There isn't any theological evidence to suggest that the Bible has been corrupted, this is a compleat lie, fabrication and ridiculous. It is like being outside on a sunny day and sayind of i have shut my eyes so that means that the sun is gone I have mentioned before there have been a handful of disputed verses most of which have now been resolved as being repetitions of already existing Biblical teaching. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED AND WILL NEVER BE FOR DIFFERENT CHURCHES TAKE DIFFERENT VERSES FOR THEMSELVES.

Also you say that the Jewish Torah is corrupt, and yet you have still quoted from the book of Deuteronomy. Why quote from a book of "falsehoods". AGAIN ALL i AM DOING IS SHOWING DIFFERENT COMPEATING IDOELOGIES IN ONE SINGLE TEXT

If you are to believe that the Second Coming already happened through this man, you are to disobey the command that Jesus gave concerning Messiah claimants before the Day of Judgement, and you are to say that Jesus was lying about the end times. Show me where where I could have called Jesus a liar? Was Elija a liar when he talked about his second coming?

I'm coming from a Christian one, I believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and the Son of God.[/quote] But you have no evidence and i have evidence that he is not the son of god here "why do you call me good? There is noone who is good but he who is in heaven"

Yusuf Mirza

Brother tell me are you a theologan? What church are you belonging to?

philologos

Yusif, it's rather simple, if you are going to call me a liar. Provide the evidence that says that the disputes concerning the Bible do not elaborate upon teachings that are also elsewhere within the Gospels? It's up to you if you are going to make the claim that the Bible is indeed corrupted, to surely provide some theologians who support your view, and people who have put forward the case from a Christian perspective. If you can put forward a foolproof case for your point, I will accept that I am wrong.

Yusif, have you read the Gospels? There are several passages when Jesus witnesses to the Gentiles, there are also passages where the Apostles witness to the Gentiles. Infact look at what Jesus said about the Gentiles in the Bible when he is talking to a Roman centurion.

Matthew 8:11 "I tell you many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven, while the heirs of the Kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

He also told the centurion that "in no one in Israel have I found such faith". (Matthew 8:10)

Also, Matthew 28 :19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

Now is Israel one nation or all nations?

Let me ask you Yusif, as we both believe in the patriarch Abraham, what do you think that the Lord meant when he revealed to Abraham that the Jews would be a blessing to all nations? (Genesis 12)

Paul the Apostle makes it clear in the book of Galatians that the promise to Abraham about the Jewish people would be fulfilled through Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the ministry of his (Jewish) Apostles would be the blessing of the nation of Israel to the rest of all humanity, and thank God for that.

One more example of Jesus' teaching to the Gentiles in the Gospel:

Matthew 15:24-28 "He answered, 'I was only send to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' But she came and knelt before Him, saying, 'Lord, help me'. He answered, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs.' She said, 'Yes Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the masters table.' Then Jesus answered her, 'Woman great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish'. And her daughter was healed instantly."

Right, Jesus never left the land of Israel. However He ordered the Apostles to, and the Apostles had visions to preach to the Gentiles in the book of Acts. Their policy was always "To the Jew first and then the Greek" because the Jews knew the teachings of the Tanakh and could be of use in Christian ministry to the new Gentile converts. However God's message is for all.

Everywhere in Matthew 24 deals with the end of time. Look at the questions the Apostles ask Jesus!

Matthew 24:3 - "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

It's all about Jesus' coming, and the end of the age. That was the question asked.

Edit: Jesus in Matthew 16 and Mark 8, says that He is the Son of God, and tells Peter that it is true.

Yusuf Mirza

Yusif, it's rather simple, if you are going to call me a liar. I'm sorry brother you are not a liar I was just over egger.

Matthew 8:11 "I tell you many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven, while the heirs of the Kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Here Jesus is prophesying that the covenant will be given to another nation i.e. the Muslims and the heirs; the Jews, shall be thrown out.

He also told the centurion that "in no one in Israel have I found such faith". (Matthew 8:10) Yes this is correct. This is why he was the last prophet to Israel and the prophethood was given to Muhammad (saw)

Also, Matthew 28 :19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". In the Old Testament each tribe of Israel was referred to as a nation.

Now is Israel one nation or all nations? Many

Let me ask you Yusif, as we both believe in the patriarch Abraham, what do you think that the Lord meant when he revealed to Abraham that the Jews would be a blessing to all nations? (Genesis 12) At the time they were but remember it was conditional as long as they kept the covenant which they broke.

Paul the Apostle makes it clear in the book of Galatians that the promise to Abraham about the Jewish people would be fulfilled through Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the ministry of his (Jewish) Apostles would be the blessing of the nation of Israel to the rest of all humanity, and thank God for that. But Paul never met Jesus ands disputed his teachings.

Matthew 15:24-28 "He answered, 'I was only send to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' But she came and knelt before Him, saying, 'Lord, help me'. He answered, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs.' She said, 'Yes Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the masters table.' Then Jesus answered her, 'Woman great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish'. And her daughter was healed instantly." Yes what is wrong with this act of mercy?

Right, Jesus never left the land of Israel. However He ordered the Apostles to, and the Apostles had visions to preach to the Gentiles in the book of Acts. Acts was written by whom? We don’t know!
24 deals with the end of time. Look at the questions the Apostles ask Jesus!

Matthew 24:3 - "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"[/quote] End of the age and not time its self.


Please can we just focus on one point if you don’t mind because there is a universe of verses and facts here. Tell me brother what do you mean when you say atonement and how do you understand it?

You still haven’t told me what church you belong to!

Yusuf Mirza

Remember brother the deciples of Jesus had a feirce rivelary with Paul.

In Galations 11-21 Paul is opposed by Peter.

31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

If Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit then why is Paul calling Peter a hypocrite

Matthew 16:18
8And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Peter truly would have known Jesus better than Paul.

philologos

So hang on the Muslims are another nation, and there is no salvation in Christianity? If you look to the book of Romans also written by Paul, you will find that it is clear that Gentiles who come to faith in Jesus Christ as a part of His people Israel through adoption. This point is also discussed in Galatians 3.

Now before you say who wrote Galatians (it was Paul the Apostle), you quoted from Galatians earlier so I must hold that you believe this book or the section that you quoted from it to be true? Otherwise you shouldn't be bothering at all surely?

Anyhow, in continuation. You ask who wrote the book of Acts, in common understanding this is Luke, but it is subject to debate. Anyhow the writings in the Acts of the Apostles are also consistent with the writings of Paul and the locations that he visited. As for who gave the people the authority to go into Gentile lands? Jesus Christ did, Jesus also gave the Apostles divine authority at the end of the book of John.

Now before you ask any questions about John, you also quoted from the book of John. If you believe the section that you quoted to be true, you must also adopt other writings in the book of John. Otherwise you shouldn't have bothered with that. It would mean you don't have an argument.

As for prophet, we are going to disagree on this big time. Your Jesus in the Qur'an and the Hadith is incompatible with the Jesus of the Gospels. So unless the Jesus of the Qur'an is an entirely different figure, Islam and Christianity are incompatible on this issue.

Nothing is wrong with the act of mercy that Jesus gave, but it must also mean that He accepted the Gospel to be spread among non-Jews. That woman must have heard the good news of Jesus Christ to be able to come and cast a demon out of her daughter. Jesus agreed to do it without having to come to her house.

Why do you think Jesus would lie in Matthew 8:11 when he says many from the east and the west will eat with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven?

Now a quick geography lesson will tell you that Europe is east of the land of Israel surely? He intended for the Gentiles to hear, and the west to Him at that time meant the Gentile people. The east would have evidently meant the Arabs.

As for atonement, it's rather simple, it's coming repenting for God, and accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. If you do not come to Jesus Christ you cannot attain forgiveness. The Bible tells us that all people have sinned before God (Romans 3:23), and that we needed the salvation of Jesus Christ to be forgiven and for the Scriptures to be fulfilled (Isaiah 53). Atonement or repentance means turning away from your sin, and accepting God's will for your life.

If you split up atonement into three words: At one ment. To be at one with God.

However sin has separated us from God. Jesus came to set us free from the slavery of sin (John 8:28) telling us the truth would set us free. The truth of Jesus Christ would set us free, so that by His Holy Spirit we can overcome our sinful nature and to put ourselves right with God in the final days.

As for what Church I belong to. I belong to the universal Christian family of believers. I personally worship in an Anglican church (Church of Ireland), but I also worship with those in other churches. What matters is Christianity, not what church you attend.

Edit: As for Jesus only coming to save Israel, it clearly isn't true. Even the Jewish prophets realised that their God was a God for all nations. (Isaiah 56). This passage says the covenant will be expanded to those who obey, again in another Scripture, Jeremiah preaches of a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

philologos

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Remember brother the deciples of Jesus had a feirce rivelary with Paul.

In Galations 11-21 Paul is opposed by Peter.

31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

If Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit then why is Paul calling Peter a hypocrite

Matthew 16:18
8And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Peter truly would have known Jesus better than Paul.

Paul received visions of Jesus. Secondly just because you are filled with the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that you cannot make mistakes. Nobody says that Peter was perfect. Peter was human. Infact most prophets in the Bible sinned. Look at King David and Bathsheba! Infact even in Islam Muhammad is a sinner? We all make mistakes, and nothing suggests that Peter could not sin if he denied the Saviour 3 times before the Crucifixion to save his own hide.

Remember Peter had chosen Paul also. Paul as a believer has a right to correct Peter, every believer should be stopping the other from stumbling. That is what a Christian community does surely?

Yusuf Mirza

So hang on the Muslims are another nation, and there is no salvation in Christianity? If you look to the book of Romans also written by Paul, you will find that it is clear that Gentiles who come to faith in Jesus Christ as a part of His people Israel through adoption. This point is also discussed in Galatians 3.

Yes both Ive just show you that Peter did not agree with Paul. So you have to ask who is right. Perer who lived with and kew Jesus and whom it is said was given the keys to heaven or Paul the persecuter of Jesus whom it is said met Jesus after the crucifiction.

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ( why did people such as the Apostle James still believe that the law regarding food should still be applied? If Jesus came to replace the law, then why are they still following the law?) 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (so, Peter, James and Barnabas are wrong?)

We have to clear this up before we can move anywhere becouse if you believe Paul then that means Peter, James and Barnabas did not have the Holy spirit and were wrong and became lost.

Who is right Paul or Peter. Law stands ot law canceled.

Yusuf Mirza

Muhamamd (saw) was sinless and was allowed to intercede for believers.

philologos

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Yes both Ive just show you that Peter did not agree with Paul. So you have to ask who is right. Perer who lived with and kew Jesus and whom it is said was given the keys to heaven or Paul the persecuter of Jesus whom it is said met Jesus after the crucifiction.

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ( why did people such as the Apostle James still believe that the law regarding food should still be applied? If Jesus came to replace the law, then why are they still following the law?) 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (so, Peter, James and Barnabas are wrong?)

We have to clear this up before we can move anywhere becouse if you believe Paul then that means Peter, James and Barnabas did not have the Holy spirit and were wrong and became lost.

Who is right Paul or Peter. Law stands ot law canceled.

No he didn't disagree with Paul on the Christian faith. They had a discussion about the new Gentiles coming to the Christian faith, about what laws they should follow. The Apostles met in Jerusalem (Acts 15) to discuss how they could ease the Gentiles into Christianity. They said to aim to follow the New Testament first, but to abstain from food given to idols, blood, and from sexual immorality, as well as the moral laws that Paul had been preaching them. Now, Peter after this had happened, had allegedly distanced himself from the Gentiles, despite originally agreeing with the Apostles in Jerusalem. So Paul was to correct Peter and to hold him to his promise and to his word. Again Peter did not disagree with Paul on Jesus being the Son of God, or any other issue. Again, it's important that you don't distort what the New Testament actually says.

James was preaching to the Jews, not to the Gentiles so the decree to the Gentiles did not affect him. The purpose of Acts 15 was to ease Gentiles into the Christian faith. It didn't concern Jews. Likewise Peter was preaching in the land of Israel too.

Good point though. This is often discussed in modern Christianity even to this day.

Yusuf Mirza

Hay tanx. Actually I must say I enjoy this discussion. Why on earth you call yourself Jackass? Anyway Look. Let me ask you this. If a little girl is born in India to a Hindu family who is poor and ill. She strugles all her life,and never hears the message of Jesus. Then at the age od 8 she dies from a disease. Acording to your faith she will burn in hell for all eternity. That poor innocent little girl who never even had a chance to hear of Jesus will burn in eternal fire becouse Jesus is the only way and only trough him can one attain salvation right? Becouse if there is a repreve or another way into heaven at all besides Jesus then Jesus'us death on the cross is rendered pointless. It is like taking the long difficult trechorous road when you could just go down a short modern highway.

Just tell me if this is the God and sysyem you believe in that would eternally punish that girl in hellfire for something she did not do? If you were to be jailed for life for a crime you did not commit you would cry "fie on you all, this in injustice" yet God who is supposed to be the most just of all is indeed a god who is unjust, unfair, uncaring and sadistic.

philologos

Yusif Mirza wrote:

Why wouldn't Jesus be alive in the Kingdom of Heaven if He is the one who says that He is the door to the Kingdom of Heaven.He was the door to the kingdom of heaven was for the Jewish people for did he not say "I have come not but to the 12 lost tribes of the house of Israel"? We wouldn't know about the Kingdom if it wasn't for Jesus. Budists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikes etc also know about the kingdom of heaven without Jesus.

For Christians we do not believe that Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs etc know about the Kingdom of Heaven. There may be some truth in all of these religions. However in Christianity, Jesus is the only true path to the Kingdom of Heaven. One needs to believe in Jesus to be saved from eternal damnation according to the Bible.

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me".

John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but may have eternal life".

Matthew 7:13 - "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For this gate is narrow, and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it"

Yusuf Mirza

Listen brother I have to go now but I shall tomorow be online again if you dont mind.

Your Brother
Yusuf - Galway

Yusuf Mirza

PLEASE AWNSER THIS QUESTION. ITS IMPORTANT TO ME AND ILL MSG YOU TOMOROW.

Anyway Look. Let me ask you this. If a little girl is born in India to a Hindu family who is poor and ill. She strugles all her life,and never hears the message of Jesus. Then at the age od 8 she dies from a disease. Acording to your faith she will burn in hell for all eternity. That poor innocent little girl who never even had a chance to hear of Jesus will burn in eternal fire becouse Jesus is the only way and only trough him can one attain salvation right? Becouse if there is a repreve or another way into heaven at all besides Jesus then Jesus'us death on the cross is rendered pointless. It is like taking the long difficult trechorous road when you could just go down a short modern highway.

Just tell me if this is the God and sysyem you believe in that would eternally punish that girl in hellfire for something she did not do? If you were to be jailed for life for a crime you did not commit you would cry "fie on you all, this in injustice" yet God who is supposed to be the most just of all is indeed a god who is unjust, unfair, uncaring and sadistic.

philologos

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Hay tanx. Actually I must say I enjoy this discussion. Why on earth you call yourself Jackass? Anyway Look. Let me ask you this. If a little girl is born in India to a Hindu family who is poor and ill. She strugles all her life,and never hears the message of Jesus. Then at the age od 8 she dies from a disease. Acording to your faith she will burn in hell for all eternity. That poor innocent little girl who never even had a chance to hear of Jesus will burn in eternal fire becouse Jesus is the only way and only trough him can one attain salvation right? Becouse if there is a repreve or another way into heaven at all besides Jesus then Jesus dieng on the cross is rendered pointless. It is like taking the long difficult trechorous road when you could just go down a short modern highway.

Just tell me if this is the God and sysyem you believe in that would eternally punish that girl in hellfire for something she did not do? If you were to be jailed for life for a crime you did not commit you would cry "fie on you all, this in injustice" yet God who is supposed to be the most just of all is indeed a god who is unjust, unfair, uncaring and sadistic.

There is no other way to heaven than through Christianity. As for whether or not this innocent girl will go to heaven. This isn't written in the Scriptures, however the Bible says before the Day of Judgement will come the Gospel must be preached over all four corners of the world (Matthew 24:14). Christians also believe the Lord to be a just judge, I believe He would make an honourable judgement. I am not allowed to speculate as to where that girl would go, but it would rather be the Lord's decision, and I think he would at least find room to consider her salvation (Romans 10).

I don't believe that there is another way to heaven. I believe that since we have all sinned, we need Jesus to be with us when we make our defence before God. We are told again in the Gospels that if we reject Jesus in public, Jesus will reject you before the Father (Matthew 10:32). It is not my place to discuss the salvation of others, it is up to God. I trust God will make the best decision.

Jesus described the road to salvation as long and treacherous, and that few will find it. I believe and trust in His word.

As for why I call myself Jakkass, I don't know I registered in 2005, it's somewhat humbling though, don't you think?

Yusuf Mirza

I find the concept of original sin interesting. It’s interesting that Christians believe in inherited sin from the fall of Adam. The Jews had a covenant with God and they did not require the blood of Jesus to enter heaven.


So they had a separate covenant

"This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." (Ex 24)

So the Jewish people did not have Jesus but they became free from original sin without him. They had a covenant meaning that God opened for them the door to salvation. The symbol of that covenant was circumcision. So God can forgive sin without the need for Jesus at that time.

"But I trust in your unfailing love; my heart rejoices in your salvation" - Psalms 13:5

Adam sinned and now sin is inherited so whom ever is born of Adam (which is everyone) is carrying his sin. Jesus came to redeem the sinners. So between Adam and Jesus there was no redemption from sin. Yet the Jewish people had been given a covenant in which they could enter heaven while still having the sin of Adam on their souls. So if God could make an exception to them then that defeats the purpose of Jesus dieing on the cross because children of Adam have already achieved salvation without him. That is like being locked out of your house, driving a bulldozer trough the side of your house to get in when your brother is there with the key in his pocket. But that key he says was given to him by his father and its only for him. Yet it’s your house.


In fact they had no concept of original sin.


In Islam we believe that every person is born sinless and it is their actions that determine whether or not they commit sin or acts of righteousness. We believe that Adam did indeed sin but that Allah who is the All Knowing, knew the nature of his creation and was ready to forgive Adam providing that he sincerely repented of his sin. Allah is the most merciful.

[20:122] Then they both ate thereof, so that their shame became manifest to them, and they began to stick the leaves of the garden together over themselves. And Adam observed not the commandment of his Lord, so his life became miserable.

[20:123] Then his Lord chose him for His grace, and turned to him with mercy and guided him.

philologos

Humans have a sin nature in Christianity, inherited from Adam, it's discussed in Romans 5:12.

It's irrelevant to me if the Jews don't honour a concept of a sin nature, because the purpose of divine revelation is that more is revealed over time. In Christianity we believe that our teaching is the furthering of Jewish thought. So that doesn't invalidate the concept of a sin nature.

I won't speak of the Qur'an. I have once, but I think it's best that I leave you to defend your own faith, I will defend mine if questioned on Bible verses.

Although I disagree with you strongly, I do believe that we are both seeking God in some way.

Yusuf Mirza

"It's irrelevant to me if the Jews don't honour a concept of a sin nature"

But brother it says in the Bible which you believe is the word of God that they had a covenant. Whether or not they believed in sin nature is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is that they entered heaven without the blood of Jesus. Now what you have to do is reconcile the belief in the blood of Christ with the reality that Jews pre Christ could enter heaven without his coming or a need for his coming. Not what they thought or did not or accepted or did not is not the point, but what was the reality of their salvation being ensured by their actions rather then Blood of Christ.

philologos

I don't know if all Jews have entered the Kingdom of Heaven. I know that Jesus said from the point when He came to the earth, that believing in Him is the way to salvation and the way to the Father. By the way, Jesus is the Word of God (John 1) and had existed before He was born in Christianity. So we believe there are signs of Jesus in the Tanakh. We believe that God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) was as present in Judaism before Christianity as it is today.

Yusuf Mirza

Well if you believe in the Bible as the word of God and it says explicitly that the Jews had a covenant, then they indeed had a covenant. What was the covenant? They were to keep the commandments of God and keep his holy days. The circumcision was the symbol of this. What use was the covenant if they knew they would go to eternal hell? Did God bring them out of Egypt via Moses and Aaron and make them a great and blessed nation just to cast them all into a lake of fire one by one as they died. Including Moses and Aaron.

Brother it’s not enough to say that you don’t know. Why don’t you know? Indeed you do know. I am confident that you do know. You know that the Jewish people including, Noah, Moses, Aaron, Solomon, David, Elijah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel ect entered heaven.

If they were carrying sin and were not saved then why do you accept their writings as the word of god? Why accept the Ten Commandments? Was Moses saved by the blood of Jesus? Or any other of the writers of the Old Testament? or the Tanakh?

Yusuf Mirza

Adam_____________________________Jesus____________________End of time
************↓______________________↑
*****************Jewish Covenant

philologos

That would be an inaccurate timescale as Jesus said He was coming to preach the New Covenant several times in the Gospel.

The way I would illustrate it would be as follows:


|

---

| |

---

|
|Patriarchs, Moses, Jewish Prophets (OC)| |Jesus (earthly) & The Apostles (NC)|

Yusuf Mirza

Ok no problem. Anyway forget my little chart for a moment and please awnser the posting before the chart.

philologos

I can't discuss who did or who did not go to heaven. It is forbidden in Christianity (Romans 10).

However, I do believe many Jews before Jesus did yes.

However Jesus was present through the Word of God (John 1). God is made up of Father, Son and Holy Spirit to us, so we interpret the Old Testament with this in mind. You should look up what a Christophany is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophany

As for the Jews, their method of atonement was through animal sacrifice (read the Torah, and the Christian book of Hebrews). However the sins of the people were too great to be taken away by animal sacrifice. So Jesus came to atone for the sins of mankind including the Gentiles. Of all those who had been there at the time of Christ, right up to everyone today. That's who he died for.

Yusuf Mirza

If Jesus was allways present for all time that is irelevent. It was not enough for him to simply exist was it? He had to come to earth as a man and die. So wheathere he allways existed or not is irelevent to this argument.

The point is that acceptence that "JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS FOR YOU" is the only, only, only way. HE is the truth, the way and the life. He is the only way. NO ONE SHALL ENTER UNTO THE FATHER SAVE TROUGH HIM. Yet people went to heaven before he died on the cross. Now if one cannot enter heaven with sin then does that mean that either;


A) They entered heaven with sin?
or
God forgave them their sin?

philologos

I already told you. The Jews atoned for their sins through animal sacrifice (read the Torah).

However the sins of mankind had become so great that this was no longer possible (i.e Jesus was the only way). So Jesus the Son of God (a part of the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit) atoned of our sin through Crucifixion and to fulfil prophesy (Isaiah 53).

If Jesus did not fulfil Isaiah 53, he was not the Messiah.

God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then yes God did forgive our sins.

Yusuf Mirza

Ok so for a time animal sacrifice was sufficient to remove original sin and allow man into the kingdom of God.

Now if the sin was forgiven then how did it become too much? If their sins were cancelled out then there was no sin on them to become too much.

Remember in the animal sacrifice the animals that were killed were mere beasts so it was not their blood that saved but rather the righteous act of the Jews doing the sacrifice. In that case they were saved trough works (sacrificing) and not trough the blood for how is the blood of beasts holy?

Other nations also did animal sacrifice so were they also forgiven their sins? For like the Jews they did not have or need the blood of Jesus as he had not come yet. Rather their work of obedience so surely their sacrifice as good work would also remove their sins.

Im going for Friday congregational prayer now at the mosque so when I get back I look forward to hearing your answer. Btw what’s your real name?

Yusuf Mirza

Bother I hope inshallah you will answer my question soon.

philologos

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Ok so for a time animal sacrifice was sufficient to remove original sin and allow man into the kingdom of God.

For a period of time yes. However the Lord tells us through the prophet Hosea, "I desire mercy not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6). Jesus is the way.

Deuteronomy 18:18 tells us that God would rise up a prophet from amongst His own people (the Jews), and that there would be punishment for those who did not follow Him.

The Muslims say this is about the Prophet Muhammad. However Muhammad was not Jewish so this could not possibly refer to him.

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Remember in the animal sacrifice the animals that were killed were mere beasts so it was not their blood that saved but rather the righteous act of the Jews doing the sacrifice. In that case they were saved trough works (sacrificing) and not trough the blood for how is the blood of beasts holy?

And. Are we not saved through the righteous act of Jesus Christ?

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Other nations also did animal sacrifice so were they also forgiven their sins? For like the Jews they did not have or need the blood of Jesus as he had not come yet. Rather their work of obedience so surely their sacrifice as good work would also remove their sins.

The question is who did they sacrifice to, and which God did they follow? If the sacrifice were in the intention of atoning for their sins, and if they were intended to the God as revealed to the Israelites I don't see why their sins could not be forgiven.

The Jews did need to salvation of Jesus because they had fallen so far away from God that they could not atone for all their sins by sacrifice. So yes they need the salvation of Jesus like everyone else.

Also if Jesus had not been crucified, He would not have been the Messiah. The Messiah must be ridiculed and put to death. (Isaiah 53)

God had intended to forgive mankind this way, and had revealed it 600 years before Jesus was born into the world into human flesh.

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Im going for Friday congregational prayer now at the mosque so when I get back I look forward to hearing your answer. Btw what’s your real name?

My name's Gareth.

Yusuf Mirza

Interesting.

Ok let ne for a moment move to a related point please, though I want to come back to this shortly.

Jesus forgave sins!!!

According to the New Testament Jesus forgave sins during his ministry before the events of the crucifixion.

Mark 2:5 says;
When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee”

Now if Jesus had the power to forgive sins himself then surely he could have forgiven everyone and there would be no need death on the cross.

Mark 10;
“ But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins”

philologos

Jesus had the power to forgive sins only because He would atone for them on the cross at a later stage. He liberated us from the slavery of sin, so that we could start anew, and to put ourselves right with God in the final days. That's like saying how can Jesus forgive our sins now? Do you think God is within time or timeless?

I've already told you Jesus had to be crucified to fulfil the Jewish prophesies about the Messiah. Were Jesus not put to death He could not have been the Messiah.

Yusuf Mirza

Do you think God is within time or timeless?

Yes God is timeless. So you are telling me that Jesus dieing on the cross removed sin from people in the past that lived and died before him as well as at his present time and in the future?

The people in Hell were asked to believe in Jesus and they said yes and they were taken out and went to heaven? What scripture do you get this from please!

philologos

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Do you think God is within time or timeless?

Yes God is timeless. So you are telling me that Jesus dieing on the cross removed sin from people in the past that lived and died before him as well as at his present time and in the future?

They couldn't possibly have believed in it before the people witnessed it. So, no. The previous system was through animal sacrifice.

What I meant by timeless was if Jesus forgave someone on earth before He was crucified. It would still be the Crucifixion that atoned for their sin. He took on our sins, and atoned for them.

Yusuf Mirza wrote:

The people in Hell were asked to believe in Jesus and they said yes and they were taken out and went to heaven? What scripture do you get this from please!

I didn't say that at all. If you are in hell it is too late, you have already had a chance to live your life the way that God had commanded.

I've already explained how the Jewish people atoned for their sins through animal sacrifice so let's not go in circles.

Yusuf Mirza

Well so far we have seen how


A) People before Jesus’s advent received salvation without the blood of the cross.

And

During the lifetime of Jesus people received salvation without the blood of the cross.



Jackass - However, I do believe many Jews before Jesus did (receive salvation) yes.

Jackass - Jesus had the power to forgive sins (pre crucifiction)

Now you have readily agreed that many Jews received salvation from animal sacrifice, meaning a good work i.e. keeping the commandments, this being one.

Now lets take a step back for a moment. Sin is inherited. It is passed down from Adam. From father to son and mother to son right. Now if we then have a man and a woman both involved in the sacrifice and both of them receive salvation then that means that they are then officially sinless correct? Now if they then get married and have a child then, as sin is inherited then that means that that child is now sinless. And if that child becomes a man and married another sinless woman then their children shall be sinless and so on and so forth.

Therefore that means that Jesus was not the first sinless man. In fact he would be one of many sinless people walking around Jerusalem at his time. Now these people would not then need to accept Jesus on the cross because they are already sinless. They are free from sin and have overcome sin. So that is respectfully I say this, quite embarrassing for Jesus then.