Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Jesus killed babies!?

  1. #31
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    452
    Amen (Given)
    65
    Amen (Received)
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    No, He was always God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. The trinity is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. It has always been so. The Son took on Flesh at the incarnation, and was named Jesus. That is all.
    It is the eternal Word who is the Son (the second person of the Trinity by relationship to the Father) who "became flesh" (incarnation) in the human body of Jesus of Nazareth making Jesus of Nazareth one person with two natures.

    Before the incarnation Jesus as a human being did not exist.

    Agree?

  2. #32
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    48,998
    Amen (Given)
    4872
    Amen (Received)
    21709
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    It is the eternal Word who is the Son (the second person of the Trinity by relationship to the Father) who "became flesh" (incarnation) in the human body of Jesus of Nazareth making Jesus of Nazareth one person with two natures.

    Before the incarnation Jesus as a human being did not exist.

    Agree?
    He did not exist as a human being. But he was the same person. So saying "Jesus did such and such in the old testament" might not be technically correct, but it is practically correct. And your initial claim was, "His logic is since Christians believe Jesus is God and God ordered babies to be killed, then Jesus killed babies." so he basically seems to understand that Jesus is God the son, and that as God he ordered babies to be killed. Which is true. So Jesus (God the Son) did order babies to be killed.

    Jesus the human man did not kill babies. God the Son did. But God kills everyone (or basically takes their life at some point) - He gives life and takes it away. As does Allah. So your muslim friend really has no room to criticize Jesus or God.

  3. #33
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,924
    Amen (Given)
    5212
    Amen (Received)
    3519
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    It is the eternal Word who is the Son (the second person of the Trinity by relationship to the Father) who "became flesh" (incarnation) in the human body of Jesus of Nazareth making Jesus of Nazareth one person with two natures.
    The statement "The Word/Son 'became flesh' in the human body of Jesus of Nazareth" while not necessarily incorrect (depending on how you interpret the statement) isn't really the best way to phrase it, and can be easily twisted into something heretical. It can easily be misunderstood to mean that the Word/Son joined together with the human person of Jesus of Nazareth and that the two persons 'fused together' into one single person.

    A statement far less susceptible to be misunderstood or twisted would be something like "the Word/Son took on human nature and flesh (and was born of the virgin Mary with the help of the Holy Spirit) in the incarnation".


    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    Before the incarnation Jesus as a human being did not exist.
    It would be more accurate to say that before the incarnation the person who would come to be named Jesus didn't yet have a human nature.

    He was still the same person before the incarnation as he was after it. He didn't change from one person into a different person after the incarnation.

  4. #34
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    452
    Amen (Given)
    65
    Amen (Received)
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    He did not exist as a human being. But he was the same person. So saying "Jesus did such and such in the old testament" might not be technically correct, but it is practically correct. And your initial claim was, "His logic is since Christians believe Jesus is God and God ordered babies to be killed, then Jesus killed babies." so he basically seems to understand that Jesus is God the son, and that as God he ordered babies to be killed. Which is true. So Jesus (God the Son) did order babies to be killed.

    Jesus the human man did not kill babies. God the Son did. But God kills everyone (or basically takes their life at some point) - He gives life and takes it away. As does Allah. So your muslim friend really has no room to criticize Jesus or God.
    The Muslim's point was that no matter how many atrocities can be laid at the feet of Muhammad, Jesus was worse because of the death of children.

    I pointed out to him that the Qur'an records the flood and certainly children were killed during the flood.

    I also pointed out what Muhammad said:

    Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

    I pointed out that it is God who knows when a people are beyond redemption as were the Canaanites.

    Finally, I said that he was questioning God's judgment and that is never a good thing to do.

  5. #35
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,573
    Amen (Given)
    274
    Amen (Received)
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    The Muslim's point was that no matter how many atrocities can be laid at the feet of Muhammad, Jesus was worse because of the death of children.

    I pointed out to him that the Qur'an records the flood and certainly children were killed during the flood.

    I also pointed out what Muhammad said:

    Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

    I pointed out that it is God who knows when a people are beyond redemption as were the Canaanites.

    Finally, I said that he was questioning God's judgment and that is never a good thing to do.
    It does seem like the Muslim argument is totally lost upon saying Jesus killed babies. This admits to Jesus as God incarnate. How is a mere prophet's word more significant than God himself?

    The other option is to say that Jesus wasn't God incarnate which then means that Jesus didn't kill babies.

  6. Amen Sparko amen'd this post.
  7. #36
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,573
    Amen (Given)
    274
    Amen (Received)
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    His point is that Jesus is worse for killing babies than any violence by Allah in the Qur'an, and Muhammad.
    Doesn't this mean that Allah isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Wouldn't this mean that the Qur'an and its religion has improperly endorsed the OT and NT? I thought the claim was that the Qur'an was recording the final prophet of the only god -- not the initial prophecies?

  8. #37
    tWebber Rushing Jaws's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Near my best friend (see photo above)
    Faith
    XPian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    641
    Amen (Given)
    1861
    Amen (Received)
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    True.



    No, Jesus became God the Son at the incarnation when Jesus was conceived.
    That’s back to front. The Eternal Divine Word assumed a human nature at the Incarnation, to be born as the man Jesus of Nazareth.
    The Eternal Divine Word “was still” with the Father “during” the Incarnation: the Incarnation wrought no change in the Word, but was a fresh mode of existence for the Word. Human nature was affected & changed - but the Word was no more changed by the act of Incarnation, than by the act of creating.

    It really is difficult - if not impossible - to speak of these things without using unfitting language. This is why philosophy is needed by theology.


    Yes. The Word became flesh.



    No it can't.
    As for the Muslim question, it depends upon an understanding of the Incarnation that is mistaken (and not simply incomplete). Nothing before the conception of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin, can be called an act of Jesus. Talk about the Incarnation is affected by the fact that it took place in time. It is not an eternal attribute of God the Son, as (say) His Righteousness or His Uncreatedness are.
    Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 05-15-2019 at 02:24 AM.

  9. #38
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    452
    Amen (Given)
    65
    Amen (Received)
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    Doesn't this mean that Allah isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Wouldn't this mean that the Qur'an and its religion has improperly endorsed the OT and NT? I thought the claim was that the Qur'an was recording the final prophet of the only god -- not the initial prophecies?
    I've studied the Qur'an for many and spoken to dozens and dozens of Muslims. I am convinced the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had nothing to do with the Qur'an and that it has human hands all over it and that Muhammad is not a prophet of the one true God.

  10. #39
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,573
    Amen (Given)
    274
    Amen (Received)
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian3 View Post
    I've studied the Qur'an for many and spoken to dozens and dozens of Muslims. I am convinced the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had nothing to do with the Qur'an and that it has human hands all over it and that Muhammad is not a prophet of the one true God.
    Certainly I didn't perceive my post as being your view. I was asking this of the Muslim view -- or a question of consistency of the Muslim view. I've heard the idea that the Qur'an claimed (or was claimed to be) the final revelation about God, continuing the revelation of the OT and NT, albeit that the OT and NT were said to be distorted.

  11. #40
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    452
    Amen (Given)
    65
    Amen (Received)
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    Certainly I didn't perceive my post as being your view. I was asking this of the Muslim view -- or a question of consistency of the Muslim view. I've heard the idea that the Qur'an claimed (or was claimed to be) the final revelation about God, continuing the revelation of the OT and NT, albeit that the OT and NT were said to be distorted.
    Muslims do claim that the Qur'an is the final revelation from God and that Muhammad is the final messenger.

    Muslims claim that Muhammad was foretold in the Bible. They believe Muhammad is the prophet like Moses and that Muhammad is the comforter that Jesus promised would come and that Muhammad's name is in the Song of Songs, etc.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •