Why did Jesus die?

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! ☕

Alex Ramos91 said: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.

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

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?

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

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, 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.

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.

On this point said:"15 Nothing outside a person enters them that can defile them, but what comes out of them, that is what defiles them. 16 Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear!" 17 When He entered the house, His disciples asked Him about the parable. 18 He said to them, "Don't you understand? Don't you realize that nothing outside a person can defile them 19 because it doesn't enter their heart, but goes into the stomach and then out into the sewer?" In this way, He cleansed all foods. 20 He went on to say, "What comes out of a person is what defiles them." (Mark 7)

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 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.

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? 🙄

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?

Alex Ramos91 said: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.

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.

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? 🙄

But here's the deal:
1) You haven't explained how I can just ignore Peter's validation of Paul's teachings based on the Bible, right?

Hold on a second—who are you actually putting your faith in? Jesus' teachings or Paul's?
Second, I have no idea how credible it is for someone like Peter to back someone who supposedly removes what Jesus strictly forbade. Paul could have easily made that up and claimed all the other disciples supported him, even if they didn't—who's going to step in to investigate and verify that? Honestly, I think you're wading into murky waters by going against Jesus and His teachings just because Paul's doctrine happens to suit you better. After all, who would actually give up pork, wine, and all those other treats 🙄 when people are eating and drinking them at every turn?

2) I've already shown that everything in the Bible aligns perfectly regarding pork. Jesus said it doesn't defile a person, Peter agreed, and Paul said the exact same thing... Period.

How can Jesus say something doesn't defile anyone when it can actually ruin a person's life? If you don't believe me, check out this video.

Parasites in a woman's brain caused by eating pork.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwstyazpFpE

It makes zero sense that someone so close to God would allow something that God explicitly forbade—especially since Jesus Himself didn't eat it. If He had permitted it, He would have eaten it Himself.

Just look at what God says in the Bible about pork:

"And the pig, though it has divided hooves, it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. Do not eat their meat or touch their carcasses—they are unclean to you." (Bible, Leviticus 11:7,8)

Are you just leaving your common sense at the door and following your cravings instead?
How can Jesus say pork is clean and allowed when...

What does God actually forbid in the Bible?
Jesus never ate pork. Period.
Science backs this up: pork is unclean. You can end up with all sorts of nasty parasites like tapeworms crawling into your system.
Look at a pig: they’ll eat anything. Snakes, dogs, literal garbage, dead bodies—they'll even turn on their own kind. It's pure survival instinct.

So then you're telling me that Jesus actually said it was okay to eat? 🙄

Peter stood out as the leader among Jesus' disciples. It was Peter who received those keys to the kingdom, giving him the authority to open the doors for the Gentiles. This all came to a head when he was sent straight to the home of Cornelius, a Roman centurion. That was the big turning point—the moment where one of the Gentiles became the very first to embrace faith in Christ and the Holy Spirit.

.

I’m not sure if he actually handed anything over, but there’s just no logic in it. It makes zero sense for Peter or Paul—or anyone else for that matter—to take what Jesus brought and start twisting his teachings. If they started messing with the core message and people just blindly followed along, the whole thing falls apart. It simply doesn't add up.

What about Satan influencing a vision? Didn't Satan actually influence Muhammad on a few occasions?

Let’s see if Satan inspired this particular part of the Quran.

Listen up, sons of Adam! Didn't I tell you clearly? Don't go bowing down to Satan. He's your enemy, plain and simple. Instead, turn to Me and worship. That is the only way to go!"Peace be upon them all, and let them live in bliss." (Ya-Sin, 60-61) — Quran

Satan is your enemy, plain and simple. Treat him like one! He’s basically telling his followers that if they want to stay, they’ve got to be ready to live in the heat! (Fatir, 6.)

Just imagine—Satan trying to feed Muhammad those kinds of dreams.

Look, don't sugarcoat it: Satan is your enemy. Treat him like one! Look, if you want this to actually make sense, you’ve gotta tell me. If we're going to walk through the logic here, then the verse should probably flow like this.

If someone actually claimed "Satan isn't as bad as people say," then they’d have some serious reason to be suspicious.

Honestly, who’s even got the energy to follow these endless arguments? Look, all that matters is that people are actually reading the Word. It’s alive, you know? I just really hope God works some miracles in your lives and helps set things right where you've gone astray.

Alex Ramos91 said:Directly? Or supposedly through an angel—Gabriel? 🙄

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

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

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?

Directly, or supposedly through an angel—Gabriel? 🙄

You can just say it straight—Gabriel was really just the messenger.
Think about it this way: whatever God tells Muhammad, he passes it along directly. It’s almost like Gabriel is just acting as a smartphone or a telephone wire between God and Muhammad.

It’s more than just that—during his Miraj, Muhammad spoke directly with Allah without any middleman. He ascended to the heavens and had that face-to-face moment.

If he wasn't talking about his own people, then he was clearly writing about Allah's daughters: al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat.

😂 Look, honey, you've got it all wrong. Those were just pagans giving names to their idols around the Kaaba—they weren't actual daughters!

The way Allah explains things in the Quran is just so incredibly brief and direct. It's straight to the point!

It feels like the heavens are about to tear wide open, the earth is ready to split right under our feet, and the mountains are just waiting to crumble before the Merciful. They’re claiming He had a child. It’s just impossible to wrap your head around—the idea that the Merciful would have a kid." (Quran, Mary 90-92)

It's just impossible to wrap my head around the idea of Allah having a child.Praise be to Him! When He makes a decision, all He has to do is say, "Let there be," and it's done. It’s that simple!Quran

I say: "Praise be to Allah, who has never taken a son for Himself! "Who else holds absolute power without any partners? Who else stands as the ultimate protector for those who have no strength to defend themselves? Praise Him for His greatness!" (Quran, Al-Isra', 111)

Alright, let's put this to the test. Let’s dive into what the Quran actually says about Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. Once we're done, you'll see just how little you really know—or more accurately, how far off the mark your understanding of the Quran and Islam actually is!

God says:

19. What’s your take on Lat and Uzza?
And let’s not forget Manat—sitting right there as the third least respected.? –
Are you guys seriously saying sons belong to you, but He has daughters?!
That would just be an unfair split.
23. Those are just names you and your ancestors made up. God hasn't provided any proof for them; people are just following nothing but assumptions. They long for things that don't matter, while the Lord’s true guidance is already being sent their way..

This is exactly what you're looking at here: 👍
They just follow nothing but assumptions. Basically, man, you're just chasing "maybe this" or "maybe that"—it's all guesswork and has zero connection to reality.

All you Christians—or whatever you call yourselves...
Oh right, those are your favorite verses, and they can't be mistakes (of course, a mistake is just anything that doesn't fit your narrative... 🙄 )
You know perfectly well that anyone who believes Jesus is God will be rejected on Judgment Day, right?

Look, I’m telling you again, argue all you want👍 but it is what it is.

I’ve only shown you a tiny fraction of the massive list of errors out there, yet you still just shrug. Whenever you actually open the Bible, you just sniff and skim right over them like they aren't even there.👍

You know perfectly well that anyone who believes Jesus is God will be rejected on Judgment Day, right?

That’s exactly my point! He’s going to reject every Christian who claims he is God. Jesus never claimed to be God himself; I have mountains of evidence from the Bible, the Quran, and plain old logic proving he isn't.

Can you seriously picture Jesus being God? Like, the God who created the entire universe being a tiny baby in diapers having his butt wiped by his mom after a diaper change?🙄

Secondly, there is a ton of biblical proof that Jesus isn't God. If you’ve already locked your mind against that, there’s no changing it if you leave your brain in the closet.

Here is what Jesus says:

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God"".

Who is Jesus ascending to? Some other God, or himself? Use some logic!

Jesus says God is one, but you guys try to invent two, three, or more of them.🙄

Either Jesus lacks knowledge, or you believe in a God who doesn't know things.

Mark 13:32 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, only the Father."

Jesus doesn't know, but the Father does. Does that sound like Jesus is God to you?🙄

Jesus also says:
John 14:28 "...For the Father is greater than I""

If Jesus equals the Father/God, why does Jesus say Jesus < Father?

Again, zero logic here.

Was Jesus a man???

According to the Bible, yes.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"

And then there is this verse elsewhere:

Hosea 11:9 "...for I am God, not a man"

So, you can conclude that:

The man Jesus

God is not a man.

Which leads me to the conclusion that God is not Jesus.

It’s incredibly simple. Just open the Bible and check for yourself. How hard can that be to understand?

And Jesus says he will reject Christians on Judgment Day. Here is the proof from the Bible: it's happening precisely because you call him God.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Anyway, getting back ON-TOPIC:
How do you interpret the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah suffering and being killed?
Specifically Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22?

Let me see what it says—go find those texts for me.

Can you seriously wrap your head around the idea that Jesus is God? Like, the same God who built the entire universe is just some tiny baby in diapers having his butt wiped by his mom? 🙄

Beyond ridiculous.
People out here claiming just about anyone is God.

Harold Reyes3 said:

All you Christians—or whatever you call yourselves...
Oh right, those are your favorite verses, and they can't be mistakes (of course, a mistake is just anything that doesn't fit your narrative... 🙄 )
You know perfectly well that anyone who believes Jesus is God will be rejected on Judgment Day, right?

Look, I’m telling you again, argue all you want👍 but it is what it is.

I’ve only shown you a tiny fraction of the massive list of errors out there, yet you still just shrug. Whenever you actually open the Bible, you just sniff and skim right over them like they aren't even there.👍

You know perfectly well that anyone who believes Jesus is God will be rejected on Judgment Day, right?

That’s exactly my point! He’s going to reject every Christian who claims he is God. Jesus never claimed to be God himself; I have mountains of evidence from the Bible, the Quran, and plain old logic proving he isn't.

Can you seriously picture Jesus being God? Like, the God who created the entire universe being a tiny baby in diapers having his butt wiped by his mom after a diaper change?🙄

Secondly, there is a ton of biblical proof that Jesus isn't God. If you’ve already locked your mind against that, there’s no changing it if you leave your brain in the closet.

Here is what Jesus says:

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God"".

Who is Jesus ascending to? Some other God, or himself? Use some logic!

Jesus says God is one, but you guys try to invent two, three, or more of them.🙄

Either Jesus lacks knowledge, or you believe in a God who doesn't know things.

Mark 13:32 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, only the Father."

Jesus doesn't know, but the Father does. Does that sound like Jesus is God to you?🙄

Jesus also says:
John 14:28 "...For the Father is greater than I""

If Jesus equals the Father/God, why does Jesus say Jesus < Father?

Again, zero logic here.

Was Jesus a man???

According to the Bible, yes.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"

And then there is this verse elsewhere:

Hosea 11:9 "...for I am God, not a man"

So, you can conclude that:

The man Jesus

God is not a man.

Which leads me to the conclusion that God is not Jesus.

It’s incredibly simple. Just open the Bible and check for yourself. How hard can that be to understand?

And Jesus says he will reject Christians on Judgment Day. Here is the proof from the Bible: it's happening precisely because you call him God.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Anyway, getting back ON-TOPIC:
How do you interpret the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah suffering and being killed?
Specifically Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22?

Let me see what it says—go find those texts for me.

I'm telling you again—argue all you want, but it is what it is.[/I]

Plus, the whole thing is kind of absurd. Why would Allah/God get so offended and enraged just because someone thought the good guy Jesus was actually God? You should be able to just laugh it off and admit you misjudged things despite having good intentions, rather than getting hit with boiling water and clubbed over the head for it. 🙄

It honestly feels a little absurd. Why would God get so offended or worked up just because someone believed that the good Jesus is actually God?

It’s not just absurd—it’s actually the ultimate sin. And here’s why.

Think about it this way: when someone decides to follow a different god instead of the one true God, it’s just like a kid deciding that a stranger is their mother. They start ignoring everything their real mom tells them, tossing aside her sincere advice just to listen to what some random person on the street says. It's the same deal with people missing God's guidance in the Quran; they simply refuse to believe, or they can't wrap their heads around the fact that the Quran actually comes from God.
It’s easy to slip up and fall into sin, whether you realize you're doing it or not, simply because you're missing the rules. Think about it like this: if you don't know the tax laws in the US, you're going to mess up your filings, and before you know it, the IRS is knocking on your door with penalties. It’s the same deal with faith. People stumble into sin because they don't actually know what God commands. Instead, they spend their lives following made-up deities that never gave them any real guidance on how to live a righteous life.

How can anyone claim Jesus is God when He seemingly denies it Himself? It just doesn't add up. To me, it completely defies common sense—a human being simply cannot be God.

You could just laugh it off and tell him he miscalculated—even if his heart was in the right place. There's no need to go throwing boiling water at him, beating him with clubs, or setting his skin on fire over a simple mistake.

Here’s what went wrong: he completely misread the situation by breaking God's commandments in every way imaginable. It’s simple—God tells us to stay away from pork and alcohol because they're bad for you. But then you have people acting like it's no big deal, claiming that Paul gave them the green light to do whatever they want. 🙄 Then you see people dead in the streets from car wrecks, women being assaulted at parties because everyone's wasted, or kids and wives getting beaten by some guy who’s had way too much to drink. It's just constant.

It’s like seeing people head to the doctor because they’ve got brain parasites from eating bad pork.
It all boils down to ignoring God's commandments and stepping right into those murky waters. When you disregard His rules, you end up facing consequences here in this life, not to mention what's waiting for you in the next.

Harold Reyes3 said:

It honestly feels a little absurd. Why would God get so offended or worked up just because someone believed that the good Jesus is actually God?

It’s not just absurd—it’s actually the ultimate sin. And here’s why.

Think about it this way: when someone decides to follow a different god instead of the one true God, it’s just like a kid deciding that a stranger is their mother. They start ignoring everything their real mom tells them, tossing aside her sincere advice just to listen to what some random person on the street says. It's the same deal with people missing God's guidance in the Quran; they simply refuse to believe, or they can't wrap their heads around the fact that the Quran actually comes from God.
It’s easy to slip up and fall into sin, whether you realize you're doing it or not, simply because you're missing the rules. Think about it like this: if you don't know the tax laws in the US, you're going to mess up your filings, and before you know it, the IRS is knocking on your door with penalties. It’s the same deal with faith. People stumble into sin because they don't actually know what God commands. Instead, they spend their lives following made-up deities that never gave them any real guidance on how to live a righteous life.

How can anyone claim Jesus is God when He seemingly denies it Himself? It just doesn't add up. To me, it completely defies common sense—a human being simply cannot be God.

You could just laugh it off and tell him he miscalculated—even if his heart was in the right place. There's no need to go throwing boiling water at him, beating him with clubs, or setting his skin on fire over a simple mistake.

Here’s what went wrong: he completely misread the situation by breaking God's commandments in every way imaginable. It’s simple—God tells us to stay away from pork and alcohol because they're bad for you. But then you have people acting like it's no big deal, claiming that Paul gave them the green light to do whatever they want. 🙄 Then you see people dead in the streets from car wrecks, women being assaulted at parties because everyone's wasted, or kids and wives getting beaten by some guy who’s had way too much to drink. It's just constant.

It’s like seeing people head to the doctor because they’ve got brain parasites from eating bad pork.
It all boils down to ignoring God's commandments and stepping right into those murky waters. When you disregard His rules, you end up facing consequences here in this life, not to mention what's waiting for you in the next.

It wasn't Paul, it was Jesus...

When the crowd finally pushed their way into the house, the disciples started grilling him about parables. He just looked at them and said, "Seriously? You don't get it either? It’s not what goes into a person that makes them unclean... because it doesn't go to the heart, it goes to the stomach and out the other end..." And just like that, he clears every single plate...

Mark 7:17-19... It’s all right there in the text if you actually bother to read it...

Anthony Perez9 said:

Can you seriously wrap your head around the idea that Jesus is God? Like, the same God who built the entire universe is just some tiny baby in diapers having his butt wiped by his mom? 🙄

Beyond ridiculous.
People out here claiming just about anyone is God.

I'm telling you again—argue all you want, but it is what it is.[/I]

Plus, the whole thing is kind of absurd. Why would Allah/God get so offended and enraged just because someone thought the good guy Jesus was actually God? You should be able to just laugh it off and admit you misjudged things despite having good intentions, rather than getting hit with boiling water and clubbed over the head for it. 🙄

And who's to say you even know God at all?! 👍

Not Paul, but Jesus:

And when he went indoors, his disciples asked him about this teaching. He said to them, "Don't you see that nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them? For it doesn't enter the heart but goes into the stomach, and then out of the body?" In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.

Mark 7:17-19

There's a massive question here: did Jesus actually say this if we look at it logically?

If eating pork can give you all sorts of parasites, how exactly did Jesus "cleanse" all foods? If a meal can actually kill you because it's contaminated—like getting worms from undercooked pork—how does that work?

Also, why didn't Jesus eat it if what he was saying was true? It feels hypocritical—saying one thing but doing another. And we know Jesus wasn't a hypocrite, not even close.

Harold Reyes3 said:

Not Paul, but Jesus:

And when he went indoors, his disciples asked him about this teaching. He said to them, "Don't you see that nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them? For it doesn't enter the heart but goes into the stomach, and then out of the body?" In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.

Mark 7:17-19

There's a massive question here: did Jesus actually say this if we look at it logically?

If eating pork can give you all sorts of parasites, how exactly did Jesus "cleanse" all foods? If a meal can actually kill you because it's contaminated—like getting worms from undercooked pork—how does that work?

Also, why didn't Jesus eat it if what he was saying was true? It feels hypocritical—saying one thing but doing another. And we know Jesus wasn't a hypocrite, not even close.

I guess what Jesus was getting at was spiritual purity (you know, like "what goes into the heart"), rather than talking about literal intestinal cleanliness.

Harold Reyes3 said:

It honestly feels a little absurd. Why would God get so offended or worked up just because someone believed that the good Jesus is actually God?

It’s not just absurd—it’s actually the ultimate sin. And here’s why.

Think about it this way: when someone decides to follow a different god instead of the one true God, it’s just like a kid deciding that a stranger is their mother. They start ignoring everything their real mom tells them, tossing aside her sincere advice just to listen to what some random person on the street says. It's the same deal with people missing God's guidance in the Quran; they simply refuse to believe, or they can't wrap their heads around the fact that the Quran actually comes from God.
It’s easy to slip up and fall into sin, whether you realize you're doing it or not, simply because you're missing the rules. Think about it like this: if you don't know the tax laws in the US, you're going to mess up your filings, and before you know it, the IRS is knocking on your door with penalties. It’s the same deal with faith. People stumble into sin because they don't actually know what God commands. Instead, they spend their lives following made-up deities that never gave them any real guidance on how to live a righteous life.

How can anyone claim Jesus is God when He seemingly denies it Himself? It just doesn't add up. To me, it completely defies common sense—a human being simply cannot be God.

You could just laugh it off and tell him he miscalculated—even if his heart was in the right place. There's no need to go throwing boiling water at him, beating him with clubs, or setting his skin on fire over a simple mistake.

Here’s what went wrong: he completely misread the situation by breaking God's commandments in every way imaginable. It’s simple—God tells us to stay away from pork and alcohol because they're bad for you. But then you have people acting like it's no big deal, claiming that Paul gave them the green light to do whatever they want. 🙄 Then you see people dead in the streets from car wrecks, women being assaulted at parties because everyone's wasted, or kids and wives getting beaten by some guy who’s had way too much to drink. It's just constant.

It’s like seeing people head to the doctor because they’ve got brain parasites from eating bad pork.
It all boils down to ignoring God's commandments and stepping right into those murky waters. When you disregard His rules, you end up facing consequences here in this life, not to mention what's waiting for you in the next.

Nah, it’s not absurd; it’s considered the ultimate sin, and here’s why (snip)[/I]

To me, that's easily the worst trait any religion can have. 🙄

The idea that some theory regarding the origin of Good can be labeled the absolute worst possible sin is wild. Does it really matter how someone perceives Goodness? As long as they actually practice it and aren't hurting anyone, who cares?

If we start prioritizing abstract ideas over actual goodness, we're just opening the door to the most horrific crimes committed in the name of "ideas" about God.

fadedrider3 said:And who's to say you even know God at all?! 👍

Ha, ha, haaaa....
Man, you really can have a good laugh on here sometimes 😂

Anthony Perez9 said:Nah, it’s not absurd; it’s considered the ultimate sin, and here’s why (snip)[/I]

To me, that's easily the worst trait any religion can have. 🙄

The idea that some theory regarding the origin of Good can be labeled the absolute worst possible sin is wild. Does it really matter how someone perceives Goodness? As long as they actually practice it and aren't hurting anyone, who cares?

If we start prioritizing abstract ideas over actual goodness, we're just opening the door to the most horrific crimes committed in the name of "ideas" about God.

Well, look at the Quran: if you set up partners alongside God, you're essentially calling God a liar. God says He stands alone, with no other gods, yet people claim otherwise. By doing that, you're telling God He's wrong and stripping Him of His rightful place by giving that devotion to made-up idols instead.
That is a direct hit against God.

And when it comes to sins involving hurting others? Those are huge sins too! God commands us to do good for people—helping the poor, our families, orphans, the sick, and so on.