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: 25 April 2011 at 11:31pm
So, my brothers and sisters,
 
Since there is no solid evdience that the Holy Bible evolved over time, we all have to admit clearly that the Holy Bible did not evolve over time.
 
 
God Bless,
 
Jack Catholic
IP IP Logged
semar
 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Senior Member

Joined: 11 March 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1322
Quote semar Replybullet Posted: 26 April 2011 at 10:59pm
I think the other way around, there is no solid evidence that the bible did not evolve. The argument that you present so weak, did not make sense, contradict with human instinct.
 
The divinity of Jesus (Jesus son of God) and the trinity concept (if this is true) is too important to be missed in early Bible, because this the most essential (the sametime also controversial) teaching of Christianity.


Edited by semar - 26 April 2011 at 11:07pm
Salam/Peace,
Semar
The Prophet said: "Do not eat before you are hungry, and stop eating before you are full"
"1/3 of your stomach for food 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"
IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1680
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 27 April 2011 at 4:37am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

I wrote, "Each gospel writer focused on the things he felt were the most important based on what he felt his audience most needed.  Each one wrote for a different audience.  Go figure."
 
You responded with a question:  "So you're saying that Mark and John didn't think the virgin birth of Jesus was important?"
 
So if an audience already knows about an event and the writer so decides not to write about it, does this mean that the writer thinks the event is unimportant?  How do you draw this conclusion?

I asked why Matthew omitted any mention of the virgin birth.  Your reply (in part) was that each Gospel writer reported what he felt was important.  Doesn't that imply that Matthew didn't think the virgin birth was important?

You then changed your argument, suggesting that Matthew omitted it because it was already well-known.  But that doesn't work either, because the crucifixion was if anything even better-known, and yet he reported that.

Care to try again? Smile
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: 28 April 2011 at 6:14am

Dear Semar and Ron Webb,

 

You wrote, I think the other way around, there is no solid evidence that the bible did not evolve. The argument that you present so weak, did not make sense, contradict with human instinct.  The divinity of Jesus (Jesus son of God) and the trinity concept (if this is true) is too important to be missed in early Bible, because this the most essential (the sametime also controversial) teaching of Christianity.

 

In this post, I did not challenge anyone to prove that the bible did not evlove, but rather to prove that it did.  Nobody has been able to do that.  I did not present an argument, but rather an explanation that is historical fact.  Just because you say the explanation appears weak to you does not necessarily make it a weak explanation.  Ill refer you to a websight not written to prove anything, but yet which does give a great analysis and plenty of information with will verify that my explanation is not my own personal modern interpretation of the Holy Bible.  Maybe if you are interested, you might read it:   http://www.domini.org/tabern/gospel.htm

 

In reference to Matthew omitting the virgin birth, Ive already stated that he did not omitt anything.  Rather, his simply wrote down what he felt was the necessary message for his audience, which was located in Jerusalem, not Rome, or Egypt (during the time of the Gnostic controversy many decades later when John wrote his).  When you suggest that some writers omitted things because they were not believed at the time of the writing, or that I am changing my arguments, or whatever, you are grasping desperately to defend the biblical evolvement argument.  I say desperately because if you truly knew your history of the Roman world during that first century of Christianity, the civil makeup of the various cities of the Roman World, and the Spread of Christianity, you would see clearly that my explanation is clearly what happened and would not even bother to try to defend the rediculous idea that the beliefs recorded in the New Testament evolved over time and so cant be taken seriously.

 

God Bless you,

 

Jack Catholic

Edited by Jack Catholic - 28 April 2011 at 6:18am
IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1680
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 28 April 2011 at 4:38pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

In this post, I did not challenge anyone to prove that the bible did not evlove, but rather to prove that it did.  Nobody has been able to do that.

What would you consider adequate proof?

I have often said, I cannot offer absolute proof even of my own existence, let alone yours.  And yet I live my life under the confident assumption that I do exist, and am not a subprogram in some massive computer simulation; and I participate in discussion with people like you, never questioning that you are a real person.

In the same way, I can't absolutely prove that the Bible evolved, nor can you prove that it didn't.  All we can do is examine the evidence and decide which explanation better fits the facts.    It seems to me that the evidence we have discussed is much more consistent with an evolving story than otherwise.

In reference to Matthew omitting the virgin birth, Ive already stated that he did not omitt anything.

You can say whatever you want, but he clearly did omit the part about the virgin birth.  The only question is, why? 

Rather, his simply wrote down what he felt was the necessary message for his audience, which was located in Jerusalem, not Rome, or Egypt (during the time of the Gnostic controversy many decades later when John wrote his).

So in Jerusalem at the time, the virgin birth was not a necessary part of the message?

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: 28 April 2011 at 11:36pm
Dear Ron,
 
Let's look at the situation of the 4 gospels.
 
Doesn't it seem odd to you that one would expect 4 different writers to write exactly the same material?  Where we come from, the word for this is redundancy, and "one size fits all."  If everything was said in the first gospel, no one would have needed to write another Gospel...  Think about it.  It's basic logic. 
 
Even the Muslim debators on the Christian-Muslim debate video's on the internet admit that the Gospels were written to different audiences.  What is so hard about facing up to the fact that one audience"s needs are different than another, and that a writer would be foolish to write things that meet the needs of the wrong audience and that just don't touch the concerns of the intended audience adequately.  If you ever study the art of speach writing, you will learn all about this stuff.  But it should be common sense if you just think about it.
 
Since the challange of this post is to proove that the New Testament of the Holy Bible did in fact evolve, it is not necessary for me to prove anything else accept to show the weeknesses of the arguments that the New Testament evolved.  On my side of the issue, the first century bishops knew the real circumstances that led to the writing of each Gospel.  They wrote about these reasons profusely in their letters, which the Catholic Church has but which are not included in the Holy Bible.  These writings are available to anyone who wishes to read them, but Protestant Christians and Muslims seem to ignore them.  I suspician that this is because they lead one to admit that the Catholic Church is the legitimate authority on Christianity established by Jesus himself, and they lead one to admit that perhaps the Qur'an might not be accurate in what it claims about Jesus and about Christianity.
 
When you say that Matthew ommitted Mary's virgin birth, you are suggesting that he deliberately left it out.  The reason I say that he did not omitt anything is that he simply did not see fit to include it.  There is a slight difference in what you are claiming and what I am claiming, but it has huge implications.  For you to claim the Matthew is hiding something is to attribute dishonesty to him (which he was not) in an effort to discredit him.  Your insistance that he deliberately omitted valuable information simply show your personal bias.  Your bias is that you must discredit the Holy Bible and its authors, or admit that the Qur'an is not accurate where it differs with the Holy Bible, which is quite a few Qur'anic pages.  To see the truth, you must let go of your personal biases.
 
You finally wrote, "So in Jerusalem at the time, the virgin birth was not a necessary part of the message?"  Here you are right on, for the following reason.  As I said in the first post, the Jews already knew Mary and knew of her virgin birth.  My comparison to prove this assertion was mention Jesus' quote while hanging on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (first line of Psalm 22)."  The Jewish custom here was to say the first line of whatever biblical passage was being referenced.  The only Gospel writer to write extensively on the virgin birth and accompanying stories was the one Gospel writer writing to a Gentile audience which knew little to nothing of the details of the life of Jesus, and that was the physician, Luke.  He traveled to Palestine (where most of the Jews lived who new Mary) where he interviewed Mary and the Jews for 3 years, gathering and checking stories.  This was the same Jewish community that Matthew had written to earlier where the stories had not been included simply because these people already knew Mary's story.  Common sense...
 
My case is simple, well made, and well documented.  Pray about what I am saying, and perhaps the Good God in Heaven will grant you a moment of understanding and you will see clearly the truth of what I am saying.
 
God Bless you,
 
Jack Catholic   
 


Edited by Jack Catholic - 29 April 2011 at 5:26am
IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2397
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 30 April 2011 at 11:47am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

So, my brothers and sisters,
 
Since there is no solid evdience that the Holy Bible evolved over time, we all have to admit clearly that the Holy Bible did not evolve over time.
 
 
God Bless,
 
Jack Catholic
Jack,
you can be kidding yourself, if that's what important to you and satisfy you.
The reality is that so far everyone has showed you something that shows that Bible has evolved and you don't like that, the evidence that the Bible has evolved/altered over time.
Here is my favorite one that people like you don't have an answer for, if you do please post it:
"Christians" altered the places of words here to fit their new doctrine. The OT that Jews hold has it very different than what those (Christians) who adopted it as part of their holy book.
Here is the verse I am referring to and how it appears in Jewish Bible:
Isaiah 9:5. For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
 
Now just look how the evolved version of the same found in the Christian Bible. The playing around with positioning of the same words to mean somthing else.
Same verse in Christian versions appears at:
Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born,
   to us a son is given,
   and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
   Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
   Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. "
 
You be truthful now to yourself dear.
Hasan


 
 


Edited by honeto - 30 April 2011 at 11:56am
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


Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1680
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 30 April 2011 at 1:39pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Doesn't it seem odd to you that one would expect 4 different writers to write exactly the same material?  Where we come from, the word for this is redundancy, and "one size fits all."  If everything was said in the first gospel, no one would have needed to write another Gospel...  Think about it.  It's basic logic.

One would expect differences on minor points, but not on fundamental dogma.  The virgin birth is a major miracle, without which Christ cannot be the son of God and the whole framework of Catholicism collapses.  And the early Christians did leave it out.  Luke 3:23 says that it was generally supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph.  Mark obviously made the same assumption.

When you say that Matthew ommitted Mary's virgin birth, you are suggesting that he deliberately left it out.

No, I am suggesting that he omitted it because it wasn't true.  The story was still evolving, and that part hadn't been made up yet.

Addeenul Aql Religion is intellect.
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