Is Jesus the "BEGOTTEN" Son of God?

Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,298
"begotten" son because Jesus came to earth in flesh
Beget means to reproduce through a human function. This implies that your god had intercourse with Mary. Another thing to note is that the word "begotten" is an interpolation. Your oldest most complete Bibles don't have that word in it.
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
12,150
@Daciple
See the way I reply, it is easier to respond in points but when people dissect posts, that makes me not want to reply because it makes it difficult for me to quote.

1) I got that idea from reading the general contents of your posts but that's also because we cross paths in these type of threads... but if that isn't true in your case, i'm sorry and take that comment back. However i've seen you exhibit that same trollish type of behaviour when we've exchanged words before and also see it in this thread.
Just to make things clear, there is nowhere near as much criticism of christianity from muslims either here or anywhere else.

2)
when muslims here criticise christian beliefs, we do so based entirely on theological grounds that can be mutually agreed upon. What i mean by that is, we don't lie about your beliefs, we question your beliefs as you present them to us.
It's not the same with a lot of christians on here..and all over online.

'you worship a moon god derp derp'
'your god is lucifer/baal'
'you are of the devil'
one girl told me 'who was a liar from the beginning? you are sons of satan'

that's the sort of shite i've had to put up with for a long time and it's always on repeat. Even if we show them our monothiestic beliefs (the topic of tawheed) they will just say 'nope, derp derp moon god/satan'


3) Oh yes, we sure do, but its amazing how the Muslims dont seem to care or defend him when he comes back with his constant fake accounts lol Pot meet Kettle...

Who are you talking about? im not aware of anyone with fake accounts who specifically joins this forum to silently attack christianity or promote islam with fake stories like tanya has done.

4) Unlike Muslims I am comfortable to make this concession because it is a reality and it definitely means NOTHING to Christianity nor does it in anyway affect my Faith, not in the slightest.

That's how I feel too..but again this was all only brought up in response to something @rainerann said so don't quote me out of context and then bang on about how we're boasting because we're weak. I was responding to someone who is celebrating the apparent 'decline of islam'.

"This is the same ridiculous nonsense always given to ANY type of conversion from Islam to Christianity"

I'm one of those who firmly believes quality>quantity. There are hadith prophecies which say one day our number will be like grains of sand on the shore, but we'll be pitiful/pathetic due to the love of the world. Many say 'mosques will be full but knowledge will be scarce'
So basically I don't brag about conversions to islam. Youtube is littered with a lot of personal testimonies though, you cannot deny that.

search for 'convert to islam story' on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=convert+to+islam+story
absolutely packed with real testimonies.

search for 'convert to christianity story'
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=convert+to+christianity+story
these videos, most of them are 80s movie productions...where is chuck norris and van damme in this shit? and they always present the worst example of islam in this.

look mate, one of my old friends from high school was a roman catholic pakistani, no one gave him trouble, it depends on the people. im aware of one guy in bradford who became christian and his home was vandalised, by yobs/hooligans, those types are not really practicing muslims anyway.

These fake testimonies they always have to attack islam because that's the primary goal, who sponsors them?


Also what I was saying was about Ergun Caner as just one example. The christian who talked about ergun caner said that he was making it more difficult for legit christians to discuss islam because effectively people will choose ergun caner's style more (he didnt say those words but its what he meant) ie ergun caner appeals to people's egoistic bs.
that same old binary crap 'islam evil, we good...we love, them hate' etc.
BUT the majority of christians believe what ergun caner and others say about islam. they believe in the propaganda.
of course there are more honest christians and ive had the pleasure of talking to some online before. but im talking about the basic theological dishonesty ive seen all over this forum where this type of ergun caner material is promoted as true.

Again im only bringing this up because you people seem to wax lyrical about how millions are leaving islam, threatened by stones and swords and how the holy spirit guided them, how all christianity is love and all islam is hate and that type of binary bs.


Can we link dozens of stories, and real life videos of Muslims who have converted then get stoned, murdered and the like for rejecting Islam and accepting Christ?

Can you? don't go showing me examples of Isis or some shit like that Show me how it happens in every day Pakistan for example. I just showed you 2 like for like youtube links, compare and contrast, it's fairly obvious which side is being honest.


The only time it gets cringeworthy is when people wrongly say xyz celeb has become Muslim when it isn't true. However many have..and im not talking about hollywood but there are so many examples of people who became muslim and we didnt make a big deal about it
for example 3 (out of many more) football players who QUITELY became muslim
Theirry henry, frank ribery, anelka. I guess in football it's not a big deal because a lot of the black/african players are muslim like Paul Pogba (shocked me, actually) but these examples are just routine, no big stories about them from muslims. it's mentioned. we don't use them to trash christianity.

Then you have people like yusuf estes or hamza yusuf, timothy winters, sheikh eesa and many more of those types..they're all good people who don't talk about Christianity most of the time.

However by you presenting me with examples of how christians must suffer in the latter days, in todays world this applies to muslims just as much if you observe what's happening. Don't forget we're the colonised people now, not you.


4)

Again i never bragged about rates of conversion but talked about how she wanted islam to disappear but clearly that hasn't happened despite all the propaganda against islam in our era.

2 Thes 2:1
He's talking about the anti-christ, link it to Matthew 24 and Jesus is talking generally about the whole world. You can't claim what Jesus said, aimed at jewish people was exclusively meant to be about your version of christianity in our time it applies to everyone who believes in these same themes. Ie Jesus is the messiah and then there is the anti-christ.

Actually come to think of it, in Revelation 11 the 2 witnesses/prophets story, to me it is not literal but symbolic of 2 religions who believe in Jesus Christ. 2 gentile religions that trample over the temple mount.
This is symbolic of christianity and islam. They are both attacked by the anti-christ.

No matter how you wish to understand my religion, it is my belief and the belief of muslims clearly that Jesus is going to return, descend and kill the dajjal.
dajjal is described as blind in his right eye and this matches Zech 11's prophecy of the worthless shepherd. God says 'iw ill raise up a worthless shepherd in THIS LAND' meaning he is going to be a fake jewish messiah.


5) I for one would if it was forced upon others by way of Religious Theocracy as is the case with Islam. Also in case you missed it the New Testament is replete with passages discouraging Jewish Religious obligations being forced upon others...


Jesus said
So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

There's a beat missing here
I too am against enforced rules in the modern context. However as you're not a muslim you cannot really appreciate the background behind things like the hudood ordinances in pakistan and the people who brought it about.

Basically, it is like how in the old testament you had various prophets appear but you also had false teachers meddling with things without understanding.

The Quran mentions the divine revelation along with the hikmah/wisdom
ie Jesus was given the Gospel AND the hikmah.


In islam, it is obligatory from our spiritual perspective but it isn't meant to be forced on us. There are exceptions depending oh the context and hikmah also has to be applied.
For example i had a mate who was a really good guy, heart of gold and all that, became a drug addict, a drinker, gambler, all of that...
got kicked out of his home by his parents..they would not acknowledge him.
Would anyone want to enforce islam on him? can't be done, his parents tried, it made him worse.
ive seen it happen with my cousin on a smaller scale but he rebelled because of his strict upbringing. there are ways to understand the rules within the context of where you're living.
i've seen countless examples of strict parents keeping their daughters on lockdown only for those girls to become emotionally unstacle and jump on the first dick that swings their way.
You have to be wise about enforcing things.

So going back to pakistan and the taliban as examples. Basically it goes like this
during the colonial era the majority of muslims in the indian subcontinent were sunni. Then wahabism rose in arabia and it challenged a lot of muslims in india. One group rose up who beleived in jihad as an obligatory act.

now here's the thing...in the Quran jihad was obligatory but in the context those verses specifically were addressed to THOSE muslims in thattime/place ie serving the prophet SAW himself. It is vastly different in this age. We have a lot of corrupt governments so how do we decide who to fight again anyway? is it wise ie like taking out saddam hussein and gaddafi?

Another muslim scholar who had a lot of influence, believed it was better for muslims to fix our issues before we go about trying to engage in a war we would most likely lose because we're sinful.
do you get the difference? now out of the 2 groups, which group became dominant in the military eventually? it was the former group..they did engage in their jihad and lost.
They refer to the latter scholar as a 'british agent' (he wasn't).
He acted on wisdom, they acted on pride under the banner of islam.
Isn'tt his an age old theme in the bible?

Further down the line this group took control of the pakistani military and people like zia ul haq rose out of that and became president of pakistan. long story short his hudood ordinances were a disaster because corrupt people in religious seats are going to do more harm than good. Of course that goes back to what Jesus said about the rabbis.
Zia also created the isi ie the ones who are currently playing the double game with america. They created the taliban as their tool in afghanistan..you get the idea right?

It's wrong to judge us and our idea of an islamic theocracy based on those examples.



6)
Guess that would be the difference between us, I have no problem accepting that Solomon did exactly what the Word of God straight up said he did

I posted a lot of material on this topic not very long ago. Basically Canon does not make it 'the Word of God' specifically

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3259-bible-canon
The idea of canonicity can only have been suggested at a period when the national literature had progressed far enough to possess a large number of works from which a selection might be made. And the need for such selection was all the more urgent, since the Jewish mind occupied itself in producing exclusively writings of religious import, in which category, however, were also included various historical and didactic works. Which writings were included in the recognized collection, and in what manner such collection was made, are questions belonging to the history of the canon, and are discussed in this article: the origin and composition of the separate books come under the history of Biblical literature.


'didactic works'
is exactly how i understood Kings the first time round. Ie it's a text which has a wisdom behind it but it isn't meant to be literally true. It has an idea behind it that you've got to be aware of, namely Solomon's connection with the occult, control of demons etc. This arguably led to jewish people becoming attracted to the occult and when they learnt magic they were told 'solomon did it'
to present solomon as fallen was necessary to prevent people from trying to imitate him.


If you can be bothered, read this

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13842-solomon
According to the same rabbis, the sin ascribed to Solomon in I Kings xi. 7 et seq. is only figurative: it is not meant that Solomon fell into idolatry, but that he was guilty of failing to restrain his wives from idolatrous practises (Shab. 56b). Still, the legend prevalent in rabbinical literature is that Solomon lost his royalty, riches, and even his reason on account of his sins. This legend is based on the words "I, Ḳohelet, was king over Israel in Jerusalem " (Eccl. i. 12, Hebr.), which show that when he uttered them he was no longer king. He gradually fell from the highest glory into the deepest misery. At first, Solomon reigned over the inhabitants of the upper world as well as over those of the lower; then only over the inhabitants of the earth; later over Israel only; then he retained only his bed and his stick; and finally his stick alone was left to him (Sanh. 20b).

it's similar with David where the jews say that inr eality David didnt commit adultery..so what gives? in fact they say what the Quran says.

7)
You wrote
which is a NORMAL PRACTICE TODAY in much of the World in which Islam is the predominate culture and Religion.

No, it isn't normal. It does happen (marriage to minors i mean) but not in developed society and it is a big topic now amongst muslims and it is viewed as wrong by the vast majority except a few. That's an important point.

I get your point but evil done by muslims doesn't reflect islam. For me much of the context is about the rise of the abbasids. Don't you think it's convenient the abbasids rose to power and ruled over persia..and all the hadith scholars were persian?
The abbasids were enemies of the ahle-bayt (the household of Mohammad SAW).
so here's some context for you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Ridha
imam Reza was assasinated by Al Ma'mun, an abbasid 'caliph'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma'mun
In A.H. 201 (817 AD) al-Ma'mun forced Imam Reza to move from Madina to Merv. Imam Reza, the Eighth descendant of Muhammad, was named his heir. This was not easily accepted by the Abbasid leaders but was widely seen as a political move by al-Ma'mun since he was fearful of the widespread sympathy towards the Ahl al-Bayt. Al-Ma'mun's plan was to keep watch over Imam Reza. However, his plans did not succeed due to the growing popularity of Ali Al-Rida in Merv. People from all over the Muslim world traveled to meet the prophet's grandson and listen to his teachings and guidance.

these are real historical contexts.

you study the history of the ahle ul bayt you would find they were all persecuted/killed. That's part of why it's very important to understand the political designs of the same people who oversaw the end product of what's in the hadith. How they present Aisha as the convenient child bride has everything to do with popular shia discourse regarding her till this day..let alone what it was like in that era when they were persecuted. why is she then the most dominant 'voice' in the hadith (ie what's attributed to her, not what is literally true) is very much a big part of that design to kill of support for the ahle-bayt in that time.
If i was living in that time, who do you think i would support, the ahle-bayt or tyrant leaders?

I remember 10 years ago when The Arrivals was released and they covered this topic
i dont agree with shia on a lot of things because i hold the middle ground but this video is pretty revealing.
their version of the mahdi is different to the abbasid hadith version.

You do not want to give this idea real thought but I do accept what you're saying about muslims not leading by example. But it's pretty complex when you judge muslims almost 1500 years after the man, that's like judging the Moses for what pharisees did.

The hadith I quoted before about Aisha saying her parents followed islam before she'd reached puberty
of course in the context the term 'puberty' in islam also refers to mental maturity, not merely the age where you 'remember things' as some christians suggest but, it's the age where we're accountable. That age for us boys is when our balls drop, at that point it's obligatory for us to read salat 5 times a day...in the hadith translation the term used for that age is 'puberty' referring both to the age of accountability aswell as actual puberty.
That hadith at least makes it clear she had reached this age in Mecca because she talks about the Quraysh.

There are many similar logical arguments

eg

Narrated Yusuf bin Mahik: I was in the house of 'Aisha, the mother of the Believers. She said, "This revelation: "Nay, but the hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense); and the Hour will be more previous and most bitter." (54.46) was revealed to Muhammad at Mecca while I was a playfull little girl." (Book #60, Hadith #399)

The chapter she refers to in the Quran, surah 54 was revealed in the 4th year after the call, when Mohammad SAW was 44 years old.
Aisha could remember the revelation of this verse as a 'playful little girl'.

What age do you suppose that was, 4, 5, 6, 7?
She would have married Mohammad 11 years later.
No way she was 9 years old.

See in this case your only argument is to just keep repeating it like it's a fact, like you don't even believe the Quran was divinely revealed but the hadith are definitely 100% true with no mistakes or no manipulation within them? come on huh?


Raping, paedophillia, just as much common amongst white people. There is a context under which it's thrived here in the UK though. I can acknowledge all of that.

Example
they say, that muslims are segregated ie muslim ghettos. BUT here's the real context
Muslims arrived to work in the cotton mills in northern parts of the UK. So immediately they lived in close quarters in homes originally built for factory workers.
That industry faced huge closures during Thatchers era. That led to mass unemployment all over the UK but it lead to muslims driving taxis and setting up businesses for a living, all within close quarters again. So technically, you end up with what you can call muslim ghettos. Wasn't entirely by choice back in the day though.

Now, it's later down the line where this segregated environment means, literally i saw girls selling sex in our area growing up because no one who knew them, would see them here.
get it?
back then the idea of paedophillia never crossed my minds, these were older girls. it isn'tuntil i got older i realised 'those girls are in my high school wtf' but those girls had bad reputations as slags, easy, whores etc. i swear this is a true story.

When they were selling sex, again, i swear to you on this, they would even walk into the mosque and offer blowies for a £10 from older men, all the time.
most men responded harshly, many with embarassment, but i imagine a fair few just didnt give a shit and indulged when no one was looking OR alternatively we had the types who were younger, drank alcohol, used drugs etc and regularly hung out with these girls.
many of those girls even wound up marrying the guys.

many years later, this stuff became widespread in muslim towns all over, it's because one guy does it, another gets tempted 'he can do it, so i will too'
they call each other.
recently, on bigo app which i go on sometimes, a bunch of guys tried to trap a normal older pakistani girl into gangbang sessions and she exposed them.
so we have our fair share of filth, it isnt reflective of islam.
in fact if islamw as enforced these types would at the very least get the living shit beaten out of them and at most, stoned to death.
that's the irony isnt it?
I don't know everything but the seedy environment exists kind of in the open but one that only the worst types indulge in.
where i live, i've walked out in the month of ramadan dressed in full islamic clothing, a hat...on my way to the mosque, park on the street and notice a girl running towards my car, she gets in and offers me business.
no thanks, ffs? girl looked like she was riddled in herpes...
if that exists, how many will indulge?
aside from that, i swear to God, i know worse stories than this about guys raping normal muslim girls..as in muslims do r*pe muslims, it isnt targetted towards non-muslims but one of those where bad people want to take advantage of any vulnerable girl. when a muslim girl is raped, family honour means she can't even tlk about it...she doesn't want people talking about her and her family can'tt ake revenge in a country like this.
it's why in pakistan people resort to murder and revenge r*pe on a big scale when shit like this happens.
It is not exactly islam is it?


8) i agree with you
when i question hadith here, my beliefs get called 'dubious' by other muslims. when i quote from the bible, ive been accused of being a non-muslim. eitherway a fair few here don't like me.
I agree generally that muslims are hypocritical when quoting from the hadith BUT there is nothing wrong with using hadith as historical markers AS LONG AS you're aware of context.

eg
hadith
Imam Mahdi will come, from khorosan, with an army carying a black flag.
not only is this actually plagarising from persian prophecies....the Abbasids who ruled khorosan/persia areas themselves carried black flags.


YET actually i do believe in things like the law of attraction but not the way it's sold by the new age shit. I believe based on what ive seen my whole life, you create your own reality.
in sufism, the material world is connected with the mind.
They are called Nasut and Malakut.
nothing can happen in the physical unless it happens in malakut beforehand. Get it?
part of malakut is the astral plane. I have seen a whole load of stuf throughout my life and very recently too...so i believe in shared thoughtforms and manifestations.

This is also connected with the deuteronomy chapter about punishments for disobedience which you ironically quoted.
That chapter was a huge marker for the material manifestation of an arab prophet.
The jews were awaiting a messiah in that age, they retook jerusalem from christian control with persian support and killed christians.
Their messianic hopes were at a long time high.
Their messianic desire was someone like Mohammad...but obv jewish.
this is a long theme though, it led to jews in medina celebrating his arrival. possibly they saw him as a forerunner to the messiah? like John the Baptist to Jesus..in the wilderness calling to the straight path. Long story short, he ws an arab.
what they plant, they won't eat it's fruit.
that's the idea.

i apply this idea to the law of attraction and our internal beliefs, because malakut has both the emotional aspect (the astral plane) anf the logical mental aspect (the mental plane). The law of God pertains to the mental side connecting with the law of God, with God's Transcendence and the otherside connects with God's Immanence.
there has to be a perfect balance of both.

so one of the ideas i hold is that the muslim Mahdi archetype will manifest in the form of the jewish messiah (false messiah) and ironically the jewish messianic idea will result in the literal manifestation of that type of figure amongst muslims, ie the mahdi/saviour.
this theme is that shadow side of prophecy.

It's important for us all to be aware of what we post. I post hadith prophecies but with it in mind that they do have a very real presence in the current world. the idea that hundreds of millions believe in an idea, it must create something?

also i have to question the intent behind a hadith too.
the hadith of aisha's age have the obvious connection with the politics of that time.
the mahdi prophecy had the obvious connection to the abbasid's seeking credibility and public support.
but many prophecies contain hadith are shared by noth sunnis and shias and avoid those controversies.

There are many prophecies, some which are linked to bible prophecy too. Too many to talk about here. The mere fact they exist at all, does make them relevant to what happens though.


9) How on earth have I created a new religion? lmao.
I believe what is in the Quran and i believe it with more of a mind on real contexts.
for example when I read the Quran I know that it tells me
The disciples of Jesus were inspired by Allah
now based on that, it is my view that Peter was God inspired.
Therefore if Peter (in the book of acts) saw his vision in the cloud, i do not believe Satan made him disbelieve at that moment.
YET many muslims do, look it up on google.

who's truth is more accurate to the Quranic text? it's mine.
knowing Peter was inspired by Allah, some argue that maybe Paul tricked him and he didn't know any better BUT Peter did praise Paul. Even if Peter didnt author that chapter though, book of acts is proof Peter accepted Paul aswell as the other disciples/apostles...God inspired as they were.
it is disbelief for me to believe such people fell into satan's hands so soon. I don't believe over 1000 years of messianic hopes would suddenly fall into the hands of satan.
nope.

if that was true then christianity would be dead from it's inception

YET the Quran tells us about the seven sleepers, 2 centuries later. Christians.
Do you get my point?
The hadith talk about St George..he was a christian in the 3rd century too.
so if such people are saints, it means their beliefs were not wrong.

So who's perspective is theologically more honest, mine or theirs?

the reason someone here doubted my belief is because as online muslamic princesses go, they are used to white knight beard bro asskissers and im not one of them, so dare i disagree with a muslimaic princess online, my entire faith will be called into question.



what makes me a muslim is i believe in Allah, i beleive in a very balanced approach which balances Allah's Transcendent nature and His Immanent nature. This approach allows me to make sense of John 1:1 as a theological statement pertaining to His Trancendence and a mystical statement pertaining to His immanence.

I criticise christians for being theologically dishonest for only picking the part that suits them without understanding the whole verse.
This is a theme ive repeated so often you should already know what i refer to.

it is wrong to make a mystical statement into a core theology unless you balance it correctly.
For me, actually, the first time ir ead john 1:1 it made perfect sense because i was already familiar with the islamic approach to these themes concerning Allah's Trancendence and Immanence.

I understand that the metaphysics behind the trinitarian doctrine, refer to Allah's Essence, the Macrocosmic expression and the microcosmic expression.
The truth of this metaphysics is in the words Bismillah IrRahman IrRaheem

Just because most muslims do not know abot that doesnt mean i have my own religion.
it just means that Allah has allowed me to understand some things..because i had that intention from the beginning.


Similarly I have looked at the story of Prophet Mohammad's acension to the 7 heavens and each of the prophets he met..and can directly connect those with 7 chakras/lokas/7 souls in hindu and sufi metaphysics.

sure, this makes people doubt me..but i believe my understanding is far more on point than theirs.

example
“It is Allah Who has created seven heavens and of the earth the like thereof"

I was on another forum where i saw an entire thread discussing this verse
guys talking about 7 inner earths (the hollow earth theory), 7 planets and all manner of views
when i read it
it made clear saense and again it was about the macrocosm/microcosm theme
like in hinduism the 7 lokas (heavens) are connected with 7 chakras (man).
'of the earth, their like therof'
of the earth= bani Adam.
the likeness of the 7 heavens, all in man, is part f that theme of the 7 chakras.

I could go into depth on this topic but it's a huge topic.
I'm sharing this with you just to give you a quick glance at how as a muslim, im confidently a muslim whilst seeking to understand these themes.


my perspective doesnt make me a non-muslim with a new religion, but a muslim who intends on understanding my religion better than the ave joe who is largely ignorant.


I believe in Mohammad SAW as the final messenger of Allah. I believe in Jesus as God's Word/Logos. I believe john 16's comforter prophecy did refer to the holy spirit but was fulfilled through Mohammad..since the holy spirit is our microcosmic reality and functions within us, not externally. What Jesus said about him coming to teach us all the truth and tell us what is yet to come..to convict the world of it's sin etc, all of this was fulfilled with the prophethood of Mohmmad SAW and the revelation of the quran.


10)

You have this idea that there's one basic historical muslim consensus but this is what the sheep think already. They do not realise how easy it is to manipulate info
the difference is those who had the monopoly on information conquered the internet.
hard for other voices to be heard.

You actually quoted from ibn kathir's text once on this which referred to a saying of ibn abbas. Problem is, the text that contained the apparent words of ibn abbas was collected in the lifetime of ibn kathir, we're talking about a difference of 700 years.
further to that....ibn kathir ws a student of ibn tahmiyya who is attributed as the inspiration behind the wahabi movement.

This viewpoint is kind of magnified in the contexts ive explained.
if a muslim with access to vast texts could search through them, they would find diverse opinions.

You will find for example one of the early muslim texts refers to Paul as one of the apostles of Jesus.
not as an imposter, it matches him with Peter too who is related to the story in the Quran where the disciples were inspired by Allah.
that is a more respectful approach towards christianity than you get from many muslims today because it's about what they want to believe.



11)
Are you kidding me? LOL this is the crown jewel in your evidence of proof that Islam is correct? And you feint to know Christianity?

You mean like from the creation of the world until approximately 1400 BC? Or like Samaria and the Northern Tribes from 722 BC until the present? Or are you just talking about Jerusalem? Which land do you want to actually talk about, be specific, because YHWH declared all of Israel not just the tiny portion of Judah to be His Holy Land in the Word of God.



Erm. pretty sure muslims controlled all of it as long as we've been around from the time of Umar except during the crusades..you can pretend the land doesnt matter now but your people crusaded for hundreds of years, but got their wish through colonialism i suppose.



The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come



After Jesus, the gentile era began connected with Revelation 11, ie the 2 prophets symbolising islam and christianity (not elijah and moses as manyof you believe), nor 2 literal prophets.
This is symbolic not literal.


-side note, it doesnt prove Jesus is God. This is why i accuse you of being theologically dishonest and posessing tunnel vision.

Matthew 25:35-40 is an example of God's Immanence. I do associate Jesus as the Logos and therefore reflective of God's Immanence probably moreso than any other person, ever. So my interpretation differs from yours. I don't consider him God because of what he said and even if you look at Matt 23 within it he says "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
how on earth that makes him God himself when he comes in the name of the Lord? only in the mind of a theologically dishonest person.



You're forgetting a key point connected with the teachings of Paul. The gentiles were reckoned because the jews were cut off. The enemies of the jewish people, were the romans, who then became christian, get it?

The best example I can give you about this is the parable of tenants

In Matthew 21 Jesus then says
43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit


In the context Jesus had come to jerusalem, hence these parables in Matthew 21 are deeply connected with Jerusalem.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+5:3&version=NIV
Isaiah 5, the whole context of the vineyard is about the holy land and the vineyard is israel.
The vineyard represents our spiritual state, but it is placed on that land.


So clearly Jesus said that it would be taken and given to people who will produce it's fruit.
Christians posessed it but they lost it when muslims arrived.
The crusaders happened..but by large the muslims have posessed it.
This relates again to Revelation 11 as in two religions who both believe in Jesus are attacked by the anti-christ.

remember also as christians you believe you are the wild branches grafted into the olive tree. So...that would in effect mean you were supposed to posess whatever the jews once posessed esp Jerusalem.




12)
Yeah buddy, its gonna be a bad day for Islam when Jesus comes back to reestablish Israel for the remnant that turn their hearts back to Him and call Him Blessed coming in the name of the Lord


no, it won't, because this thing of yours is mentioned in the Quran too

17:103
And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter draws near. We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.


maybe it's bad for all of us who are in the wrong, justg like he will reject most of you so called christians who call him 'lord'
so where does that leave you?
you have no proof from the bible that Jesus will one day fight against islam in the way you are implying, but you do have proof he will reject many christians.
that says it all about you.



13)
It also answers why Christianity never has nor never will control the area, because its reserved to be set up ONLY when Jesus comes back, all other peoples and Religions that try and control it are impostors and will suffer the Wrath of God.

lmao

no mate, you had the holy land until islam came and then spent centuries of crusades to win it back
ive already provided you with the parable of tenants and isaiah 5 text as proof that gentiles who took control of the land long term would be legitimate 'tenants' in God's eyes.



14)
Christians dont want Jerusalem, our kingdom is not of this world or else we would fight but since its not we war in Spirit until Christ comes back and destroys Islam, and Catholicism, and this False Satanic Religion called Modern Judaism, and He Himself establishes the REAL Israel not this False State ran by Luciferians using the name of Israel to foment their Satanic Plans. Regardless all Scripture always points to the heathens and those that are the enemies of God and those that worship false gods taking control of Israel once God smites them, enjoy that as your crown jewel I suppose...

bless ya, i believe much of that but this idea you have of Jesus fighting muslims is just misleading and has no theological ground.

As i did relate to you, the Revelation 11 2 witnesses theme, which of course i expect you to dismiss because it's convenient.


15) longest post ever btw. unlike you, i don't have any negative views of what i perceive to be authentic christianity.
i just find it all laughable how you diss catholicism but follow a group who split..and that split from the protestants was from a guy called Martin Luther who was not even a theologically sound person.
for example he called the pope, 'the anti-christ' but then he referred to the vatican as 'the whore of babylon'
even though in the context the anti-christ would destroy the whore and obv wasnt that pope.

Martin luther had little steam, until Henry the 8th accepted the protestant movement in england through Thomas Cromwell because he wanted a new wife and fell out with the pope.

it's nice to know part of your theological stance is based on Henry the 8ths vanity and guyslike Thomas Cromwell who slaughtered christians and burnt down monastries/churches...but what did it for him was when he introduced the king to a german princess who was not attractive..so the king had cromwell beheaded and blamed him for the fall out against catholicism. To appease everyone and prevent a potential uprising he did this cute thing, he decided he was only going to reject some parts of catholicism but not all, that way you could have a middle ground.
you judge my islam, your idea of true christianity is a bit of a shambles though given the above points which i doubt you've ever contemplated.


nice, so israel is satanic but then islam is satanic too but both sides are against each other?
nice to know you contradict Jesus's stance ie satan's kingdom is not divided

Will Jesus smite the evangelical's who cannot worship israel enough? CUFI and them types.

burning sulphur
fire and brimstone
smiting
nations reelings

i love how those kind of christians read this stuff and immediately think
'go on raptor Jesus fffffkingh gYrqeqYUEESSSS kill em muslamic fhjfqf]-gf- nations reelingz"


look, i don't hold those views about you guys. I believe Jesus will be pretty good with honest people and if we're wrong he'll tell those people why they're wrong. The way you talk about this idea of the messianic kingdom it's soo wrong.
Previous nations like the romans and babylonians and greeks persecuted the jewish religion and attempted to destroy it.
Muslims are credited with actually saving judaism, that's the irony of it all.

I find it so bogus that the 'whore sitting on the beast' (ie the jews who rule the western roman colonial world) today are at war against persia and muslims..historically the 2 nations who saved jews from christian persecution.


The Quran tells me the truth of our differences will one day be revealed fully. It was Allah's will to make us into 3 distinct religions in order to test us.
I think you may have out worded daciple here...and that’s saying something!
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
12,150
Beget means to reproduce through a human function. This implies that your god had intercourse with Mary. Another thing to note is that the word "begotten" is an interpolation. Your oldest most complete Bibles don't have that word in it.
He did cause her to be pregnant...does not mean He had intercourse with her, but she still ended up pregnant because of God.
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,298
He did cause her to be pregnant...does not mean He had intercourse with her, but she still ended up pregnant because of God.
Then beget wouldn't be the word to use but it is which means he had intercourse with his own mother according to some Bibles. Good luck with that lol.
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
12,150
Then beget wouldn't be the word to use but it is which means he had intercourse with his own mother according to some Bibles. Good luck with that lol.
God didn’t have intercourse with her but caused her to be pregnant. No man had intercourse with her to make her pregnant, so how did she end up pregnant? God caused it. The God who made us, and the world around us made her to become pregnant. No, Jesus did not have intercourse with anyone.
 






Vytas

Star
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
1,914
“Mr Wyatt, this human blood only has 23 chromosomes from the mother and one Y chromosome from the Father (everybody has 46 chromosomes equally from the mother and the father). It’s not a human male,” the lab technicians reported.
“Who’s blood is this?” the lab technicians asked.
Wyatt responds tearfully, “It’s the blood of your Messiah.”
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,298
God didn’t have intercourse with her but caused her to be pregnant. No man had intercourse with her to make her pregnant, so how did she end up pregnant? God caused it. The God who made us, and the world around us made her to become pregnant. No, Jesus did not have intercourse with anyone.
He would have had too with his own mother to give birth to himself and in other words like the Bible states to "beget". Hard pill to swallow, I know. Either way you look at it in your world your god or ghost impregnated his own mother to give birth to himself lol. That's some messed up nonsense.
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
12,150
He would have had too with his own mother to give birth to himself and in other words like the Bible states to "beget". Hard pill to swallow, I know. Either way you look at it in your world your god or ghost impregnated his own mother to give birth to himself lol. That's some messed up nonsense.
Not really, God who made man from the dust of the earth, who created Eve with a rib from the man...who parted the Red Sea, who caused plagues to come upon Egypt, who told a man who couldn’t walk to get up and take his mat with him, who made the blind see by many different ways, one of which was spitting on some dirt and rubbing it on the persons eyes...is this not a God who could cause a woman to get pregnant without intercourse? Yes, of course He is!
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,298
Not really, God who made man from the dust of the earth, who created Eve with a rib from the man...who parted the Red Sea, who caused plagues to come upon Egypt, who told a man who couldn’t walk to get up and take his mat with him, who made the blind see by many different ways, one of which was spitting on some dirt and rubbing it on the persons eyes...is this not a God who could cause a woman to get pregnant without intercourse? Yes, of course He is!
Then why use the word "begotten" lol? If Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is the Father then Jesus got his own mother pregnant. How many hula hoops are you going to jump through this time in order to explain that lol?
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
12,150
Then why use the word "begotten" lol? If Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is the Father then Jesus got his own mother pregnant. How many hula hoops are you going to jump through this time in order to explain that lol?
Well who caused her to be pregnant? God did, He begot. Its not hard to understand, really.
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,298
Well who caused her to be pregnant? God did, He begot. Its not hard to understand, really.
Therefore, he had intercourse with her.

Your god impregnated his own mother. Put a spin on that one for us why don't you lol.
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,298
God didn't have intercourse. LOL
He first asked for the Mary's consent, so that Jesus could come to earth in flesh (incarnated).
At least it wasn't r*pe but consensual lol. Thanks for clearing that up.
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
12,150
Well this is actually what happened:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: " BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, " GOD WITH US."
And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. Matthew 1:18-25


And in Luke we find out what was said to Mary..

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."
Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God." And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.” Luke 1:26-38


So that when we get to John 3:16 we can see it was the way John said:
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whomsoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

So, @Kung Fu, when you say that begotten is wrong in the verse, you are the one who is wrong. Obviously begotten was meant because that is what happened...though not in the way you suggest. God was able to cause her to be pregnant...even her husband would not have sex with her so she would stay a virgin. Which also means that God caused her to be pregnant...He did not have sex with her to be able to do that.

On the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said “Let there be light;” and there was light.
I would think that God who could make light by the Holy Spirit and speaking it into existence, could also cause a woman to be pregnant.
 






Last edited:

Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,298
So, @Kung Fu, when you say that begotten is wrong in the verse, you are the one who is wrong. Obviously begotten was meant because that is what happened...though not in the way you suggest. God was able to cause her to be pregnant...even her husband would not have sex with her so she would stay a virgin. Which also means that God caused her to be pregnant...He did not have sex with her to be able to do that.

On the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said “Let there be light;” and there was light.
I would think that God who could make light by the Holy Spirit and speaking it into existence, could also cause a woman to be pregnant.
LOL! The cope is real. The word begotten isn't in your oldest manuscripts. Second, to beget is a human function and considering your god is human it makes sense therefore Mary's son is also the one that slept with her to impregnate her. This would be the only logical and sound way to make sense of your belief and even then it sounds crazy.
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
12,150
LOL! The cope is real. The word begotten isn't in your oldest manuscripts. Second, to beget is a human function and considering your god is human it makes sense therefore Mary's son is also the one that slept with her to impregnate her. This would be the only logical and sound way to make sense of your belief and even then it sounds crazy.
Doesn’t sound logical at all, you obviously don’t have any idea that God can do anything...even cause someone to become pregnant without sexual intercourse.
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,298
Doesn’t sound logical at all, you obviously don’t have any idea that God can do anything...even cause someone to become pregnant without sexual intercourse.
How would you know what "logic" sounds like when you have never tried using it in the first place?

Your beliefs are so crazy and disgusting that trying to make sense of it simply doesn't work because how can a son impregnate his mom to give birth to himself?
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
12,150
How would you know what "logic" sounds like when you have never tried using it in the first place?

Your beliefs are so crazy and disgusting that trying to make sense of it simply doesn't work because how can a son impregnate his mom to give birth to himself?
How can God impregnate a woman? Idk, but I also don’t know how He created the earth out of thin air. Idk on how He made our bodies from dirt, all I know is that He did those things too...

And the reason the Son was born to a human was because the person who could redeem us had to be a blood avenger...He had to have our blood (be human) because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. He also needed to fulfill the law, not sin, being God helped Him.
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,298
How can God impregnate a woman? Idk, but I also don’t know how He created the earth out of thin air. Idk on how He made our bodies from dirt, all I know is that He did those things too...

And the reason the Son was born to a human was because the person who could redeem us had to be a blood avenger...He had to have our blood (be human) because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. He also needed to fulfill the law, not sin, being God helped Him.
Read carefully woman. I know you have trouble reading but I thought I made it simple enough for you to understand. Let me state it again. "how can a son impregnate his mom to give birth to himself?".
 






Top