There are many books that speak of the inerrancy of the Bible (Bibliography available upon request). The Bible also talks about Ishmael the father of the Arab race. God told Hagar to go back from running away from Abraham and Sarah. He said Ishmael was going to be very strong (Donkey of a man) with him against very man and very man against him. That is what I believe we see today - the Arab race against every man and every man against him. That is Biblical prophesy in action today. Jesus comes from the seed of Isaac and Ishmael comes for the seed of Ishmael Jehovah spoke in Isaiah 45:23 and said “I have sworn by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear.” Colossians 2:9 States that in Christ dwells all of The Godhead fully. Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. In Jn. 13:19 Jesus declares himself “ I am” To the Jews he does it again by saying before Abraham was “I am” That is some pretty strong evidence according to the Bible that is inerrant by the hand of the Almighty that Jesus will tear down very imagination that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickness in high places. This is all said according to Scripture and can be backed up as such.
Would it not be logical that any refutations would have "disappeared" if the Church that Paul formed had become stronger than Christianity?
Would it not also seem logical the other apostles would have a lot to say if this guy Paul was running about misguiding people about the teachings they spent three years being a witness to?
Perhaps any writing from the other apostles could have disappeared if he could have orchestrated such a wide effort in that part of the world by himself, or with the help of conspirators.
In the reformation and enlightenment periods we still have writings of the Wesleys, Whitefield and others where they debated doctrinal issues. Much later in history true, but I think that would be representative of a situation in which one man would differ so greatly from the other Christians of the time.
I think a more likely scenario if Paul was that out of control, is his deceptive writings would have caused division and the formation of a denomination apart from what the other apostles believed.
I think a more likely scenario if Paul was that out of control, is his deceptive writings would have caused division and the formation of a denomination apart from what the other apostles believed.
And that is what I believe happened. Check out some of the other apostolic religions that did not go with Paul. The Sabiens are basicaly Apostolic Christians that did not accept Paul. If I recall correctly so are the Coptics. But, I may be wrong about the Coptics. Most of what I know about them is they have retained much of the Aramaic scriptures.
I'm fine, thank you. Just got back from day with my son.
Hope your day was fruitiful.
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
What I mean is, there's no version of scripture that says Jesus lived three years claiming only to be a prophet.
What we do have in the Bible is passages and writings there are the writings that clearly indicate Jesus was a human being like me and you, this is why most people would say 100% Man.. but then they say 100% God. This second 100% is, or seems to be based on verses which could have many interpretations, some logical and some not. What I say is, those verses if taken within context of scripture show us that yes Jesus was a man like you and me, which most would agree on, but they do not show he is almighty God, those verses, if taken in context, do not neccesitate a God Jesus. Rather can mean a Man who was accredited by God to the Israel Men and through whom God done many wonders.
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
There's no existing old scriptures that when translated change any basic messages in the Bible.
Are you sure? There are manuscripts which have verses which provide evidence for the Trinity, or verses of the resurrection in some Gospels which were not there before. I'll answer this within the next part:
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
What proof is there that it's been changed? The list of 101 contradictions I've seen just doesn't wash with me. There's 101 refutations also.
With regards to the contradictions, if you have seen the refutation, which we I think could discuss but I don't see a need. If you have seen it then you agree that there are some genuine mistakes in the Bible. I will play along, and even if they are only copiest errors, then you'll agree that the Bible is not infallible, mistakes can creep in there.
As for the proof of it's changing, what we do have is proof of changes made, we have manuscripts which show us verses which were not in older manuscripts. We have places where the copier might have felt he needed to change the image of Jesus so he added a word or so to make Jesus look better. What does this show us? It shows us that people in charge, if they felt they needed to could make amendments to the scripture.
Furthermore, we have the fact that within the gospels, the 3 which are on common grounds, themselves the stories change and Jesus is made to look better with the later the gospel. This is again another strong sign of manupilation.
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
Even the idea that Paul went about changing the gospel to fit his needs. I'm sure the other 11 would have reigned him in once they saw he was not representing the three years they all spent with Jesus.
Your thoughts?
Thanks once again.
I don't think, or rather, I don't have a view on Paul alot of people blame him for things, but I'll keep quiet as for now. The history of Paul and the rest is something which in my view needs more study for me, I have not focoused on it alot.
What I will say is with regards to your statement 'I'm sure the other 11 would have reigned him in once they saw he was not representing the three years they all spent with Jesus.'
What makes you think they did not? Rather I have heard some did try, rather that there were confrontations.
But when you read the bible now, we read it as one book, as a book of men who all commonly shared a belief who all regarded each other as family. Rather, when one takes an objective look, he might find evidences for a difference.
But as I said this again is something which someone will need to dedicate time to study.
Please give me your thoughts.
Last edited by Umar001; 04-01-2007 at 12:10 PM.
The path is long but I hope we meet,
After the grave and the Day, in paradise in bliss upon a reclined seat.
A traveler traveling - travelled from shirk to tawheed,
If I'm remembered for anything - let it be the Mercy I seek.
Jesus is the Only Son of God who was crucified for my sins, and he rose again on the third day. Jesus has been given all authority and power over heaven and Earth.
These are my beliefs, and I use the word beliefs because I cannot prove it to anyone else who does not want to believe. We may have passionate beliefs about our own faith, but we must learn to accept that others will also be passionate about their opposing beliefs.
In the spirit of praying to a loving and forgiving God,
Eric
Your confession for Christ matches mine. It is trut that we cannot prove our beliefs to those who don't want believe; we can't prove them even if they want to believe. It is only each persons' individual faith that is the proof for them. And that faith comes by hearing the Word. I have accepted that others will be just as passionate about their belief as I am about mine, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded. Thanks,
Paul said, "Woe unto me if I don't preach the gospel." I feel this same Woe. However, I am also trying to respect forum rules and sticking to the
topic. Please be patient with me; this is a learning process me.
Blessings
aj
If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was allegedly dead and buried?
If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was allegedly dead and buried? how did the universe continue to exist? the driver is dead but the juggernaut keeps travelling, pilot has snuffed it the aircraft keeps flying. yeah right! very logical
If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was allegedly dead and buried? how did the universe continue to exist? the driver is dead but the juggernaut keeps travelling, pilot has snuffed it the aircraft keeps flying. yeah right! very logical
I need to pray before i answer you. I will get back to the question.
Thanks aj
Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22.
Solomon is God's son "He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14.
Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?).
Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38.
Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2
In the early days of Christianity there were several separate groups that differed in there belief as to what the Bible said. There were many books being used. it was not until 393 that the strongest of the groups set the rules as to what the NT should be..
The New Testament Canon
-----------------------
When the Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 listed the twenty-seven books of the New
Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already
possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity. The
ruling of the Synod of Hippo was repromulgated four years later by the Third
Synod of Carthag.
By then the teachings of Paul and the Early Roman Catholics had become dominate, so it was the writings that supported them that were established as being true. This was a case of establishing a belief and then selecting that which will support it and toss aside that which did not support it.
It is like picking out blue prints for a house after the house is built and only keeping those that have the most resemblance with what they built.
But, there were those who disagreed with the Authority of Paul and those who did not agree with what was accepted as authentic.
In the words of Ambrose Bierce it appears that Christianity is:"A group of people who sat down together 2,000 years ago for dinner, and have been arguing about what it was they ate ever since"
It seems nobody bothered to write down the menu until after the fact and each person who wrote the menu remembered it differently. It is going to be difficult to find any menus that does disagree with what has been preserved as they have long been destroyed.
I think it is interesting to see that over the centuries there have been several synods readjusting what does not agree with what is taught at any given time.
In the early days of Christianity there were several separate groups that differed in there belief as to what the Bible said. There were many books being used. it was not until 393 that the strongest of the groups set the rules as to what the NT should be..
By then the teachings of Paul and the Early Roman Catholics had become dominate, so it was the writings that supported them that were established as being true. This was a case of establishing a belief and then selecting that which will support it and toss aside that which did not support it.
It is like picking out blue prints for a house after the house is built and only keeping those that have the most resemblance with what they built.
But, there were those who disagreed with the Authority of Paul and those who did not agree with what was accepted as authentic.
In the words of Ambrose Bierce it appears that Christianity is:"A group of people who sat down together 2,000 years ago for dinner, and have been arguing about what it was they ate ever since"
It seems nobody bothered to write down the menu until after the fact and each person who wrote the menu remembered it differently. It is going to be difficult to find any menus that does disagree with what has been preserved as they have long been destroyed.
I think it is interesting to see that over the centuries there have been several synods readjusting what does not agree with what is taught at any given time.
I must respectfully disagree with some things here.
Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight new testament books in a letter in 95AD. Ignatius of Antioch also acknowledged seven books in 115. Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books in 108. Hippolytus (170-235AD) recognized 22 books. The Muratorian Canon (170AD), was a compilation of books except Hebrews, James and one epistle of John. Athenasius wrote in 367 AD and cited the 27 books now present in the new testament as being the only true books. The same 27 were recognized at the councils of Laodicea, Hippo, and Carthage. History does not indicate there was large scale disagreement with Paul that was settled by throwing out writings that did not agree with him.
The tests of Canon gathered from early Christian writings were apostolicity, read in the churches, doctrinal contents of a book that was a recording of the oral creeds passed on by the apostles, recognition and use by the early church fathers, the ability of the book to edity, witness of the spirit.
I found much of this in a book I am reading about some of the early history of the church entitled "The Church and Western Culture, an introduction to church history" by Tom Streeter.
Peace Don, no problem with us disagreeing. It is very much appreciated that your disagreements are with dignity and respect.
I must state that Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hippolytus were all Popes and used Papal Infallibility to establish those as being true. Were the Popes Infallible?
What we do have in the Bible is passages and writings there are the writings that clearly indicate Jesus was a human being like me and you, this is why most people would say 100% Man.. but then they say 100% God. This second 100% is, or seems to be based on verses which could have many interpretations, some logical and some not. What I say is, those verses if taken within context of scripture show us that yes Jesus was a man like you and me, which most would agree on, but they do not show he is almighty God, those verses, if taken in context, do not neccesitate a God Jesus. Rather can mean a Man who was accredited by God to the Israel Men and through whom God done many wonders.
Are you sure? There are manuscripts which have verses which provide evidence for the Trinity, or verses of the resurrection in some Gospels which were not there before. I'll answer this within the next part:
With regards to the contradictions, if you have seen the refutation, which we I think could discuss but I don't see a need. If you have seen it then you agree that there are some genuine mistakes in the Bible. I will play along, and even if they are only copiest errors, then you'll agree that the Bible is not infallible, mistakes can creep in there.
As for the proof of it's changing, what we do have is proof of changes made, we have manuscripts which show us verses which were not in older manuscripts. We have places where the copier might have felt he needed to change the image of Jesus so he added a word or so to make Jesus look better. What does this show us? It shows us that people in charge, if they felt they needed to could make amendments to the scripture.
Furthermore, we have the fact that within the gospels, the 3 which are on common grounds, themselves the stories change and Jesus is made to look better with the later the gospel. This is again another strong sign of manupilation.
I don't think, or rather, I don't have a view on Paul alot of people blame him for things, but I'll keep quiet as for now. The history of Paul and the rest is something which in my view needs more study for me, I have not focoused on it alot.
What I will say is with regards to your statement 'I'm sure the other 11 would have reigned him in once they saw he was not representing the three years they all spent with Jesus.'
What makes you think they did not? Rather I have heard some did try, rather that there were confrontations.
But when you read the bible now, we read it as one book, as a book of men who all commonly shared a belief who all regarded each other as family. Rather, when one takes an objective look, he might find evidences for a difference.
But as I said this again is something which someone will need to dedicate time to study.
Please give me your thoughts.
Yes, I do not question the notion of some errors in the Bible.
I have looked at the gospels without the writings of Paul. Sure seems to me the same message is there. For example in Luke 24, it is recorded Jesus opened their minds to the scriptures and told them It is written Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name.....
Now I know there are answering Christianity websites out there that insist the forgiveness of sins was something God delegated to Jesus.......and Islam teaches Jesus didn't really die.....Perhaps we are in a circle here. I do not mean to waste your time. I also should study this more.
It is very difficult to compare Islam and Christianity. The biggest problem is we do not have a common source to present our arguments from and we both believe the other's source is in error.
No matter what we say here, it always comes back to our individual responsibility. We need to do all we can to verify to ourselves that what we believe is the truth and then be willing to accept the rewards or consequences of what we believe.
If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was dead and buried? how did the universe continue to exist? the driver is dead but the juggernaut keeps travelling forward without squishing any and everything in its path, pilot has snuffed it the aircraft keeps flying.
P.S this is the last repitition I'm making since I'm/my posts are invisible
It is very difficult to compare Islam and Christianity. The biggest problem is we do not have a common source to present our arguments from and we both believe the other's source is in error.
No matter what we say here, it always comes back to our individual responsibility. We need to do all we can to verify to ourselves that what we believe is the truth and then be willing to accept the rewards or consequences of what we believe.
Well said. Not that you need it, but you certainly have my respect.
Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22.
Solomon is God's son "He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14.
Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?).
Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38.
Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2
Jacob was considered the firstborn, but he wasn't really the first born - Essau was. If you do a lexical study on the word firstborn / only begotten in most of these contexts you quoted - it is referring to the one that is dearest and the one with God;s blessing. Essau did not get the blessing but sold it. Ishmael was first born, but the blessing of the firstborn rested on Isaac. I also believe that is the way the term was and is used for Jesus. Lets look at what is written in Isaiah 53 which clearly lines up with everything about Jesus: Who hath believed our report and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed...
Jacob was considered the firstborn, but he wasn't really the first born - Essau was. If you do a lexical study on the word firstborn / only begotten in most of these contexts you quoted - it is referring to the one that is dearest and the one with God;s blessing. Essau did not get the blessing but sold it. Ishmael was first born, but the blessing of the firstborn rested on Isaac. I also believe that is the way the term was and is used for Jesus. Lets look at what is written in Isaiah 53 which clearly lines up with everything about Jesus: Who hath believed our report and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed...
Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
Well said. Not that you need it, but you certainly have my respect.
Whether we are willing or not we are not free from the consquences of our choices, but we are free to choose what we believe and do. If there is a prophet greater than Jesus may God reveal that in my heart today. If Jesus is not my creator or if He shouldn't be the object of my worship, then may the Almighty God shine in my heart today to displace the darkness of deception. However, If Jesus should be the object of our worship may He shine like the bright morning sun on all Muslims.
If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was dead and buried? how did the universe continue to exist? the driver is dead but the juggernaut keeps travelling forward without squishing any and everything in its path, pilot has snuffed it the aircraft keeps flying.
P.S this is the last repitition I'm making since I'm/my posts are invisible
We cannot understand how God can always exisit with no beginning; we cannot understand were the wind is coming from or where it is going; we cannot understand how Jesus could raise the dead. We cannot explain the eternal things of God with the finite ways of man. God is a spirit not flesh and blood. It is written that all things were made by Jesus and for Him and all things are held together by the Word of God - that is Jesus according to the Bible. I will glading accept the responsibility for believing such things.
Here's a question for thought which I feel is related to this topic. Two people are near death. One has a healthy brain but needs a body to survive, and the other a healthy body but needs a brain to survive. If the healthy body is given the healthy brain, what would be the identity of the transplant survivor, that of the one who donated the body, or of the one that donated the brain?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Re: Jesus prophet or God
Re: Jesus prophet or God
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks