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: 30 April 2011 at 1:55pm
Dear Hasan,
 
I happen to have a copy of a Jewish Bible in my library that is used in the Jewish Temple here in my city, and I honestly don't see any difference between what is written in it (translated, as it is written in Hebrew with the English translation beside it) and what is written in the Catholic Old Testament.
 
I went to a websight that has a similar arangement going on and have quoted it below:
 
ה  כִּי-יֶלֶד יֻלַּד-לָנוּ, בֵּן נִתַּן-לָנוּ, וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה, עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ, אֵל גִּבּוֹר, אֲבִי-עַד, שַׂר-שָׁלוֹם. 5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;
ו  לם רבה (לְמַרְבֵּה) הַמִּשְׂרָה וּלְשָׁלוֹם אֵין-קֵץ, עַל-כִּסֵּא דָוִד וְעַל-מַמְלַכְתּוֹ, לְהָכִין אֹתָהּ וּלְסַעֲדָהּ, בְּמִשְׁפָּט וּבִצְדָקָה; מֵעַתָּה, וְעַד-עוֹלָם, קִנְאַת יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, תַּעֲשֶׂה-זֹּאת.  {פ} 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts doth perform this. {P}
 
Perhaps the reason you have never gotten an answer to your chalange on these verses in Isaiah is because... there is no answer to give...
 
Regarding your comment:  "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."
 
Yes... everyone has shown me what they claim makes the case that the Bible has evolved.  But amazingly enough, their "somethings" that they have shown me do not match what history, or the written evidence of the first century, or even what archeology has documented. These somethings that others have posted are simply modern personal ideas that cannot be accepted as the truth just because someone today claims they are truth.  These somethings must be accompanied by solid evidence, and they are not.  The big something here on this string is the one about Mary's virgin birth.  This one is a weak and funny assertion because even Muhammad asserted that Mary's birth of her son, Jesus, was in truth miraculous, and it is even written into the Qur'an as truth.  To say that Jesus' miraculous birth was an evolved belief because the first Gospels do not include it is to say that Muhammad is a lier.  Can a Muslim make such a claim and still be called a Muslim or not be put to death as an "act of mercy"?  Just one more angle to consider as all of us participating in this string struggle to know the truth.
 
God Bless you, Hasan,
 
Jack Catholic


Edited by Jack Catholic - 30 April 2011 at 2:12pm
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: 30 April 2011 at 2:34pm
Dear Ron,
 
Muhammad accepted the virgin birth as fact.   Are you Muslim?  Are you aware that when a Muslim begins to contradict what is in the Qur'an, his life is forfit, and you may be killed on sight by another Muslim as an act of Mercy?  Maybe you are not Muslim and your life is safe.  I don't know.
 
About the content of your post, not writing something in a paper or book is not evidence of disagreement with that something, or even evidence of lack of knowledge of it.  You are making an assumption which you can't prove.
 
The fact is in letters that have been written, and in monuments and tomb illustrations that had been made during the first century AD, Mary was held up in high esteem by the Church, for one reason only, and that is because she was blessed by God in Heaven Above, and was highly favored for no other reason than that she was given a child by none other than God Himself.  The evidence of the knowledge extends beyond what is written in the Holy Bible.  The Catholic Church has preserved the knowledge that Mary was dedicated to God in Heaven and spent some years in the Temple in Jerusalem in service there.  As part of this service, she was never in her life to have relations with a man so as to have children.  When Joseph married her, he respected this vow of hers, and they never had any children beyond Jesus.  Joseph acted as the father figure for Jesus, and so everyone referred to Jesus as the son of Joseph.  Joseph was his foster father.  There is no contradiction in any of the Gospels on this fact, Ron, or on Mary's virgin birth.  You really have to study up on the topic using ALL of the material that the Catholic Church has preserved.  The only Christians who might stumble over your challange are Bible Alone Christians, and Catholicism is not a Bible Alone faith.  Think about what I am telling you.  Pray about it.  God is using this issue to call you to the truth, Ron.  Perhaps the Catholic Church is where you'll find real answers about who Jesus Christ really is and what he came for.
 
God Bless you, Ron,
 
Jack Catholic 
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 01 May 2011 at 12:37pm
I have been itching to get into this conversation, but considering who we are dealing with (Mr. Double Standards), I was staying out.  But, I can't stand it anymore, so here are my proofs that the Gospel(s) has/have indeed "evolved".  There are many examples, but I will list a few well-known ones.  Perhaps, a list will be the most efficient way:

1.  The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (pbuh) are two of the most important concepts in Christendom.  Yet, one of the earliest documents written, usually dated to the late 1st to early 2nd century, fails to mention these most important teachings.  I speak of course of the Didache, a document which was once considered a candidate for inclusion into the official canon.  Considering that Jack's central argument is that important concepts were not mentioned because they were already "known" to the communities, the absence of the crucifixion and resurrection accounts in the Didache is very telling.  These two concepts are mentioned in the Gospels and figure very prominently in the letters of Paul.  Obviously, if they were well known, why did the Gospels try to mention it as much as possible? 

2.  Scholars say that the Gospel of Mark was the first one to be written.  With this in mind, if we consider that the original ended at 16:8, with no post-resurrection account, yet the modern Bible does contain a post-resurrection account, this obviously means that the Gospel of Mark did evolve over time, at least with regard to the ending. 

3.  One of the biggest blunders in the Gospel of Mark occurs in Chapter 1, verse 2.  Present copies of the NT retain this error, when Mark states:

as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

   “I will send my messenger ahead of you,
   who will prepare your way”[c]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
   make straight paths for him.’”[d]

The problem with this verse is that it is a combination of verses from Malachi and Isaiah, not Isaiah alone.  Early scribes noted this error and tried to hide it.  However, the most famous codices of the Christian Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, also retain this error.  It also appears that the early Church father, Irenaeus, failed to realize the error.  In the original Greek copy of his "Against Heresies", he also refers to the verses as originating from the Book of Isaiah.  However, later Latin copies changed his words to "in the prophets".  With this in mind, one Christian website states:

"The “Isaiah” reading has a better external pedigree in every way. It has the support of the earliest and best witnesses from all the texttypes that matter. Moreover it is the harder reading, since the quotation in the first part of the verse appears to be from Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1, with the quotation from Isa 40:3 coming in the next verse. The reading of the later mss seems motivated by a desire to resolve this difficulty."  [Notes on Mark 1:2, Fn. 4]

It is therefore obvious that the Gospel of Mark originally contained this error but later MSS attempted to erase the error.  Therefore, the Gospel of Mark did indeed evolve, with regard to verse 2. 

4.  Even the Church fathers recognized that there were many changes made to the text of the NT.  Among those who recognized this fact were Origen and a lesser known bishop named Dionysius, who was Bishop of Corinth in the 2nd century CE.  An interesting quote from Dionysius is mentioned by Bart Ehrman in his book "Misquoting Jesus":

"When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so.  These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others.  For them the woe is reserved.  Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts" (p. 53). 

Notice that the bishop specifically states that he was not surprised that changes were being made to his letters, since the heretics were also making changes to the "word of the Lord himself"! 

Origen also made a similar observation:

"The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please" (Ibid., p. 52).

The irony is that Origen contradicted himself in another work.  In "Contra Celsus", Origen was responding to the criticisms of the Roman philosopher Celsus, who had claimed that Christians made changes to the scripture when faced with criticism.  Origen stated in response:

"After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the. followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus." [Contra Celsus, 2.27]

This is a very brief list of evidence showing clearly that the NT, including the Gospels, has indeed evolved.  Anyone denying this is simply ignoring the facts and giving in to his/her own 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 IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1845
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 01 May 2011 at 4:00pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Muhammad accepted the virgin birth as fact.   Are you Muslim?  Are you aware that when a Muslim begins to contradict what is in the Qur'an, his life is forfit, and you may be killed on sight by another Muslim as an act of Mercy?  Maybe you are not Muslim and your life is safe.  I don't know.

I am not a Muslim, and my life is safe. Smile

About the content of your post, not writing something in a paper or book is not evidence of disagreement with that something, or even evidence of lack of knowledge of it.  You are making an assumption which you can't prove.

Neither of us can absolutely prove our assumptions, as I said earlier.  But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Mark did not know of (or did not believe in) the virgin birth.  It is simply not credible that he wouldn't have thought it worth mentioning.

The fact is in letters that have been written, and in monuments and tomb illustrations that had been made during the first century AD, Mary was held up in high esteem by the Church, for one reason only, and that is because she was blessed by God in Heaven Above, and was highly favored for no other reason than that she was given a child by none other than God Himself.

Okay, slow down here, because you are conflating several different claims.  The fact that Mary was held in high esteem proves nothing, because being the mother of God is easily sufficient for that.  The same goes for being "blessed by God".  As for being given a child by God: aren't all children gifts from God, and isn't God the Creator of all things?

If you have evidence that Jesus's contemporaries believed that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, that would be interesting to see.  (And frankly hard to imagine.  How would they know?)  Everything I have read suggests otherwise.  See also below.
 
The evidence of the knowledge extends beyond what is written in the Holy Bible.  The Catholic Church has preserved the knowledge that Mary was dedicated to God in Heaven and spent some years in the Temple in Jerusalem in service there.  As part of this service, she was never in her life to have relations with a man so as to have children.  When Joseph married her, he respected this vow of hers, and they never had any children beyond Jesus.  Joseph acted as the father figure for Jesus, and so everyone referred to Jesus as the son of Joseph.  Joseph was his foster father.  There is no contradiction in any of the Gospels on this fact, Ron, or on Mary's virgin birth.

Well, since you brought it up, that is another element of Catholic dogma that has clearly evolved over time.  I'm sure you are aware that the New Testament mentions Jesus's siblings many, many times.  Just one very clear example: "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary? Aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us?" (Matthew 13:55)

Yes, I know the "special pleading" defense that these are metaphorical siblings, not literal ones; but surely any unbiased reading of the passage would conclude that the speaker is describing Jesus' literal family, to illustrate that Jesus was considered just an ordinary guy from an ordinary family and hence had no access to esoteric teachings.  Otherwise, what would be the point of specifically naming those four brothers?

Also note that Jesus is referred to as the "carpenter's son", not the son of God.  Again, it is clear that his contemporaries were unaware that Joseph was not the actual father.  If Mark knew differently, surely he would have said so.
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: 01 May 2011 at 11:59pm
Dear Islamispeace,
 
It has been nearly a year since we have posted to one another.  I hope God has blessed you during this time and continues to do so.
 
What a wonderful list of data you have presented.  The issues you have mentioned are inticing, to say the least.  Yet I notice that you have not changed.  You are still wallering in second grade behavior, I see.  You are the only poster on islamicity.com that I have ever met who still believes that name calling is how one wins a debate; let's see, what did you call me in the first sentence of your first post on this string?  Oh, yes, it was "Mr Double Standards."  I get exhausted waiting for you to rise to the level of debaters such as Shabir Ally, Nadir Ahamed, Hamza Abdul Malik, and sheikh Jalal Abualrub, to name a few.  They insist on no name calling, no ridicule, no personal attacks.  You should live up to their example.  When you dicide to, I'll be happy to discuss your thoughts on the issue of this string of posts.  Until that time, post till your heart is content, but do not expect me to respond...
 
God Bless you,
 
Jack Catholic 
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 02 May 2011 at 3:19pm
Jack, whether you choose to respond or not is not my concern.  As long as others benefit, I could careless.  You asked for proof that the Gospel(s) has/have evolved.  I believe I presented a brief sample of the evidence for this evolution.  I am sure others would agree.  If you don't agree, or agree, or choose to respond, or not, it makes no difference to me.  As far as I am concerned, the "name-calling" bit is just an excuse to avoid giving a response.  But, we will not delve on that matter.  So, I say again, the proof is here.  Respond to it...or not...I don't care.  My only concern is that others may benefit.    
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 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: 02 May 2011 at 4:35pm

Dear Ron,

 You said that neither of us can prove our assumptions.  What assumptions do you think that I am making?

What evidence do you have that  Mark did not know about or did not believe in the virgin birth?

When you are saying that all children are gifts from God, you are absolutely right.  So they are!

We know that Mary did not have any other children before Jesus, and we also know that Mary was in the service of the temple in Jerusalem for two years before Joseph was asked to wed her.  Mary was undoubtedly a virgin when she conceived Jesus.  Couldn’t have been Joseph as the father, because he was going to divorce her for expecting a child not his own.  Jesus contemporaries probably did not suspect anything unusual about the circumstances of his birth because Mary and Joseph did not broadcast it.  If you were an unwed parent, would go announce it to all the neighbors or on the morning news, or would you just keep the data private?  I don’t know how you feel about airing dirty laundry...

You wrote, “I'm sure you are aware that the New Testament mentions Jesus's siblings many, many times.   In reference to this issue which you have brought up, might I refer to a web sight that gives the full biblical and traditional explanation taught by the Catholic Church and the Apostles since the days of Jesus.  http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

After your answer to this question, I’ll deal with how the idea of Mary having no other children but Jesus “evolved.”

God Bless you, Ron, as you struggle to recognize the full truth of things.
 
Jack Catholi
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: 02 May 2011 at 5:04pm
Dear Ron,
 
I notice that you seem concerned that Jesus' miraculous birth is not mentioned as often as the crusifixion.  The reason that the crucifixion is mentioned so often and from so many angles is that it is so packed with meaning for Christians and for all of humanity in general.  Jesus' birth is not so pivotal to the Christian faith.  I mean, look at Adam.  He did not have an earthly father any more than did Jesus.  The circumstances of Jesus birth are important, but the circumstances of his death are the reason for Jesus birth and the changing of of all history on the face of the earth. Jesus' birth did not accomplish all that his death did.  In fact, Jesus death forms the difference between Christianity and Islam.  His death and resurrection is the reason for the hope all Christians, and the type of life consuming connection that we Christians have with Almighty Yaweh in Heaven above.  It is not correct to say that Jesus' birth is equal to his death and ressurection and so should be discussed just as much in the Gospells.  Such an incorrect assertion shows a great lack of understanding of the Christian faith and what it is all about.  Pray about what I am telling you.  One major difference between Christianity and Islam is that for Christians, God is a personal and loving God much like a wonderful parent and friend while at the same time being Almighty and Powerful and Wonderful beyond all imagination.  Our Holy Bible tells us from the hand of St. John the Apostle that God so love the world (this means all people for all time, you and me both) that he gave his only son (even unto death - my addition) that whosoever believes in him shall have eternal life (with God in heaven - again, my addition).  Jesus himself tells us that there is no greater love than this, then that one gives his life for his brother (this is in reference to his later giving his life on the cross so that our sins could be forever forgiven and not stand as a barier between God and each of us).  For Muslims, God is some Almighty being out there somewhere who made his rules, but changes them whenever he wants to, and really couldn't be concerned with us or what we think or who we are.  A Muslim's only hope for a future after death as I understand it is his own weak ability to obey whatever God's Will is at the moment, and if he fails, to die forcing infidels to accept Islam (which is a straight ticket to paradise in Islam).  The Islamic message (obey God's will) is much more simple than the Christian message, but then whoever said that love (Christians relish that God is love per the Letter of John, chapter 4) was simple.  If I am missunderstanding the Muslim relationship with God, then someone please correct me...
 
I'm not mentioning this difference between Christianity and Islam to create a new issue on this string of posts.  Rather I'm mentioning it to show the difference in importance between the birth of Jesus and His death and resurrection.  This importance of the end of Jesus' life is so great that there is clear, basic, logical reason that all of the Gospels mention it (from different angles even), but some authors just didn't think to mention Jesus birth.  It isn't that some chose to omitt it.  It isn't that some just forgot to mention it, or that no one believe it until someone came up with the idea later that maybe Jesus birth was special.  No, I'm saying that His birth truly was not an issue for the first believers in Jerusalem who were being guided by eye witnesses personally accuanted with Mary and over 170 individuals who were personally taught and trained by Jesus, 12 of whom we call Apostles.  Other communities which formed later did not have all this power house of first hand knowledge or understanding to guide them, and so later gospel writers saw fit to include more detail from different angles on the life and teachings of Jesus.  Also, by the time St. John wrote his Gospel, the herasy of Gnosticism had errupted and needed to be corrected.  So St. John picked up a pen and wrote to the new and changing audience in new and changeing circumstances.  Just look at history and you will see that nothing evolved in the Holy Bible. 
 
Think about what I am saying to you.  Pray about it, Ron.  And may God Bless you, as always,
 
Jack Catholic
 


Edited by Jack Catholic - 02 May 2011 at 5:54pm
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