Muslims quote Luke 22:43 as proof that when Jesus cried out to God not to be crucified, that an angel came and saved him from crucifixion. However the next verses says that Jesus was arrested by the mob for crucifixion. My Question is:
On what basis do you accept the first passage as uncorrupted scripture, but reject the next verse as corrupted scripture?
Muslims claim that the New Testament story of Jesus dying on the cross is a corruption of the truth and that Allah made it appear that Jesus died on the cross, as per Q4:157. My question is:
How can Muslims claim that they believe any of the New Testament was originally revealed by God, since the corruption must have begun at the cross.
Muslims reject the gospel story of Jesus being a substitute for our sins, the just for the unjust. They use the illustration of a man having to pay for a speeding ticket he did not commit. My question is:
How do you explain that in the Muslim view of the cross, someone completely innocent died in Jesus place, after God made him appear to be Jesus? Was not this a Substitutionary sacrifice?
On what basis do you accept the first passage as uncorrupted scripture, but reject the next verse as corrupted scripture?
Muslims claim that the New Testament story of Jesus dying on the cross is a corruption of the truth and that Allah made it appear that Jesus died on the cross, as per Q4:157. My question is:
How can Muslims claim that they believe any of the New Testament was originally revealed by God, since the corruption must have begun at the cross.
Muslims reject the gospel story of Jesus being a substitute for our sins, the just for the unjust. They use the illustration of a man having to pay for a speeding ticket he did not commit. My question is:
How do you explain that in the Muslim view of the cross, someone completely innocent died in Jesus place, after God made him appear to be Jesus? Was not this a Substitutionary sacrifice?