Who is Jesus?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

ILoveJesus
Student
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:47 pm

Who is Jesus?

Post #1

Post by ILoveJesus »

I would like to help any christian who wants to know about the nature of Jesus from Islamic point of view.
I will be here just for 4 days. I will do my best in this days.
may my first thread be useful.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=3891
Please don't hesitate to ask whatever question crosses your mind
be blessed..

Easyrider

Post #21

Post by Easyrider »

soadnot wrote:HE** was a savior who was sent to earth delivered as a mortal through whom it was possible for sinners to be reborn into immortal life. He died for our sins and came back to life the following Sunday. He was born of a virgin on December 25th in a manger or cave attended by sheppard’s and became known as the light of the world He had 12 disciples with whom he shared his last meal before dieing. His devotees symbolically consumed the flesh and blood of him. Because HE** was a son god he was worshiped on Sundays. He was also depicted with a halo around his head. People gave each other gifts on December the 25th to celebrate. The leader of the religion was called a “Popa” – Pope. And his headquarters of the religion was on Vatican hill in Rome.

is this jesus??
NO!
this is mithra!!


<< more info
A fallacy. Scholars (Nash, McKenzie, etc.) who have researched this find that such "coincidences" are not found in history prior to or during the life of Christ, but evolved thru pagan sources after Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Nice try.

Christ vs. Mithraism

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_MMM.html

From the link:

"First of all, Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave; he was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a cave behind -- and I suppose technically the rock he was born out of could have been classified as a virgin! Here is how one Mithraic scholar describes the scene on Mithraic depictions: Mithra "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." [MS.173] Mithra was born a grown-up, but you won't hear the copycatters mention this! (The rock-birth scene itself was a likely carryover from Perseus, who experienced a similar birth in an underground cavern; Ulan.OMM, 36.)"

Easyrider

Post #22

Post by Easyrider »

That's the preincarnated Jesus (God) speaking. No problem.
ILoveJesus wrote:please read this verses:
"God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" Numbers 23:19
"And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret." 1 Samuel 15:29
"I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath." Hosea 11:9
First of all, it would be correct to say that Jesus is deity incarnated in a human body. He is not "man" in the complete species sense of the intended meaning of those scripture.

Fast forward to the Book of Daniel, which was written at a time when the “son of man” phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context. And if the person in Daniel 7:13-14 is only someone “like” a son of man, then it certainly implies there must be some differences. Otherwise it would say something like, “A son of man” came before the Ancient of Days.”

In addition, at the time Numbers 23:19, etc., was written, God had not yet become man (Christ), so the statement does not necessarily preclude a future incarnation.

Jesus IS God!

Post Reply