format_quote Originally Posted by
YEh
Me too. :)
It took me ages to get the grips of quoting on this board, I know it can be a headache but try to seperate it I get abit confused.
format_quote Originally Posted by
YEh
Well I think he was. But he was created divine and became a decaying, human when he was cast from Eden. Jesus has always been, he was not created. That's the difference.
Well that's your presumption, thats ok, but the way you presented the case before it was pleading to a miracle to indicate the speciality of someone. But if you just say you believe Jesus was this and that thats ok, when you try to bring a logical reasoning to it thats where I oppose, specially to the one before.
format_quote Originally Posted by
YEh
Well the statement was actually "What other prophet was born in this special way ? And you still believe that he is just another prophet".
So you don't think it significant that every prophet was born normally from a man and woman. And then the Messiah is born from a virgin by the Holy Spirit of God.
This definately signifies something different to me and anyone else if you compare his birth honestly.
I don't know if you missed it, but using the miracle of the Birth means Nothing, I have asked you if you would consider an athiest who was healed by God to be better than a christian who was not healed by God, do you?
Furthermore, Prophet Adaam was born without mother or father, beats being born without Father but Mother, on top of that from Adam came eve, thats even bigger miracle.
format_quote Originally Posted by
YEh
That's right but the NT authors knew how to interpret it so that it made sense.
They quoted fulfilled prophecies from the OT that mirrored Jesus's life. Only Jesus has fulfilled the many prophecies that the Jews were waiting for at the time of his life on earth.
And he will fulfill the rest when he returns.
But some Jews still followed Jesus, some of the apostles were Jewish.
This is God speaking about his SON and Israel's rebellion. It is a direct mention of God having a Son in the OT (Judaism).
The prophecy states very clearly that GOD has a Son and he will call him out of Egypt.
Let's see if Jesus fulfilled this prophecy since we already know that Christians believe Jesus is God' Son.
You see, if you leave our minds behind then there's no point in discussion, that'll be my condition.
What we have is this, the author of Matthew writes quotes this;
Matthew 2:15
where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."
And the author was talking about Jesus being called out of Egypt, so Jesus is taken out of Egypt, and then the author writes, 'And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son". So it is clear, the author is using this as a prophecy of Jesus. The author even leaves part of the verse out, the part which shows it's not talking about Jesus but Israel.
A blatant misquotation, now if you want to re interpret it in a way which nullifies any sort of thinking we as humans have then you can but anyone can do that with anything and make it mean anything. The verse tells us who the Son is, it's Israel, but the author of Matthew left that part of the verse out and misquoted it to apply it to Jesus.
format_quote Originally Posted by
YEh
Now are you going to dismiss the fact that the OT agree's with Christian belief ?
The above has nothing to do with the differences in the Bible, that was just showing the unreliability of the authors since in his zeal he tried to use something out of context to prove a 'prophecy'.
format_quote Originally Posted by
YEh
Ooops, I shouldn't have said that. I was thinking of something else that was a copiest erorr, my mistake. That Mark extension is obviously added later, maybe because the collection of Jesus's stories were ongoing as more witnesses were questioned.
No worries, who added it and was it inspired? And what substantiates your theory that it was more witnesses accounts?
format_quote Originally Posted by
YEh
Well I explain them as each person wrote down about Jesus according to their own experience and testimonies of witnesses. If 4 people all write about an event that took place they will never be 100% correct. Ever read different articles in different newspapers of the same event. They always mention things differently in different lights, ommit certain details and add some more to the story as they hear it compared to others.
That's one theory, what proof have you got for that theory? I would consider your theory if it was not for the fact that the changes are
constant!
format_quote Originally Posted by
YEh
What about the abbrogations in the Quran. Did God change his mind, or if it was slowly abbrogated for other teachings. How confusing does the message become to the un-enlightened ?
This concept is very dangerous.
Lol, it is most illogical to compare the Bible and the Qu'ran when speaking of evolution within the text since the Bible is a compilation of Books which were seperate and later joined, authored by different people, whereas the Qu'ran was finished and all come through Muhammad, peace be upon him.
format_quote Originally Posted by
YEh
What about the Hadith traditions to Quran contradictions.
I don't know if you are familiar with what a hadith is, if there is a supposed hadith which is put forward but it contradicts the Qu'ran then the validity of that Hadith is deemed to be false!!
format_quote Originally Posted by
YEh
Which is much more suspect than different personal accounts of the Bible, which are just small details.
The different accounts of the Gospels for examples do not differ on small details only, I am really begging to wonder how much indipendent reading you have done.
format_quote Originally Posted by
YEh
Behead people who insult Muhammad. He did this himself according to some traditions (Sahih).
Question: Why would the followers of Muhammad even write such things ? If they knew Muhammad and the Quran well enough to discount such violent commands. i.e. Muhammad couldn't have possibly killed a woman for insulting him. Muhammad's tradition writer: That's just absurd, let's not include that. Good idea.
That has just confused me, I don't know what you are on about.
format_quote Originally Posted by
YEh
Your accounts of events are not exactly perfect either. So I wouldn't bother about this issue.
Seriously, don't say dont bother before you tread the issue, your explanation of the evolution in the gospels was enough to show you dont know much about it, so why dismiss it?
So for the record, if you are able plus willing to check your presumptions to try to stick to a logical discussion then we can talk, if not then I don't see much point.
See and they see not, hear and they hear not.
Eesa