A Comparison

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:

since when is it offensive to be called a women? i would say my mother is a women... i cant say ive ever checked but the evidence suggesting she IS a women is some what irrefutable.

You may say that your mother is indeed a woman, but when you address her, you can’t tell her for example, <b>“Woman, get me some water” </b> can you?


Any language in the world has got very respectful terms to address our mothers.


But Jesus (<i>of the Bible</i>) doesn’t have any other term to call his mother with but <b>WOMAN</b>, <b>the same manner in which he addresses a prostitute. </b>

wow man, Jesus cured lepers, blindness, deafness and raised the dead how could he possibly compete with sucking out the venom from a scorpion bite which is only lethal in 45% of cases of people being bitten.

No competition TC… just please remember that Jesus did <b>NOTHONG</b> on his own (this is what he said); but God Almighty used him as an instrument to perform those miracles. Plus there are many other miracles which were performed in the Bible by other than Jesus, <b>in which Jesus will never be able to compete.</b>

considering FHC has answerd this question 50 billion times already i doubt answering it one more time will make much difference you obviously lack the ability of rational thought

Yes she said that jesus is God and he is also his son, he is divine yet human, he is eternal yet he was born of a virgin which is contrary to the word ‘eternal’… I do appreciate FHC efforts in trying to explain her faith, but I still cannot get this whole concept into my head, and I even doubt that you truly understand such thing, you just have to believe in it as it is.

if you had ever read the bible you would know how false this statment is, he would intervene but he wouldnt need to use violence.

Really? Then Let’s see what the <b>‘prince of peace’ </b> has to say:


<b>"I came to set the earth on fire, and how I wish that it were ALREADY KINDLED</b>. LUKE 12:49


<b>'Do you supposed that I came to bring peace to the world? No, not peace BUT DIVISION."</b> LUKE 12:51


<b>Come on interpret the verses the way you wish.. </b>

A woman was taken in adultery (vv. 3-4)
The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman whom they testified was caught in "the very act" of adultery (v. 4). There is no question about her guilt. John repeats the statement twice in two verses, a woman "caught in adultery." She was "taken with shame upon her." She has lived in continuous adulterous relationships so long that she is now characterized as an adulteress.


Where is the man? If I remember correctly, it takes two! Verse four says she was "caught in adultery, the very act." Should there not have been have been two sinners? Is this a lynching party? Where is the man? Who is trying to get even with the woman? Who set the deliberate trap for her? Her husband, or a former lover? Perhaps the husband set her up to divorce her or have her stoned.


This is a well-rehearsed plot to "test" Jesus with the idea of proving Him false. They were skillfully laying a trap. It was a setup.


The Pharisees demanded, "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" (v. 5). I am sure they were ready to misquote Deuteronomy 22:22ff. They stressed stoning the woman in the recorded quotes of their conversation with Jesus, but the Law demanded that both parties be stoned. It was only under the condition of persistence after previous warning and after the actual witness of the act of adultery by two competent witnesses that a couple was to be stoned.


The Pharisees and scribes continued to press their point. They were not after the poor woman as much as they were after Jesus. They were saying this "testing" Jesus (v. 6). They wanted grounds for "accusing" Jesus. He is the one they are really after.


This self-righteous, self-appointed judge and jury were out to hang Jesus. We are determined we are going to get rid of you, one way or the other, no matter what it takes. They were filled with self–righteous hatred toward Jesus.


They kept stressing their point. "They persisted in asking Him" (v. 7a). They kept the pressure on Jesus. Come on, tell us teacher, what do You say?


As these religious leaders persisted in questioning him, Jesus stood up and invited any one among them who was sinless, not guilty of general sinfulness, to throw the first stone. By this statement they could not possibly say Jesus rejected the law. Jesus specifically enjoined them to throw the first stone. Go ahead, you are right, the Law says stone her. She is guilty. Now, you, which one of you, is sinless? Moreover, if they threw the stone they would have been guilty of breaking the Roman Law against capital punishment! Only the Roman government in Jesus' day could execute a criminal. That is why the Jewish religious leaders manipulated Pilate to execute Jesus! They didn't have the authority to execute Him.


Jesus straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (v. 7). Then Jesus again "stooped down, and wrote on the ground" (v. 8).

I was sure that you are going to mention this story, first of all you must understand that your favorite story of Jesus forgiving the woman who was caught committing adultery <b>does not belong to the original Bible</b>, these are not my words, but the words of a very well known Christian scholar of the New Testaments (<b>Bart Ehramn</b>) who can speak Greek (the original language of the NT) and did his research and found <b>NO reference in the original manuscripts about such story</b>, he have no reason to lie… otherwise, Jesus would be contradicting himself when he ordered his followers to follow each and every <b>jot</b> that was mentioned in the Old Law…


Matthew 5:17


<b>Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. </b>


5:18


For verily I say unto you, <b>Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.</b>


Now you may come up with another <i>‘weird’ </i> interpretation as usual, <b>but that will not change the fact that the above story was a later addition and has nothing to do with the original Bible. </b> or else Jesus will be violating God's law.

umm you mean you are unable to? thats one of the wost cop out you lot have come up with to date and ive read some pretty pathetic cop outs to date.

Tell you what, I believe that all what you got is a very big mouth… don’t think that you are going to provoke me huh <_<


Your points were refuted on this board several times, you may check our discussion with <i>curious Christian</i> on <b>‘discussion and beliefs’ </b> forum and you will see that your fales claims were answered thousand of times..


Salam


Wael.