@Claire Rousseau
The primary problem here is that you've failed to understand, the crucifixion was not about the ACCOUNT OF SIN, but the nature of sin..
it's about, what muslims call 'the nafs'. That is the 99 headed serpent that bites us in the grave (sheol/hades) to tyhe extent of our earthly attachments, our sins etc, aka 'the cords of sheol'.
in islam, that is what the concept of martydom is about. Martyrs are considered living, not dead. Why? because that serpent that binds us to the grave, is already dead..so how can a soul like that not be living and free?
So with regards to Jesus, this is a unique situation where you have to be 'joined' in him...spiritually. Your heart has to reflect Jesus, connected through LOVE...and only then 'his qualities become your qualities'. if that makes sense.
However even that is a tall order, because the epistles were not addressed to you anyway.
Thus, my own argument is this..
-Paul argued that the circumcision symbol was dead, because it failed in it's purpose, to 'cut the flesh' (our carnal nature). since people were openly sinful, just based off of that, Paul could say 'yup, that symbol aint shit'. So Paul argued that the Cross was even better, it symbolised the DEATH of the serpent and it was a living symbol (obv at that time, it would be, fresh off the grill n all).
BUT 2000 yrs on you think all this applies to you? Rome took that cross symbol, turned it upside down (satanic) into the symbol of the sword, war and conquest. Rome is the Beast.
By Paul's logic, the cross is dead. This 'born again' stuff is a total lie. if you literally have a carnal nature alive and well in you, the cross failed in its purpose.
As for your deep seated issues against prophet Mohammad and your claim that he wrote the Quran. Actually, the Quran was revealed by the HOLY SPIRIT. in John 16, Jesus said
-he will bring you ALL THE TRUTH (literally this has to mean scripture)
-he will tell you what is to come (literally, that means prophecy)
-he will not speak of his own but only what he hears.
This makes sense when you understand that the holy spirit functions through people.
The question is, why would the holy spirit seek out an ishmaelite prophet, Mohammad? why him?
Again i refer to Paul's logic. Paul argued that the gentile christians were like the original patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac Jacob etc) 'righteous by faith before there was a law given to Moses'. YET later when the israelites lost faith entirely in Egypt, God saw fit to subject them to the LAW. God didnt just revert them back to 'faith' did he?
Now extend the same formula to gentiles. Aferall after Jesus came, the gentile period began and it has to be a repetition of the previous pattern.
So you have the Torah and you have Shariah (same meaning).
It also makes sense in light of the promises made to make Ishmael a 'great nation', literally such a thing could never happen until 'shiloh' (Jesus).
so what about this 'great nation'? Jesus is the rock that destroys the Image in Daniel 2. Yet muslims were the ones to end the 4 beasts of Daniel.
literally muslims smashed persia and the byzantine empire, win the crusades (note, colonialism is the rise of the end times beast, the white horse conquering, Rev 6). If that wasnt enough, Babylon was alive and well in the christian era...but then islam came and babylon was finished.
yet even that isnt enough..
ive gone into this many times
Revelation 11
gentiles trampling on the temple mount for 1260 days.
how about this?
637 to 1099 AD = 462
1187 to 1948 = 761
total 1223 yrs
1223 x 1.0306812089059 (solar to lunar years conversion) = 1260.
You literally cant deny islam's place in everything..and if all that wasnt enough, in Revelation 12 we're then told that the woman and her offpsring (the true remnant of judea) found shelter 'in the wilderness for 1260 days out of the serpents reach'. literally, under islamic protection in the holy land for 1260 days.
ive talked about this many times. in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, Jesus spoke about the destruction of Jerusalem which was fulfilled in 70AD. He told his followers to flee to the mountains to escape the punishment.
So then jump to Zechariah 13 which foretold these events. The true remnant were the survivors. 2/3 were either turfed out of the holy land or killed. The remaining jews, the survivors, became THE remnant.
over time, obv they lost their 'jewish' identity and became PALESTINIAN!!! thus their conversion to islam and finally 'those who believe in the testimony of Jesus AND FOLLOW GOD'S COMMANDMENTS).
The end point remains the same, islam is most def THE truth.
Lastly, muslims have to believe in ALL the prophets. the shahada, stating that prophet Mohammad is 'the final messenger' doesnt need explaining. This specific belief is more importantly given to prevent future claimants claiming prophethood. prophethood ended and there hasnt been another prophet since.
you might try to argu e'oh but then why is joseph smith any different?'
the answer is smith was a quack with zero credibility. For example even the story of the 'angel' moroni..was literally saying that the angel had a previous incarnation as man, a sailor. These type of concepts are totally alien to abrahimic scripture.
the angels islam believes in are the same ones in the bible eg Michael, Gabriel. Even when christians have disgustingly mocked the story of prophet Mohammad's encounter with Gabriel, they're like 'OMG HE WAS SCARED, HE WAS FROTHING AT THE MOUTH, THAT WAS DEF SATAN'..
yet the prophet Daniel, who was already in an established theology...who would have already known who Gabriel was, was petrified and couldnt move for days after his experience with Gabriel. it was a scary experience...not exactly daffodils and faeries like these transexual xtian like to imagine.
seriously everything is in islam's favour when it comes to basic logical arguments like ive presented. the idea of another prophet after Jesus, makes perfect sense...
He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.”
21 They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”
He said, “I am not.”
“Are you the Prophet?”
He answered, “No.”
even if they didnt envisage an ishmaelite prophet, the archetype of 'THE PROPHET' seperate to THE MESSIAH was already established in the hearts and minds of the jewish people..and since Jesus the messiah has been, no new jewish prophet could come after him anyway, thus it had to be a gentile..and who better than an ishmaelite? makes perfect sense to me.
