«Home

Do Christians Worship The Human Or Devine Jesus?

Greetings,

I many at times wonder; and suddenly enough I today came across something on another discussion forum, which I feel like sharing. And ask the same question on this board. Hope I'll get good answers . . . and without much derailment of the thread. Much, I repeat, for I know it’s definitely going to be derailed, polluted, hijacked and what have you by folks like . . . don’t have to mention names. They'll do it. Sure.

Question: If Jesus is both fully human and fully God, do not you think that you worship human along with God when you worship him? Other wise you have to separate Jesus as Jesus the human and Jesus the God.

In addition to above question, can Christians produce a single verse from the Bible where Jesus ever claimed to have two natures, or where he claimed to have a divine and human nature all in one, being fully man, and fully God, and where he made such a distinction?

Avatar
Newbie
50 answers

Tell me more. . .thanks.

0
Avatar
Newbie

JESUS(PBUH) is not lord,pls stop blasphemy

0
Avatar
Newbie

He's a Messenger just like Moses, David, Solomon, Muhammad and the rest sent by God, the Creator(peace be upon them).

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ok, later then.

The only worry i have with this is that we are not talking about different wills in different dispensations, but contradictory wills within ONE divine being WITHIN THE SAME DISPENSATION AND AT THE SAME TIME: already said by you to remain divine even while on earth.

Go work, jaare, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, de money is important.

You would not believe i was so keen on this debate that when my pals invited me to the bar down the street i left my apartment and took my laptop along and cranked out my last post in the midst of beer and grilled chicken!

Later.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Romans 10:9-13 says, "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hey, pls read again - i modified the above post.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I did not - and yes, write that off as another lie, if you may. If you can't reason out issues as simply as was shown you in my posts by pointing directly from the biblical texts about both His Deity and His Humanity, then you're beyond help! If i was merely asserting things vacantly without any text to support what I say, I would see the point in your self-congratulatory celebrations here. But to miss that and then clap for yourself. . man, you're in a world of your own! Up until now I have not seen you carefully go over what I pointed out several replies ago about what those texts say - and then controvert them all that I had lied by misquoting the Biblical prophets. That what I quoted was not what they had said; or rather, that they did not speak of those matters as regards His humanity but one and all they all pointed to His Deity! What is the struggle there in understanding the simple things I showed in my replies?

No.

See my answer above.

No.

No.

I do not agree with your assertion that He sought to change what He had concluded. Call me liar, no matter. I can choose to disagree with you while letting you play happy with your assertions - if we cannot see things differently, is there any use repeating myself on this matter? Are these the "core" of the big issue you wanted to discuss - or just merely repeating yourself louder on an old issue?

Okay, no worries. I shall just tuck it away until when I discuss what I understanding by His hypostasis.

Each time I had drawn your attention to the fact from the biblical prophets, you returned accusative verbose and never ever attempted to be reasonable by looking at those texts! Who's being 'empty' when you have one and all refused to say anything about those texts?

Yes, I did - and mentioned why that is so. What exactly is wrong with that?

This is where I lose respect for your reasoning faculty. Sometimes, Deep Sight, it pays to carefully consider what people are saying and proceed with caution rather than drawing cheap illations that leave you none the wiser! Should I repeat what I said about His essence and His will? Here:

[list]The fact that God is 'the same yesterday, today and forever' does not mean that He is unable to manifest Himself as He chooses for any occasion. There is a difference between His essence (as regards His Person) and His will (as regards His dealings with creation). Please do not controvert the two. In as much as He is the same throughout in His essence, His divine will is dispensational.[/list]

[list]Thus, you will find that between the dispensations of the Old and New Testament, there are varied expressions of His will - even though all through all dispensations His essence remains the same.[/list]

Should I also break that down for you, if you promise to be reasonable to consider it? Of my suspicions might be confirmed in your reply that you won't even bother being man enough to read it at all? Please ask - I don't want to be accused of wasting your time on such a simple matter.

You can shout in font 100 to the power of a million, I still maintain a clear distinction between His essence (as regards His Person) and His will (as pertaining to His dealings with creation). The question is interesting: "how can you justify your summation that the will is different from the personage?" This is HOW I could do that, if there was a need to "justify" anything here:

(a) In as much as He is the same throughout in His essence,

His divine will is dispensational

(b) Thus, you will find that between the dispensations of the Old and New Testament,

there are varied expressions of His will -

even though all through all dispensations His essence remains the same

Could I also share some few examples about the above?

____________________

As to His will in the dispensations:

I said: "His will (as regards His dealings with creation)"

(a) "he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven,

and among the inhabitants of the earth:" ~ Daniel 4:35

I also said: "between the dispensations of the Old and New Testament,

there are varied expressions of His will"

(b) the sabbath as one example:

OT: "the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:

in it thou shalt not do any work" ~~ Deut. 5:14

NT: "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not

afterward have spoken of another day" ~~ Heb. 4:8

____________________

As to His Person:

I said: "all through all dispensations His essence remains the same"

(a) "For I am the LORD, I change not;

therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed"

~~ Malachi 3:6

____________________

* The basic meaning of 'dispensation' as used in my post:

a system of principles, promises, and rules ordained and administered;

scheme; economy; as, the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dispensation

From the above, it is clear that the way He deals with creation (ie., His will) is variously expressed according to a particular dispensation. In the OT, the sabbath day was the seventh day; whereas in the NT, we read of "another day" as regards the true rest of God's people. Again, in the OT it was a matter of the Levitical priesthood; but in the NT it is the priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek. These varied expressions of God's will are according to each dispensation. Yet, all through the dispensations, God is God in His essence (His essential Being and nature as God).

These are all clear from the pages of Scripture - which is why I try to leave clear pointers for what I share regardless of any accusations of 'long posts', lying, etc. from you! You may draw all the conclusions you wish to and make all these go over your head without due consideration; but just because you don't see and are not willing to see them does not make you anything close to being reasonable or rational in holding a fair discourse in matters like this.

Why don't you take some time and really act your age? If I did not know what I was talking about, how could I have been able to share some explanation between His esssence and His will? People who are in such a hurry to behave the way you do actually beggar intelligence! You have long wished to attack the doctrine of the Trinity - that's okay. But you have always been unnerved by any mention of critical analysis of your own 'god' made up from illogical and incoherent comic that have failed to be convincing to anybody but your own self.

As requested - see above. It's a wonder you actually think you're sounding intelligent. Haha!

No matter. You will ever look for any and everything to attack the Trinity, so no surprises there. When the time comes, I might not be able to resist the comedy of your Deism that you've been hiding with two fingers all along. Dress warm until then. Enjoy.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Deep Sight,

It's hard to resist the urge to be detailed in my responses - more so because you're veering off from plain geniality to something other than rubbing minds. I shall try and outline your grievances neatly and deal accordingly.

My apologies - I had logged off in order to catch up with my night shift at work. I often get a wee bit of break around this time from work, and you may have noticed that my appearance on the forum is quite limited in recent days.

0
Avatar
Newbie

^^^ Yes indeed, and the best answer is for the Trintarians to simply state that they accept based on faith and "hold their silence and observe without trying to define for anybody what we should believe (or denounce), especially where they are not inclined to holding the very axioms about the Almighty that they might grant unto others"

It surprises me that any Trinitarian bothers to enter into a rational debate on it, considering how manifestly irrational a dogma it is: intelligence, i would think, in such a SITUATION, in attempting to defend something so magical, would rest in simply stating that it is a question of faith, and then shutting up squarely after that!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Now, i respond.

First: let me say this - do not take my scathing words too much to heart; i only try to give you as good as you give me. In this, let me emphaisze that although the deity of christ is one subject that (apologies to say) i unrepentantly view with absolute disdain, i still appreciate you as a person: for your directness, civility, and intellect.

But i will be absolutely unsparing in this matter, so forgive me in advance.

To reiterate; i did not see much within your last responses to merit a rejoinder from me. 98% of your post seemed to dwell on my personality and not the posers i raised. Indeed when i raised the question of God Almighty requesting of himself the alteration of a DIVINELY WILLED event, you merely scored me a 0/10 without giving reasons.

I will address in spiritual, logical and theological terms why your evasion of that question is unacceptable. And you will see no escapism from me.

But before i do that, i wish to address one personal issue: you seem at odds that i stated that you told a lie.

Viaro; I do not, and absolutely will not retract that statement; you told a lie: and lest you beleaguer the point, here is the simple proof –

This is your lie –

And here is the truth:

The Gospel of St. Luke 22: 42 –

“Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me. . .”

And what is this, if not a plaintive plea to evade the events to come?

I needn’t even go into the fact that it says – “if thou be willing” – which shows that the will of the father could conceivably differ from the plea of the “son” – . . .“remove this cup. . .”

Boy, you told a lie, you stated a falsehood, and that is that.

Now do not waste my time in trying to cover up that falsehood with extended grammar about what the cup was, etc, because I have already answered you on what exactly the cup was, which you accepted.

Thus I need it to be clear that my fondness for you will not stop me from pointing out an apparent and obviously deliberate falsehood in your surmise.

Now to the core issue.

In all of your response, I was able to discern only ONE point worthy of responding to. In the rest, you seemed to be entertaining yourself, and I cannot be concerned with that.

And the one point I will respond to is – you guessed it – your belabored struggle to separate Christ’s humanity from his Deity.

Perhaps I should at this point, since I promised to be brief, only throw a few posers, and reserve the thesis for a later post.

Here are the posers –

1. Did Christ lose his perfect Divine nature, by becoming human?

2. If he did lose that nature, then the sacrifice was a sacrifice of an imperfect being, and not that of a perfect being, yes? Out-the-window goes all the talk about a “perfect” “unblemished” savior being required, yes?

3. On the other hand, if he did NOT lose the Divine nature, then he perforce remained perfect – thus fully in tandem with the Divine will; such as to make the request in Gethsemane an incongruity and a paradox, yes?

4. Did Christ lose all his knowledge about the DIVINE plan concluded in heaven with his father, about the redemptive work on the cross?

5. If he did not lose such knowledge (as apparently from scripture he did not); then why would he seek, within human form, to change that which he himself as ALMIGHTY GOD had perfected and concluded in heaven?

Man, I hope you see the point clearly; your “hypostasis” on the simultaneous humanity and deity of that carpenter leaves gaping wide holes. 

It surprises me that each time I repeat these obvious facts, you resort to empty platitudes about Christ being “human”, and then promise to deal with the issue in future.

Let’s carry on . . .

You spoke about the “Divine will” being different from the “Divine person”.

OH MY GOD, WHAT A GAFFE; DOES IT NOT OCCUR TO YOU THAT IN STATING THIS, YOU DIRECTLY DENY THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY, FOR IN THAT TREASURED DOCTRINE OF YOURS, THEY ARE ALL SAID TO BE ONE!

AS A FOLLOW-UP: HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY YOUR SUMMATION THAT THE WILL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PERSONAGE, WHEN CHRIST SAID A ZILLION TIMES THAT THAY ALL AGREE AS ONE, AND THAT HE WAS “ONE” WITH THE FATHER, AND THAT THEIR WILL WAS IN ONE ACCORD? THUS HOW COULD THE “PERSONAGE” HAVE A DIFFERENT WILL FROM THE “WILL”? YES, THE LAUGHABLE NATURE OF THIS JOKE OF A DOCTRINE IS BEGINNING TO BECOME CLEAR TO YOU NOW?

I HOPE YOU SEE IT’S BEGINNING TO FALL APART IN SENSELESSNESS FOR YOU VIARO – BUT THAT IS NOT SURPRISING: INCOHERENT DOGMA LIKE THE TRINITY MUST NECESSARILY FALL APART. . .

Christ! (No pun intended).

Deal with the five questions above, and then we may take it from there.

Finally – Although I did not want to do it, I am going to introduce more scripture that suggests clearly that Christ DID NOT want to be crucified, and that the crucifixion was in fact NOT the will of God. Go and read up Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard, and then we will address that.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Viaro - i hope you are still online, i wish to respond shortly, in a few short (i promise this time to be brief) posts.

But first off, once again, your response has dwelt far too long on my personality and approach than upon the debated issues. Go read it again: and you will clearly see this.

On the issue of dichotomy of wills, you keep postponing. Give it to me right now: your answer about dealing with it in a future thread still seems escapist.

Hold, on. . . confirm your presence. . . i am responding in toto shortly.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Davidski. . . long time. . . how's the thesis coming along?

P/S: Don't worry about all this grammar wey we dey blow here: i doubt that God requires from anyone an exact knowledge of such advanced theological matters, but sincerity of heart and simplicity of faith in HIM. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

and here we go again . . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

Now Viaro, let us go through your response with a fine comb.

My preliminary remarks are these: that you have left much hanging, and regretably appear to be one of the dogmatic lot prepared to sacrifice even the most glaring scripture in favour of dogma created by the church.

Let's have at it -

I was mildly amused by this. It appears to me that you missed the gamut of the example I was giving. Before saying anything else, let me say this: any religion is free to call whatsoever it pleases ALMIGHTY GOD: Hinduism may call cows God, adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star may call Olumba Olumba God, and the mainstream (indoctrinated) Christian dogmatist may call Jesus of Nazareth God. None of this was of any concern to my analogy: to wit: that in simple terms, certain things may appear to the neutral observer as being ridiculous. That’s why I used the word “rationalize”, which you so vehemently flew down on. Guess what – if that word gives you sleepless nights (as it well may, clinging as you do to ancient dogma which can stand no rational test; nay – test of sanity) – then, I free you: let’s drop that word entirely, and face the main discourse: that way, freed from irrelevant distractions, you may see what precious little substance is contained in your surmise.

Let’s go. . .

I define God as the primordial uncaused cause and prime mover of all contingent existence: the core egg of all existence: and I definitively challenge you or any other theist to show me why that definition is wrong: if you can do this, I pledge you $1 Million USD in addition to my left testicle.

Thus no man may preach? Do not advance the impression that my active propagation of my world-view unhinges you? Free Speech, brother.

I am certain that a philosopher propounding an uncaused cause which is infinite in its nature, and drawing there-from one great harmony to which all living beings should subscribe, in the singular greatness of all things made by God, makes more substance to steady minds free from indoctrination, and is more bestirring of both the intellect and the spirit than the preposterous, bizarre and outlandish commitment of you, an African foreigner, to worship a fellow human being who lived in Israel a while back as almighty GOD. Have you studied the characteristics of cults?

Nevertheless with the foregoing, I merely digress, and stupidly feed my restlessness on some of the rather acerbic but non-rigorous contentions that you set forth.

Let me put such firmly aside: and move speedily and strictly to business.

I shall not waste your time on this: let us assume (and in fairness, I actually accept) that the “cup” referred not just to the impending physical torture, but to the imminent spectre of the gruesome burden of sin – or a sinful nature being cast upon a pure divine nature – which is what Christ supposedly was. I am certain that this is the “cup” which you refer to (correct me if I am wrong) and I wholly agree that we can never begin to imagine what an anomaly, what a sacrilege even, and what an incomparable spiritual horror it would be for a pure divine being, perfect, and untouched by impurity, to be saturated with the noxious nature of the hoary sin of all the world. I clearly understand this.

What you glossed over (astonishingly, or perhaps no longer astonishingly) is the fact that this being is said to be God himself. Accordingly in his immutable and perfect divine will, he had determined and concluded the necessary sacrifice of redemption.

I hope you have some understanding of what the divine will I said to be, because if you do, you would immediately see the disastrous and very sad quality of your suggestion that GOD in his divine perfection, would seek at any point in time, or for whatever reason, to detract from his will, shelve it, or cause it not to be made manifest.

I should normally let this point rest as I have stated it, but wary of your escapist gymnastics in this matter, let me go further to elucidate.

Divinity is the core nature and principle of original existence, or original being. It is eternal, infinite, and accordingly an absolute. It thus is not capable of the sort of whims and caprices attributable to imperfect human beings (or to the Abrahamic God).

To draw wisdom from the Bible itself, might I invite you to appreciate that this is the reason why it is stated that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Divine will is inflexible; adamantine. This is also why it is stated that “heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the lord abideth forever.” I draw these from scripture, in the hope that your escapism will not be so great as to be desirous of evading the unchangeability of God which is something that is enshrined in scripture, aside from being obvious to the deeply philosophical mind.

It is with the foregoing in mind that your response fell way below the mark.

This Christ is said to be God in human form. He thus had a deep knowledge of the purpose and will of God regarding mankind. From time eternal, being divine, he must know very well the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the Godhead: given its perfection – for that which is perfect cannot be changed.

It is in the light of this that you can begin to appreciate just how ludicrous it is to claim that a personage (who is himself ALMIGHTY GOD) and is fully cognisant of –

1. The nature of the Divine Will

2. The Purpose of the redemptive work

3. The absolute necessity of that work for the salvation of his creatures

- would begin to petition himself to avert the divinely willed occurrence.

This can only suggest that he was either not divine, or had a poor grasp of the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the divine will – especially in the context of such a historical act of redemption?

You MUST accept that the foregoing is simply pushing the boundaries of all reason into absolute insanity. If not insanity, it is at the very minimum, evidence of a woefully failed philosophical schooling – nay – it borders on suspected truancy in English Comprehension classes, in earlier stages of the life of anyone who advocates this incomparably outlandish myth.

Viaro – in this, I demand the most exacting sincerity from you: although I know I will not receive it for one reason: dogma is a terrible blindfold.

Already I have a hint of the fading of your sincerity in this matter as you did not hesitate to tell an outright lie in your desperation to deify the Jewish carpenter whom you worship –

Please retract this shocking falsehood; I needn’t paste the whole of the prayer in Gethsemane here before you accept that you have definitely lied here. Christ DID request that the “cup” should be taken away from him - yes, that "cup" which we have defined above, which AS GOD, he must have known all about.

If he knew it was inevitable why in hell would he make that odd prayer in Gethsemane? Was he hoping against the “inevitable?” Just remember that this is almighty God you are referring to.

And given the analysis of divinity and the divine will that I set forth above, that, dear Viaro, positively affirms that he is not GOD, could not be, unless we speak of an inferior god, than that which is divine and unceasing in its perfection.

It was amazing how you also sidestepped the core issue on the evident dichotomy of wills in the statement – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. You merely stated –

- And left it at that! Good grief, again I ask you, you can accept a possible difference of wills within the Godhead, after all Christ’s statements about being “one” with the father, and all ? ? ? ?

I hope it is now not lost on you that beyond attacking my cosmological theories (which have nothing to do with this dogmatic issue) you made absolutely no sense, and not a single valid point at all in all your responses: because you did not address the issues, but evaded them in favour or absurd taunts.

I shudder at the way in which dogmatic Christians such as yourself are happy to debase the perfection of God in order to justify dogma! What is most terrifying is that you are normally a very reasonable man, but once your dogma is fluttered, you are willing to consign all reason and all obvious truth to the waste bin, in a rabid attempt to justify your worship of a fellow human being, which has been handed to you by your colonial master.

But heck, worship the dead Jewish carpenter all you want. . . you are entitled to do so just as surely as the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star are entitled to insist that Olumba Olumba Obu is God. And just as surely as Hindus are entitled to worship cows.

0
Avatar
Newbie

What came about the separation of the two?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi again Deep Sight,

It was not my intension to either impress or dismay anyone, even my dear friends. But sometimes when we attend to friends, one should be both astute as well gentle to meet pressing needs - the need(?) to call our attention to a balance that is all too frequently taken for granted. In this case, you had taken far too many things for granted as regards the hypostasis of Christ in His Deity and Humanity.

It was not an 'old defense' I'd tried to proffer - but if it be read that way, then perhaps you were all too frequently repeating a perennial non sequitur as regards the Life and Ministry of Christ. With particular reference to the very issues you mentioned (unblemished, without sin, and could not sin), my answers were tailored along those same issues to show how you were arguing away from the very things stated by the Biblical prophets. If no one addresses your bewilderments in these issues, you might hop on the mistaken idea that ipso facto the things you argued away stand "as is".

Let me begin by saying that you're pandering to an old and very unimpressive cop out offered by weak minds. If you have already cemented your mind that no matter what someone says, they won't make sense on that subject, it perhaps indicates that you're not willing to even consider what they say - regardless whether anyone else makes absolute sense from that or not. That is not a healthy way to discuss anything at all.

However, there are quite a load of stuff you're mixing up for yourself, Deep Sight. Please bear with me:

(a) yours: "I honestly wonder what you presume the Creator of the Universe to be"

Lol, if you and I are to discuss the One whom we address as "the Creator of the Universe", it definitely would not lead to the same identity of Being. Nada. Zilch. This is why I often allow other people to hold their own ideas without trying to define for them how they should think about their own belief within their world views. As a Christian, what I presume of the Creator of the universe has very little to add to your position as a Deist. We may share ideas here and there of our concepts of "the Creator"; but when it comes to tenets and fundamental convictions in our world views, our presumptions do not matter at all at the end of the day - in as much as we cannot marry both world views at any altar.

(b) yours: "in any form"

No, let us not stretch simple statements to uncategorized innuendos. The Bible is clear and direct on this one - and the collective statements do not lead to the idea of "any" form; but rather specifically the Incarnation of the Son of God in Humanity. For example, Philippians 2:8 bears the simple testimony that He was "being found in fashion as a man"; and that is what He assumed in His Incarnation. To stretch that declaration to "any form", dear Deep Sight, would be asking us Christians to lose our identity and turn to Hindus who assert in the Scripture that 'cows are God' (no offense intended).

(c) yours: "he should be subject to fear"

He was not subject to 'fear' in the context you're forcing into the texts to draw the discussion towards your turf. I may grant you that He made Himself subject to so many things in human experience; and yes, I've already highlighted one among many in my previous replies: He was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" (Heb. 4:15). Why? For the very simple reason that He took upon Himself our own humanity that He might experience what we experience - yet be "without sin" in all those experiences (see Heb. 2:16 - it was not the nature of angels He took upon Him, but rather our humanity). However, He was not subject to fear in the sense of becoming "afraid", which I sense has been the problematic pointer for you. Quite simply, it implies 'reverence'.

(d) yours: "request of himself the cancelation of a predestined event"

We could take this one in some depth, if you may. I already offered some preliminary pointers to the fact that His collective statements both before and after His prayer in Gethsemane do not lead to that conclusion. But if you're already made up to be disinclined to consider it, I'll forebear.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Kolaxy,

Will respond to your response shortly, God's willing. I am very busy now. Thanks

0
Avatar
Newbie

His flesh houses God's Spirit, you can destroy the house but can never destroy what's inside, the flesh feels hungry, the flesh cried as its 100% human, but the Spirit within Him is 100% divine.

100% human 100% divine romans 1:3 seed of David according to the flesh, 4 Declared to be the Son of God according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead(Jesus's resurrection put away all doubts that God was residing in Him)

0
Avatar
Newbie

And as a slight aside. . .  i do wonder why my every criticism of dogma must be met (by you, Viaro) with odd insinuations regarding my attempts to expound the meaning of the origin of existence, as i see it. Not even the fact that i base such criticisms on quotes from the Bible stops your reversion to my cosmological and abstract postulations.

I would have thought that the one had nothing to do with the other.

http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-355867.0.html

Be very well prepared, when you come, Viaro.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Viaro: your extended reply only amounted to one thing; that which i had predicted in my post - that you would resort to the very old defense of Christ's "human part".

I am terribly unimpressed.

I am very sleepy now, and will try to address you later: but i will just say this for now -

I honestly wonder what you presume the Creator of the Universe to be, that, in any form, he should be subject to fear, or request of himself the cancelation of a predestined event. No matter how long your epistles, you will never make sense on this.

And, i cannot resist pointing out that you entirely made it appear as though Christ never asked for the sacrifice to be shelved. HE DID.

Last word: I have noticed, for many years; that it often takes very long essays to attempt to refute simple and obvious truth or logic.

That which is true, need no long words.

We go talk later. Gnite.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Topic. . .

Jesus was never a devined guy . he's nothing and was as the rest human being before i was sentenced to death. Ok, my question is if really the bible have thought you Jesus is Devine and all source of good names why then he wasn't able to escape death and not even when he call upon God to take away the Cup from him. . . ?. The fact is the Christians have been blind folded with the bible and you know, the authors planed all the many lies inside the book but still yet, they are notice after reading it . Dont you think there's something wrong here?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@kOLAXY,but what is really needed for the atonement of the sin of humanity,is it both jesus human and jesus god or just simply only jesus human?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@olabowale,

When we consider the scars on Jesus hands and feet from the nails, and in his side from the spear, we remember the severe pain and suffering Jesus must have gone through. But the story doesn't end there. Much like our scars, Jesus scars also remind us of God's grace. Jesus scars remind us that the grave is not the end but the beginning. God is not just the God of those who still walk on this earth; God is the God of all creation, God is the God of all the saints who have gone on before us.

Jesus scars remind us that even a large stone covering a tomb cannot stop God. When the world said, "It is finished" God said, "Oh no, I've only just begun." "Death does not have the final word, I do."

Jesus scars remind us that you won't find the living among the dead. The open tomb, and resurrected Christ, clearly tells us that nothing, absolutely nothing can separate us from the love and grace of God. Jesus is the truth and the resurrection, and because he lives we will live also.

To God be the glory, for the great things he has done!

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Mushin

Thanks Mushin.

The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":

  As GOD                                                                                        As  MAN 

He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33).                     He worshiped the Father (John 17).

He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8 )                He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).

He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)                        He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)

He is prayed to (Acts 7:59).                                      He prayed to the Father (John 17).

He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15).                      He was tempted (Matt. 4:1).

He knows all things (John 21:17).                            He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).

He gives eternal life (John 10:28).                            He died (Rom. 5:8 ).

All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9).       He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Viaro: « #34 on: Today at 10:37:44 AM »  

@Viaro: « #28 on: Today at 09:42:31 PM »  

Quote

Second, there is no need to "rationalize" God Almighty in any form. To have a need to do so is to open up many doors to box Him up in certain ways that may be polarised towards your own ideology as distinct from the persuasions of other people. In this case, you're hoping to set constraints and limitations for the Almighty such that you tend to react to whatever goes beyond the perimeters of your own assumptions concerning those constraints. It's okay to "rationalize" if that helps you - but the results of such would best serve your own constraints and limitations, where nothing else could be possible.

[Quote]He knows better than anyone, and Muhammad has no clue.[/quote]I sure know a human being when I see one. And definitely, it is recorded in the Bible, be it Old or New Testament, since its more than one testament (lol) that no eye can see Jesus and live, a statement buttressed by Jesus begging God at Gashesmane, saying it is God Will that must prevail and not Jesus will. Now open that inner eye and employ some thinking here. Is Jesus and God the same? No! If Muhammad (as) did not know about the Creator, can anyone have believed He is not a dying God, since your proposition about God is that he is dead; check you statement about the "dead Jesus for a badly calculated 3 days from the Jewish understanding!" Again, while you demeaned Jesus as klled by ordinary ragtagged kasock wearing, jews, Muhammad said his Lord prevented him from expiring on the hanging tree so that his soul is not accursed! You dont know about that, do you since you are thinking vert deeply, you need to think deeper so tat understanding may come to you! No? Dont remain ignorant, man.

And if you know enough about Jesus, you would have read him saying he is not God! You are worshipping a fake God, if you worship Jesus!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hellow kolaxy and all,

Thanks to you for the responses. I'll respond to particularly your reply later, God's willing.

More-over, you all seem to have not noticed the second part of my question, and thats: can Christians produce a single verse from the Bible where Jesus ever claimed to have two natures, or where he claimed to have a divine and human nature all in one, being fully man, and fully God, and where he made such a distinction?

Thanks once again.

0
Avatar
Newbie

But can you ever do anything else? Whether for the purpose of a discussion (p[/b]olitical, [b]p[/b]hilosophical, [b]p[/b]arabolical, [b]p[/b]aradoxical, or any other [b]p[/b]aradigm that comes to mind) or otherwise merely making statements, you can't seem to help yourself to 'rationalize' - but there, I acquiesce to let off on that word, never mind that I've tried to show why I used it to help you there.

There again, you're trailing off on assumptions. You may wish to qualify the set of "worse forms of barbaric and inhumane torture", but what do you understand by the "cup" that Christ spoke of? You assume that was a lack of "courage", no? Deep Sight, you're making me feel sorry for you.

There's NONE I have ever come across who understood what the "cup" meant and stood unflinching in the face of the torture they were to endure. Please, amico. . try and define for yourself what that "cup" actually was, before making irrational assumptions about others in history. I know, you might come back asking me to do so. . but no, I would rather request that you do so yourself and let's discuss further, since you already are drawing conclusions about the "cup" as to suppose that there have been "have been many hundreds of thousands of human beings" who endured the "cup" unflinchingly! Christ was well-aware of the physical sufferings that many people have had to endure before that point of His Cross, and also how many more would have to go through more severe physical sufferings. He knew all that, and yet had spoken of His death as something He looked forward to, not one that He lacked courage to endure.

return to the first point i made - namely that God is perfect, or very great indeed.

Phew! Could I ask that we save this interesting bit until another time, huh? Not that I'm shying away from discussing it; but more because I may not have the time during the next few months to do so and keep up with it. Besides, the "perfection" and "very great" you're assuming do not mean that every world view cannot preserve these two properties in however and whatever way they speak about 'God' in their world views - I gave the example of the cow/bovine in Hinduism. But I shall only grant you a few comments thereto in my subsequent reply.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Kolaxy: « #32 on: Today at 03:24:59 AM »

Two things happened here in your statemet above, while the jews were killing your human god, if their "4 inches Thick" curtain in the synagogue got torned (I wonder how a yarn could be sponned to be 4 Inches thick?) they will say its because of the killing of the man they hated, yet they rejected him? Are you for real, since the Jews would have accepte him if they believed him to be more than a mere Rabbi. Read your Bible again, for the Jews said we persecute you because you said you are "god!".

And what is so interesting about the above as well is that you are saying an earthquake occurred, because Jesus died? How many people died, how much was the collateral damages; properties and lives? Even in the todays USA, earthquakes still a thing that is not a footnote as you made this one in the Bible to be! I will ignore the zombie (ressurrection thing) because I am certain you dont know anything about the Jews! You are swallowing every unreasonable most obvious tales.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Mushin

Let me give you a simple illustration in human term perhaps you may get the picture or otherwise.Let's assume someone cut off one of your fingers(God forbid). The first thing that happens is that,all part of your body feels the pain.But does that make you a dead man? Absolutely No. You are still Mushin.The whole part of your body feels the pain as soon as your finger was cut off but with the new technology in place, your finger will be perfectly restored and after some time, gradually, it heals and you feel better. However, the scar remains.

The above scenario was exactly what happened in the spiritual context when Jesus Christ died on the cross of calvary. Being part of God, he was cut off from God because of his love for the human race and his acceptance to substitute himself as sacrifice for our sins in order to save us. Being part of God, God felt the pain (like you will do if your finger was cut off). But, our sins(darkness) on Jesus was unbearable for God to bear not because Jesus was condemned but because of our sins and Jesus was abandoned/forsaken by God on the cross. That's why Jesus cried on the cross and said, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!' That is to say,  My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" he was on his own from that point till he ascended back  to God.

In relation to the above scenario, does Jesus crucifixion made God dead? Absolutely No. God remains God.After Jesus's resurrection,he ascended back to God in order to be re-united with God as before, just like your finger was restored back to you in the above scenario.However, the scar on his body still remains.This proofs that truthfully, he suffered all the pain of the crucifixion. And he's at right hand of God now supplicating on ourbehalf by showing God the scars on his body whenever Satan come to accuse of sins.

Read the following major events that took place during Jesus crucifixion, resurrection and ascension;

Darkness at mid-day

Jesus’ crucifixion began around 9 am (Mk. 15:25). For the next three hours, Jesus’ enemies mocked him (read

Matt. 27:39-44). And then at noon, something remarkable happened (read Mt. 27:45). For three hours (noon to

3 pm), “darkness fell upon all the land.”

The torn temple curtain

Read Matt. 27:50-51. Immediately after Jesus died, the curtain of the temple was “torn in two from top to

bottom.”

The temple curtain was no ordinary curtain (60 feet long, 30 feet high, and about 4 inches thick; composed of 72

squares sewn together; so heavy that it required 300 men to lift it). For it to be torn suddenly from top to bottom

(rather than gradually fraying from bottom to top) would indeed be a noteworthy event-especially for Jewish

people.

The earthquake & emptied tombs

But Jesus’ death accomplished even more for us and this is indicated by the final dramatic event. Read Matthew

27:51-53.

This earthquake was no ordinary earthquake. It occurred immediately after Jesus' death, and it opened certain

rock tombs near Golgotha-the tombs of believers (probably people came to faith in Jesus as the Messiah during

his public ministry). 36 hours later, after Jesus had been resurrected, they emerged from the cemetery and

appeared to people in Jerusalem who had known them-not as zombies, but as people who had been delivered

from death!

After the resurrection Jesus was able to eat (Luke 24:42-43). 

He showed people His hands and feet, with the nail prints in them (Luke 24:51; John 20:27), and people even

grabbed His feet and worshipped Him (Matt. 28:9).  If Jesus' body had not risen, then He would not have feet

and hands with the same holes of the nails of the crucifixion.  It is obvious that Jesus was raised in the same

body in which He died, with the same holes in His hands and feet. We see that Jesus proclaimed He had flesh

and bones. Does a "spirit body" consist of flesh and bones?  Not at all.

Finally, 1 John 2:22-23 "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist,

the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who

confesses the Son has the Father also."

My answer to your question as a christian is that, Jesus came in human flesh and while on earth, he was worshipped by men and women and he accepted their worships. For instance, check the following:

"And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." -Matthew 8:2

"While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live." -Matthew 9:18

"Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." -Matthew 14:33

"Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me." -Matthew 15:25

"Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him." -Matthew 20:20

"And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." -Matthew 28:9

"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." -Matthew 28:17

"And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean(evil) spirit, But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him" -Mark 5:2, 6 (Note this verse pls.If Jesus was just a prophet, he won't be respected or worshipped by evil spirit like some fake prophets). All these shows that Jesus is God the son.

But now, according to the above scenario, Jesus Christ(God the son) is back with God so how do we worship God? God wants us to worship Him in spirit and in truth.In order to do this, we need to know the truth as provided by the Bible instead of following our own direction.

What is the TRUTH? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me-John14:6. In order words, because of the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross, there's no other way to worship God but through Jesus. No direct access. If you call God without through the Name of Jesus, the Name above every other name, then your worship will be in vain.Please read the ff verses for proof. Peace

Philipians 2:5-11

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very naturea God,

did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7but made himself nothing,

taking the very natureb of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

and became obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I am certain that this does not require a response at all; but for the excess of my restlessness let me say this: Christians, Muslims, and indeed myself, all ascribe to the idea of the perfection of God - yes? So that is agreed.

But let us assume that it is not agreed. One thing which is per force agreed among all persons and institutions who sucscibe to the idea of God, is that He is very great indeed - certainly much greater than human beings in all respects - yes? So don't worry about my articulation of God: as far as this discussion is concerned, we may limit ourselves to the foregoing: namely that he is perfect; but if that is disputed; then let us at least say he is great: much greater in every respect than any human being. Happy? We proceed!

Don't worry about the word "rationalize." You seem to be placing too much emphasis on that word. I simply meant in general terms that which seems to approach common sense, or the obvious. For example, if Mr. X were to state: "that goat in my yard is almighty-God in goat-form" - i might reply - "can anybody rationalize the almighty as an animal - less than a human being?". There would be no need to fly down on the word - "rationalize" here, because the hardened anti-rationalist can easily argue: God is omni-potent - accordingly he may take the form of a goat if he pleases."

So please leave off on the word 'rationalize" - as an aside i can tell you that my perception of God is via intuition and the Spiritual: i "rationalize" only for the purpose of discussion and philosophy.

I have no idea if i can endure such. However I know very well that throughout history men have endured even worse forms of barbaric and inhumane torture when trying to protect their families or loved ones, without asking anyone to "let the cup pass" over their heads. If you will study in particular the mental aspects of the oriental marshall arts, you will find that it has long been considered a thing of honour to endure pain and death for an honorable cause. There have been many hundreds of thousands of human beings throughout history who have endured such unflinchingly; certain of their cause, and the purpose for which they fight. There have been others who have volunteerd outright for such, as opposed to seeking for a "cup to pass over" their heads.

Let us in this briefly and sincerely return to the first point i made - namely that God is perfect, or very great indeed.

Viaro, i apologize in advance for this remark: but it seems you are employing unpardonable double standards here.

Here is my reason. Under Christian doctrine, Jesus was unblemished: without sin - and therefore perfect. This perfection streams from his very divinity - the fact that he is God HIMSELF in human form. God is not capable of sin; and accordingly Jesus could not sin.

The above sentence shows one thing: namely that the attributes of Jesus spring from his nature as God - his divinity, which is perfect. Thus he does not sin because he is God.

I hope you can already see where i am going with this. You accept the above proposition: but when it comes to other patterns of his bahaviour you conveniently flip the table. You are happy to ascribe the prayer in Gethsemane to his "human" fear - hello - why can we not also conclude that since he was "human" then he could sin? The truth is this: your line of reasoning, if followed, should also apply to such attributes as fear: namely - he is God, and as such can know no fear. He is perfect, and as such will be stout hearted in facing the sacrifice necessary to redeem his creatures. And if not perfect, he is at least greater than all men, and as such, would not make a request which mere mortals have in many instances risen above.

This is all the more central when you consider the following (christian doctrine) -

  1. He knew the purpose and reason for the sacrifice even before coming into the world

  2. He loved his creatures and wanted to redeem them accordingly

Viaro, if Jesus knew the purpose of the sacrifice, it would be grossly irresponsible and cowardly of him to request that it should not take place. And given the fact that he is supposed to be almighty God himself, such a request becomes both paradoxical and demeaning of his inner nature.

The above regardless, most shocking is that you missed the core element of my post:

There it is: the core element of my surmise is not even the fear and courage element: it is the evident dichotomy of will.

If Jesus is truly God, or part of a trinity as you claim, then his oneness with God will cardinally be a oneness of will, even before a oneness in any other respect. It is inconceivable, that we should speak of a divine being who is God, that could have a will different from the will of God. Haba, let's try to be sincere please: i cannot see how his appearance in human form would suddenly destroy his divine will, or the oneness of his will with God.

"Nevertheless not as i will, but as thou wilt."

Recall that he says this in prayer, to a being he considered greater than himself (Jn 14:28). A being he severally addressed as "my God." (Jn 20:17).

This is the damning part: his revelation that his will could be different from, but subordinated to the will of God, hammers down the coffin on any suggestion that he is himself God. You know this to be true, Viaro - please do not descend into a whirlpool of "we cannot rationalize" in an attempt to evade this glaring fact.

I know you will have no choice but to revert to the age-old defence. . . "he was only human. . . it was his human-part speaking. . ."

To that i say - give me a break! Almighty God in human form must per force be a cut above ordinary humans! - As is the case with the fact of his being without sin!

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Viaro: « #28 on: Today at 09:42:31 PM »

Your statement that God if not made human is therefore like restricting him, boxing Him away from His full Power, is a statement that pays no attention to what He said of Himself and what His human Messengers and Prophets said about Him, even if we only use Torah, and what Jesus of the Gospel said! Does multiplication of persons or personalities difference is a good enough argument about the uniqueness of your God, while the many reasons from the different view point inferior?

While I say that God is Unique in every respect, no eyes have ever seen Him and live, whole and does not die, have no need to behave like human (eating, sleeping, drinking, toileting, etc), He is able to forgive whomsoever He wants without having to kill somebody to have another saved, etc, having no partner and not capable of doing all things He wants, etc and those not have the multiple personalities, you only said that your God has to be a schrizophrenic and you think that is enough?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Howdy, Deep Sight. Quite an age that we both rubbed minds on a few topics/subjects. This one as regards your concern about the Deity of Christ is one that I hope to discuss someday with you. .  if for nothing else than to show that your inferences are misplaced and strained. Let's see your quote here:

There are a whole lot of things askew in your summations, Deep Sight. For one, I wonder how you of all people proceed to talk about God Almighty when you have not been able to articulate just Who He is to you in your worldview. If others are speaking about God Almighty, you may hold your silence and observe without trying to define for them what they should believe, especially where you're not inclined to holding the very axioms about the Almighty that you might grant unto others.

Second, there is no need to "rationalize" God Almighty in any form. To have a need to do so is to open up many doors to box Him up in certain ways that may be polarised towards your own ideology as distinct from the persuasions of other people. In this case, you're hoping to set constraints and limitations for the Almighty such that you tend to react to whatever goes beyond the perimeters of your own assumptions concerning those constraints. It's okay to "rationalize" if that helps you - but the results of such would best serve your own constraints and limitations, where nothing else could be possible.

Following the second point above, the third thing is to begin to make undeserving, unfactored and unnecessary inferences to twist certain assertions to your zone. That is not enlightening or balanced. If one has to arrive at the busstop you led them to, the question would be whether or not the Almighty was "capable of the virtue of courage". Capable? Dear Deep Sight, it is disappointing to read that from you! You drew hasty conclusions there that completely evaded the question of His actual death - that is where you see the "courage" you are seeking, and not in the that utterance of prayer. His demeanour at the Trial; the excoriation He endured; His demonstration of forgiveness to His accusers. . these are all points of reference to ponder for yourself and come to ask simply: can you, Deep Sight, envisage any "capabilities" of the same "courage" if put in His place?

It's easy to put others on spotlight and trail off about what we have no clues. You seem to have drawn quite queer conclusions and are glorying too loosely on how you have used that idea to discombobulate davidylan. For starters, the Christian faith does not rest on davidylan's ability or inability (should I rather say 'willingness' or the lack thereof) to answer any queries; nor does it stand or fall on viaro's or anyone else's declarations.

Bro, the God of Whom we speak does not need human "rationalizing" - not yours, not mine, not anyone else's. Yet, I shall someday invite a discussion to help you see something about the Deity of Jesus Christ beyond this rationalizations you're holding forth.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Can any one rationalize God Almighty in human form not being capable of the virtue of courage, which many mere mortals have shown in abundance even at the point of death in battle?

I gave David this in a recent debate, and he took to his heels -

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi all,

Say that Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) is the god and the human at the same time, how can a God feels hungry? Or cry? Or be vulnerable to death? Or crucifixion? See, I am not looking for a long, long argument here, but I feel its hard to digest such a concept for me. So I came to where I might find answer but you guys are running away. Why? Thanks

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Davidylan; « #4 on: Yesterday at 05:58:37 PM »

even if you could argue that it was not popular, but can you argue that it was unknown, even as a foreign thing that the travellers, when they see it would have said 'muhammad (as) must have known something, a foreign thing to us, yet this man who has never come to the land where it is abundant can describe it to a T? finally, are all eggs not s[herical? you do know that they know about birds, even trained some preditors among them to hunt animals, including even desert birds like quails?

Your trying to ridicle the egg issue reminds me of one of your earlier gaffes; i remember saying something about the followers of Muhammad (as), the sahaba (ra) arrived at a wilderness, saying to the inhabitant beasts to vacate it for their usage. i said, all of the beasts and their youngs left. you laughed at my statement that it was not possible that there was a lion among them, because i said in the sentence something about lion. well david, since that time, the national geographic have shown that there are lions, elephants, and other big animals in the deserts. finally just to punch you below the belt, the OT support the fact that there was desert lions, cats; Afterall, there was a biblical personality that killed a lion, and in time was able to harvest honey from the honey bees that made a home of it, though my knowledge of bees now could not allow me to agree that the bees will feed on a dead cat to prduce honey, but i cant at the same time that it could not have been a miracle on the personality. i think from the top of my head he has to be gideon or samson. i lean towards samson, because the story as i remember was about strength.

satanic verses: The muslims say there is none. And there is no proof of any from the Quran. Will you know more than the whole muslim world body, while you know less about the Ijebu Ode that you are from? This is diifferent from the case of the Bible, you know since God did not revealed the Bible, but revealed the Torah, Sabur and Gospel and not the acts and revelation and the epistles we know are from Saul who became Paul!

And authentic ahadith must agree with the Quran, and must have truly came from the prophet, or said and not instructed against its future utterance by Muhammad (AS), for anything different is not! Can you restrict the truth of the Gospel to Jesus? And the Torah, Sabur and Injil of Allah is already incorporated in the Quran and hadith of the prophet (AS), while you Davidylan stated with your own fingers that you know that the KJV is ridduled with errors (The Bible to Undergo revision thread is where you finallt confessed), so show us an authntic zero errored Bible, then, maybe we can compare it with the sayings of Isa bin Maryam (AS) the authentic injil in the Quran, to see how correct what you have is!

0
Avatar
Newbie

There really is no point explaining because if one is determined never to know, the person will never besides there are lots of posts on this very website explaining the holy trinity dig them out and read - one recently by mavenbox

0
Avatar
Newbie

If you really comprehend the OP, you certainly would have said more than that to answer the challenge therein. Could you please re-read it? Thanks

0
Avatar
Newbie

Of course the divine Jesus, The Spirit residing in Him.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Where were you when other Christians opened threads, asking Muslims of their faith? You are very, very unfair and unjust and shameless. Tell them the same thing if you are telling the truth. Mst.

0
Avatar
Newbie

No she's really been banned--- thats why u don't see her posting.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Jesus is a Ghost. Christians are Ghosts and Cross worshipers.

0
Avatar
Newbie

so you were just guesting. . . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

Really. . .?, but when? and come come. . . ?.

0
Avatar
Newbie

posakosa did not contact me. . .I've been hoping to see her (((On))) couple of days ego but i really cant tell why the strange silent oo. . . i just have feelings if she's alright.

0
Avatar
Newbie

OBVIOUS dear i feel you but dont worry. . .remember we read to learn, we all are here to learn and share and this must surely go along with arguements ,debate and so on. all you need is to read and solve what you've read with your brain and see if the improvement is not clear. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

pls Im getting tired of this Christian-Muslim debate-------- BORING------

0
Avatar
Newbie

The cross worshippers are blind people

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ah again . . . the muslim fascination with all things christian. You'd think they'd spend more time studying the quran.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.