Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: The Holy Gospel did not evolve! Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 74 Next >>
Author Message
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 28 May 2011 at 6:22am
Dear Ron,
 
I'd like to quote your whole post in green because, well, you will see...
 
Each of the six men are truly wrong if you look at each of their conclusions.  But if you look at them in terms of their observations, and their "conclusions" as simply an analogy to help describe their observations, then they are spot on conrrect.   At any rate, my commentary on your post is in red... 
 
I have read that little story before, though never as a poem and I don't think ever as an analogy for the Trinity. The first time I read it in high school, I knew exactly that it was an analogy to the Holy Trinity.  It's somewhat amusing to use it in this context because in fact each of the six men is wrong.  Not so.  Each is exactly right.  Think about it...  None of them is describing the elephant; each is describing only a part of the elephant.  EXACTLY!!!  And all the parts together make one whole elephant!  Therefore the analogy only works if you assume that it is wrong to describe Jesus as God.  Again, not so.  Just as each of the parts described are but multiple aspects of the one elephant, so also Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and Yahweh are together different aspects or "personages" of one God. He is no more God than a tusk or a tail is an elephant.  He is only a part of God, and a distinct part from the Father and the Ghost.  Exactly.  Just as we say that the tail is the tail of the elephant, so also we say that Jesus is the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.  You may understand and believe more of the truth than you know.
 
Great post, Ron.  You seem to be a very thoughtful person, and inteligent.
 
Now, to connect this all back to the theme of this string of posts:  Our Muslim brothers say that the contradictions in the New Testament are evidence of evolution of the scriptures, because what contradicts the claims of the Holy Qur'an (they say this part was patched in centuries later) also contradicts what was orriginal and correct in the New Testament.  But Catholics do not see any contradictions as my commentary of the peom above illustrates.  Therefore, the whole argument that contradiction is evidence of evolution of scripture just doesn't make any sense:  because there are no contradictions.
 
God Bless you, Ron,
 
Jack Catholic


Edited by Jack Catholic - 28 May 2011 at 11:15am
IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1844
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 29 May 2011 at 9:35am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Originally posted by Ron Webb

He is no more God than a tusk or a tail is an elephant.  He is only a part of God, and a distinct part from the Father and the Ghost.
Exactly.  Just as we say that the tail is the tail of the elephant, so also we say that Jesus is the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.

And "God the Father" is actually the Father of God, right?  (Why do we never hear that? Wink)  How interesting that God has a father.  Oh wait -- God is the Father.  And the Son.  So God is His own Father.  God created Himself.  Which means that God must have existed before He was created.  No, wait...

You can't have it both ways, Jack.  Either Jesus is (all of) God, or he is only part of God.  If the former, then we find ourselves in all sorts of logical contradictions.  If the latter, then your elephant analogy works, but only at the cost on conceding that Jesus is a distinct entity from "God the Father", and the Trinity becomes something like the Mormon "Godhead", a sort of divine council made up of three separate gods.

You may understand and believe more of the truth than you know.
Or more than you know.
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 29 May 2011 at 10:23pm

Dear Ron,

 
You wrote, "And "God the Father" is actually the Father of God, right?  (Why do we never hear that? Wink)  How interesting that God has a father.  Oh wait -- God is the Father.  And the Son.  So God is His own Father.  God created Himself.  Which means that God must have existed before He was created.  No, wait..."
 
My response:  Ron, you goof ball...  That's funny!!!
 
Yes, God is His own Son, and His own Father.  Now that you mention it, it is truly so.  However God in the person of the Father did not create God in the person of the Son.  Jesus was not created, but begotten.  Jesus is a name we give to God after the Nativity.  Before the Nativity, Jesus was the Word, of which St. John wrote, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God."
 
As far as logical contradictions are concerned, God is full of them.  You see, St. John also wrote in his first letter, chapter 4, that God is love.  Is love logical, Ron?  Here we are getting way off topic, but for the moment just ask this question of yourself and pounder the question logically:  Is love logical, Ron?  Ask others what they think about this question.  Ask girls what they think of the answer to this question.  Ask boys what they think?  Discover the answer, then you will know if God, who is so full of love that we can say He is love itself, is logical.
 
So, did the Holy Bible evolve, or not?
 
God Bless,
 
Craig
 
IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2431
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 30 May 2011 at 11:57am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Hasan,

You asked me, "Let me ask you this, what makes you to conclude that Protestant Bible has evolved and what makes you think that the Catholic Bible did not?"
 
My answer:  "I don't believe either has evolved.  No one has been able to show conclusive proof that it has."
 
Though the poem be man's work, it is no more man's work than the "Catholic source regarding the history of 'the Bible' which you have quoted.  If you see no value in the poem I used to illustrate a point, than by the same reasoning, we may not see any value in the "man's work" you use as a source to prove that the Holy Bible evolved.
 
The poem shows how the observations of men might appear to be contradicting, when in reality they do not, but rather they do reveal different aspect of one and the same truth.
 
About "man's work," how can you be sure that the Holy Qur'an is not "man's work?"  With all due respect to Islam, Muhammad was a man and the words that came out of his mouth were man's recolection of what he thought God had told him.  Muhammad often could not remember what he had said were the words of God at earlier times.  He often had to be reminded by others as to what he had said before. 
 
Another thing about "man's work." Those who memorized what Muhammad had said did not really agree.  There were  four different versions of the Holy Qur'an when the man Uthman (I say man, because that is what he is) compiled his "correct" version (man's work) of the Qur'an and burned the others.  The others were compiled by Mas'ud, Ubuyy B. Ka'ab, Hafsa, and Zaid.   When Uthman compiled his "correct" version, he used Zaid's version as a source (Zaid who had spent less time with Muhammad than the other three), then when he was finished, he ordered the other versions be collected and burnt.  Mas'ud responded to the command to have his version burnt,

"How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?" "Am I," asks Abdullah, "to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?" (Masahif" by Ibn abi Dawood, 824-897 AD, pp. 12, 14).

So from all of this I ask you why you will accept "man's work" in your religion, but not acept it in discussion on any other religion and its truthfulness?
 
The poem's purpose is to show that what sounds like contradiction to one with only a "few facts" is really not to one who takes the time to know more than just a "few facts."
 
You said, "For a believer like myself, who is not interested in scholarly perspective, rather simple facts and simple truth enough to make one a believer, just a few such facts are enough to differentiate between what is trustworthy vs what is doubtfull."
 
I challange you to know more than just a few simple facts about both Muhammad, the angel he spoke to, and the book that we call the Holy Qur'an.  Perhaps these are not what you think they are.  And the Holy Bible and the Holy Trinity, I challange you to know more than just a "few facts."  Perhaps these are not eactly what your "just a few facts" have led you to believe.
 
The quote you read to me about St. Jerome does not show evolution of the Holy Bible so much as to me it tells the story of one who is working with source material to make sure that his work is accurate.  What a different conclusion I get from the same data that you looked at.  Sounds a lot like the story of the "Six Men of Hindustan Who Went To See the Elephant," doesn't it?
 
Can you show me by analysis how the quote you gave is evidence of evolution and not evidence of improving the accuracy of St. Jerome's work?
 
Upon rereading my post, I must say that I hope you do not take offense at the wording of my post, or think that I am angrey, for I am not.
 
Hey, God Bless you, Hasan, as always,
 
Jack Catholic
Jack,
first I appreciate Ron's efforts and a very good answer. I would like to see you response on that. 
As to my post your response was as expected only defensive but without much sense.
First, please don't defend you argument by offending others. What I mean is to prove one of your point instead of giving reasons you brought up how Quran was "evolved". It showed your admission to the fact that the NT evolved.
I see you like to go in circles, and here is what I mean.
I had told you that for someone like me who had a chance to go through, read and know the Bible can tell you that without any doubt its contents point to human inconsistencies in it on a large scale.
But for you all the descripencies pointed out to you have an explaination that only you are able to understand.  Then you ask, if there is any prove of any record that shows that the transformation took place. I showed you some out of a lot of proofs out there, including the preface to many Bibles that admit of the alterations, omissions, additions and so on. To that you call the work of "humans" and say why should you trust human word?
So, I can not help you if you, when something is shown to you that dispove you or prove others, keep asking for something else again and again.
But still there is a solution, if you agree to accept its result!
Let us agree with one fact, you and I did not live to know what really went on during the time of revelation or so called evolution of the 'Old Testament', and the 'New Testament'. We can read from people who lived in those times and accept of reject what they conveyed to us based on our understanding of it. I believe there is a better way. Why not test the contents.
For example, it is a claim that Nt and OT were revealed by God, and I agree with that claim. There is also a claim that the OT and NT are in their pure state unaltered as when God revealed. If we take nobody's word for it, and want to find it ourselves approach like myself, we find out that OT and NT do not stand to the All Knowing and consistent qualities of God Almighty with whom we associated these two in their presnt state.
There are inconsistencies on many issues but three most important ones that need to be studied and taken seriously: God, Salvation, and Jesus (pbuh). In my study, OT and NT both were inconsistent within on those three main issues. And that is something we have seen all over this board proven.
We can go over on them again, if we need to, just lt me know.
Hasan
   
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1844
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 30 May 2011 at 7:51pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

As far as logical contradictions are concerned, God is full of them.
I guess if you are willing to concede that your concept of God is illogical, then there is no point in continuing.
 
Is love logical, Ron?  Ask others what they think about this question.  Ask girls what they think of the answer to this question.  Ask boys what they think?  Discover the answer, then you will know if God, who is so full of love that we can say He is love itself, is logical.
The best love is indeed logical.  My love for my wife is based on mutual commitment, and I can offer lots of evidence for that commitment, and for the positive benefits that it has given me.
 
But I take your point that sometimes, and with some people, love is not logical.  I love pastrami sandwiches, for instance, but I can't give you any logical explanation for that.  In fact, given what the saturated fat is undoubtedly doing to my arteries, I'd say it would be more rational for me to avoid pastrami altogether.
 
On the other hand, I'm not going to build a worldview around such an irrational love, and I'm certainly not going to argue that you too ought to love pastrami sandwiches.
 
So, did the Holy Bible evolve, or not?
 
Well, you haven't yet given me a good explanation why the earliest accounts of the Gospel omit one of the most important miracles in the story of Jesus, i.e. the virgin birth.  As I mentioned, Luke 3:23 tells us that originally "Everyone thought he was the son of Joseph".  It was only some time later, and without any evidence (because there can be no evidence) to substantiate it, that the story began to spread that Mary was a virgin and Joseph was not his father.  If that's not an example of a story evolving, then I can't imagine a better one.
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 31 May 2011 at 12:26am
Dear Hasan,
 
You wrote, "As to my post your response was as expected only defensive but without much sense."
 
What parts of my post did not make sense to you?  What explanations for discrepancies did I give which you did not understand?
 
God Bless,
 
Jack Catholic
 
P.S.  I don't recall admitting that the New Testament evolved...
 
 
 


Edited by Jack Catholic - 31 May 2011 at 12:30am
IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2431
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 02 June 2011 at 1:44pm
Jack,
look playing does not get us anywhere, that's wht I mean. You like to go around in circles as I have said above. Please read what I have said.
 
The part that did not make sense and showed lack of your sincerety was in your words when you said: "About "man's work," how can you be sure that the Holy Qur'an is not "man's work?"  With all due respect to Islam, Muhammad was a man and the words that came out of his mouth were man's recolection of what he thought God had told him.  Muhammad often could not remember what he had said were the words of God at earlier times.  He often had to be reminded by others as to what he had said before. 
 
Another thing about "man's work." Those who memorized what Muhammad had said did not really agree.  There were  four different versions of the Holy Qur'an when the man Uthman (I say man, because that is what he is) compiled his "correct" version (man's work) of the Qur'an and burned the others.  The others were compiled by Mas'ud, Ubuyy B. Ka'ab, Hafsa, and Zaid."
What all of the above have to do with what we are talking about here, "Holy Gospel did not evolve" which is the topic at hand. You can start a new topic if you like to discuss.
Are you admitting to your weak argument, which I think you should, but this is wrong way of doing it my friend.
 
What we mean "evolved", I guess we have to agree with that first. Gospel, does not exist in its original language, form nor it is  word for word same, it is inconsistent in quality of the All Knowing God. And all of that and more prove that it has transformed, something has been changed. If we had a Gospel that was identical to the one from 500 years ago, to the one 1000 years ago, to the one from 1500 years ago, to the one 2000 years ago, only then we could say with certainity that it has not evolved.
Jack, I offered you a very reasonable way to determine if man has played a part in tempering with the Gospel, since you and I did not witness or lived in the times it was written, or rewritten, so rather using one's word against the other, why don't we figure it out the easier way. God's word does not contradict becuase God is all knowing. Man's word has a tendency to go not too far, due to limited knowledge given to us by God and will show inconsistencies. If we find contradictions or inconsistencies in the Gospel, we must accept that fact and where it leads us. We must not think that accepting such a fact would mean we have nothing left. God wants us to know and accept only the truth after thoughtful observation and study and only thus we gain His favors.
 
Jack you have been on this forum too long, but I will show you some of the contradictions of the Gospel like many others learned people here already has shown you with great detail and references. Similar contradictions in a legal document of daily life would not be acceptable to I, you or any person with sane thoughtful mind. I don't know why one would overlook  and compromise on such clear and obvious inconsistencies when it comes to a more serious issue like the validity of present day Gospel(s).
 
I had said this before and I say again with my challange to you or anyone who is on your side that the New Testament (Bible) contradits on many issues but there are three that are the most important: God, Jesus, and Salvation.
You claim Bible teaches you that Jesus is God. I had shown you the verses that clearly stated that Jesus infact acknowledged to have a God to whom he served, worshipped, cried for help to, and returned to.
 
On Salvation you say, that the Bible teach you that Jesus was the sacrifice that paid for your sins, and that his blood was needed to free "us" from the sin. I showed you verses from your own book that stated clearly that, if Jesus was not sent by God as a warner or a guide, people would not be held accountable for their sins. Also in the same book you find verses that say different things toward salvation, like through repentence, good deeds, and accountability. In fact there is a quote clearly stating that " every idle word you speak, you will be giving account of it on Judgement Day, which clearly does not go with a 'whitewash' salvation through a blood sacrifice idea and God being Just.
There is a verse in the NT that states "no one has ever seen God". That is proven to contradict with you and your claim that Jesus was God, who was seen by huge number of people. It also contradict with the OT where some older prophets are quoted to have seen God.
 
Jack, I can open my notes about more such facts that I found through my own study about the Bible, but I think the above is enough to prove my point. 
Just don't go again in cirles my friend, I am showing you the 'proof in the pudding' so we don't blame it on anyone else or find excuses.
Hasan
 


Edited by honeto - 02 June 2011 at 3:15pm
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 03 June 2011 at 6:27am

Dear Hasan,

 
So let me see if I get your thinking correct.  You are saying that a body of writing containing the words of God (the Holy Bible) was authored, but then the evolution of modern Christianity came about when individuals began changing parts of the writing through rewording, adding whole passages, or even writing new books that differed from the orriginal.  The evidence for this change is that where ever changes occurred, there is contradicition with orriginal writings.  Am I understanding you correctly?  That contradicition is the evidence of evolution of scripture?
 
Jack Catholic


Edited by Jack Catholic - 03 June 2011 at 8:12pm
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 74 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com