AntiChristian:


Are Bible verses quoted in context?

OLAADEGBU:


What do you think?

AntiChristian:
Are Bible verses quoted in context?

AntiChristian:

Are Bible verses quoted in context?

AntiChristian:

You made a claim Bible verses are quoted out of context. And i asked if Bible verses are quoted contextually.
But you refused to answer except with another question!

OLAADEGBU:
10 Bible Verses Muslims Take Out Of Context

It's often the case that Islamic apologists will take bible verses out of context to try to convince people that Christianity cannot be true. Here are the 10 most common bible verses taken out of context and how to understand these passages properly.

cornelboy:


What will be the food for the people in Hell?

No food will there be for them but a bitter Dhari S. 88:6 Y. Ali

Nor hath he any food except the foul pus from the washing of wounds, S. 69:36 Y. Ali

Obviously, both kinds of ‘food’ are chosen to evoke a feeling of horror when thinking about Hell. However, the contradiction is in the double claim that this or that will be the only food, i.e.

No food except Dhari (88:6).
No food except foul pus (69:36).

There is yet another passage that is relevant to this discussion:

Is that the better entertainment or the Tree of Zaqqum?
For We have truly made it (as) a trial for the wrong-doers.
For it is a tree that springs out of the bottom of Hell-Fire:
The shoots of its fruit-stalks are like the heads of devils:
Truly they will eat thereof and fill their bellies therewith.
Then on top of that they will be given a mixture made of boiling water.
Then shall their return be to the (Blazing) Fire. S. 37:62-68 Y. Ali; cf. 56:52

So which food exactly are people going to eat in hell?
Is the Qur'an free of discrepancies and errors?

Or you have contextual meaning for those contradictions

MaxInDHouse:


I think Muslims should focus more on their Qur'an since they don't want it to be read and criticized the way they does with the Bible!

AntiChristian:

How are all these related to the topic 10 Bible Verses Muslims Take Out Of Context?
It seems JWs are the dumbest of Christians!

AntiChristian:

Another lie!
The revelation of the Qur'an started with "Recite"!
The meaning of the "Qur'an" is "something recited" or "Recitation"!
So why say we don't want it to be recited?

OLAADEGBU:


1. God is not a son of man. (Numbers 23:19)

In the book of numbers, we read that God is not a man that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Muslims who oppose the deity of Christ love to bring up this verse in an attempt to disprove the divinity doctrine of Jesus Christ, seeing as he was also the son of man and a human. However, here are 2 reasons why coming to such a conclusion is erroneous.

1) You can only become something that you were not. For example. If I become sick, it’s because there was a time when I wasn’t sick. If I become blind, it’s because I wasn’t blind in the past. And if God became a man, it’s because he wasn’t so in the past. In other words, during the time this was written, the incarnation still hadn’t taken place. Hence God WAS NOT a man or a son of man during that time.

2) The verse says that God is not a man THAT HE SHOULD LIE, nor a son of man THAT HE SHOULD REPENT. In other words, it seems as if the verse is emphasizing the fact that God does not repent or lie, rather than the idea that he is not/can’t be a man.

MaxInDHouse:


Why do your folks attack or forbids none adherents from owning a copy of the book?

OLAADEGBU:


1. God is not a son of man. (Numbers 23:19)

In the book of numbers, we read that God is not a man that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Muslims who oppose the deity of Christ love to bring up this verse in an attempt to disprove the divinity doctrine of Jesus Christ, seeing as he was also the son of man and a human. However, here are 2 reasons why coming to such a conclusion is erroneous.

1) You can only become something that you were not. For example. If I become sick, it’s because there was a time when I wasn’t sick. If I become blind, it’s because I wasn’t blind in the past. And if God became a man, it’s because he wasn’t so in the past. In other words, during the time this was written, the incarnation still hadn’t taken place. Hence God WAS NOT a man or a son of man during that time.

2) The verse says that God is not a man THAT HE SHOULD LIE, nor a son of man THAT HE SHOULD REPENT. In other words, it seems as if the verse is emphasizing the fact that God does not repent or lie, rather than the idea that he is not/can’t be a man.

AntiChristian:


When did God claim unambiguously he would become a man from the old testament? "Son of man" is a Hebrew idiom that appears some 195 times in the Bible. About 93 of these are in the Book of Ezekiel where God calls Ezekiel "Son of man". There's no debate over Ezekiel's nature. He was a man, human being not a spirit being or a separate yet unified part of God.

The Phrase "Son of man" occurs about 83 times in the Four Gospels and refers to Jesus. How did Jesus become son of God/God the Son/God when in Acts 7:56 Stephen was alleged to have said "Look! I see the heaven open, and the son of man standing on the right hand of God.

It should be plain & simple that a man/a son of man is a human being. Ezekiel certainly was. And Stephen, at a critical moment in his life called Jesus "the son of man" not God the son or even God himself. Why?
Because Jesus was the son of man, the second Adam created without father, he himself even said so as recorded 83 times.

If Jesus was the son of man, then he was corporeal, terrestrial and limited, by definition. he himself attests to being corporeal, even after his supposed resurrection in Luke 24:39:

Look at my hands and feet, and see that it is I myself. Handle me, and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you can see i have." Luke 24:39 (REV)

Jesus did defined the nature of God in the Gospel of John.:

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. John 4:24 (REV)

Even the third God of the Christians i.e. the Holy Spirit is not corporeal, terrestrial, nor limited.

that's why in 1 Timothy 5:

For there's one God (not three) and one mediator between God and mankind, a man (not God) Christ Jesus.

OLAADEGBU:


You are still missing the point. The question you should be asking yourself is 'at what point did God become a Son of Man'?

OLAADEGBU:


2. Jesus came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 15:24)

Another passage which has served as a victim of abuse is Matthew 15:24, which reads that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The reasons why Muslims love to twist the relevant passage is because their Quran makes it clear that Jesus was a prophet who was ONLY sent to the Jews. However, before jumping to conclusion, please take note that:

Jesus healed a Canaanite woman and a centurion’s servant, both of them being gentiles. ( Matthew 15:21-28, Luke 7:1-10)
The great commission commands us to go into ALL nations to preach and baptize. (Matthew 28:19)
Jesus said that he has other sheep which are not of the tribe of Israel and that HE MUST BRING THEM IN as well. (John 10:16)
So how do we reconcile the above mentioned points with Christ’s statement that he was sent ONLY to the Jews? Well, the answer can actually be found in the account of the healing of a gentile woman:

"Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs." – Mark 7:26-27

Now the term I want you to take note of is “first”. Jesus did not say that the children of Israel will ONLY be fed. He said that the children of Israel will be fed FIRST. So when we take into account this, along with the above mentioned points, we see that Jesus’ initial focus while on earth was the Jews. However, initial focus is not synonymous with exclusion.

AntiChristian:


The lost sheep of Israel verses are

1. Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go onto the road of the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

2. Matthew 15:22-26
And a Canaanite woman from that region came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is miserably possessed by a demon. ”But Jesus did not answer a word. So His disciples came and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “ I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said. But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.
“O woman,” Jesus answered, “your faith is great! Let it be done for you as you desire.

What we see from the above can not be ascribed to Jesus in real life.
1. He refused to attend to her.
2. The disciples urged him to send her away when the lady was crying after them.
3. Jesus said he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (and not to her race).
4. The woman came and knelt before Jesus saying Sir, help me.
6. Jesus said it is not right to give the Israelite's (i.e. Children's) miracles to the non-Israelites (i.e. dogs).
7. The woman then said but the non-israelites can take the crumbs that the Israelites left over!

So Master and Dog relationship exists between Israel (people he was sent to) and the non-Israelites(people he wasn't sent to) according to the biblical Jesus.

AntiChristian:


Did God become Ezekiel in the Bible?

AntiChristian:


The lost sheep of Israel verses are

1. Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go onto the road of the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

2. Matthew 15:22-26
And a Canaanite woman from that region came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is miserably possessed by a demon. ”But Jesus did not answer a word. So His disciples came and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “ I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said. But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.
“O woman,” Jesus answered, “your faith is great! Let it be done for you as you desire.

What we see from the above can not be ascribed to Jesus in real life.
1. He refused to attend to her.
2. The disciples urged him to send her away when the lady was crying after them.
3. Jesus said he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (and not to her race).
4. The woman came and knelt before Jesus saying Sir, help me.
6. Jesus said it is not right to give the Israelite's (i.e. Children's) miracles to the non-Israelites (i.e. dogs).
7. The woman then said but the non-israelites can take the crumbs that the Israelites left over!

So Master and Dog relationship exists between Israel (people he was sent to) and the non-Israelites(people he wasn't sent to) according to the biblical Jesus.

OLAADEGBU:


2. Jesus came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 15:24)

Another passage which has served as a victim of abuse is Matthew 15:24, which reads that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The reasons why Muslims love to twist the relevant passage is because their Quran makes it clear that Jesus was a prophet who was ONLY sent to the Jews. However, before jumping to conclusion, please take note that:

1. Jesus healed a Canaanite woman and a centurion’s servant, both of them being gentiles. ( Matthew 15:21-28, Luke 7:1-10)
2. The Great Commission commands us to go into ALL nations to preach and baptize. (Matthew 28:19)
3. Jesus said that he has other sheep which are not of the tribe of Israel and that HE MUST BRING THEM IN as well. (John 10:16)

So how do we reconcile the above mentioned points with Christ's statement that he was sent ONLY to the Jews? Well, the answer can actually be found in the account of the healing of a gentile woman:

"Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs." – Mark 7:26-27

Now the term I want you to take note of is "first." Jesus did not say that the children of Israel will ONLY be fed. He said that the children of Israel will be fed FIRST. So when we take into account this, along with the above mentioned points, we see that Jesus' initial focus while on earth was the Jews. However, initial focus is not synonymous with exclusion.

OLAADEGBU:


Who else is referred to as the Son of Man in the Bible?

[siz

[upermission.[/url]

AntiChristian:


Check the book of Ezekiel he was called that over 90 times even more than Jesus was called in the 4 gospels altogether. I posted it here before in red. But like the Christian you are you won't read others post but expect them to read yours!

The evidences posted are convincing enough to any sane mind.

You just won't read and kept asking for what had been answered.

OLAADEGBU:


3. I can of my own self do nothing. (John 5:30)

Jesus says in John 5:30: "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

Now, at first glance, this passage insinuates that Christ is not all powerful, in that he is limited apart from the Father. Hence why so many of those within the Islamic camp are quick in utilizing the relevant passage against us.

But what did Jesus really mean by this? Here are 2 possible answers.

1. According to the biblical narrative, God is a three-person deity which is inclusive unto the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. God is tripersonal, and all three persons who always works together in a congruent purpose. When in view of this fact, we can come to further comprehend what Jesus really meant in the relevant passage of scripture: The trinity works TOGETHER in an INSEPARABLE fashion. Jesus could do NOTHING without the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Father can do NOTHING without Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit can do NOTHING without Christ and the Father.

"Throughout this passage it seems as if Jesus went back and forth between claiming He was equal to God and saying He was subordinate to His Father. Actually, both were true. There was essential equality with functional subordination. All three persons of the Trinity are fully divine and united as one God in three persons, but they have distinct as well as overlapping roles. The Son never commands the Father; He only obeys Him." – The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (p. 1580). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

2. Jesus said he can do nothing of his own accord, AS HE HEARS, HE JUDGES. Jesus took on the pursuance of a perfect life, and indeed his sacrifice required it to be as such. Hence, he COULDN’T do ANYTHING without the Father, because perfection lies in completely obeying the father. If he wanted to be perfect, then doing anything which lay in accordance with his own will were things he COULD NOT DO. He lacked PERMISSION, not ABILITY. In other words, Jesus was accentuating the fact that his works and words laid in complete correspondence to the will of the father.
This truth is further reiterated when Jesus claims to seek the will of NOT his own, but of the FATHER who sent him.

To prove my point, the phrase CANT or COULD NOT doesn’t always insinuate that one lacks the capacity to perform a certain task. For example: lets say there is a no trespassing sign, your friend might tell you “ Ah, we certainly CANT go there”. Obviously, if you wanted to, you can just walk right passed it like there was nothing to it. The reason why you are told you can’t is not because you lack the ABILITY to do so, but because you sometimes lack the PERMISSION.

As a matter of fact, according to the Strong’s Greek concordance, the term CAN, within the Greek language can also denote a type of authorisation as well. It means: to be powerful, able Of uncertain affinity; to be able or possible — be able, can (do, + -not), could, MAY, might, be possible, be of power.

Now, as we see, one definition that has been attached to the Greek word is MAY. And according to Merriam Webster’s dictionary, may means: Have ability to, have permission to.