IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum: The Holy Gospel did not evolve!

Author

Message

Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369

Posted: 05 September 2011 at 12:29pm

Dear Ron,

So here we stand in dissagreement. The weight of history is on my side, and only modern surmising is on yours. But just the same, here we stand, both making claims, neither with evidence.

So be it. Either way, the assertion cannot be used to make the claim that the Gospels of the Holy Bible evolved. Just can't...

Jack Catholic

Edited by Jack Catholic - 05 September 2011 at 12:32pm

IP Logged

Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409

Posted: 06 September 2011 at 4:34am

So you don't like the word "evolved", but you do agree that the story changed significantly, right? I mean, the addition of a major miracle and a change in Jesus' parentage would count, wouldn't it?

By the way, have you figured out yet why Mark omitted the virgin birth yet? We've agreed that your original explanation, that it was already too well-known (!) to bother mentioning, is simply not true. So do you suppose he hadn't yet heard Mary's latest "revelation"?

Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.

IP Logged

Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369

Posted: 06 September 2011 at 12:12pm

Dear Ron,

The story never changed. It was always true that Jesus was the son of Joseph (foster relationship) and was the actual Son of God. This was never questioned. All 4 Gospels referr to Jesus frequently as the Son of God. Your case is simply a dead horse. Give it up already! My Gosh!

I already know why Mark didn't include the Virgin birth. I also know, contrary to your assertion, that we don't agree on the reason. Give it up, man, just give it up. You are not winning this argument, sorry to say.

Jack Catholic

IP Logged

islamispeace
Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1417

Posted: 06 September 2011 at 3:22pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear IslamisPeace,

I applaud your fantastic post. You stayed on topic, you spoke elloquantly, and you sounded awesome. If all your posts were written in this manner, I'd love discussing and debating with you and would relish the opportunity.

Some of what you have observed is correct. Though I don't agree with all of your reasoning as to why the differences exist, nor with all of your assertations about the significance of the differences and their implications. Yet above all, that was an excelent post in regards to manners. Your excellent manners allowed the intelligence I know you have to shine through. Well done!!!

I notice you never furthered the assertion in your post that the Holy Bible evolved. Have come to agree with what so many of us on Islamicity Forums know to be true, that the Holy Bible did not evolve? has not been tampered with by human hands over the centuries?

May Allah bless you, IslamisPeace!

Jack Catholic

Jack, your patronizing attitude aside, you have not responded to any of my points. Not only that, but you completely ignored the central point...which is that the Gospels have evolved! If you will carefully read all of my posts on this thread, including the recent ones concerning the story of the Canaanite woman, you will see that the central thesis of all of them was that the Gospels have evolved. In the case of the story of the Canaanite woman, the evolution that occurred was in the Gospel writers changing the story (Matthew) or complete eliminating it (Luke) based on their attempts to reach their target audiences. This particular form of evolution is different from the other examples I have given, such as the mistake in Mark 1:2 regarding the prophecy from Isaiah (when it was actually a mix of verses from Isaiah and Malachi) and the subsequent attempts to hide the error. I have given various example of evolution, so I have no idea where you got the idea that I do not believe the Bible has evolved. It seems to me that you are so desperate to declare victory that you will misconstrue someone else' claims. No where did I say that the Bible has not evolved. Rather, I have always posited the exact opposite. I also have no idea where you got the idea that other people on this forum have come to the conclusion that the Bible has not evolved. You need to stop putting words in people's mouths and wasting time with patronizing comments and actually try to respond to the evidence presented. The types of comments you make project your obnoxious and arrogant attitude. Therefore, you should not be surprised when someone like me responds with what you refer to as "rude" posts. As such, I reject your patronizing comments about my "fantastic post". Of course, I did stay on topic (I always have Big%20smile

), whereas you completely ignored the topic and wasted time with a useless post which did not deal with the facts. That is very annoying and disappointing! Disapprove

Regardless, I feel that I have conclusively proven that the Gospels have evolved. I will leave it to the individual reader to decide for themselves.

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP Logged

Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369

Posted: 06 September 2011 at 8:26pm

To any and all who are interested,

in the Canaanite woman story, a comment in Mark regarding a prophecy from Isaiah, questions as to why some events are related in some Gospel books and not in others, or why they are related with some details in some Gospel books and with other details in other Gospel books, each and every one of these issues I and others have dealt with showing precisely how they do not indicate evolution of the Holy Bible. Repeating the issues and material do not suddenly make them into evidence suggesting that the Holy Bible evolved due to human tampering. So give it up. These issues have been dealt with...end of story. Without new evidence, this post is basically concluded.

May Yahweh bless you all,

Jack Catholic

IP Logged

Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409

Posted: 08 September 2011 at 4:24am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

The story never changed. It was always true that Jesus was the son of Joseph (foster relationship) and was the actual Son of God.

On the contrary, you have already agreed that it was not part of the story until after his death. (Whether it was "true" or not is another matter.)

I already know why Mark didn't include the Virgin birth.

Your original reason was that it was already too well-known to bother mentioning. Since you subsequently admitted that the Bible itself (in Matthew and Luke) says otherwise, I wonder if you can think of another reason.

Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.

IP Logged

Larry
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 16 April 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 632

Posted: 08 September 2011 at 5:09am

Ron,

   Just to set the record straight, neither the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John says anything about the Virgin Birth of Jesus. The main reason for this "oversight" is that both Mark and John begin their Gospels with the beginning of Jesus' ministry as an adult and His baptism by John the Baptist.
   The reason that the Virgin Birth is not mentioned during the time of Jesus' ministry is that the Gospels were written after His death and Resurrection, although His being the Son of God is referred to during His lifetime and recorded in the Gospels.
   The Gospel of Matthew begins with the genealogy of Jesus Christ and Matthew is explicit in his writings concerning the Virgin Birth of Christ
   The Gospel of Luke begins with the story of Zacharias and his barren wife Elizabeth (though the Qur'an incorrectly states that her name was Mary). The angel of the Lord appeared to Zacharias and told him that Elizabeth would bear a son and his name would be John.
   Then in the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and said, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women!" Gabriel further said, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One (Jesus) who is to be born will be called the Son of God."
   The Qur'an also agrees with this statement when it speaks of Gabriel announcing to Mary the "gift of a holy son." I don't know of any other "prophet" being referred to as specifically as "holy" in either the Torah, New Testament or the Qur'an because Holiness belongs to God and that is why Jesus was "holy," being the Son of God.
   It seems strange to me that the Qur'an speaks of Jesus' holiness but denies stridently that Jesus was anything other than a prophet, and not the greatest prophet at that.
   It is clear that the Qur'an relied heavily on the Jewish Torah and the Christian New Testament for the bulk of it's information concerning God and the Biblical Patriarchs, Matriarchs and Prophets and stories. The Muslim claim that the Qur'an was pre-existing before the Jewish and Christian Bibles is simply not supportable by any direct evidence.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 09 September 2011 at 11:13pm

IP Logged

islamispeace
Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1417

Posted: 08 September 2011 at 3:11pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

To any and all who are interested,

May Yahweh bless you all,

Jack Catholic

Those who have actually had the patience to read all the posts in this thread would see that Jack has spent most of his time making excuses and patting himself on the back. This latest post is a case in point.

Someone should remind Jack that in debates, each side discusses the issues and offers their perspective. One side cannot just declare themselves the winner and then ignore all subsequent arguments from the other side by claiming that "I and others have dealt with showing precisely how they do not indicate evolution of the Holy Bible." Moreover, there has been no repetition on this thread, at least not by me. What I have done is give an example of evolution and then move on. If someone is able to respond as to why they feel the example given does not constitute evolution, I have always offered a rebuttal. In the most recent example, I provided the example of the story of the Canaanite woman and why I feel this is good evidence of Gospel evolution. Jack offered a weak response, to which I offered a rebuttal. Jack's response was one of patronizing arrogance without an actual counter-rebuttal and finally with this latest rant about how he has "dealt with [it] showing precisely how they do not indicate evolution of the Holy Bible". Obviously, his claim that he has proven everyone wrong is simply ridiculous and is simply a case of self-promotion. I urge everyone still interested in this topic to come to their own conclusions. Look at the facts and cast aside the bias.

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP Logged

	Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help
	Register Login Old Forum

Interfaith Dialogue
IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue

Topic: The Holy Gospel did not evolve!
	<< Prev Page of 74 Next >>