jesus knows no bible

[جوري]

This is simple. Jesus was a Jew and as such participated in the covenant that God made with Jews. But Jesus also very specifically stated that he was establishing a new covenant. This new covenant was not subservient to the old covenant and it was for all people not just those who were participants in the old covenant. Thus none, accept those who are part of the old covenant, are bound by any of the terms of the old covenant. Rather we are bound by the new covenant's terms which do NOT include any of the items you listed, except that I would submit it still remains monotheisitic.

I think the view of Most non-Christians, is that in order for Christianity to become state religion, it had in its formative period adopt and compromise with paganism and secularism and evolving into incomprehensible theology that echoed nothing of what true Abrahamic faith monotheists come to know and lived on for millenniums thus not only making it unappealing and unable to attract the ones to whom it was specifically for, it couldn't not resist the impact of developing sciences as folks can't shut logic from their beings and follow blindly without Q.. and hence the divorce between the two, you can't possible adopt one without being at odds with the other.. now given that sciences if somewhat provable but a theology of a three headed god into one isn't and somewhat at odds with logic itself, which do you think it not only appealing but more sensical to folks outside of Christianity?



all the best

 

[Supreme]

think the view of Most non-Christians, is that in order for Christianity to become state religion, it had in its formative period adopt and compromise with paganism and secularism and evolving into incomprehensible theology that echoed nothing of what true Abrahamic faith monotheists come to know and lived on for millenniums thus not only making it unappealing and unable to attract the ones to whom it was specifically for, it couldn't not resist the impact of developing sciences as folks can't shut logic from their beings and follow blindly without Q..

I personally agree with this. Christianity adapted to the lifestyles of the people who practised it, they did not have to adapt to it. Take the Greeks, for example. Before they recognized Christianity, they had statues of their gods around Greece. When they embraced Christianity, they managed to get around the commandment of not having idols by creating beautiful mosaics featuring Mary, Jesus and the Saints. To this day, such a Greek idea is prevelant and easily identifiable with the Eastern Orthodox Church, by all means now a worldwide institution with 150 million adherents globally. Each branch of Christianity has its own customs, culture and forms of worship that is identified with those many peoples who made Christianity their own. My own conclusion is that there is simply no right or wrong way to practise Christianity. It is not as simple as that. Nothing is as simple as that with Christianity, and nothing is as simple as that with God.

 

[Ramadhan]

This is simple. Jesus was a Jew and as such participated in the covenant that God made with Jews. But Jesus also very specifically stated that he was establishing a new covenant. This new covenant was not subservient to the old covenant and it was for all people not just those who were participants in the old covenant. Thus none, accept those who are part of the old covenant, are bound by any of the terms of the old covenant. Rather we are bound by the new covenant's terms which do NOT include any of the items you listed, except that I would submit it still remains monotheisitic.

Very early on in the life of the Church they wrestled with the question as to whether those who were coming to faith in Jesus were required to also join not Old Covenant to be participants in the New Covenant, and the answer to that question was an unequivocal "NO!" So, we don't put the burden of the old covenant on anyone any more.

There are some things held in common by both covenants, but restrictions on eating pork (or shellfish which is also against Jewish dietary laws) and the practice of circumcision were expressly excluded from the New Covenant.

You wrote that Jesus pbuh established new covenant, but it is clear from your explanation to anyone with a simple brain that the new covenant was estblished by the early priests.
So the current laws of christianity was mostly created by those priests, not by God.

 

[kidcanman]

i was awaiting answers from any christian.

then a number of muslims distracted everybody from the focus of the thread

with arguments and explanations of islam that have nothing to do with decernment or devine authority.

shame on those muslims for prohibiting anybody from answering my questions.

 

[Grace Seeker]

You wrote that Jesus pbuh established new covenant, but it is clear from your explanation to anyone with a simple brain that the new covenant was estblished by the early priests.
So the current laws of christianity was mostly created by those priests, not by God.

I disagree. Rather, I hold that it is clear from our scripture that Jesus himself is the one who established the new covenant: "In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.' " (Luke 22:20)

 

[Grace Seeker]

i was awaiting answers from any christian.

then a number of muslims distracted everybody from the focus of the thread

with arguments and explanations of islam that have nothing to do with decernment or devine authority.

shame on those muslims for prohibiting anybody from answering my questions.

You may have to repeat your question(s).

 

[kidcanman]

i pray that muslims can stay on topic and not get into debates about other topics in christianity, or defending islam.

 

[kidcanman]

1,000 views and not 1 person can show any reasonable validity behind the claim that the NT is devine.

it seems that if the NT were devine, then the proof would be widely known.

the proofs given thus far have been conclusively refuted. and not 1 christian has actively objected the refutations.

conclusion: jesus knows of no NT. it is not devine. nor does anybody have the right to make that claim.

 

[duskiness]

1,000 views and not 1 person can show any reasonable validity behind the claim that the NT is devine.

i'm not native speaker but I my language we never say that Bible is divine. No book is divine. Books may be inspired or hold by someone sacred, holy but that's probably enough. Correct me, but i have this strang feeling that also in English adjective "divine" is rarely use when describing Bible itself...

it seems that if the NT were devine, then the proof would be widely known.

the proofs given thus far have been conclusively refuted. and not 1 christian has actively objected the refutations.

Probably because you refute claims most christians don't make or consider that important.

conclusion: jesus knows of no NT.

agree. That's quite logical taken into consideration that NT was written after his death, isn't it?

it is not devine.

agree. God is divine. Bible is just inspired by God.

nor does anybody have the right to make that claim.

rarely who makes...happy now?

If, by any accident you're interested what many of us think about Bible (I know this is highly unlikely), you can check here

If you are a bit more lazy, let me point few things:
1) watch out when you use term "word of God" while talking to christians. We use it in 2 different meanings. Firstly, the Word of God is Jesus and not any writing. Secondly, Bible is called the word of God because it is inspired by God. But not because it is literally word of God (although I admit that there are some christians who may say so...but we all have our extremists, don't we?)

2) for us God's final revelation is not book, but once again Jesus himself. Bible is story about revaluation, collection of words about the Word.

Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

And if you ask how canon of NT was established, than the answer is: Tradition (of early Church).

 

[kidcanman]

i'm not native speaker but I my language we never say that Bible is divine. No book is divine. Books may be inspired or hold by someone sacred, holy but that's probably enough.

if you don't except the word "devine" and instead you call it "inspired" thats fine with me. I doubt its inspired and not 1 chritian has shown valid evidence that it is.

Probably because you refute claims most christians don't make or consider that important.

I conclusively refuted the claims that christians have made; addressed to me in this thread.

you say that the claims that the christians addressed to me so far are not important. i noticed that you did not provide the important claim that you implied that you have. it seems you have no authoritative reason for claiming that the bible is inspired.

agree. That's quite logical taken into consideration that NT was written after his death, isn't it?

jesus did not imply that something written after his death will be "inspired". agreed.

If, by any accident you're interested what many of us think about Bible (I know this is highly unlikely), you can check here

Im aware of what many christians think. not 1 christian has shown valid proof of why their thinking is legitimate.

if you ask how canon of NT was established, than the answer is: Tradition (of early Church).

tradition is not devine insperation. it is the flawed customs of men.

i doubt that the NT is the inspired word of god and, even with the benifit of the doubt, nobody is able to provide evidence that it is. there is no evidence.

 

[Grace Seeker]

if you don't except the word "devine" and instead you call it "inspired" thats fine with me. I doubt its inspired and not 1 chritian has shown valid evidence that it is.

Actually, we have shown that it is inspired. Inspiration is something that can be subjectively meausred. It is sort of like trying to prove the ocean is wet. It is because that feeling you get when sticking your hand in the ocean is what we mean by being wet, but if you don't accept that as being wet, then I can never prove to you that the ocean is different than what it in fact is. Likewise, we hold that the people who claimed where led as Jesus promised and as they claimed by the Spirit where indeed led by the Spirit. That means they were inspired. But if you aren't willing to accept the claim of being led by the Spirit as "proofe" of inspiration, then you're never going to be satisfied, because there is no other source of proof than acceptance of their word.

I submit to you it is the same level of "proof" that exists for your acceptance of the Qur'an being a recitation of Allah's word to Muhammad. But I'm sure that correspondence is lost on you. However, that you don't see it doesn't make it any less true.

jesus did not imply that something written after his death will be "inspired". agreed.

Jesus did say that his disciples would be led by the Spirit of truth into all truth. Whether you accept the argument or not, it threrefore follows in my way of thinking, that what the disciples shared with the church subsequent to that receiving that promise reflects this truth into which they have been led.

 

[kidcanman]

i will reply to this this evening inshaallah.

 

[Hugo]

The universe is built around seven themes ..
love, usury to swindle, coveting, a man who is bigoted, envious and planning to murder... that is why the expression 'as old as sin' exists.. Modern life hasn't changed the basic things about us. There is no reason to think that the law of man supersedes the law of God..

I don't find much to disagree with here as the basic rules of morality seem unchanged and I think are unchallengeable. However, circumstances have changed so I cannot feel the same about some of the laws about ritual or what I might call cultural. It seems slightly absurd to me to bring into morality as some do say the prohibition on music or whether a woman should cover her head.

But that isn't how non-christians see it.. none of us can wrap around the concept of three gods into one. And it really will remain a major Achilles for Christianity.

If we are to debate the issue of the trinity you can it least state it in the way that it is understood by Christian not invent your own definition - we speak of ONE god, three in one and one in three. One does not have to fully understand how this can be to believe it believe it. Try to be a little more open-minded, you I assume believe that Prophet Mohammed's heart was washed with snow - was this real or imaginary but to me either way it sounds an absurdity.

Yes, but don't you see that this is a disaster? Divorce by no means is loved by God, however it is very necessary at times, why should a woman or a man in an abusive relationship be made to suffer for a life time with no glimmer of hope that they can have a normal life with a compatible partner.. This law isn't made so we can fornicate with whomever whenever, rather as a lifeline and surprisingly the divorce rate really are highest amongst westerners who (if they were christian) should uphold this law, should technically endure longer in marriages..

The NT sets out rules for divorce and essentially they are based on the occurrence of infidelity. However, the best path is one woman and one man for life but of course I understand that sadly this is often or even mostly not the case. As far as divorce rates are concerned try looking at the for instance the UAE and I think you will find that bit is as bad as if not worse than any where in the West.

Thing is we can't do away with this law or that law because we find it a faux pas or because perez hilton would mouth us off as bigots.. Really God gave us the free will and the choice to live by his commandments or to 'modernize ourselves' under some sort of humanist threat of low IQ or stupidity or whatever else is used to bully people into a new world order.. ..

You may be right but you also seem to have a peculiar notion that Christians don't see the law as something to follow. This is quite wrong and you have to understand that one is not a Christian because of where you were born or who your parents are but because at some point you have made a definite commitment.

 

[Hugo]

1,000 views and not 1 person can show any reasonable validity behind the claim that the NT is devine. it seems that if the NT were devine, then the proof would be widely known.

What exactly would be a proof for you? Or if you cannot do that tell us what falsifies that claim?

the proofs given thus far have been conclusively refuted. and not 1 christian has actively objected the refutations.

I have looked through your posts and I cannot see anywhere a clear refutation of anything - that is unless we have to assume that a statement by you is a refutation?

conclusion: jesus knows of no NT. it is not devine. nor does anybody have the right to make that claim.

I am not sure what 'Jesus knows of no NT' means and based on this bit of logic "no one proved the NT to be divine therefore it is not divine" - I don't think you have any idea what it means to prove or disprove something.

To prove something in a scientific sense means that you have to be able at least in principle falsify it. To put it in simple terms how would you recognise that some data you have clearly show the whole theory to be false?

 

[kidcanman]

Inspiration is something that can be subjectively meausred. It is sort of like trying to prove the ocean is wet. It is because that feeling you get when sticking your hand in the ocean is what we mean by being wet, but if you don't accept that as being wet, then I can never prove to you that the ocean is different than what it in fact is. Likewise, we hold that the people who claimed where led as Jesus promised and as they claimed by the Spirit where indeed led by the Spirit. That means they were inspired. But if you aren't willing to accept the claim of being led by the Spirit as "proof" of inspiration, then you're never going to be satisfied, because there is no other source of proof than acceptance of their word.

any group of people can claim that their judgement is perfectly inspired by god. if some people were to make that claim they would then have to cite how they know this. for example: god revealed it to us in the form of a book. or jesus told us.

if a person claims that their judgement is perfectly inspired by god and they do so without any external devine authority; then that person is claiming that they are a messenger of god (like moses or abraham).

christians must provide devine proof apart from "their word" to affirm that they are "led by the spirit"; unless you all claim to be prophets of god on the level of moses or abraham.

your entire argument above balances upon your statement: "as jesus promised".

You provided me with the quote where jesus "promised" that christians will be guided by the holy spirit. i refuted it (post #17), and you did not respond to my refutation. i assume you don't have an adequate response.

I submit to you it is the same level of "proof" that exists for your acceptance of the Qur'an being a recitation of Allah's word to Muhammad. But I'm sure that correspondence is lost on you. However, that you don't see it doesn't make it any less true.

my argument is that there is no devine authority by which to conclude that the NT is inspired. if jesus referenced the NT then that would be devine authority. muhammad referenced the quran. so, if muhammed is a prophet of god, then the quran is an inspired book.

we are not debating weather muhammad is a prophet, nor are we debating weather jesus is the son of god.

Jesus did say that his disciples would be led by the Spirit of truth into all truth.

i refuted this quote before and you did not respond. it seems as though this quote is the only evidence by which christians claim that the NT is inspired. i will address this quote this evening inshaallah.

 

[kidcanman]

What exactly would be a proof for you? Or if you cannot do that tell us what falsifies that claim?

Proof for me would be if the book stated that it is from god. or if jesus prophesied (mentioned) the coming of the book. or if you could show me where god told somebody else that the NT writings are inspired by him.

what makes the claim false is: a normal man does not have the right to assert that certain writings are inspired by god unless he can cite devine authority (jesus/scriptures).

I have looked through your posts and I cannot see anywhere a clear refutation of anything - that is unless we have to assume that a statement by you is a refutation?

people challenged other poster's refutations in order to clear up errors. nobody actively challenged my refutations and so i assumed that there is nothing to clear up.

I am not sure what 'Jesus knows of no NT' means and based on this bit of logic "no one proved the NT to be divine therefore it is not divine" - I don't think you have any idea what it means to prove or disprove something.

To prove something in a scientific sense means that you have to be able at least in principle falsify it. To put it in simple terms how would you recognise that some data you have clearly show the whole theory to be false?

The thoery that the NT is inspired by god is false because in order to make that claim one must either be inspired by god themself, or they must be able to cite where a devine source collaborates their claim.

show me how the claim can be legitimately affirmed in a valid way. or how christians are inspired, or where they accurately cite devine authority.

 

[Grace Seeker]

You provided me with the quote where jesus "promised" that christians will be guided by the holy spirit. i refuted it (post #17), and you did not respond to my refutation. i assume you don't have an adequate response.

It hardly qualifies as refutation to say:

"the spirit will guide you to all truth" can be interpreted in many ways. perhaps the fall of contemporary christianity is the "guidence". perhaps the fall of contemporary islam.

Taken as a whole, Jesus' promise of the sending and work of the Holy Spirit is a credible indwelling by which Jesus disciples will be led and able to lead others:

John 14:17
the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26
"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Further, based on Acts 1:2 we know that Jesus gave instructions to his disciples through the Holy Spirit -- that means by the agency of the Holy Spirit. In other words, what Jesus' disciples know they know directly from God --for the Holy Spirit is the presence of God (YWHW) who dwells imminently within us.

Then Acts 2 shows that indeed the Spirit did turn these disciples into prophets. And not only the disciples, but all who are in Christ receive various gifts from the Spirit, and that includes others being declared as prophets.

According to Acts 15, this gift of the Holy Spirit is evidence from God of one's acceptance by God for his fulfilling God's purposes. Now, if you believe that God's purposes are to spread disinformation, then fine. But I find such a view incredulous. So, accept the overall veracity of these folks who wrote what became the NT. I also acknowledge that this same Spirit was present in the church (which I accept to be the body of Christ in the world today), so that by this Spirit of Christ present in the Church the Church is able to speak with the authority of Christ in declaratory statements such as not imposing the need for Gentiles to ritually become Jews in order to be recognized as followers of the way of Christ, and in declaring which of the writings of the early Christian Church would be classified as fit for determining the rule of faith and practice (i.e., canon) and which would not be so classified.

Noiw, it is most certainly an act of faith that we accept that Acts is a crediible historical witness. But I am willing to do that based on what we know of the life of those presented to us in it's pages -- that they not only testified to the resurrection of Jesus but that they were unwilling to deny that testimony even though they knew it would cost them their lives to not deny it. And from that act of faith and acceptance on my part, the rest of the testimony for their being led by the Spirit follows as being true as well. That being true, then the testimony they provide in written form becomes something I am willing to accept.

Might the whole thing be created as a yarn spun out of the air? Possibly. But then I would have expected to see those yarn spinners say it was just that and nothing more when their lives hung in the balance. I would have expected them to in the end go along with everyone else who recognized Ceasar as Lord, rather than suffer death for proclaiming Jesus as Lord. Second and third generation converts could have been deluded. But the disciples, would have known that it was all a scam, and still they willing put their lives on the line for a lie that would merit them no earthly rewards. So, I accept that they were witness of something bigger than life itself and led by the Spirit to share that story with the rest of the world. And from the sharing what we know as the NT was produced.

Those who wrote the NT were not just inspired authors, they lived inspired lives. I'm not claiming that God wrote through them (certainly not the dication of word for word form of authorship), I'm claiming that God lived in them, and from that relationship I trust what they have written as being valuable for me to learn how to live in a similar relationship with God as well. That's what it means to say that the Bible is inspired, that God's spirit has directed other men to share out of their own life experience of striving to live holy lives how I might do so as well.

 

[kidcanman]

It hardly qualifies as refutation to say

I agree. i was actually thinking of post #36.
i think even that post is not a good enough refutation.

i will supply an additional refutation and respond to the remainder of your latest post shortly

 

[duskiness]

Kidcanman,

may you should write how you define "inspired", and how you expect it to be "proven"?
Because I have this feeling that we see it a bit differently...

tradition is not devine insperation. it is the flawed customs of men

- everything in this world is flawed. that's the trick

 

[Hugo]

Proof for me would be if the book stated that it is from god. or if jesus prophesied (mentioned) the coming of the book. or if you could show me where god told somebody else that the NT writings are inspired by him.

You cannot really be serious here - just because a book 'says' it is from God YOU would take it as proof? Look at your second point, 'Jesus prophesied..' well we would ONLY know that if some one recorded it in a book ... your standards of proof are frankly unthoughtful to say the least.

what makes the claim false is: a normal man does not have the right to assert that certain writings are inspired by god unless he can cite devine authority (jesus/scriptures).

This does not make sense - in what way would he cite divine authority except by stating it and if he did such a thing how can we check on his claim for authority.

people challenged other poster's refutations in order to clear up errors. nobody actively challenged my refutations and so i assumed that there is nothing to clear up.

If your refutations are of the same quality as your proofs there would be nothing to say as their falsity would be self-evident.

The theory that the NT is inspired by god is false because in order to make that claim one must either be inspired by god themself, or they must be able to cite where a divine source collaborates their claim.

This is absurd and circular - according to you all that is needed to be inspired is to be inspired? If there is another source of collaboration then one supposes that also must be inspired so IT would need collaboration and so on an infinitum

show me how the claim can be legitimately affirmed in a valid way. or how Christians are inspired, or where they accurately cite devine authority.

I know of no such scientific way - all one can say is that the Christian scriptures compiled over about 1,600 years with about 40 different authors and many different styles of writing have an unmistakeable unity to them. After that it is up to you to read them for yourself and this is where faith plays its part in that as we read we may perhaps feel God reaching out to us.

Perhaps you may find the famous Thomas Paine conjecture will allow you to see why this is all difficult and why faith is central.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, [so] it is a revelation only to that person. [It follows it is] hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe. ​

This applies to every prophet including Mohammed