Originally posted by checkbaiter
[b]I hesitated to get into this debate because I know it is a very difficult issue. However, I would not be honest with myself nor do the best for God and the Lord Jesus Christ if I did nothing....so here goes...

I also believe Jesus is the Son of God.
He is my Lord and Saviour.
He is the head of the church.
He is the image of the Living God.
He ...[text shortened]... because of His obedience.
I serve the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart.

But He is not God.

So you plege your allegeince and heart to someone other than God? You call Jesus your Lord instead of the Lord of Hosts? If Chrsit is not God is this not then idolatrous?

Also, do you believe that Isaiah 9:6 is referring to the Messiah? If so, then how can God be born? If not then who is it referring to and what to do with the whole, "God will be born" dogma?

Originally posted by ahosyney
What do you mean we are being triune. If you mean body , soule and spirit, you faild before to define the difference between soule and spirite. Also there are other aspects you ignore. So the answer is no we are not triune.

What I mean is that your body functions in the material world and your soul is the go-between for your spirit to communicate with your body within the spiritual realm.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Not my fault this time.

Are you sure? I mean, your not PM'img these people on what to say are you? 😛

Originally posted by whodey
So I must know Mohammad to know God? Should John 17:3 read, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee; the only true God, and Mohammad, whom thou has sent."?

Yes, actually when someone return to Islam he should declare the following:

"I witness that there is no god but Allah, and I witness that Mohammed his Messanger"

and if he is Christian he sometimes add "and I witness that Jesus his Messanger"

To witness it means that you know that, and you believe it.

Of course to witness that Mohammed is the messagner of GOD it implys that you accept the message he gave you from GOD which includes believing in all prophets.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I don't really understand what you are searching for. Are you looking for a) reasons to think we are justified in asserting that Jesus was divine or b) evidence that Jesus claimed he was God or c) something else?

If a), then what should we take as a criterion for divinity? For instance, is it necessary and/or sufficient for one's being 'divine' that one be able to do things that are nomologically impossible?

I am ascertaining who the Biblical Messiah is based upon the scriptures given to us. Of coarse if you do not believe the scriptures to be the inspired word of God all of this is a bit meaningless and trivial for you no doubt.

Originally posted by ahosyney
Yes, actually when someone return to Islam he should declare the following:

"I witness that there is no god but Allah, and I witness that Mohammed his Messanger"

and if he is Christian he sometimes add "and I witness that Jesus his Messanger"

To witness it means that you know that, and you believe it.

Of course to witness that Mohammed is the m ...[text shortened]... s that you accept the message he gave you from GOD which includes believing in all prophets.

So would you say that Mohammad is your Jesus? I mean, should Mohammad be viewed as our modern day Messiah as where Christ was the Messiah of old?

Originally posted by whodey
John 10:25 "Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you believed me not. The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But you believe not, because you are not of my sheep as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life; and they will never perish, neither will any man pl ...[text shortened]... him regarding percieved blashpemy. This was long before Christ was even taken to the cross.

It is good that you mentioned the whole passage. It is clear what Jesus means here.

He said neither will any man pluck them out of my hand

And He said [b]no man is able to pluck them out of my Fathers hand.

Following that he said he said "I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE"

So it is clear what he means here. That he and the father are one in this particular maner " no man can pluck them from his hand or the fathers hand" of course he is talking about his sheep, the believer. So he share this with any other prophet.

But in every thing else they are different.

Originally posted by whodey
So would you say that Mohammad is your Jesus? I mean, should Mohammad be viewed as our modern day Messiah as where Christ was the Messiah of old?

the Messiah was a special prophet to Jews, and to be honest all Muslims including me, believe he is Jesus Christ. Jesus defined his messionary to be for Jews. And I believe that.

But prophet Mohammed is different. His is not a prophet for a particular nation or race. His message was general and it was to unify all people under the religion of GOD.

Every prophet before the prophet Mohammed was sent to a specific group of people, and his message was limited to them.

That I think all what I can say.

Originally posted by ahosyney
It is good that you mentioned the whole passage. It is clear what Jesus means here.

He said [b]neither will any man pluck them out of my hand

And He said [b]no man is able to pluck them out of my Fathers hand.

Following that he said he said "I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE"

So it is clear what he means here. That he and the father are one in ...[text shortened]... er. So he share this with any other prophet.

But in every thing else they are different.[/b]

But why did they then pick up stones to stone him for blasphemy if what you say is true?

Originally posted by whodey
And this is one of the points Jews raise is that Christ did not fulfill all of the prophesies regarding the Messiah. However, is he not coming back? Will he not reign the nations of the earth when he returns? Will he not bring peace once he comes back to earth to rule and reign? I believe even Muslims believe he is to return, no? So how is it that these ...[text shortened]... I suppose you will simply say that it has been corrupted, however, I am not of the same opinion.

This prophcy is not about the Messiah, and it can't be.

If you read 9.7 , you will see that it talkes about David. And jesus is not a son of David, and can't be (and that is a problem in two of the gosbels I think).

But as I explained before Jewish didn't refuse him because he didn't he is not the messiah. But because his message didn't match their political agenda. The waited for a king, that will build them a kingdom and free them from romans. But when Jesus came with different objectives, they knew that their targets will not be achived and they might lose their political position with romans. So they turned on him. And that is very clear in the Bible.

In regards to God being born, you simply say it makes no sense. That is because of your theology my friend. I suppose you will simply say that it has been corrupted, however, I am not of the same opinion.

In your theology too, GOD can't have a born son. Trinity doesn't say the son is born. If he was born then he has a begining. And GOD doesn't have a begining.

And if let your theology aside and read this scriptures again you will find your explainiation to them incorrect:

Did you ask yourself who is the speaker here. Is he GOD or Isaiah. If he is GOD, then who give GOD a son. The scripter say, unto us a son is given; it is a passive voice, who will give GOD a son.

And GOD in the OT has many sons. It is nothing new or special. But are they real sons or spritiual sons.

You may say he called him Mighty God. Also GOD called Mosses God, and Judges are called GOD in the OT too.

(king James Version)(Psalms)(Ps-82-1)(God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.)

Check this link to be sure:
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ps&chapter=082

So in general even if it matches Jesus (and it doesn't), it will not make him GOD.

Originally posted by ahosyney
the Messiah was a special prophet to Jews, and to be honest all Muslims including me, believe he is Jesus Christ. Jesus defined his messionary to be for Jews. And I believe that.

But prophet Mohammed is different. His is not a prophet for a particular nation or race. His message was general and it was to unify all people under the religion of GOD.

Eve ...[text shortened]... ecific group of people, and his message was limited to them.

That I think all what I can say.

I have several question to ask if Jesus was only sent to minister for the Jews as mentioned in Matthew 10:5.

1. Since the Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah, were his efforts done in vain? If not, what was accomplished?
2. What of Matthew 28:19-20 that shows Christ telling his disciples to go to ALL the nations of the earth to proclaim the gospel? Why?

Originally posted by whodey
But why did they then pick up stones to stone him for blasphemy if what you say is true?

Because they missunderstand him the same way you did. But Jesus didn't leave them. He said you missunderstand me. I didn't mean I'm GOD. Read the verses that follows: Jn 10:31-38.

If they understand him correctly , why did Jesus refused their understanding , and explained what he ment.

I think the senario is clear.

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]This prophcy is not about the Messiah, and it can't be.

If you read 9.7 , you will see that it talkes about David. And jesus is not a son of David, and can't be (and that is a problem in two of the gosbels I think).

Christ was to be a descendant of the family of David who was the family of Jesse as foretold in Isaiah 11:1-5 and seen in Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38.

Originally posted by whodey
Are you sure? I mean, your not PM'img these people on what to say are you? 😛

If you're serious, you need medication for the paranoia.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ahosyney
Because they missunderstand him the same way you did. But Jesus didn't leave them. He said you missunderstand me. I didn't mean I'm GOD. Read the verses that follows: Jn 10:31-38.

If they understand him correctly , why did Jesus refused their understanding , and explained what he ment.

I think the senario is clear.

I did read it but that is not my take on it. After all, the people that heard his rebuttal did not then say that he no longer blasphemes. They then later took him before the Jewish leaders and questioned him and he admitted that he was the Son of God and they accused him again of blasphemy. Interestingly, he then offered no defense. Why? Was he trying to mislead them? Was he trying to mislead me?