Archive for the ‘son of God’ Category

Cindy! Jews don’t acknowledge that Jesus is their God or Son of God

June 2, 2009

Hi friend cindy

Thaks for informing me that you have added a section about Islam on your blog and you were kind enough to invite me to visit your blog.

I visited, read you post there and tried to send my following comment there; it however did not appear on your blog as is usual. Please add my comments from here.

Cindyinsd says:

The God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims is one and the same; Christians worship the God of the Jews.

Paarsurrey says:

Generally God is understood as Creator of the Universe; in that sense God of the Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians and Muslims is ONE.

This is a common belief as against those who say there is no Creator God; I mean the Atheists and Agnostics.
Cindy, you have mentioned that “Christians worship the God of the Jews”; this is your statement, but I think Jews won’t own you in this.

They don’t acknowledge that Jesus is God or Son of God; so Jews would deny that they worship Jesus, the god of the Christians or their God and the God of the Christians is the same in this sense.

I would like a Jew to comments on the concept of our friend cindyinsd as mentioned by me above.

In my opinion, a Jew would say that Jewish God YHWH and the Muslim God Allah is the same rather than to say that Jewish God and the Christian God Jesus is the same.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Moses and his mother.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Advertisements

better for the Catholics Protestants to describe Jesus as a step son of God or God as a hostile father of Jesus

May 3, 2009

ivarfjeld says:

So much God loved the World that He gave his only Begotten Son, so that those who believe in Him, shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Paarsurrey says:

Hi friend ivarjeld

Welcome at my blog; please feel to express yourself fully here, even if you differ with me.

Please don’t mind. Sorry, I can’t buy that this is any manifestation of love from God; this is no justice either. Even a normal human father; except one who is a sick person, won’t kill his son for the sins of a man in the street. The man in the street won’t benefit from it either; the son would be killed for nothing.

In that case perhaps it would be better for the Catholics Protestants to describe Jesus as a step son of God or God as a hostile father of Jesus; rather to name Jesus a “Begotten Son”.

God never said or thought anything like that; it would be better describing such god as cruel person instead of saying “God is love “.

This is a meaningless approach of cunning and sinful Paul collaborated by the sinful and unfaithful scribes; not held by any Messenger Prophet before or after him. Jesus and Mary, for sure, could never believe such a faulty Theology. They would promptly reject such an inhuman concept.

This is only a nonsensical invention of Paul; the enemy of Jesus, Mary and their disciples.

God loves justice and all His actions are full of Wisdom. Do you see any wisdom in it? Sure, not.

I don’t think one should believe such a creed blindfolded from Paul. One would perish rather to attain any eternal life, like Paul was punished and beheaded.

I respect your faith; however, this is my sincere and affirmed opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran and not as presented by Paul or the sinful scribes.

Please keep the contact and remain in touch.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Jesus son of God; started with clever misunderstanding of Paul

February 5, 2009

wellwateredgarden Says:

The one true God has only one name, YHWH, and because of Jesus we may call Him Father.

Jesus called Himself the Son of Man but admitted to being the Son of God.

paarsurrey Says:

Hi

I think you are wrong. How could GodAllahYHWH have a physical son when he had not wed any woman. It might be symbolical as per the usage of OTBible . Kindly search for Son of God in your OTBible and then you would understand my point.

It started with Paul’s clever misunderstanding.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

terms misunderstood and misapplied :Adding sense to Christianity

December 1, 2008

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4491849&postcount=19

Originally Posted by notsmart
” I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna”

Your prophet Mo would be highly offended by this tag line.
He honored Mary very much. Jesus is a prophet to you.
Give me citations where Mo honored Budda or Krishna. Or if they are prophets. Tell us what MO said about Mary.

You have disrespected your false prophet.

He will make you pay.

Paarsurrey says:

Hi

I think you would love to read a question ( from a Hindu) and answer ( from Mirza Tahir Ahmad) in this connection:

Lord Krishna and Jesus Christ
Krishna – `I am the Beginning and the End’

Questioner: My question is about Lord Krishna (as). We Hindus treat Lord Krishna (as) as the creator, the preserver and the destroyer of all beings. As he himself said, ‘of all the creations, I am the beginning and the end and the middle. I am unborn and without beginning. Though I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear every millennium in my original transcendental form.’ My question is, how far does this religious philosophy conform with the philosophy of Islam?

Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad: First of all, I beg to differ with you as far as the interpretation of these lines is concerned. I have been a student of comparative religion. I found that every religion, however idolatrous it may appear to us today, was fundamentally a monotheistic religion because if one does not accept this universal principle then arguments between religions will have no end whatsoever and each religion will be understood to have emanated from a different source, from a different God.

Now, as against the understanding of the Vedas which you have presented to us, you should have remembered also that this is exactly what Jesus Christ (as) said, that I am the Alpha, I am the Omega, and this is not only said by Jesus Christ (as) but also in the Holy Qur’an there is mention of this truth that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (as) is the source and means of people reaching God and when you say Khatemun Nabiyyeen (i.e. the `seal of all the Prophets’) then it can be understood as Omega. But in another `Hadith’ (tradition of the Holy Prophet (saw)) he claims himself to be the very first, the Alpha and according to all the Muslim sects together, in view of some Qur’anic verses and declarations of the Holy Prophet (saw), he was the first to be born.

Now, the question here is that there are some translations made by yourself or somebody else, which indicate that Krishna (as) claimed that he was never born, that he is eternal. I have read the Bhagawat Geeta myself with deep attention and I have discovered only evidence of the truth and unity of God, and Krishna (as) himself only claimed to be a Messenger, no more.

For instance, his being called `murli dhar’ (flute player). Apparently, the flute is singing the song or creating the music but there is breath behind it. Then he has more hands than ordinary people and he has a body, a well defined body, but instead of two hands he has four hands and he is also known to have possessed wings. Now, what do these symbols, or if they are not symbols, the literal facts indicate, that is the question!

As you said, he gave us the glad tiding that every one thousand years `I will reappear in my original form’. Is this the original form of God? Is this the space of human stature, with four arms, he can be confined and then disappear somewhere and then begin to rule from there. This is a very, very limited understanding of the nature of God which he has created. How could Lord Krishna (as) say that? There has to be some misunderstanding of his message or misinterpretation of his words.

Such misunderstandings do appear in every religion because of the specific religious terminology. Take, for instance, the use of the word `wings’. The Holy Qur’an also uses the word `wings’ in relation to angels. But the Holy Qur’an makes it specifically clear that these are not the `wings’ used to fly with, only that the `wings’ are indicative of attributes. So, if there are `two arms’, the attributes are half the number possessed by a person who has four arms.

The angels grew in attributes and in this world, according to the Holy Qur’an, they have four wings. But in the hereafter they will have eight ‘wings’ and these are all metaphorical terms and figures, let’s say. For instance, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) himself is told to lower his ‘wing’ of mercy over those who believe him. Then the people are told to lower their ‘wings’ over their parents. So these usages of the same word ‘wing’ elsewhere in the Qur’an makes it very clear to us that they are just terms which have been misunderstood and misapplied.

In short, according to the Ahmadiyya belief, Hadhrat Krishna (as) was a holy Messenger of Allah. He used a language of symbols to convey to the world of that time some truths and if you read the Bhagawat Geeta in detail, it is not just an account of war between two factions. It is, in reality, a masterpiece of description of goodness pitched against evil, or evil pitched against goodness. A battle between darkness and light.

Now, turn to Zoroastrianism, what Zoroaster says is again the same thing in different terms. He speaks of fire against darkness, and makes fire the symbol of truth which is God and darkness a symbol of falsehood which is the devil. One finds similar symbolic statements in the Bible and in the Holy Qur’an, but there they do not mean that evil had a separate entity in itself and emanated from a God who was independent of the God of goodness.

So, these are symbolic terms and the use of similar terminology is found in every religion. It is our duty not to be confused by them but to come to a reasonable, sensible understanding whereby we could reconcile the world religions as have emanated from the same single source that is God.
I hope this will be sufficient as I don’t think it will be very profitable to go much further into a debate on this issue.

Jesus – ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Light’

Questioner: I am engaged in private Catholic Evengalisation. As Jesus (as) was dying on the cross he said, ‘Father, forgive them for they know not what they do’. My question is, Jesus (as) said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the light – nobody can come to the Father except through me’. Any comment, please?

Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad: I have already answered this question in answer to the question raised here by our Hindu friend when he spoke of Krishna (as) having made the same claim, long before Jesus (as) mind you, I have read the fundamental books of all major religions and I find reference to exactly the same thing in so many statements of either the prophets or the divine scriptures.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) has made exactly the same claim. So, you must remember that it is a time related claim. It has to be made by every Prophet because if a Prophet says, ‘I am not the way’, then he is denying himself. He is rejecting the necessity of the people to find God through him. Hence, in Islamic terminology, in the Holy Qur’an, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) is mentioned as Waseela, the ‘doorway’ to God. I have read that so many times. I love reading the Bible as well but because I have studied other religions (and read their books) I can immediately find similarities between the style of expression.

But this only means that in relation to God, a Prophet becomes himself an eternal truth because if he speaks the language of God and God alone then he also becomes eternal, not in person, not in relation to his human form, but in relation to his views and ideas and ideology. So, if a person belongs to an eternal God, he must have some features of that eternal God or aspects of his character transferred to himself, otherwise the claim of such a person that he is in communion with God, or that he belongs to him, would be falsified if he cannot show any signs.

So these are the fundamental signs which are shown by all the major Prophets of the world that they have become identified with an eternal Super Being and in them you find the ‘Alpha’ and the ‘Omega’ and the ‘door’. I hope this will be sufficient for you to understand our viewpoint on this issue.

http://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000158.html

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Yet another evidence of Jesus going to India after crucifixion from Hindu sources

November 24, 2008

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4465050&postcount=62

Hi

History is in my opinion a secular record of events at any point of time anywhere in the world. I am neither a historian nor a scholar nor a priest. I am just an ordinary sinful man in the street desiring my salvation wherever the Truth could lead me. So, I don’t have to be biased as sometimes an historian or a scholar or a priest has to save his name or neck.

I ask just a simple question?

If Jones is absent from London and he emerges in New York and many people see him there: would anybody with senses, please don’t mind, believe that he is ascended to heavens?

When Jesus absented himself from Judea, after the event of crucifixion as you know, in which he survived by the grace of God. He later fearing from the persecuting Jews; and of course with the permission of God Allah migrated from Judea and went to India.

Yet another evidence of Jesus going to India after crucifixion from Hindu sources

Courtesy: http://www.indiadivine.org/articles/…ist/Page1.html
King Salivahana meets Jesus Christ

We give here excerpts from the above mentioned Vedas:

Text 23
ko bharam iti tam praaha
su hovacha mudanvitah
iishaa purtagm maam viddhi
kumaarigarbha sambhavam

“The king asked, ‘Who are you sir?’ ‘You should know that I am Isha Putra, the Son of God’. he replied blissfully, and ‘am born of a virgin.’ ”

Texts 25 – 26

shruto vaaca mahaaraaja
praapte satyasya samkshaye
nirmaaryaade mlechadeshe
masiiho ‘ham samagatah
iishaamasii ca dasyuunaa
praadurbhuutaa bhayankarii
taamaham mlecchataah praapya
masiihatva mupaagatah

“Hearing this questions of Salivahara, Isha putra said, ‘O king, when the destruction of the truth occurred, I, Masiha the prophet, came to this country of degraded people where there are no rules and regulations. Finding that fearful irreligious condition of the barbarians spreading from Mleccha-Desha, I have taken to prophethood’.”

Text 30

isha muurtirt-dradi praptaa
nityashuddha sivamkari
ishamasihah iti ca
mama nama pratishthitam

“Having placed the eternally pure and auspicious form of the Supreme Lord in my heart, O protector of the earth planet, I preached these principles through the Mlecchas’ own faith and thus my name became ‘isha-masiha’ (Jesus the Messiah).”
http://www.indiadivine.org/articles/…ist/Page1.html

For details please access the above link.

Paarsurrey:

Hindus don’t believe in Jesus; yet they have recorded a crucial meeting of Jesus with King Salivahana, of India. Catholics are charitable people; please see that when Jesus absented himself from Judea, he emerged in India. Indians mythology has got nothing to do with Jesus; yet they could not deny that one of their kings did meet Jesus. Please be with Truth.

No compulsion whatsoever in matters of faith.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim:

Mohammed the peace maker

November 19, 2008

Paarsurrey says:

I write on a Catholic Forum. I yesterday wrote a post:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4439238&postcount=6
in the thread:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=4439238#post4439238

Quote from Charlie Zeiter, a member of the esteemed forum:
“I believe Jesus was crucified and he (Muhammad) denied this historical fact”.

Paarsurrey:

I don’t think that Jesus was crucified on Cross. This is only a mythical concept invented by Paul at Rome; and the Catholic Church only towed his line. History does not prove that Jesus died on Cross.

I don’t think that it has a direct bearing on peace making efforts of Muhammad – the Khatamun Nabiyyeen. Jesus not dieing on Cross and dieing a natural and peaceful death in India is more peace promoting than dieing on Cross at hands of the errant Jews of his time.

The Krishna/Christ Second Coming 1835-1908 has elaborated these points in his famous book:

http://www.alislam.org/library/books…dia/index.html.

1. Introduction: This mentions as to how Jesus not dieing on Cross is peace promoting in the world.

2. Chapter-1: gives arguments from deep study of Bible that Jesus did not die on Cross.

3. Chapter-2: is on the evidence of the Holy Quran and authentic traditions in proof of Jesus’ survival from the Cross.

4. Chapter-3: evidence derived from the books of medicine of that time that Jesus survived death in cosequence of crucifixion.

5. Chapter-4: Evidence from books of history:

SECTION 1: Evidence from ancient Islamic books which contain a mention of Jesus’ journey towards India.

6. SECTION 2: Evidence from books on Buddhism.

7. SECTION 3: On the evidence from books of history which show that the coming of Jesus to the Punjab and neighboring territories was inevitable.

One may read the book as a whole, a short book, or the chapter one feels most interested.

I love Jesus and Mary as I love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics:

Jesus distinct from God

November 17, 2008

Hi

The distinction between Jesus and God was well understood among the disciples and the early Christians, as would be appreciated from the following:

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ, Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. (Philippians 3:3)

But to us there is but one God, the Father of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things, and we by him. ( 1 Cor. 8:6)

Jesus himself brought out the distinction clearly in attributing divinity to God alone, who was also his God, as for instance:

Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)

-Muhammad Zafrullah Khan

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics:

He does not beget; nor is He begotten

November 16, 2008

“HE DOES NOT BEGET”

In the Bible, it is obvious that the words, “children of your Father”, have been used metaphorically.

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust”. (Matthew 5:44-45)

Jesus was not a physical son of God. The Bible refers to Jesus as the son of David:

“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”. (Matthew 1:1)

At another place, Jesus presented himself as the son of man:
“And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head”. (Matthew 8:20)

In the present day Bible, not only Jesus but also Jacob has been called the son of God. Jacob, moreover, has been referred to as “first born” son.

“And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born:” (Exodus 4:22)

Jesus was not a partner in the Godhead, as was not Jacob. Both of them were beloved prophets of God.

“NOR IS HE BEGOTTEN”

That Jesus was born without a father does not make him a son of God in any physical sense. Adam had neither father nor mother. The King of Salem, according to the Bible, was born without father and without mother.

“To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually”. (Hebrew 7:2-3)

By Aminullah Khan, Ahmadiyya Muslim Missionary, Bradford, Yorks

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/true-christianity-leads-to-islam.html

Jesus is neither Son of God nor God in physical/literal sense but in metaphoric sense as per usage of Bible

November 15, 2008

Our learned friend R H Kelkar, who has translated New Testament into Marathi, a language in South India, has made following observations in his write-up titled “The Meaning of ‘Nava Karar “which could be viewed in entirety at :

http://marathibible.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/the-meaning-of-nava-karar/

We only give here only one point mentioned by him:

The New Testament or ‘Nava Karar’ portrays God as a loving and forgiving father, who sent His son Jesus Christ to this world in human form with an offer of salvation for all humanity.

Paarsurrey says:

The above point is not correctly derived by him from the OTBible; and hence it is not supported by Quran- the pristine and most secure Revealed Book among the Revealed Religions and hence incorrect. God is not a physical being; He has rather created the whole physical phenomenon as He willed. Nobody shares this or other of his attributes. Hence God is nobody’s physical or literal father.

God is father of the humans in a metaphoric sense, nothing could get created without his order/will; and this is the theme of the OTBible. God has no literal wife or He needs no sex that his off-shoots are called Sons of God. This is only in the metaphoric sense otherwise it does not carry any meaning literally and physically. GodAllahYHWH needs no wife or son; this is only a phenomenon of the mortal beings and a sort of extension of life given by the Creator to one’s species. GodAllahYHWH is immortal. Quran is very clear in this aspect:

[112:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2] Say ‘He is Allah, the One!
[112:3] Allah the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor, is He begotten,
[112:5] And there is none like unto Him.
http://www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=112

We can agree with R H Kelkar if he reconciles to the above explanation.

Jesus did not pay any debt of any human beings as maintained by R H Kelkar. Jesus never died a cursed death on Cross as incorrectly invented by Paul at Rome to misguide the Christian sheep. Jesus was not a scapegoat of Paul and his associated i.e., the Catholic Church.

If anybody has any debt, he shall have to pay it himself. When Paul propounded this philosophy, Jesus was at that time traveling in India, happily among his Jewish lost sheep of which he was also a shepherd. He was never a shepherd of the Gentiles; this is a concept wrongly ascribed to Jesus; this debt Paul shall have to pay for.

OTBible Says:

Son of God

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. JOHN 3.16

A DESCRIPTIVE TERM:
And they made a proclamation in Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of captivity. EZRA 10.7

Then said he, These are the two sons of oil, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. ZECHARIA 4.14

Behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial [satin], beset the house round about. JUDGES 19.22

The good seed are the children of the kingdom. MATTHEW 13.38

JESUS NOT THE FIRST BORN SON:

ANGELS
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan was among them. JOB 1.6 & 2:1

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. JOB 38.7

CHILDREN OF RIGHTEOUS:
That the sons of god saw the daughters of men that they were fair. GENESIS 6.2

THE ISRAELITES:

And thou shalt say to Pharaoh. Thus said the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born. EXODUS 4.22

And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. EXODUS 4.23

You are the children of the Lord, your God. DEUTERONOMY 14.1

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea. Ye are the sons of the living God. HOSEA 1.10

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/biblical/chapter_4.html

Ahmadiyya under guidance of the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 Says:

• The Term “Son of God”

While the term “Son of God” has been used in reference to Jesus, it should be noted that God has used this title for many of His chosen ones.

For example, God, in the Old Testament refers to David: “I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’” * (Psalm 2:7)

Furthermore, in a New Testament genealogy, Adam is listed as the “Son of God” (Luke 3.38).

In fact, some may argue that Adam could have a greater claim over the “Sonship of God” because, unlike Jesus, he had neither an earthly father nor mother.

In order to reconcile these references and many others, it is not unreasonable to conclude, that the Biblical usage of the term “Son of God” does not necessarily connote a literal “sonship to God” but a metaphorical one instead.

The Nature of Jesus

This metaphorical understanding is furthered by Jesus’ own words and actions. Jesus is known to have engaged in many human devotional activities such as fasting and praying. But perhaps the most significant evidence is that Jesus claimed to lack knowledge of the future because, as he claimed, only the Father possessed perfect knowledge. (Mark 13:32).

This is especially notable since Christian doctrine holds the view that Jesus’ nature is a “hypostatic union”. That is, he was “fully divine” and “fully man” at the same time. If this were true, then he should have at no point denied his own omniscience.

These, in addition to other philosophical considerations, lead one to question the biblical term “Son of God” and its literal application to Jesus.

http://www.alislam.org/topics/jesus/

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Ask paarsurrey:When did the concept of atonement begin?

November 14, 2008

WordPress has reported today in Search Engine Terms: “These are terms people used to find your blog”, and have asked from me : “When did the concept of atonement begin?”

Paarsurrey says:

The fact is that sin existed from the time the first human being was named a human being. To err is human and only God is divine. The person who errs or sins cannot be God. There cannot be a perfect man and perfect God in one personage, which is only mythical and not real. Is there a possibility of a perfect horse as well as a perfect human? No possibility at all. They are different species.

This is a thing which could only come to the mind of a clever Paul and his likes in others religions. When a religion is mislead and becomes deviant from believing in ONENESS of GodAllahParmesherYHWH, such mythical and paradoxical notions somehow get into their minds. The source of such notions cannot and is never divine.

Some times ago I wrote a post in my blog which I copy paste here for viewers of this blog:

https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/the-concept-of-sin-and-atonement-not-based-on-anything-jesus-said-did-or-taught/

The Concept of Sin and Atonement not based on anything Jesus said, did or taught

The Muslim thinking on atonement is broad based and is not literally linked to the story of Adam and Eve as narrated by the Jewish/Christian scriptures:-

• All human beings are born innocent. After birth or more pertinently after the age when a person is mature enough to distinguish right from the evil, every person is responsible for his actions sinful or otherwise. If he repents before God for his sins and resolves before Him that he would not do it again; God in his mercy and in his sole discretion could pardon him. If God pardons then the person is like the one who has done no sin.

• All prophets -the perfect men; are innocent and not sinful and that is why they are chosen by God as His messengers to humanity (from Adam to Abraham to Moses to Jesus, from Krishna to Buddha to Muhammad) all prophets of God are respectful persons and innocent and not sinful.

My present submissions are not intended against the real person Jesus s/o Mary -the perfect human being; but it is intended against the mythical Orthodox/Catholic Christian faith who deify Jesus and present him as Son of God or God. This is solely done to bring such persons to realize the points where they made the mistakes so that they could update their faith based on facts, scientific knowledge, reason and rationality.

I agree on many points with the views of certain moderate Christians who believe that God does not play favorites. He loves all His children equally. No just parent would hold their children accountable for what the children did not know .But unlike the orthodox/Catholic Christians, the moderate Christians do not believe that people who are not Christians are condemned automatically. Their thinking is very close to the human psyche that has not changed much from the time of Adam to date.

To elaborate the point I present what Mirza Tahir Ahmad has stated on the issue:

Muslims believe that all divine books are based on eternal truth and none can make any claims contrary to that. When we come across inconsistencies and contradictions in any so called divinely revealed book, our attitude is not that of total denial and rejection but that of cautious and sympathetic examination. Most of the statements of the Old Testament and the New Testament, which we find at variance with the truth of nature, we either try to reconcile by reading some underlying cryptic or metaphoric message, or reject part of the text as the work of human hands rather than that of God.

While Christianity itself was true, it could not have contained any distortions, unacceptable facts or beliefs giving a lie to nature. That is why we started not with the textual examination but with the fundamentals themselves, which through centuries of consensus have become indisputable components of Christian philosophy. Rudimentary among them are the Christian understanding of Sin and Atonement. I would much rather believe that someone, somewhere during the history of Christianity, misunderstood things and tried to interpret them in the light of his knowledge and misled the following generations because of that.

The reader must be reminded here that this concept of inherited sin is only a Pauline misinterpretation. It cannot be rightfully attributed to the teachings of the Old Testament. There is an over-whelming evidence t to the c contrary in many books of the Old Testament.

In the fifth century, Augustine the Bishop of Hippo; was involved in a confrontation with the Pelagian movement, concerning the controversy of the nature of the fall of Adam and Eve. He proclaimed the Pelagian movement as being heretical because it taught that Adam’s sin affected only himself and not the human race as a whole; that every individual is born free of sin and is capable in his own power of living a sinless life and that there had even been persons who had succeeded in doing so.
Those in the right were labeled as heretics. Day was denounced as night and night as day. Heresy is truth and truth heresy.

From the above, it becomes comfortingly clear that the concepts of Inherited Sin and of Crucifixion are based only on the conjecture and wishful thinking of Christian theologians at a later date. It is quite likely that it was born out of some pre-Christian myths of a similar nature, which, when applied to the circumstances of Jesus Christ, tempted them to read close similarities between the two and create a similar myth. However, whatever the mystery or paradox, as we see it, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Christian philosophy of Sin and Atonement was based on anything which Jesus might have said or done or taught. He could never have preached anything so contrary to, and so diametrically opposed to human intellect.

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/index.html

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html

http://www.alislam.org/

Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim