Posts by Alex Ramos91

Harold Reyes3 said:

I wasn't talking about you—I was talking about Muhammad, who tells his version of the story about Jesus centuries after the fact...

First off, Muhammad didn't just make up stories. This was direct revelation from God. In the Quran, God basically says He would have struck Muhammad down instantly if he had tried to add even one single thing of his own to the text, and no human could have saved him from God's judgment then.

Just look at the Quran itself. If Muhammad were just writing whatever he wanted, why is his name only mentioned five times while Jesus' name appears 25 times? Why didn't Muhammad write about his beloved daughters, his mother, or his father? Because God didn't reveal anything about them, so he wasn't allowed to write a word! Plus, he couldn't even read or write. If you still think the Quran comes from Muhammad, why is there a whole chapter named Mary, after Jesus' mother? Why isn't it named after Fatima, his daughter, or his mother Amina? Amen.

The point isn't what Christians believe regarding the Trinity; the point is what the Quran actually says about the Christian Trinity.
You haven't answered my question, using nothing but the Quran to back it up...

Well, God clearly says to stop saying "they are the Trinity" or "it's a Trinity," because it's not true and it doesn't please God. You know exactly what people mean when they talk about the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We don't need to beat around the bush about who that refers to.

From where I'm standing, the Quran says Christians claim there are THREE Gods.
It also claims Christians set up Jesus and Mary as two gods alongside Allah... (making three total).

The math and logic are simple: the Quran describes the Christian "three Gods" as Allah, Jesus, and Mary.

Why dodge this obvious error in the Quran? It looks like Muhammad's misunderstanding of what Christians actually mean when they speak of the Triune God...

You're totally missing my point again.

In one part, God tells people to stop claiming there is a Trinity. Basically, don't use that term and don't believe it, because it's made up.

Then, in another part, God asks Jesus on Judgment Day about how he taught people to worship him and his mother as two gods. Jesus will deny that immediately and distance himself from those Christian beliefs. Even in the Bible, it says Jesus will turn away from certain Christians on Judgment Day. That's not an error; that's just how it is. I know this because I've spent years debating people like you.

Directly? Or supposedly through an angel—Gabriel? 🙄

Harold Reyes3 said:

I wasn't talking about you—I was talking about Muhammad, who tells his version of the story about Jesus centuries after the fact...

First off, Muhammad didn't just make up stories. This was direct revelation from God. In the Quran, God basically says He would have struck Muhammad down instantly if he had tried to add even one single thing of his own to the text, and no human could have saved him from God's judgment then.

Just look at the Quran itself. If Muhammad were just writing whatever he wanted, why is his name only mentioned five times while Jesus' name appears 25 times? Why didn't Muhammad write about his beloved daughters, his mother, or his father? Because God didn't reveal anything about them, so he wasn't allowed to write a word! Plus, he couldn't even read or write. If you still think the Quran comes from Muhammad, why is there a whole chapter named Mary, after Jesus' mother? Why isn't it named after Fatima, his daughter, or his mother Amina? Amen.

The point isn't what Christians believe regarding the Trinity; the point is what the Quran actually says about the Christian Trinity.
You haven't answered my question, using nothing but the Quran to back it up...

Well, God clearly says to stop saying "they are the Trinity" or "it's a Trinity," because it's not true and it doesn't please God. You know exactly what people mean when they talk about the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We don't need to beat around the bush about who that refers to.

From where I'm standing, the Quran says Christians claim there are THREE Gods.
It also claims Christians set up Jesus and Mary as two gods alongside Allah... (making three total).

The math and logic are simple: the Quran describes the Christian "three Gods" as Allah, Jesus, and Mary.

Why dodge this obvious error in the Quran? It looks like Muhammad's misunderstanding of what Christians actually mean when they speak of the Triune God...

You're totally missing my point again.

In one part, God tells people to stop claiming there is a Trinity. Basically, don't use that term and don't believe it, because it's made up.

Then, in another part, God asks Jesus on Judgment Day about how he taught people to worship him and his mother as two gods. Jesus will deny that immediately and distance himself from those Christian beliefs. Even in the Bible, it says Jesus will turn away from certain Christians on Judgment Day. That's not an error; that's just how it is. I know this because I've spent years debating people like you.

Whatever, he still managed to sneak those Satanic thoughts into the Quran, 🙄didn't he?

Harold Reyes3 said:

I wasn't talking about you—I was talking about Muhammad, who tells his version of the story about Jesus centuries after the fact...

First off, Muhammad didn't just make up stories. This was direct revelation from God. In the Quran, God basically says He would have struck Muhammad down instantly if he had tried to add even one single thing of his own to the text, and no human could have saved him from God's judgment then.

Just look at the Quran itself. If Muhammad were just writing whatever he wanted, why is his name only mentioned five times while Jesus' name appears 25 times? Why didn't Muhammad write about his beloved daughters, his mother, or his father? Because God didn't reveal anything about them, so he wasn't allowed to write a word! Plus, he couldn't even read or write. If you still think the Quran comes from Muhammad, why is there a whole chapter named Mary, after Jesus' mother? Why isn't it named after Fatima, his daughter, or his mother Amina? Amen.

The point isn't what Christians believe regarding the Trinity; the point is what the Quran actually says about the Christian Trinity.
You haven't answered my question, using nothing but the Quran to back it up...

Well, God clearly says to stop saying "they are the Trinity" or "it's a Trinity," because it's not true and it doesn't please God. You know exactly what people mean when they talk about the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We don't need to beat around the bush about who that refers to.

From where I'm standing, the Quran says Christians claim there are THREE Gods.
It also claims Christians set up Jesus and Mary as two gods alongside Allah... (making three total).

The math and logic are simple: the Quran describes the Christian "three Gods" as Allah, Jesus, and Mary.

Why dodge this obvious error in the Quran? It looks like Muhammad's misunderstanding of what Christians actually mean when they speak of the Triune God...

You're totally missing my point again.

In one part, God tells people to stop claiming there is a Trinity. Basically, don't use that term and don't believe it, because it's made up.

Then, in another part, God asks Jesus on Judgment Day about how he taught people to worship him and his mother as two gods. Jesus will deny that immediately and distance himself from those Christian beliefs. Even in the Bible, it says Jesus will turn away from certain Christians on Judgment Day. That's not an error; that's just how it is. I know this because I've spent years debating people like you.

If not his own, then he was busy writing about Allah's daughters: al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat. 🙄

Harold Reyes3 said:

I wasn't talking about you—I was talking about Muhammad, who tells his version of the story about Jesus centuries after the fact...

First off, Muhammad didn't just make up stories. This was direct revelation from God. In the Quran, God basically says He would have struck Muhammad down instantly if he had tried to add even one single thing of his own to the text, and no human could have saved him from God's judgment then.

Just look at the Quran itself. If Muhammad were just writing whatever he wanted, why is his name only mentioned five times while Jesus' name appears 25 times? Why didn't Muhammad write about his beloved daughters, his mother, or his father? Because God didn't reveal anything about them, so he wasn't allowed to write a word! Plus, he couldn't even read or write. If you still think the Quran comes from Muhammad, why is there a whole chapter named Mary, after Jesus' mother? Why isn't it named after Fatima, his daughter, or his mother Amina? Amen.

The point isn't what Christians believe regarding the Trinity; the point is what the Quran actually says about the Christian Trinity.
You haven't answered my question, using nothing but the Quran to back it up...

Well, God clearly says to stop saying "they are the Trinity" or "it's a Trinity," because it's not true and it doesn't please God. You know exactly what people mean when they talk about the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We don't need to beat around the bush about who that refers to.

From where I'm standing, the Quran says Christians claim there are THREE Gods.
It also claims Christians set up Jesus and Mary as two gods alongside Allah... (making three total).

The math and logic are simple: the Quran describes the Christian "three Gods" as Allah, Jesus, and Mary.

Why dodge this obvious error in the Quran? It looks like Muhammad's misunderstanding of what Christians actually mean when they speak of the Triune God...

You're totally missing my point again.

In one part, God tells people to stop claiming there is a Trinity. Basically, don't use that term and don't believe it, because it's made up.

Then, in another part, God asks Jesus on Judgment Day about how he taught people to worship him and his mother as two gods. Jesus will deny that immediately and distance himself from those Christian beliefs. Even in the Bible, it says Jesus will turn away from certain Christians on Judgment Day. That's not an error; that's just how it is. I know this because I've spent years debating people like you.

All Christians? "Nominal" Christians, or...?
Oh right, those are your favorite verses, aren't they? They can't be mistakes (of course, a "mistake" is only a mistake when it doesn't suit your little narrative... 🙄 ))
You know perfectly well that anyone who believes Jesus is God will be rejected on Judgment Day, right?

Anyway, getting back ON-TOPIC:
How do you interpret the Old Testament prophecies stating that the Messiah would suffer and be killed?
Specifically Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22?

Harold Reyes3 said:

A really motivating way to start a post!

I don't get how I'm supposed to be "comforted" by that. And what exactly is wrong with my logic here?
Please explain—why should I just toss out Paul's letters when Peter (a circumcised Jew) confirms them and puts them in the same category as inspired scripture?

Look, let me simplify this since we aren't clicking: stick to what Jesus says and avoid cloning those types who preach the exact opposite of His words. When you look at it that way, you compare Paul's teachings to Jesus' teachings and the contradiction is massive. Sometimes I seriously wonder why you Christians prioritize Paul over Jesus. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.
If Jesus didn't eat pork and strictly forbid getting rid of the Law, how can anyone follow a guy preaching something totally contrary to everything Jesus taught after the Ascension?

When I ask people, "Hey, have you guys lost your minds? Jesus told us this,"
you respond with, "No, hold on, Paul tells us this." 🙄 If aliens were watching this debate, they’d see that we are Muslim followers of Jesus, while you are clearly Christian followers of Paul. It's as plain as day.

Jesus came through His life to reveal the true meaning of the Law—which is love, righteousness, and mercy.

That’s just pure speculation. There is absolutely no logic in what you're saying, and here is why:

Isn't this a better explanation? Jesus came to show through His life how to follow the Old Testament laws and how to serve God, so that we could all follow Him and reach Heaven. If Jesus had come to abolish any part of the Law, He would have been the first to stop eating pork to show us it wasn't an issue anymore. Period. But he didn't. Jesus strictly adhered to the Law and didn't allow anyone to scrap it, which is exactly what Paul did later.
Of course, as a Godly messenger, Jesus came to show the world how to act—showing mercy, forgiving people, being righteous, etc.—so others could follow Him to salvation. Not some mystical ideology where Jesus comes to show us mercy by being tortured semi-naked on a cross and humiliated. Honestly, it makes zero sense.

This cannot be right. This has to be a mistake because it contradicts everything Jesus actually did—He didn't eat pork and He didn't permit it. So, who do we trust more? God, who says in the Old Testament that pork is unclean and must not be eaten (and Jesus Himself didn't eat it), or someone else who authorizes it and says the opposite of what God and Jesus spoke? Plus, science tells us pork is unclean, which confirms exactly what God said in the Old Testament and what Jesus strictly followed.


"Cleanse all foods"? Come on, let’s be real here—can you actually say that about every single thing we eat? No matter how much you tell yourself otherwise, certain animals will always be inherently unclean. Just look at that woman who ended up with brain parasites from eating pork. And seriously, how can anyone claim pork is clean? I’ve seen people eat snakes, dogs, literal garbage, dead bodies, and even their own kind—it's cannibalism! How can an animal like that ever be considered pure? 🙄 Please, man, wake up. Take a second to think deeply, soberly, and logically.

Beyond that, in the Book of Acts, Peter (not Paul) had a famous vision regarding unclean animals where God told him to "kill and eat"... And at the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles and elders, along with Paul, decided on a few specific things that Gentile Christians should avoid just to show solidarity with the Jewish Christians, for whom that issue was still huge. Later on, Paul says he's free, but he shouldn't cause a brother to stumble—like if someone is a vegetarian and refuses to eat meat at all... because "the Kingdom of Heaven isn't about what you eat or drink, but about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit."

But can we really trust people who aren't God's messengers? They claim they had some "vision," but who’s to guarantee that? For all we know, Satan himself could have whispered those thoughts into their heads.🙄
Only God's messengers receive visions through dreams or revelations, because they are God's people and know His laws best; God communicates with them through His angels. We can't say the same for ordinary mortals, which is why we shouldn't take the random visions of just anyone seriously.

And it's even worse when these visions make zero sense according to common sense and science. Listen to this: "The Kingdom of Heaven isn't about what you eat or drink, but about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit". By that logic, you could drink alcohol until you drop, eat pork until you get brain parasites, or even do drugs! If the vision says it's not about what goes *in* but what comes *out*, then apparently taking drugs isn't a sin? Even though drugs can kill you, someone could just shrug and say, "It's not a sin." Seriously, guys, what are you thinking? This way of reasoning is wild.

Paul held the exact same faith on this issue as Jesus did!

Not even close. They have absolutely nothing in common.

I hear you loud and clear. I totally get what you're saying.

Except for one thing:
You still haven't answered my question! Seriously, how am I supposed to just brush off Peter's validation of Paul's teachings based on the Bible? You can't just ignore that.

Look, I already laid it all out when we talked about pork—everything lines up perfectly with the Bible. Jesus said it’s not what goes into a person that defiles them, Peter said it, and Paul said the exact same thing... Period. End of story.

Harold Reyes3 said:

A really motivating way to start a post!

I don't get how I'm supposed to be "comforted" by that. And what exactly is wrong with my logic here?
Please explain—why should I just toss out Paul's letters when Peter (a circumcised Jew) confirms them and puts them in the same category as inspired scripture?

Look, let me simplify this since we aren't clicking: stick to what Jesus says and avoid cloning those types who preach the exact opposite of His words. When you look at it that way, you compare Paul's teachings to Jesus' teachings and the contradiction is massive. Sometimes I seriously wonder why you Christians prioritize Paul over Jesus. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.
If Jesus didn't eat pork and strictly forbid getting rid of the Law, how can anyone follow a guy preaching something totally contrary to everything Jesus taught after the Ascension?

When I ask people, "Hey, have you guys lost your minds? Jesus told us this,"
you respond with, "No, hold on, Paul tells us this." 🙄 If aliens were watching this debate, they’d see that we are Muslim followers of Jesus, while you are clearly Christian followers of Paul. It's as plain as day.

Jesus came through His life to reveal the true meaning of the Law—which is love, righteousness, and mercy.

That’s just pure speculation. There is absolutely no logic in what you're saying, and here is why:

Isn't this a better explanation? Jesus came to show through His life how to follow the Old Testament laws and how to serve God, so that we could all follow Him and reach Heaven. If Jesus had come to abolish any part of the Law, He would have been the first to stop eating pork to show us it wasn't an issue anymore. Period. But he didn't. Jesus strictly adhered to the Law and didn't allow anyone to scrap it, which is exactly what Paul did later.
Of course, as a Godly messenger, Jesus came to show the world how to act—showing mercy, forgiving people, being righteous, etc.—so others could follow Him to salvation. Not some mystical ideology where Jesus comes to show us mercy by being tortured semi-naked on a cross and humiliated. Honestly, it makes zero sense.

This cannot be right. This has to be a mistake because it contradicts everything Jesus actually did—He didn't eat pork and He didn't permit it. So, who do we trust more? God, who says in the Old Testament that pork is unclean and must not be eaten (and Jesus Himself didn't eat it), or someone else who authorizes it and says the opposite of what God and Jesus spoke? Plus, science tells us pork is unclean, which confirms exactly what God said in the Old Testament and what Jesus strictly followed.


"Cleanse all foods"? Come on, let’s be real here—can you actually say that about every single thing we eat? No matter how much you tell yourself otherwise, certain animals will always be inherently unclean. Just look at that woman who ended up with brain parasites from eating pork. And seriously, how can anyone claim pork is clean? I’ve seen people eat snakes, dogs, literal garbage, dead bodies, and even their own kind—it's cannibalism! How can an animal like that ever be considered pure? 🙄 Please, man, wake up. Take a second to think deeply, soberly, and logically.

Beyond that, in the Book of Acts, Peter (not Paul) had a famous vision regarding unclean animals where God told him to "kill and eat"... And at the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles and elders, along with Paul, decided on a few specific things that Gentile Christians should avoid just to show solidarity with the Jewish Christians, for whom that issue was still huge. Later on, Paul says he's free, but he shouldn't cause a brother to stumble—like if someone is a vegetarian and refuses to eat meat at all... because "the Kingdom of Heaven isn't about what you eat or drink, but about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit."

But can we really trust people who aren't God's messengers? They claim they had some "vision," but who’s to guarantee that? For all we know, Satan himself could have whispered those thoughts into their heads.🙄
Only God's messengers receive visions through dreams or revelations, because they are God's people and know His laws best; God communicates with them through His angels. We can't say the same for ordinary mortals, which is why we shouldn't take the random visions of just anyone seriously.

And it's even worse when these visions make zero sense according to common sense and science. Listen to this: "The Kingdom of Heaven isn't about what you eat or drink, but about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit". By that logic, you could drink alcohol until you drop, eat pork until you get brain parasites, or even do drugs! If the vision says it's not about what goes *in* but what comes *out*, then apparently taking drugs isn't a sin? Even though drugs can kill you, someone could just shrug and say, "It's not a sin." Seriously, guys, what are you thinking? This way of reasoning is wild.

Paul held the exact same faith on this issue as Jesus did!

Not even close. They have absolutely nothing in common.

Harold Reyes3 said:

A really motivating way to start a post!

I don't get how I'm supposed to be "comforted" by that. And what exactly is wrong with my logic here?
Please explain—why should I just toss out Paul's letters when Peter (a circumcised Jew) confirms them and puts them in the same category as inspired scripture?

Look, let me simplify this since we aren't clicking: stick to what Jesus says and avoid cloning those types who preach the exact opposite of His words. When you look at it that way, you compare Paul's teachings to Jesus' teachings and the contradiction is massive. Sometimes I seriously wonder why you Christians prioritize Paul over Jesus. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.
If Jesus didn't eat pork and strictly forbid getting rid of the Law, how can anyone follow a guy preaching something totally contrary to everything Jesus taught after the Ascension?

When I ask people, "Hey, have you guys lost your minds? Jesus told us this,"
you respond with, "No, hold on, Paul tells us this." 🙄 If aliens were watching this debate, they’d see that we are Muslim followers of Jesus, while you are clearly Christian followers of Paul. It's as plain as day.

Jesus came through His life to reveal the true meaning of the Law—which is love, righteousness, and mercy.

That’s just pure speculation. There is absolutely no logic in what you're saying, and here is why:

Isn't this a better explanation? Jesus came to show through His life how to follow the Old Testament laws and how to serve God, so that we could all follow Him and reach Heaven. If Jesus had come to abolish any part of the Law, He would have been the first to stop eating pork to show us it wasn't an issue anymore. Period. But he didn't. Jesus strictly adhered to the Law and didn't allow anyone to scrap it, which is exactly what Paul did later.
Of course, as a Godly messenger, Jesus came to show the world how to act—showing mercy, forgiving people, being righteous, etc.—so others could follow Him to salvation. Not some mystical ideology where Jesus comes to show us mercy by being tortured semi-naked on a cross and humiliated. Honestly, it makes zero sense.

This cannot be right. This has to be a mistake because it contradicts everything Jesus actually did—He didn't eat pork and He didn't permit it. So, who do we trust more? God, who says in the Old Testament that pork is unclean and must not be eaten (and Jesus Himself didn't eat it), or someone else who authorizes it and says the opposite of what God and Jesus spoke? Plus, science tells us pork is unclean, which confirms exactly what God said in the Old Testament and what Jesus strictly followed.


"Cleanse all foods"? Come on, let’s be real here—can you actually say that about every single thing we eat? No matter how much you tell yourself otherwise, certain animals will always be inherently unclean. Just look at that woman who ended up with brain parasites from eating pork. And seriously, how can anyone claim pork is clean? I’ve seen people eat snakes, dogs, literal garbage, dead bodies, and even their own kind—it's cannibalism! How can an animal like that ever be considered pure? 🙄 Please, man, wake up. Take a second to think deeply, soberly, and logically.

Beyond that, in the Book of Acts, Peter (not Paul) had a famous vision regarding unclean animals where God told him to "kill and eat"... And at the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles and elders, along with Paul, decided on a few specific things that Gentile Christians should avoid just to show solidarity with the Jewish Christians, for whom that issue was still huge. Later on, Paul says he's free, but he shouldn't cause a brother to stumble—like if someone is a vegetarian and refuses to eat meat at all... because "the Kingdom of Heaven isn't about what you eat or drink, but about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit."

But can we really trust people who aren't God's messengers? They claim they had some "vision," but who’s to guarantee that? For all we know, Satan himself could have whispered those thoughts into their heads.🙄
Only God's messengers receive visions through dreams or revelations, because they are God's people and know His laws best; God communicates with them through His angels. We can't say the same for ordinary mortals, which is why we shouldn't take the random visions of just anyone seriously.

And it's even worse when these visions make zero sense according to common sense and science. Listen to this: "The Kingdom of Heaven isn't about what you eat or drink, but about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit". By that logic, you could drink alcohol until you drop, eat pork until you get brain parasites, or even do drugs! If the vision says it's not about what goes *in* but what comes *out*, then apparently taking drugs isn't a sin? Even though drugs can kill you, someone could just shrug and say, "It's not a sin." Seriously, guys, what are you thinking? This way of reasoning is wild.

Paul held the exact same faith on this issue as Jesus did!

Not even close. They have absolutely nothing in common.

Look, there’s nothing I can do for you here. Honestly, it’s just way easier for you to brush off Jesus' words as mistakes whenever they don't fit neatly into your little philosophy, isn't it?
Honestly, continuing this discussion with all these ridiculous exaggerations is just a complete waste of time—not to mention it’s totally off-topic. We should honestly just be thankful the moderators haven't nuked our last few posts yet.

Harold Reyes3 said:

A really motivating way to start a post!

I don't get how I'm supposed to be "comforted" by that. And what exactly is wrong with my logic here?
Please explain—why should I just toss out Paul's letters when Peter (a circumcised Jew) confirms them and puts them in the same category as inspired scripture?

Look, let me simplify this since we aren't clicking: stick to what Jesus says and avoid cloning those types who preach the exact opposite of His words. When you look at it that way, you compare Paul's teachings to Jesus' teachings and the contradiction is massive. Sometimes I seriously wonder why you Christians prioritize Paul over Jesus. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.
If Jesus didn't eat pork and strictly forbid getting rid of the Law, how can anyone follow a guy preaching something totally contrary to everything Jesus taught after the Ascension?

When I ask people, "Hey, have you guys lost your minds? Jesus told us this,"
you respond with, "No, hold on, Paul tells us this." 🙄 If aliens were watching this debate, they’d see that we are Muslim followers of Jesus, while you are clearly Christian followers of Paul. It's as plain as day.

Jesus came through His life to reveal the true meaning of the Law—which is love, righteousness, and mercy.

That’s just pure speculation. There is absolutely no logic in what you're saying, and here is why:

Isn't this a better explanation? Jesus came to show through His life how to follow the Old Testament laws and how to serve God, so that we could all follow Him and reach Heaven. If Jesus had come to abolish any part of the Law, He would have been the first to stop eating pork to show us it wasn't an issue anymore. Period. But he didn't. Jesus strictly adhered to the Law and didn't allow anyone to scrap it, which is exactly what Paul did later.
Of course, as a Godly messenger, Jesus came to show the world how to act—showing mercy, forgiving people, being righteous, etc.—so others could follow Him to salvation. Not some mystical ideology where Jesus comes to show us mercy by being tortured semi-naked on a cross and humiliated. Honestly, it makes zero sense.

This cannot be right. This has to be a mistake because it contradicts everything Jesus actually did—He didn't eat pork and He didn't permit it. So, who do we trust more? God, who says in the Old Testament that pork is unclean and must not be eaten (and Jesus Himself didn't eat it), or someone else who authorizes it and says the opposite of what God and Jesus spoke? Plus, science tells us pork is unclean, which confirms exactly what God said in the Old Testament and what Jesus strictly followed.


"Cleanse all foods"? Come on, let’s be real here—can you actually say that about every single thing we eat? No matter how much you tell yourself otherwise, certain animals will always be inherently unclean. Just look at that woman who ended up with brain parasites from eating pork. And seriously, how can anyone claim pork is clean? I’ve seen people eat snakes, dogs, literal garbage, dead bodies, and even their own kind—it's cannibalism! How can an animal like that ever be considered pure? 🙄 Please, man, wake up. Take a second to think deeply, soberly, and logically.

Beyond that, in the Book of Acts, Peter (not Paul) had a famous vision regarding unclean animals where God told him to "kill and eat"... And at the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles and elders, along with Paul, decided on a few specific things that Gentile Christians should avoid just to show solidarity with the Jewish Christians, for whom that issue was still huge. Later on, Paul says he's free, but he shouldn't cause a brother to stumble—like if someone is a vegetarian and refuses to eat meat at all... because "the Kingdom of Heaven isn't about what you eat or drink, but about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit."

But can we really trust people who aren't God's messengers? They claim they had some "vision," but who’s to guarantee that? For all we know, Satan himself could have whispered those thoughts into their heads.🙄
Only God's messengers receive visions through dreams or revelations, because they are God's people and know His laws best; God communicates with them through His angels. We can't say the same for ordinary mortals, which is why we shouldn't take the random visions of just anyone seriously.

And it's even worse when these visions make zero sense according to common sense and science. Listen to this: "The Kingdom of Heaven isn't about what you eat or drink, but about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit". By that logic, you could drink alcohol until you drop, eat pork until you get brain parasites, or even do drugs! If the vision says it's not about what goes *in* but what comes *out*, then apparently taking drugs isn't a sin? Even though drugs can kill you, someone could just shrug and say, "It's not a sin." Seriously, guys, what are you thinking? This way of reasoning is wild.

Paul held the exact same faith on this issue as Jesus did!

Not even close. They have absolutely nothing in common.

Peter was clearly the leader among Jesus' disciples. It was him that Jesus trusted with the keys to the kingdom to open things up for the Gentiles—which is exactly what happened when he was sent over to the house of Cornelius, a Roman centurion. That was the massive turning point where the first non-Jew officially stepped up to embrace faith in Christ and the Holy Spirit.

And what about this whole idea of Satan inspiring a vision? Isn't it true that on a couple of occasions, Satan actually inspired Muhammad? 🙄

Look, I seriously don't have the time right now to deal with these supposed errors in the New Testament...
Just a quick one...

Harold Reyes3 said:

Even when you bring up Luke, remember he was a systematic historian through and through. He didn't just scribble things down; he meticulously gathered oral traditions. Back then, that kind of rigor carried way more weight than our modern "post everything instantly" culture does today. I really hope you realize that!

What else were they supposed to do? Most people back then couldn't even write, let alone have access to a TV, radio, smartphone, or a computer. If you don't have the internet, all you've got is storytelling. It was their only way to pass the time!

Aside from Luke, we have Gospels written by Jesus' own apostles—Matthew and John—so that’s straight from the source. As for the rest, Mark likely penned his account under Peter's guidance, since he was such a close associate.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Gospels were written while Jesus was actually walking the earth, or even right after his life here ended.

Here’s a quick breakdown of that.

The four canonical Gospels! Think of them like four different camera angles filming the exact same historic event—you get the full picture because you see it from every perspective.
When we look at the written record, there are four Gospels that made it to us, all accepted by Christians as canonical. The oldest one is Mark's, and it kicks things off with these words: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1). Mark's Gospel was written before the year 70., Matthew's and Luke's accounts were also written after the year 70.Think of these three Gospels as the "synoptic" trio—they’re basically designed to be read side-by-side. It looks like Matthew and Luke definitely had Mark's Gospel on their desks, and they likely tapped into a shared pool of Jesus' sayings known as "Q." It's like three different reporters covering the exact same press conference! John's Gospel, which was written toward the end of the 1st century.It’s the youngest one, but man, does it bring some incredibly ancient traditions to the table! Plus, its whole structure feels totally different compared to the first three Gospels.

I still think eyewitness accounts carry way more weight than some skewed opinion from a different culture written centuries after the fact. Sorry, but common sense just won't let me see it any other way.

Man, if only God had given us firsthand accounts, we wouldn't have all these errors! Besides, my background doesn't matter. For us Muslims, Jesus is on the exact same level as Muhammad; we don't draw lines between them. In fact, we believe in Jesus even more deeply than Christians do.

So, the whole "different nation" thing is totally irrelevant here. Don't worry about who’s talking—just listen to what they're actually saying.😉

Question: What does the Quran say regarding the three SPECIFIC Gods that Christians supposedly have?

Thanks for quoting those two texts...👍

Let me repeat the question: If you were reading nothing but the Quran and knew zero about Christianity, what conclusion would be forced upon you regarding these "three Christian Gods"?

Well, when God says not to speak falsely, it's referring to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Even though your belief functions effectively like having three Gods, you just package it as one Trinity. But Jesus himself said this:

Jesus responded: "Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one."I don't see anywhere in the Bible that mentions a Triune God.

But you Christians split Him into three parts and essentially create three Gods. You can't find proof that Jesus and God are one and the same, especially since Jesus says the Father is greater than him.
It means it's not "Son = Father" like you claim with the Trinity; instead, it's "Son < Father," just like Jesus stated.

Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—that's three Gods. But because you can't bring yourselves to openly admit to having three Gods, you wrap it all up into one. That's where these massive contradictions with the biblical texts start popping up.

I wasn't talking about you—I was talking about Muhammad! You know, the guy who comes along centuries after Jesus and starts pushing his own version of the story...

Harold Reyes3 said:

Even when you bring up Luke, remember he was a systematic historian through and through. He didn't just scribble things down; he meticulously gathered oral traditions. Back then, that kind of rigor carried way more weight than our modern "post everything instantly" culture does today. I really hope you realize that!

What else were they supposed to do? Most people back then couldn't even write, let alone have access to a TV, radio, smartphone, or a computer. If you don't have the internet, all you've got is storytelling. It was their only way to pass the time!

Aside from Luke, we have Gospels written by Jesus' own apostles—Matthew and John—so that’s straight from the source. As for the rest, Mark likely penned his account under Peter's guidance, since he was such a close associate.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Gospels were written while Jesus was actually walking the earth, or even right after his life here ended.

Here’s a quick breakdown of that.

The four canonical Gospels! Think of them like four different camera angles filming the exact same historic event—you get the full picture because you see it from every perspective.
When we look at the written record, there are four Gospels that made it to us, all accepted by Christians as canonical. The oldest one is Mark's, and it kicks things off with these words: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1). Mark's Gospel was written before the year 70., Matthew's and Luke's accounts were also written after the year 70.Think of these three Gospels as the "synoptic" trio—they’re basically designed to be read side-by-side. It looks like Matthew and Luke definitely had Mark's Gospel on their desks, and they likely tapped into a shared pool of Jesus' sayings known as "Q." It's like three different reporters covering the exact same press conference! John's Gospel, which was written toward the end of the 1st century.It’s the youngest one, but man, does it bring some incredibly ancient traditions to the table! Plus, its whole structure feels totally different compared to the first three Gospels.

I still think eyewitness accounts carry way more weight than some skewed opinion from a different culture written centuries after the fact. Sorry, but common sense just won't let me see it any other way.

Man, if only God had given us firsthand accounts, we wouldn't have all these errors! Besides, my background doesn't matter. For us Muslims, Jesus is on the exact same level as Muhammad; we don't draw lines between them. In fact, we believe in Jesus even more deeply than Christians do.

So, the whole "different nation" thing is totally irrelevant here. Don't worry about who’s talking—just listen to what they're actually saying.😉

Question: What does the Quran say regarding the three SPECIFIC Gods that Christians supposedly have?

Thanks for quoting those two texts...👍

Let me repeat the question: If you were reading nothing but the Quran and knew zero about Christianity, what conclusion would be forced upon you regarding these "three Christian Gods"?

Well, when God says not to speak falsely, it's referring to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Even though your belief functions effectively like having three Gods, you just package it as one Trinity. But Jesus himself said this:

Jesus responded: "Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one."I don't see anywhere in the Bible that mentions a Triune God.

But you Christians split Him into three parts and essentially create three Gods. You can't find proof that Jesus and God are one and the same, especially since Jesus says the Father is greater than him.
It means it's not "Son = Father" like you claim with the Trinity; instead, it's "Son < Father," just like Jesus stated.

Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—that's three Gods. But because you can't bring yourselves to openly admit to having three Gods, you wrap it all up into one. That's where these massive contradictions with the biblical texts start popping up.

Look, the point isn't even about what Christians believe regarding the Trinity anymore. The real issue here is what the Quran actually says about the Christian concept of the Trinity.
So, you still haven't actually answered me—and all you've got to back up that claim is the Quran...🤷

From what I can gather, the Quran claims that Christians believe they worship THREE Gods.
And then he goes on to claim that Christians basically worship Jesus and Mary as two separate gods alongside Allah... like we're out here trying to juggle three different Gods or something! Unbelievable.

The math and the logic are pretty straightforward here: the Quran claims that Christians worship three different gods—Allah, Jesus, and Mary.

Why are people running away from this glaring mistake in the Quran? It’s just a massive misunderstanding on Muhammad's part regarding what Christians actually believe when they talk about the Trinity.

Harold Reyes3 said:You can stress about this all you want, but one thing is certain:

Jesus came to fulfill the laws, ensuring they are carried out rather than tossed aside. After all, He lived them perfectly and showed everyone exactly how they should be followed.

If His goal had been to scrap the laws, He would have acted against them Himself to show everyone how to handle them. But nope! He stuck to them strictly and forbade anyone from abolishing them. So what happens next? Paul shows up, scraps the laws, gives Christians the thumbs up to do the same, and suddenly everyone starts following Paul instead of what Jesus actually said. Bravo! 👍Basically, you're giving priority to Paul—who never even met Jesus—over the actual words of Jesus.

If Jesus wanted to abolish the laws, He would have just said, "Hey, look, I'm eating pork, so go ahead and eat it too; the laws don't count anymore." But He never did that. Then along comes Paul, wipes it all out, and creates an entirely new religion called Christianity. Jesus never taught people "Christianity," and honestly, if someone tried to explain the concept of "Christianity" to Him in Aramaic, He probably wouldn't have known what they were talking about. It would have been totally foreign to Him.

It's just like if we suddenly threw away everything Muhammad taught and started following some fool after Muhammad passed away. 🙄It makes zero sense. Can you imagine a bigger delusion?

So, what Paul says doesn't matter at all if he isn't sharing the same faith as Jesus.

Man, I am pumped up just thinking about this! This is exactly the kind of spark we need to kick things off. Let’s get moving!👎

I don't get how I'm supposed to "find comfort" in this. Seriously. And what exactly is so wrong with my argument here? Give me a break. I can't believe I'm even typing this out right now. My blood is absolutely boiling. Honestly, I’ve had enough of people acting like they have some sort of divine authority to lecture the rest of us on what's "right" or "wrong." It’s exhausting! Every single time I jump online, it's the same thing: someone tries to play preacher, pulling bits and pieces from the Bible to justify their own narrow-minded ego. It's pathetic. You think you're holding the truth, but you're really just holding onto a grudge. I remember back when I was dealing with that mess at my old job in Chicago—everyone thought they were an expert because they read one management manual, and all it did was ruin the team dynamic. It’s the exact same energy here. People love to hear themselves talk, especially when they're hiding behind religious texts. Get over yourselves!.
Look, I need someone to make this make sense for me. Why on earth should I toss out Paul's letters? Seriously, Peter—who was an uncircumcised Jew, mind you—actually backs them up and puts them right up there in the same league as any other inspired scripture. So, what's the deal?

Harold Reyes3 said:You can stress about this all you want, but one thing is certain:

Jesus came to fulfill the laws, ensuring they are carried out rather than tossed aside. After all, He lived them perfectly and showed everyone exactly how they should be followed.

If His goal had been to scrap the laws, He would have acted against them Himself to show everyone how to handle them. But nope! He stuck to them strictly and forbade anyone from abolishing them. So what happens next? Paul shows up, scraps the laws, gives Christians the thumbs up to do the same, and suddenly everyone starts following Paul instead of what Jesus actually said. Bravo! 👍Basically, you're giving priority to Paul—who never even met Jesus—over the actual words of Jesus.

If Jesus wanted to abolish the laws, He would have just said, "Hey, look, I'm eating pork, so go ahead and eat it too; the laws don't count anymore." But He never did that. Then along comes Paul, wipes it all out, and creates an entirely new religion called Christianity. Jesus never taught people "Christianity," and honestly, if someone tried to explain the concept of "Christianity" to Him in Aramaic, He probably wouldn't have known what they were talking about. It would have been totally foreign to Him.

It's just like if we suddenly threw away everything Muhammad taught and started following some fool after Muhammad passed away. 🙄It makes zero sense. Can you imagine a bigger delusion?

So, what Paul says doesn't matter at all if he isn't sharing the same faith as Jesus.

Jesus came into this world to show us what the Law was actually about. It wasn't just some checklist of rules to follow—it was about love, righteousness, and mercy. That’s the core of it.

Jesus had his biggest headaches dealing with those merciless legalists who completely missed the entire point of the Law. You see it most clearly when he broke the Sabbath—the way the religious elite back then absolutely lost their minds over it was pure insanity.

Harold Reyes3 said:You can stress about this all you want, but one thing is certain:

Jesus came to fulfill the laws, ensuring they are carried out rather than tossed aside. After all, He lived them perfectly and showed everyone exactly how they should be followed.

If His goal had been to scrap the laws, He would have acted against them Himself to show everyone how to handle them. But nope! He stuck to them strictly and forbade anyone from abolishing them. So what happens next? Paul shows up, scraps the laws, gives Christians the thumbs up to do the same, and suddenly everyone starts following Paul instead of what Jesus actually said. Bravo! 👍Basically, you're giving priority to Paul—who never even met Jesus—over the actual words of Jesus.

If Jesus wanted to abolish the laws, He would have just said, "Hey, look, I'm eating pork, so go ahead and eat it too; the laws don't count anymore." But He never did that. Then along comes Paul, wipes it all out, and creates an entirely new religion called Christianity. Jesus never taught people "Christianity," and honestly, if someone tried to explain the concept of "Christianity" to Him in Aramaic, He probably wouldn't have known what they were talking about. It would have been totally foreign to Him.

It's just like if we suddenly threw away everything Muhammad taught and started following some fool after Muhammad passed away. 🙄It makes zero sense. Can you imagine a bigger delusion?

So, what Paul says doesn't matter at all if he isn't sharing the same faith as Jesus.

When it comes to this issue, what Jesus was saying is crystal clear:

"Look, nothing from the outside can actually make a person unclean. It’s what comes out of you—that's what defines you. If you've got ears, listen up!" Then, after all those people had cleared out of the house, his disciples cornered him, trying to get him to explain the parable. They were clearly lost. He basically snapped at them, like, "Seriously? You guys don't get it either? Are you really missing the point? Nothing that enters a person through eating can make them impure, because it doesn't go to the heart; it just goes down into the stomach and out the other end." And just like that, he wipes out every single dish. "What comes out of a person is what actually defiles them." Seriously, think about that for a second. It’s not about what you touch or what you eat—it's what's rotting inside you that counts. Look, I was just re-reading Mark 7, and honestly? It gets me fired up. There’s just something about how much people love to hide behind "tradition" to avoid actually doing what's right. It's like when you see people at a local diner arguing over whether a certain way of making coffee is "authentic" while completely ignoring the fact that the service is terrible and the food is cold. They're so obsessed with the rules of the ritual that they miss the entire point of why they're there in the first place! That's exactly what we see here. People clinging to these rigid, man-made rituals like they're some kind of holy shield, while completely bypassing the heart of the matter. It's frustrating. You see it all the time—people following the letter of the law but totally missing the spirit behind it. It’s hollow. It’s performative. And frankly, it’s exhausting to watch.

Look, besides all that, we can't forget that Peter (not Paul!) had that famous vision about unclean animals where God basically told him, "Slaughter it and eat." Then, when the Jerusalem Council met, the apostles and elders sat down with Paul to hammer out just a few specific rules for Gentile Christians to follow—mostly just to show solidarity with the Jewish believers, since those dietary laws were still a huge deal for them back then. It’s why Paul later argues that while he’s technically free, he won't go out of his way to stumble a brother who might be a vegetarian and refuses to touch meat. At the end of the day, the Kingdom of Heaven isn't about what you're eating or drinking; it's about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

When it comes to that specific issue, Paul was totally on the same page as Jesus! ☕

Harold Reyes3 said:

Why would anything written about Jesus in the Quran even matter? I mean, it was written centuries after he actually walked this earth!

Think about it this way: God gave us direct information about Jesus in the Quran, whereas the Bible is essentially a collection of people's accounts. Even Luke admits he was just gathering stories! He spent his time listening to what others had to say and trying to verify their accuracy before writing everything down. When you look at it like that, you have to ask yourself how much truth is actually there when you're relying on human hearsay—especially since those stories were being passed around decades after Jesus ascended.
Everyone’s got an opinion. One person says this, another claims that, and someone else is out there peddling a third version. It’s up to you to sift through the noise and figure out what actually holds water. Honestly, look at how stories work—if I tell a tale today and people start retelling it over the next few decades, half the details are bound to shift. People will inevitably add their own little twists and flavors just to make it sound better. That's just human nature!

Plus, it’s been proven that the Quran actually gets Christian doctrine wrong. For instance, when it describes the Trinity as the Father, the Son, and... Mary 🤷

The Quran actually claims that you all believe in multiple gods—whether you realize it or not—and here’s the breakdown.

First off, the Quran states that we aren't a Trinity.

God says:

To all followers of the Book: don't lose your way! Stick to the facts when you talk about Allah. Jesus, the son of Mary, is simply a messenger of Allah—His Word, delivered through Mary, and a spirit from Him. So, keep your faith firm in Allah and His messengers! Don't go around saying, "It's the Trinity!" Stop it—you’ll feel much better! There is only one God, and praise be to Him! Does He really have a son? Everything in the heavens and everything on this American soil belongs to Him. God alone is all we need for protection.

Then you have Catholics who pray to Mary. From the perspective of the Quran, that’s basically giving God a partner. It puts her right up there on His level. Since Mary is deceased and can't actually hear you, calling out to her is like assigning her divine attributes. It’s like acting as if she can hear your prayers while you're sitting alone in your room. By doing that, you're automatically placing her alongside God by attributing divine qualities to a human.

The Quran tells us how God will examine Jesus on Judgment Day:

And when God says: "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell the people..." "Accept me and my mother as two gods alongside Allah.""Praise be to You! It wouldn't be right for me to claim things I have no authority to say. If I spoke out of turn, You already know. You know everything I know, but there’s a massive gap between my knowledge and Yours—You alone hold the keys to everything hidden. I only shared exactly what You commanded: 'Worship Allah, my Lord and their Lord!' While I was walking among them, I looked out for them just as You told me to, but now that You've taken my soul, You are the only one watching over them. You're the one in charge of everything. If You decide to discipline them, they are Your servants; if You choose to forgive, You are the Almighty and the most merciful."

And it doesn't stop there—you guys basically put your priests in God's seat.

God says:

"They take their scholars and monks as lords instead of Allah..." (Quran, 9/31).

Now you might wonder how that works. It's simple! You go to a priest to confess, right? And he tells you, "You're forgiven." But since you're asking for forgiveness from anyone other than God, you're essentially treating that person like God. Only God has the authority to wipe away sins. How can anyone believe a regular mortal can forgive sins? It's wild. I actually saw a movie once where a guy bursts into a church and finds the priest and his wife hooking up under the covers 🙄it happened somewhere down in South America. So, this same priest is supposed to come out and forgive your sins after playing around with someone else's wife under a blanket? 👍That's just top-tier irony right there.

Allah makes it crystal clear.

No one can guide those whom Allah has left in error.

Look, when you bring up Luke, you have to realize he was a systematic historian through and through. He didn't just scribble things down; he conscientiously gathered the oral traditions that were actually valued back then—way more than they are in our hyper-modern, skeptical age. I really hope you realize that.

Look, it’s pretty simple if you actually look at the facts. Aside from Luke, we’re talking about the Gospels written by Jesus' own apostles—Matthew and John. That means we have first-hand accounts right there. As for the rest? Mark likely penned his portion under Peter's mentorship, considering how closely he worked alongside him. It's not that complicated.

I still stand by those reports. Straight from the horse's mouth. Look, I’m just going to say it: I trust the actual historical record way more than some twisted opinion from someone living in a completely different culture, centuries after the events even happened. Sorry, but my common sense just won't let me go along with that.

Harold Reyes3 said:

Why would anything written about Jesus in the Quran even matter? I mean, it was written centuries after he actually walked this earth!

Think about it this way: God gave us direct information about Jesus in the Quran, whereas the Bible is essentially a collection of people's accounts. Even Luke admits he was just gathering stories! He spent his time listening to what others had to say and trying to verify their accuracy before writing everything down. When you look at it like that, you have to ask yourself how much truth is actually there when you're relying on human hearsay—especially since those stories were being passed around decades after Jesus ascended.
Everyone’s got an opinion. One person says this, another claims that, and someone else is out there peddling a third version. It’s up to you to sift through the noise and figure out what actually holds water. Honestly, look at how stories work—if I tell a tale today and people start retelling it over the next few decades, half the details are bound to shift. People will inevitably add their own little twists and flavors just to make it sound better. That's just human nature!

Plus, it’s been proven that the Quran actually gets Christian doctrine wrong. For instance, when it describes the Trinity as the Father, the Son, and... Mary 🤷

The Quran actually claims that you all believe in multiple gods—whether you realize it or not—and here’s the breakdown.

First off, the Quran states that we aren't a Trinity.

God says:

To all followers of the Book: don't lose your way! Stick to the facts when you talk about Allah. Jesus, the son of Mary, is simply a messenger of Allah—His Word, delivered through Mary, and a spirit from Him. So, keep your faith firm in Allah and His messengers! Don't go around saying, "It's the Trinity!" Stop it—you’ll feel much better! There is only one God, and praise be to Him! Does He really have a son? Everything in the heavens and everything on this American soil belongs to Him. God alone is all we need for protection.

Then you have Catholics who pray to Mary. From the perspective of the Quran, that’s basically giving God a partner. It puts her right up there on His level. Since Mary is deceased and can't actually hear you, calling out to her is like assigning her divine attributes. It’s like acting as if she can hear your prayers while you're sitting alone in your room. By doing that, you're automatically placing her alongside God by attributing divine qualities to a human.

The Quran tells us how God will examine Jesus on Judgment Day:

And when God says: "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell the people..." "Accept me and my mother as two gods alongside Allah.""Praise be to You! It wouldn't be right for me to claim things I have no authority to say. If I spoke out of turn, You already know. You know everything I know, but there’s a massive gap between my knowledge and Yours—You alone hold the keys to everything hidden. I only shared exactly what You commanded: 'Worship Allah, my Lord and their Lord!' While I was walking among them, I looked out for them just as You told me to, but now that You've taken my soul, You are the only one watching over them. You're the one in charge of everything. If You decide to discipline them, they are Your servants; if You choose to forgive, You are the Almighty and the most merciful."

And it doesn't stop there—you guys basically put your priests in God's seat.

God says:

"They take their scholars and monks as lords instead of Allah..." (Quran, 9/31).

Now you might wonder how that works. It's simple! You go to a priest to confess, right? And he tells you, "You're forgiven." But since you're asking for forgiveness from anyone other than God, you're essentially treating that person like God. Only God has the authority to wipe away sins. How can anyone believe a regular mortal can forgive sins? It's wild. I actually saw a movie once where a guy bursts into a church and finds the priest and his wife hooking up under the covers 🙄it happened somewhere down in South America. So, this same priest is supposed to come out and forgive your sins after playing around with someone else's wife under a blanket? 👍That's just top-tier irony right there.

Allah makes it crystal clear.

No one can guide those whom Allah has left in error.

Question: The Quran claims that Christians have... Which THREE? God?

Harold Reyes3 said:

Why would anything written about Jesus in the Quran even matter? I mean, it was written centuries after he actually walked this earth!

Think about it this way: God gave us direct information about Jesus in the Quran, whereas the Bible is essentially a collection of people's accounts. Even Luke admits he was just gathering stories! He spent his time listening to what others had to say and trying to verify their accuracy before writing everything down. When you look at it like that, you have to ask yourself how much truth is actually there when you're relying on human hearsay—especially since those stories were being passed around decades after Jesus ascended.
Everyone’s got an opinion. One person says this, another claims that, and someone else is out there peddling a third version. It’s up to you to sift through the noise and figure out what actually holds water. Honestly, look at how stories work—if I tell a tale today and people start retelling it over the next few decades, half the details are bound to shift. People will inevitably add their own little twists and flavors just to make it sound better. That's just human nature!

Plus, it’s been proven that the Quran actually gets Christian doctrine wrong. For instance, when it describes the Trinity as the Father, the Son, and... Mary 🤷

The Quran actually claims that you all believe in multiple gods—whether you realize it or not—and here’s the breakdown.

First off, the Quran states that we aren't a Trinity.

God says:

To all followers of the Book: don't lose your way! Stick to the facts when you talk about Allah. Jesus, the son of Mary, is simply a messenger of Allah—His Word, delivered through Mary, and a spirit from Him. So, keep your faith firm in Allah and His messengers! Don't go around saying, "It's the Trinity!" Stop it—you’ll feel much better! There is only one God, and praise be to Him! Does He really have a son? Everything in the heavens and everything on this American soil belongs to Him. God alone is all we need for protection.

Then you have Catholics who pray to Mary. From the perspective of the Quran, that’s basically giving God a partner. It puts her right up there on His level. Since Mary is deceased and can't actually hear you, calling out to her is like assigning her divine attributes. It’s like acting as if she can hear your prayers while you're sitting alone in your room. By doing that, you're automatically placing her alongside God by attributing divine qualities to a human.

The Quran tells us how God will examine Jesus on Judgment Day:

And when God says: "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell the people..." "Accept me and my mother as two gods alongside Allah.""Praise be to You! It wouldn't be right for me to claim things I have no authority to say. If I spoke out of turn, You already know. You know everything I know, but there’s a massive gap between my knowledge and Yours—You alone hold the keys to everything hidden. I only shared exactly what You commanded: 'Worship Allah, my Lord and their Lord!' While I was walking among them, I looked out for them just as You told me to, but now that You've taken my soul, You are the only one watching over them. You're the one in charge of everything. If You decide to discipline them, they are Your servants; if You choose to forgive, You are the Almighty and the most merciful."

And it doesn't stop there—you guys basically put your priests in God's seat.

God says:

"They take their scholars and monks as lords instead of Allah..." (Quran, 9/31).

Now you might wonder how that works. It's simple! You go to a priest to confess, right? And he tells you, "You're forgiven." But since you're asking for forgiveness from anyone other than God, you're essentially treating that person like God. Only God has the authority to wipe away sins. How can anyone believe a regular mortal can forgive sins? It's wild. I actually saw a movie once where a guy bursts into a church and finds the priest and his wife hooking up under the covers 🙄it happened somewhere down in South America. So, this same priest is supposed to come out and forgive your sins after playing around with someone else's wife under a blanket? 👍That's just top-tier irony right there.

Allah makes it crystal clear.

No one can guide those whom Allah has left in error.

Thanks for quoting those two texts...👍

I’m asking you again: if you're reading nothing but the Quran and you don't know the first thing about Christianity, what conclusion are you being forced into? What are these "three Christian Gods" you keep talking about?

Harold Reyes3 said:

Why would anything written about Jesus in the Quran even matter? I mean, it was written centuries after he actually walked this earth!

Think about it this way: God gave us direct information about Jesus in the Quran, whereas the Bible is essentially a collection of people's accounts. Even Luke admits he was just gathering stories! He spent his time listening to what others had to say and trying to verify their accuracy before writing everything down. When you look at it like that, you have to ask yourself how much truth is actually there when you're relying on human hearsay—especially since those stories were being passed around decades after Jesus ascended.
Everyone’s got an opinion. One person says this, another claims that, and someone else is out there peddling a third version. It’s up to you to sift through the noise and figure out what actually holds water. Honestly, look at how stories work—if I tell a tale today and people start retelling it over the next few decades, half the details are bound to shift. People will inevitably add their own little twists and flavors just to make it sound better. That's just human nature!

Plus, it’s been proven that the Quran actually gets Christian doctrine wrong. For instance, when it describes the Trinity as the Father, the Son, and... Mary 🤷

The Quran actually claims that you all believe in multiple gods—whether you realize it or not—and here’s the breakdown.

First off, the Quran states that we aren't a Trinity.

God says:

To all followers of the Book: don't lose your way! Stick to the facts when you talk about Allah. Jesus, the son of Mary, is simply a messenger of Allah—His Word, delivered through Mary, and a spirit from Him. So, keep your faith firm in Allah and His messengers! Don't go around saying, "It's the Trinity!" Stop it—you’ll feel much better! There is only one God, and praise be to Him! Does He really have a son? Everything in the heavens and everything on this American soil belongs to Him. God alone is all we need for protection.

Then you have Catholics who pray to Mary. From the perspective of the Quran, that’s basically giving God a partner. It puts her right up there on His level. Since Mary is deceased and can't actually hear you, calling out to her is like assigning her divine attributes. It’s like acting as if she can hear your prayers while you're sitting alone in your room. By doing that, you're automatically placing her alongside God by attributing divine qualities to a human.

The Quran tells us how God will examine Jesus on Judgment Day:

And when God says: "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell the people..." "Accept me and my mother as two gods alongside Allah.""Praise be to You! It wouldn't be right for me to claim things I have no authority to say. If I spoke out of turn, You already know. You know everything I know, but there’s a massive gap between my knowledge and Yours—You alone hold the keys to everything hidden. I only shared exactly what You commanded: 'Worship Allah, my Lord and their Lord!' While I was walking among them, I looked out for them just as You told me to, but now that You've taken my soul, You are the only one watching over them. You're the one in charge of everything. If You decide to discipline them, they are Your servants; if You choose to forgive, You are the Almighty and the most merciful."

And it doesn't stop there—you guys basically put your priests in God's seat.

God says:

"They take their scholars and monks as lords instead of Allah..." (Quran, 9/31).

Now you might wonder how that works. It's simple! You go to a priest to confess, right? And he tells you, "You're forgiven." But since you're asking for forgiveness from anyone other than God, you're essentially treating that person like God. Only God has the authority to wipe away sins. How can anyone believe a regular mortal can forgive sins? It's wild. I actually saw a movie once where a guy bursts into a church and finds the priest and his wife hooking up under the covers 🙄it happened somewhere down in South America. So, this same priest is supposed to come out and forgive your sins after playing around with someone else's wife under a blanket? 👍That's just top-tier irony right there.

Allah makes it crystal clear.

No one can guide those whom Allah has left in error.

I don't even feel the need to address that, because biblical Christians don't practice anything like that...

Anthony Perez9 said:You could ask the same thing about Paul. Why should we care about those weird visions he had when he never actually sat down with the living Jesus or even hung out with the "real" apostles? How do we know his writings aren't just some random Greek rambling? 🤷

And let's be real, the Quran is clearly full of errors when it comes to how it portrays Christian doctrine. Like, it tries to define the Trinity as the Father, the Son, and... well, it just gets it wrong. Mary

I wonder what the Muslims have to say about this. 🙄

As for why Jesus had to die on a cross, I’ve got a link in my signature for a post that clears things up a bit...

I’ve always found the whole idea of Jesus' brutal sacrifice on the cross a little hard to wrap my head around. You're saying that... Just drank a full glass of God's wrath. May he suffer immensely for every sin committed in the past and the future, torn away from the Trinity. What a shame.

Imagine if King David had committed some massive sin—like orchestrating the murder of a man just to steal his wife—and then Jesus stepped in to take all that divine wrath upon himself through his suffering.
So he just rounded up all those other demons and unleashed God's wrath on every single criminal and monster out there.

It's honestly too absurd and grotesque for me to even bother engaging with. Honestly, it’s just terrible sci-fi. Like, some alien shows up on Earth and starts picking up... Just all the evil, the bad, and the pure malice. Take them right off the face of the earth and toss them into some dark pit. 😂

P.S. And again, when I start getting a little tipsy, there’s definitely "something" to it. It's like God actually drank a whole glass of His own wrath.
Good for him if he actually did that. At least we won't have to deal with those hysterical outbursts of rage like you see in the Old Testament. (Think Dawkins and that comment he made about Yahweh.)

Look, let’s get one thing straight: Paul wasn't some outsider trying to dodge the "real" apostles. He didn't have anything to hide from them. He laid out the exact gospel he was preaching right to the Twelve, and they actually gave him the green light to take that message straight to the Gentiles. You can find the whole thing written out in the book of Galatians if you actually bother to read it. Plus, if you look at the Book of Acts, it's crystal clear—Paul kept the believers back in Jerusalem fully looped in on everything God was doing through him among the Gentiles, and they were right there celebrating God's work alongside him.

If you want undeniable proof that Paul and the other apostles were all on the exact same page, just look at what Peter wrote. He makes it crystal clear in his second letter—written right toward the end of his life:
"Think of the Lord’s patience as our path to salvation, just like it says. Seriously, you have to look at it that way. Our beloved brother Paul He just wrote whatever wisdom popped into his head that day. Just like that. To all the epistles! Where does it actually say that? Look, there’s stuff in those texts that’s just plain confusing. If you aren't careful, or if you're constantly jumping from one idea to the next without any backbone, it’s incredibly easy to twist those words out of context. I've seen it happen way too often. Just like all the other Letters. You're just asking for trouble. Seriously, you're heading straight for a disaster." (2.Peter's 2:15-16)

Look, Peter actually goes even further than that here—he’s basically putting Paul’s letters right up there in the same category as inspired Scripture (you know, the stuff they were counting as Old Testament at the time).

Anthony Perez9 said:You could ask the same thing about Paul. Why should we care about those weird visions he had when he never actually sat down with the living Jesus or even hung out with the "real" apostles? How do we know his writings aren't just some random Greek rambling? 🤷

And let's be real, the Quran is clearly full of errors when it comes to how it portrays Christian doctrine. Like, it tries to define the Trinity as the Father, the Son, and... well, it just gets it wrong. Mary

I wonder what the Muslims have to say about this. 🙄

As for why Jesus had to die on a cross, I’ve got a link in my signature for a post that clears things up a bit...

I’ve always found the whole idea of Jesus' brutal sacrifice on the cross a little hard to wrap my head around. You're saying that... Just drank a full glass of God's wrath. May he suffer immensely for every sin committed in the past and the future, torn away from the Trinity. What a shame.

Imagine if King David had committed some massive sin—like orchestrating the murder of a man just to steal his wife—and then Jesus stepped in to take all that divine wrath upon himself through his suffering.
So he just rounded up all those other demons and unleashed God's wrath on every single criminal and monster out there.

It's honestly too absurd and grotesque for me to even bother engaging with. Honestly, it’s just terrible sci-fi. Like, some alien shows up on Earth and starts picking up... Just all the evil, the bad, and the pure malice. Take them right off the face of the earth and toss them into some dark pit. 😂

P.S. And again, when I start getting a little tipsy, there’s definitely "something" to it. It's like God actually drank a whole glass of His own wrath.
Good for him if he actually did that. At least we won't have to deal with those hysterical outbursts of rage like you see in the Old Testament. (Think Dawkins and that comment he made about Yahweh.)

Look, Paul... 😛 Paul says that talking about the cross—about God's own Messiah dying such a shameful death—is a total stumbling block for the Jews. I mean, how can God’s perfect Anointed One be cursed? And honestly, looking at some of the Muslims in this group, they get just as offended by that message. Then you’ve got the Greeks. To them, the whole thing is just pure madness. With their obsession with philosophy, they basically laid the groundwork for Western civilization and everything we call "modern thought" today, yet even now, they still look at this story and see nothing but nonsense.
For those who actually have faith, talking about the Cross isn't just some religious ritual—it’s God's power in action. Period.

Look, I don't usually go around quoting the Bible in my posts, so bear with me while I get a little long-winded here. I just want you to truly grasp how much the Cross means to believers. Even Paul was fully aware of how scandalous and, frankly, "foolish" it seemed to the world. But that’s exactly the point—it highlights God's wisdom. It’s completely different from how we think; it’s unexpected and totally counterintuitive. If it were up to us, we’d probably just try to outsmart our way out of it.

Look, Christ didn't send me out there just to go around baptizing people—that’s not my job. My mission is to preach the Gospel. And I’m not doing it with some fancy, polished oratorical bullshit just to make sure nobody feels embarrassed by the idea of Christ's cross. Seriously. To the people who are headed straight for destruction, talking about the cross sounds like total madness. But for us? For those of us being saved? It’s the literal power of God. It’s written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the intelligence of the intellectuals." So, where are they now? Where’s all that self-proclaimed "wise" crowd? Where are the scholars and the academic experts trying to deconstruct everything? Hasn't God already made a fool out of the world's supposed brilliance? Honestly, it’s hilarious. When the world fails to know God through its own "intellect," God decides to use the seemingly foolish preaching of the Gospel to save believers. It’s a complete subversion of their logic. I mean, think about it. You have the Jews looking for specific signs and the Greeks chasing after philosophy and cleverness, right? And here we are, just preaching about a crucified Christ. To the Jews, it’s a stumbling block. To the outsiders, it looks insane. But to everyone called to Him—both Jew and Greek—it is the very power and wisdom of God. God’s "foolishness" is infinitely wiser than any human genius, and His weakness is a hell of a lot stronger than any human strength. As it says: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what has never entered the human heart, God has prepared for those who love Him."

Anthony Perez9 said:You could ask the same thing about Paul. Why should we care about those weird visions he had when he never actually sat down with the living Jesus or even hung out with the "real" apostles? How do we know his writings aren't just some random Greek rambling? 🤷

And let's be real, the Quran is clearly full of errors when it comes to how it portrays Christian doctrine. Like, it tries to define the Trinity as the Father, the Son, and... well, it just gets it wrong. Mary

I wonder what the Muslims have to say about this. 🙄

As for why Jesus had to die on a cross, I’ve got a link in my signature for a post that clears things up a bit...

I’ve always found the whole idea of Jesus' brutal sacrifice on the cross a little hard to wrap my head around. You're saying that... Just drank a full glass of God's wrath. May he suffer immensely for every sin committed in the past and the future, torn away from the Trinity. What a shame.

Imagine if King David had committed some massive sin—like orchestrating the murder of a man just to steal his wife—and then Jesus stepped in to take all that divine wrath upon himself through his suffering.
So he just rounded up all those other demons and unleashed God's wrath on every single criminal and monster out there.

It's honestly too absurd and grotesque for me to even bother engaging with. Honestly, it’s just terrible sci-fi. Like, some alien shows up on Earth and starts picking up... Just all the evil, the bad, and the pure malice. Take them right off the face of the earth and toss them into some dark pit. 😂

P.S. And again, when I start getting a little tipsy, there’s definitely "something" to it. It's like God actually drank a whole glass of His own wrath.
Good for him if he actually did that. At least we won't have to deal with those hysterical outbursts of rage like you see in the Old Testament. (Think Dawkins and that comment he made about Yahweh.)

God's wrath fell on Jesus, sure, but God's wrath is still hanging over this world today—it just shows up a little differently now. If you look at Romans 1, you see it manifests by God essentially letting people go their own way; He leaves those with hardened hearts who have zero love for the truth to follow their own paths, and eventually, they'll get exactly what they deserve based on those choices.
Yeah, the wrath fell on Jesus, but if we want to be spared from God's wrath ourselves, we have to "hide" under the protection of the cross, meaning we have to accept Jesus' sacrifice, experience personal forgiveness, and start a new relationship with God as a Father rather than a Judge. 🙂

Harold Reyes3 said:

You really shouldn't have gone there. It’s been made clear a thousand times already—this is clearly a forgery.

Look, even if we assume it's a fake, we still have what the Quran says about Jesus to deal with. Whether it's a forgery or not, I look at the Gospel of Barnabas simply as an explanation of what God intended.

They didn't actually kill or crucify him; it only appeared to them.

So, let's say the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery—which I don't believe, by the way—we could still interpret it this way:

"It only appeared to them." Maybe they killed someone who looked just like him, or maybe God transformed another man to look exactly like Jesus. That's one way to read it!

Why would anything written about Jesus in the Quran even matter? It was written centuries after he actually walked this earth!
And don't even get me started on how the Quran is objectively wrong about Christian doctrine. Like, it literally claims the Christian Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and Mary 🤷

As for why Jesus had to die on the cross... check the link in my signature. I've got a post there that clears that right up for you.

Cheers,

Alexander Garcia5 said:Looking strictly at the New Testament, there are resurrections everywhere. Why would Jesus' be any different?

Look, others who were raised—like Lazarus—just ended up dying again eventually. He isn't 😁

The whole point of His resurrection is that it proves His sacrifice was actually complete, perfect, and acceptable to God for the sins of the world. It’s the ultimate proof that He is indeed the prophesied Messiah who was meant to suffer and then rise again, the one who will "strike at the serpent's heel and crush its head."

... By doing this, He stepped into the fray to overcome through Death the one who held power over death—the devil—thereby freeing those who spent their entire lives living in bondage because they were terrified of dying. (Hebrews 2)

Which means He can now say:
"Do not be afraid! I am the First and the Last, and the Living One! I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I hold the keys of Death and the underworld." (Revelation 1)

velvetmaker39 said:

Alex Ramos91 As if I didn't have enough on my plate already, now we're looking at what velvetmaker39 had to say about this whole situation. It’s one of those things where you start reading one sentence and suddenly find yourself halfway down a rabbit hole, wondering how we even got here in the first place. There's a certain rhythm to these discussions, isn't there? A slow, almost meditative drift from one point to the next, much like a long Sunday drive through the Midwest where the landscape doesn't change for miles, yet you feel like you've traveled an entire lifetime by the time you reach the next diner. Anyway, let's get into it.
So, I was thinking about how we talk about Jesus "saving" Lazarus, especially when people throw around that phrase about him being "raised from the dead"—it’s basically the same wording, isn't it? It makes you wonder about the nuance there. 🤔

What was that line again, the one about letting the dead bury their own dead? Honestly, those kinds of nursery tales feel like something people just made up much later down the line. It doesn't sit right with me; Jesus wasn't exactly preoccupied with such trivial, earthly matters. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, any single individual is pretty much a drop in the ocean. No one leaves a lasting legacy that survives the passage of time, and whether someone passes away tomorrow, next week, or fifty years from now—it’s all essentially the same. So, why would Jesus bother bringing back someone who has already returned to God? It just seems nonsensical. People love to argue that life itself is the ultimate priority, no matter the quality of that life, but I disagree. As Bruce might say, what actually matters is the character of the person. You can forget about the mere act of living if you're nothing more than a criminal; breathing isn't an absolute imperative if you aren't being an honest human being. Back then, people were dying left and right, almost like flies, so it stands to reason that Jesus wouldn't be wasting his time resurrecting individuals one by one. His focus was clearly on teaching people to realize their own humanity. I really wish people would use their brains a bit more often—actually engage their minds to seek out the truth instead of just blindly swallowing whatever someone else has written down. That’s the kind of reasoning I’d actually enjoy debating.

First off—if you’re going to lecture me about using my brain, maybe try actually sticking to the point instead of dodging the argument. It’s pathetic. You kept bringing up the Greek source text of the Bible like it was some kind of smoking gun, but newsflash: that exact same Greek source uses identical phrasing for both scenarios. Your "expert" linguistic critique? Completely baseless. Total nonsense.

When it comes to this whole argument, it’s pretty obvious what Jesus is getting at—assuming you actually know how the Bible defines being dead. 🙄

Take Ephesians 2, for example. It says: And you all were there. Dead. Because of our sins and all our failures... But God, who is overflowing with mercy because He loves us so incredibly much, reached out to us when we were at our absolute worst. Dead. Just dead. Because of the crime, Bring it back to life! Together with Christ—you're saved by grace!

Just like Adam and Eve. They’re gone. Just dead. Everything's gone. It’s just like that day—you know, back when they completely ignored God's command (even if things did turn out okay for them later on)—it's the same story with every single person. Once you commit that sin, you're basically dead to God. Period.
Look, let's get one thing straight about death. It’s not just some vague concept; it’s a separation. You’ve got the physical side—that's when the spirit finally breaks away from the body. But then there’s the spiritual side, which is much heavier. That’s the moment a person is actually separated from God.

And that’s why you have to be born again—from above. It's exactly what Jesus taught us: it's the only way to truly find that connection with God again.

velvetmaker39 said:

Alex Ramos91 As if I didn't have enough on my plate already, now we're looking at what velvetmaker39 had to say about this whole situation. It’s one of those things where you start reading one sentence and suddenly find yourself halfway down a rabbit hole, wondering how we even got here in the first place. There's a certain rhythm to these discussions, isn't there? A slow, almost meditative drift from one point to the next, much like a long Sunday drive through the Midwest where the landscape doesn't change for miles, yet you feel like you've traveled an entire lifetime by the time you reach the next diner. Anyway, let's get into it.
So, I was thinking about how we talk about Jesus "saving" Lazarus, especially when people throw around that phrase about him being "raised from the dead"—it’s basically the same wording, isn't it? It makes you wonder about the nuance there. 🤔

What was that line again, the one about letting the dead bury their own dead? Honestly, those kinds of nursery tales feel like something people just made up much later down the line. It doesn't sit right with me; Jesus wasn't exactly preoccupied with such trivial, earthly matters. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, any single individual is pretty much a drop in the ocean. No one leaves a lasting legacy that survives the passage of time, and whether someone passes away tomorrow, next week, or fifty years from now—it’s all essentially the same. So, why would Jesus bother bringing back someone who has already returned to God? It just seems nonsensical. People love to argue that life itself is the ultimate priority, no matter the quality of that life, but I disagree. As Bruce might say, what actually matters is the character of the person. You can forget about the mere act of living if you're nothing more than a criminal; breathing isn't an absolute imperative if you aren't being an honest human being. Back then, people were dying left and right, almost like flies, so it stands to reason that Jesus wouldn't be wasting his time resurrecting individuals one by one. His focus was clearly on teaching people to realize their own humanity. I really wish people would use their brains a bit more often—actually engage their minds to seek out the truth instead of just blindly swallowing whatever someone else has written down. That’s the kind of reasoning I’d actually enjoy debating.

Maybe you don't care, but God certainly does.
Look, aside from just worrying about Lazarus—whom the Bible explicitly says Jesus loved (and his sister too)—you have to look at the bigger picture. Jesus raised him from the dead about ten days before He rose Himself. It was a massive sign, basically a preview to announce His own resurrection and prove that He truly is "the resurrection and the life." It’s the ultimate proof of that promise: that anyone who believes in Him will live, even after they die.

Calling these stories "fairy tales" is honestly such a joke. It’s incredibly disrespectful to claim they're just make-believe when you consider who actually wrote them down. We're talking about people of immense integrity—men who literally laid down their lives for what they believed in. They didn't die for some bedtime story. To brush off their convictions like that? It's laughable.

velvetmaker39 said:

Alex Ramos91 As if I didn't have enough on my plate already, now we're looking at what velvetmaker39 had to say about this whole situation. It’s one of those things where you start reading one sentence and suddenly find yourself halfway down a rabbit hole, wondering how we even got here in the first place. There's a certain rhythm to these discussions, isn't there? A slow, almost meditative drift from one point to the next, much like a long Sunday drive through the Midwest where the landscape doesn't change for miles, yet you feel like you've traveled an entire lifetime by the time you reach the next diner. Anyway, let's get into it.
So, I was thinking about how we talk about Jesus "saving" Lazarus, especially when people throw around that phrase about him being "raised from the dead"—it’s basically the same wording, isn't it? It makes you wonder about the nuance there. 🤔

What was that line again, the one about letting the dead bury their own dead? Honestly, those kinds of nursery tales feel like something people just made up much later down the line. It doesn't sit right with me; Jesus wasn't exactly preoccupied with such trivial, earthly matters. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, any single individual is pretty much a drop in the ocean. No one leaves a lasting legacy that survives the passage of time, and whether someone passes away tomorrow, next week, or fifty years from now—it’s all essentially the same. So, why would Jesus bother bringing back someone who has already returned to God? It just seems nonsensical. People love to argue that life itself is the ultimate priority, no matter the quality of that life, but I disagree. As Bruce might say, what actually matters is the character of the person. You can forget about the mere act of living if you're nothing more than a criminal; breathing isn't an absolute imperative if you aren't being an honest human being. Back then, people were dying left and right, almost like flies, so it stands to reason that Jesus wouldn't be wasting his time resurrecting individuals one by one. His focus was clearly on teaching people to realize their own humanity. I really wish people would use their brains a bit more often—actually engage their minds to seek out the truth instead of just blindly swallowing whatever someone else has written down. That’s the kind of reasoning I’d actually enjoy debating.

Jesus wasn't some two-bit guru who just pops up out of nowhere, drops a few "deep" quotes to sound smart, collects a wad of cash, and disappears. That's not what he was about at all.
He just had this raw, unfiltered concern for people. Honestly, looking back, almost every single miracle he performed—if not all of them—was driven by nothing more than pure compassion for someone suffering right in front of him.
He just couldn't help himself—he had to step in and help people, period. Even if it meant having to tell them to shut up later about how they were miraculously healed (because he didn't want folks following him just because of some flashy miracles)

velvetmaker39 said:It seems I’m shouting into the void here since nobody has bothered to answer my question, so let's get into it: what does the word "resurrected" actually mean? In American English, it carries zero weight because, frankly, it isn't even a native term. It’s Greek in origin, and if we were being linguistically honest, the root implies "to bring back to life" or "to save." So, strictly speaking, Jesus saved Himself after the crucifixion, and there’s really no mysticism involved—no floating up into the clouds or any of those other cinematic flourishes. Of course, people will always claim they saw things that weren't there, much like a dream that feels real until you wake up, but that's just how history gets rewritten. Eventually, our descendants will be looking back at our era like they look at some ancient sci-fi movie, wondering, "Man, our ancestors really thought they were all-powerful, didn't they?" But why don't we just say that Jesus SAVED HIMSELF after the cross? Why go through the trouble of using a word that the average person doesn't fully grasp? It feels like a convenient way for those in power to muddy the waters; they prefer keeping things murky to maintain control. If you want the truth, you're on your own to find it, and honestly, I think that's just the way the world works.

If that's how it works, then how did Jesus "save" Lazarus when people say he "resurrected him from the dead"—using that exact same logic? 🤔>

mistygull16 said:But honestly, if I start saying "wait a second," like how kids in starving parts of Africa die, or kids in pediatric wards back home... you aren't really convincing me that theory holds any water. People say Satan is the root of all evil, but he doesn't exactly seem to be getting punished much either. And those kids being punished for someone else's mistakes? That whole concept feels pretty far from a God of justice.

Look, Satan is already under judgment; he’s just waiting on his final sentencing.

And let’s be real, Jesus' sacrifice hasn't globally established justice just yet... its full implementation (which, again, is rooted in the cross) is still pending until Jesus returns:According to His promise, we are looking forward to new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:13)

Gregory Jackson said:But, honestly, maybe it didn't even go down quite like that, even though Matthew 27:46 says so, since there are these contradictions in the Gospels. I mean, he had the high priests from the Sanhedrin up there on the cross with him—the same guys who sentenced him—along with Caiaphas, all mocking him. And back then, Jesus spoke in Aramaic:

Vmar Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani

My God, my God, why have you abandoned me within them?

I think it's super important to understand the context behind this statement, because it confuses so many people; it makes it look like God just ditched His own son on the cross, which doesn't make any sense at all.

Where on earth did you get this Vmar thing? 😕

I’ve been digging through the Greek interlinears and I can't find it anywhere—not in Matthew http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...Tpdf/mat27.pdf
nor in Mark http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...Tpdf/mar15.pdf

Benjamin Taylor6 said:So, Christ sacrificed Himself to wipe away the stain of original sin that humanity has been lugging around since Adam and Eve. Now, mind you, God could have handled this in a much less agonizing way—just a simple decree. Just like He wiped away original sin for the Virgin Mary by divine decree, He could have done the same for all of mankind. But He didn't. Instead, He chose the harder road: the sacrifice of His own Son.

Forget original sin... He died for my personal sins...
He couldn't just use a decree because that’s simply not how He operates. Everything that seemed to happen in the OT (go read my last post if you need a refresher) was ultimately settled on the cross.

If it had been a mere decree, then Satan would actually have a leg to stand on. He’d be like, "Hold on a second... I get a little cocky and try to act like God, and then I look at these thieves and rebels out here doing whatever they want, and You just hand out forgiveness like candy?"

Besides, this whole divine path is exactly what makes any hopeless sinner stop and stare in awe. It’s why we praise and worship God—because when you realize the sheer scale of His love and forgiveness, you can't help it. 😍

silenthound4 said:Benjamin Taylor6, look, the whole point of everything boils down to love. Jesus did it all because He loves us. It wasn't some forced obligation—if it had been, it wouldn't have been just, right? But He stepped up and said He wanted to settle the debt on our behalf, and He saw the path ahead and ACCEPTED it. That’s why God is love; He did this for us. And honestly, it isn't my will to write such a long-winded post, it's His.

True, but you're missing the full picture...

Look, Romans 3 says:(21) But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested, testified to by the Law and the Prophets; (22) the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, for all who believe. There is no distinction! (23) For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; (24) they are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. (25) God presented Him as a means of atonement through His blood, to be received through faith. He intended to demonstrate His righteousness by passing over former sins in His divine forbearance; (26) to demonstrate His righteousness in the present age— so that He might be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

When God let people get away with things in the past—take David, for example, who committed adultery and then had a man killed—it makes it look like God isn't actually just... like he’s just letting stuff slide without any real judgment...

But through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, God proved He *is* just. Those sins that seemed swept under the rug back in the OT—where it looked like He was risking His own reputation by being lenient—weren't just ignored. He laid them squarely on His Son. He settled the score with that sin once and for all, simultaneously exalting both His Righteousness and His Love for humanity.😍

Benjamin Taylor6 said:What kind of hellish willpower does it take to sit down and write something this long? Honestly, I’m still scratching my head over the whole "why" behind the death of Christ. I mean, how does one person actually pay the debt for someone else's sins? In any normal sense, redemption is just money you hand over to clear a tab—it's a transaction. But in the case of Christ, the ransom is his life itself... so, who exactly is collecting? Is it the Father? And if He takes this ransom, is He really not going to send people to hell? Even though, if we're being honest, most people probably deserve it.

It was even longer originally, so I had to trim it down... 😁 Basically, I posted this once on another forum, and it felt like a perfect fit for this thread since it hits the nail right on the head.

In the economy of heaven, life itself is the ransom. God’s justice demands that sin be punished. He gave the Americans a preview of this by requiring them to sacrifice a lamb for their sins; it was meant to prepare them to recognize when the true sacrifice for sin—the Lamb of God—would offer His own perfect life to God in place of everyone else.

Plus, this substitutionary sacrifice shuts Satan right up. He’s constantly pointing at God's law, demanding that sin be punished immediately—not because he cares about justice, but because he hates people. God's love for them drives him crazy, so he just wants them dead. But now, for those who have accepted Jesus' sacrifice, there's no legal ground left for him to accuse them before God.🙂

Look, I can't claim to fully wrap my head around this sacrifice. I'll probably spend the rest of eternity trying to figure it all out. 😍

@benizg
Picture this scenario:
George, a decent family man, heads home after an exhausting day at work. He’s just looking forward to some peace and quiet with his family to recharge from all the stress. He’s already thinking about grabbing a burger with his son on the way in.
But when he walks through the door, he finds the front door wide open and a window smashed. He rushes inside, and what he sees is absolutely gut-wrenching.
His son is lying in a pool of blood, and a robber is struggling with his wife.
Driven by pure adrenaline, George jumps the attacker and takes him down. The police show up and haul the guy off to jail.
After some time passes, the robber goes to trial. He confesses to everything, and the judge hands down the verdict:
"The facts are clear: you committed murder and robbery out of pure greed. According to the law, you deserve the harshest sentence possible—the death penalty.
However, since you seem genuinely remorseful, and because I am a merciful judge full of love, I’m dropping all charges. You're free to go."

Was that a fair trial? What would George think about that?
George tells the reporters, "This is a total joke! We’re filing an appeal with the Supreme Court immediately. There’s a judge sitting on that bench who is more crooked than the criminal who murdered my son!" 😠

So, where does justice stand? 😕

It’s obvious to anyone watching this fake scenario that the verdict is a sham. That judge isn't being just, and he isn't being merciful or loving (even if he claims he is).

But here’s the kicker: many people believe that God is exactly like that kind of judge!
At least when it comes to judging them personally, or perhaps someone they loved dearly who passed away recently.

Someone might argue, "But doesn't the Bible say that God is love?"
Sure, He is. But God is also holy and just, and His love can't be unjust, unlike that ridiculous judge in our story. The Bible also explicitly states that God detests those who justify the wicked and those who condemn the righteous.
Because God cannot be unjust—meaning He is always perfectly consistent with His own character—He must judge anyone who violates His law, whether it’s a "minor" slip-up (like something you or I might do) or a massive atrocity (like a neighbor's crime or even Hitler).

Back in Eden, Adam and Eve only needed one sin (and it didn't even seem that huge at the time) to be kicked out of Paradise and cut off from God's presence.
The Bible says the wages of sin is death, which is a spiritual law consistent with God's righteous nature. And I'm not talking about physical death—Adam and Eve didn't drop dead that very day—I'm talking about spiritual death: eternal separation from God and His love and grace.

Throughout our lives, we all rack up a mountain of small and large sins. If we compare ourselves to our neighbors, we might feel like we're doing okay. But a righteous God can't just overlook our failures or sweep them under the rug. As Abraham once asked God: "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25)
Isaiah, who was arguably one of the most upright and holy men of his era, stood before God's throne in a vision and cried out in desperation: "Woe is me! I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of Armies!" (Isaiah 6:5)
Even a man who lived a life of peak morality and spent his mission calling out injustice, when faced with God's holiness, realized the first thing: that he himself was a sinner before God and subject to His righteous judgment.

If that's the case for someone like Isaiah, do you or I stand any chance before a God like that?
Does God's holiness and righteousness leave any room for His love? 😕

In this seemingly impossible situation, God, in His love, provided a solution. And it's a solution that will magnify both of those traits to an unimaginable scale.

Jesus, the Son of God, came from the pure and holy heavens down to this filthy, fallen planet—right into the middle of people who aren't even looking for Him, people who are actively rebelling against Him and trying to wash their consciences clean with "good deeds."
He was the pure and holy King, yet He was born into the absolute depths of poverty in a cave surrounded by livestock, part of a struggling provincial family with the social stigma of nobody knowing who His father was.
For thirty years, He was obedient to His imperfect earthly parents because He wanted to do His Father’s will.
Then He stepped into public life, doing good and teaching people how to live right.
He hung out with the very people society looked down on: tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers.
He never chased fame or cared about what people thought of Him. When they tried to crown Him, He just walked away.
Whenever He healed someone or pulled off a miracle, He made sure nobody found out, because He didn't want to be known just for those things.
In the end, His close friend betrays Him, everyone else abandons Him, and they all pretend they never even knew Him.
He gets hit with false accusations, an unfair trial, mockery, beatings... and He dies the most brutal and shameful death possible for that era—hanging on a Roman cross.

What does any of that have to do with God's righteousness or His love?
Think about it: Jesus, the only man to ever walk this earth without sin, dies the most agonizing death imaginable. Was that just some freak accident that messed up God's plan?

Just a day or two before He is killed, Jesus knows exactly what's coming, and He says this: "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow, what can I say? Father, will You take this hour from me? No, because that is why I came! Father, glorify Your name!" (John 12:27)
Jesus came to this world specifically for that death on the cross.
The night before He is arrested, He was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane at the foot of the Mount of Olives. He was shaking like a leaf, pleading desperately with the Father, until the sweat on His forehead turned to blood. He prayed: "Father! If it is Your will, take this cup from me. But not my will, but Yours be done!" (Luke 22:42)
But the Father's will was for Him to take that path, and He accepted it without complaining or wanting revenge on the people who were going to crucify Him.

But there is something deeply strange here.
Why on earth would Jesus, the Son of God, be trembling like a weakling when facing physical death on a cross?🤷
I mean, thousands upon thousands of Christians in the centuries that followed went to Roman crosses or faced lions in arenas with songs on their lips, yet here is the very source of their salvation, shaking like a total coward in front of the cross.

So, what was actually inside that cup the Father offered His Son to drink to the dregs?

Here are just two examples where God's cup is mentioned and what it contains:
"For in the hand of Yahweh is a cup overflowing with wine, spiced with aromatic herbs; He feeds from it, and all the wicked of the earth will drain it to the dregs." (Psalm 75:9)
"...they shall drink the wine of God's wrath, undiluted, poured into the cup of His fury!" (Revelation 14:10)

When Peter stood up to defend Him with a sword against the soldiers coming to arrest Him along with Judas, Jesus tells him:
"Put your sword away! Should I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" (John 18:11)

That cup of righteous, divine anger against sin and those who commit it—that was what was handed to Jesus.
He, the only one who was sinless, always pure and holy, had to take my sins and yours upon Himself. He had to face not just Pontius Pilate or the Jewish Sanhedrin, but the holy, righteous, and almighty God, who must judge sin according to justice—with death!
Jesus wasn't afraid in the Garden of Gethsemane of Judas, or the Romans, or being whipped, or the nails, or the wooden cross... He was trembling at the thought of the righteous and angry judgment of God against sin that He was about to shoulder.

And that judgment began when darkness fell over the earth at noon and Jesus cried out from the cross: "My God, my God! Why have You forsaken me?"
This is the one spot in the New Testament where Jesus addresses God as "God" instead of the usual "Father" he uses to celebrate Him. That sin he took upon himself? It shattered the perfect, eternal bond he shared with the Father. And in that moment, God was judging him for the sins of the entire world. God was judging Him for the murders, the human trafficking, the pedophilia, the drug dealing, 9/11—every single disgusting, vile thing we’ve ever done, including all those white lies and those little tax evasions... For all of it, Jesus had to settle the score. The violent lashes of righteous anger from God against those sins tore right through Him. In that moment, Jesus was truly experiencing hell—the total separation from the Father's face while facing God's wrath toward sin.

But then, just three hours later, Jesus cries out, "It is finished!" He drank the cup of God's wrath to the very last drop. Divine justice was satisfied. And finally, He turns back to the Father once more: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."
His dead body was laid in a tomb, and after three days, God raised Him from the dead, proving once and for all that justice was fully served on that cross!

So the question for us is this: what are we going to do about our own sins?
Are we going to try to earn our way out through good deeds or some version of religion we made up for ourselves? Are we going to just ignore them? Or are we going to imagine God as some sweet, senile old grandpa who’ll just give us a little pat on the back...
Or are we actually going to admit it: if God really is holy and righteous, then our sin is so massive that it would drive us away from His presence. We have to admit we can't redeem ourselves. We have to hand the entire weight of our sin over to Jesus so He can pay it for us.

Is it really that simple?
When the Apostles were spreading this Good News, they told people to repent—which means turning away from their sins—and to believe.
God saw it all coming, and now, no one has to stand before the righteous judgment of God.
They don't *have* to, but unfortunately, plenty of people will end up standing before God with their sins because they were too proud to submit to Him and to His solution for humanity's greatest problem.

If you truly want God (and I mean the real God, not the fake image people manufacture in their heads) and if you want to be rid of the crushing weight of sin that makes you guilty before Him, God has already provided the answer. He showed such love that He gave His beloved Son to pay for your sin, to wipe away your guilt so you can have uninterrupted fellowship with Him through Jesus. But there is only one condition: you have to repent, turn away from your sin, and believe that Jesus truly died for you and paid your debt on that shameful cross.