Print Page | Close Window

The Holy Gospel did not evolve!

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19811
Printed Date: 31 August 2014 at 3:15am


Topic: The Holy Gospel did not evolve!
Posted By: Jack Catholic
Subject: The Holy Gospel did not evolve!
Date Posted: 05 April 2011 at 11:14pm
Dear Muslim and Christian Brothers and all others interested in this topic,
 
In listening to a Christian-Muslim debate between Sam Shamoun and Shabir Ally on the internet, I heard a Muslim assertion about the corruption of the Holy Bible that was not addressed, but for which I know the answer, being Catholic and all.  I want to share this with you all so that there will be no doubt about whether or not the Holy Bible has been corrupted.
 
Mr. Ally asserted that the earliest of the four Gospels in the Holy Bible do not make the same claim as the oldest written by the Apostle John. Those claims are as follows:
 
1  "I and the Father are one."
2  "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
3  "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believs in him shall not parish but have everlasting life."
 
Mr. Ally from these asked why these assertions were not included in the earliest of the 4 Gospels.  One would think that if Jesus had said them, they would have been preached since the beginning.  But in fact (says Mr. Ally) the story of Jesus was evolving, rolling around like a snowball, growing and changing as it passed from mouth to mouth untill Jesus was made out to be God himself.
 
I listened to this assertion of Mr. Ally and had to laugh.  I know for certain that at the time of Jesus it was not uncommon to make a statement in part and trust that all listeners would know the full statement automatically.  When Jesus was crucified on the cross, for example, he said, "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me."  These words have been claimed by Muslims to be evidence that Jesus and the Father are not the same God.  But the truth is that the statement is actually the first line of Psalm 22, and that Jesus was not speaking as one seperate from the Father, but rather was letting all Jews attending his crucifixion know that his life was fullfilling Psalm 22.
 
In the same way, the first Gospels of the Life of Jesus were written to communities that already knew that Jesus was the Son of God, and was in fact God Himself.  It was only some 70 years after the death of Jesus on the Cross that new Christians from throughout the world who had not known Jesus first hand were not getting the full story of Jesus and his message due to the full message not having been written down yet. Thus St. John the Apostle saw the need to write down what the first hand witnesses knew and took for granted that all believers in the first decades also knew.  This is the Gospel of John, not the Gospel of Luke written by a convert doctor who collected stories, but a Gospel written by the very hand of an Apostle carefully taught and trained by Jesus himself.  This paragraph which I have just written is not conjecture but is truth, the historic reason that the Gospel of John was written as it was.  This fact is reflected in the letters of the Christian bishops and preachers of the Apostel John's lifetime.
 
The idea that the Gospels of the life of Jesus and the beliefs about Jesus evolved in the way that a snow ball grows is an attempt by non-Christians to explain the differences between a Holy book written 600 years after the life of Jesus and a Holy book written by the teachers trained by Jesus himself.  The idea is an attempt to discredit those trained teachers and so justify the inaccuracies in the Holy Book written 600 years late.
 
I respectfully challange my non-Christian brothers to disproove my assertion here.  Please do not take offense at my provocative attempt to challange My Muslim brothers.  I am not wanting to disrepsect their Islamic faith or my wonderful Muslim Brothers themselves, but I am challanging a widly held missunderstanding of the Holy Bible regarding what appears to be changes over time.
 
Thanks in advance for responding to my challange.
 
Asalaam Alekum
 



Replies:
Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 08 April 2011 at 11:04am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

In the same way, the first Gospels of the Life of Jesus were written to communities that already knew that Jesus was the Son of God, and was in fact God Himself.  It was only some 70 years after the death of Jesus on the Cross that new Christians from throughout the world who had not known Jesus first hand were not getting the full story of Jesus and his message due to the full message not having been written down yet.  
 
I have repectfully disagree/ To me this is ver funy arguments. The bigest thing about Jesus is being the son of God (asume this is correct). Again this is the most unique, the most important, the most exciting for human to see a son of god. So if you are a reporter you will rush this story and put in the front page, with big-big heading, no reporter will delay this "huge-huge story, huge-huge event". You can ask any jurnalist, no one will not delay this story even in a day or two, of course not 70 years.


-------------
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"


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 08 April 2011 at 10:17pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Muslim and Christian Brothers and all others interested in this topic,

In listening to a Christian-Muslim debate between Sam Shamoun and Shabir Ally on the internet, I heard a Muslim assertion about the corruption of the Holy Bible that was not addressed, but for which I know the answer, being Catholic and all. I want to share this with you all so that there will be no doubt about whether or not the Holy Bible has been corrupted.

Mr. Ally asserted that the earliest of the four Gospels in the Holy Bible do not make the same claim as the oldest written by the Apostle John. Those claims are as follows:

1 "I and the Father are one."

2 "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
3 "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believs in him shall not parish but have everlasting life."

Mr. Ally from these asked why these assertions were not included in the earliest of the 4 Gospels. One would think that if Jesus had said them, they would have been preached since the beginning. But in fact (says Mr. Ally) the story of Jesus was evolving, rolling around like a snowball, growing and changing as it passed from mouth to mouth untill Jesus was made out to be God himself.

I listened to this assertion of Mr. Ally and had to laugh. I know for certain that at the time of Jesus it was not uncommon to make a statement in part and trust that all listeners would know the full statement automatically. When Jesus was crucified on the cross, for example, he said, "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me." These words have been claimed by Muslims to be evidence that Jesus and the Father are not the same God. But the truth is that the statement is actually the first line of Psalm 22, and that Jesus was not speaking as one seperate from the Father, but rather was letting all Jews attending his crucifixion know that his life was fullfilling Psalm 22.

 

I respectfully challange my non-Christian brothers to disproove my assertion here. Please do not take offense at my provocative attempt to challange My Muslim brothers. I am not wanting to disrepsect their Islamic faith or my wonderful Muslim Brothers themselves, but I am challanging a widly held missunderstanding of the Holy Bible regarding what appears to be changes over time.

 

Thanks in advance for responding to my challange.

 

Asalaam Alekum

Hi Mr. Jack, I am not sure of the changes overtime; what I am more certain is the original language of the writings of the disciples should be in their mother thong and not Greek some 90 years later after the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem and the temple in the year 70AD.

As for your evidence in Psalm22 to prove Jesus went on the cross is a big joke.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2022-%2023&version=KJV -

Who is talking there? I suppose is David. He said: 1My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

2O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

All those “MY” refers to who? David! David is in trouble and he is calling on God Almighty. I don’t see how Jesus (S) fit in there.

He said: 6But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.”

Did Jesus (S) said, “But I am a worm, and no man” when he was on the cross? If the statement “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” applies to Jesus’ sayings then that statement also should apply.

David said:

Ø  11Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.

Ø  12Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.

Ø  13They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.

Who were these strong “bulls of Bashan” that beset around Jesus (S)?

tnc



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 09 April 2011 at 9:20am

 To Jack Catholic

 I recommend you to watch a more scholarly debate between Shabir Ally and Dr.James White:

 “Is the New Testament as it exists today the inspired word of God?”

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvqq6A7l-qQ&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvqq6A7l-qQ&feature=related

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdgAyhsjzg&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdgAyhsjzg&feature=related

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxja3mrrxKQ&feature=watch_response - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxja3mrrxKQ&feature=watch_response

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqetcw6DZoU&feature=watch_response - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqetcw6DZoU&feature=watch_response

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxja3mrrxKQ&feature=watch_response -
 





Posted By: Douggg
Date Posted: 09 April 2011 at 12:47pm
Originally posted by truthnowcome

Who were these strong “bulls of Bashan” that beset around Jesus (S)?


Hi TNC, they were demons that surrounded the cross as he was being crucified.   I will clarify, why the Bashan reference? ...

Demons are the disembodied spirits of Nephilim and Rephilim when they die.    Nephilim and rephilim were the offspring of the fallen angels (who put off their heavenly bodies) and earth women.    It started  in Genesis before the flood and it says in the bible also after the flood.

God told Abraham that his descendants would go out of the land and come back after 400 years.  

God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years." Genesis 15:13

Satan, hearing that same prophecy, during the 400 years of the Israelites' absence, had his angels set about to repopulate the land with rephilim, to hinder the children of Israel from being able to return.    That there were giants in the land is recorded when the children of Israel having been set free from Egypt, were about to re-enter the land.    They were afraid and said that comparatively speaking, they were as grasshoppers to the inhabitants of giants that backfilled when they were in Egypt.

It is also why God instructed the children of Israel to completely wipe out certain groups, men, women, and children - which without knowing that those were all rephilim, makes God of the bible to appear cruel.    But God had a reason to wipe out those groups, similar that He also destroyed all mankind, except Noah and his family, by the flood.

Anyway, back to the bulls of Bashan.   Bashan was one of the centers where the rephilim (giants) lived.      In the bible, Og king of Bashan, was king of the Amorites.    Og was one of the rephilim giants.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Og%2C_King_of_Bashan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Og%2C_King_of_Bashan


http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Dt&verse=3:1&src=niv - Dt 3:1 : "Next we turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan with his whole army marched out to meet us in battle at Edrei." http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Dt&verse=3:2&src=niv - Dt 3:2 : "The LORD said to me, "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon." http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Dt&verse=3:3&src=niv - Dt 3:3 : "So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors." http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Dt&verse=3:4&src=niv - Dt 3:4 : "At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan." http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Dt&verse=3:5&src=niv - Dt 3:5 :"All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages." http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Dt&verse=3:6&src=niv - Dt 3:6 : "We completely destroyed [a] them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children."

When Jesus was crucified, Satan took part (entering Judas) because he was thinking that by killing Jesus it would stop the kingdom of God from being established here on earth.   Keep in mind, the disciples, the religious leaders, and the common people had the preconceived idea that the messiah, based on ot prophecies, would be King Messiah, some one like king David who would overthrow the Jews oppressors.   And that theme is found in the four gospels starting when the wise men came from the East to give presents to the new-born king.    Herod got wind of it, and fearing that he would lose his kingship, had all of the babies under the age of 2 killed.   And in Luke 19 when Jesus entered Jerusalem riding the donkey, he was hailed as King Messah, son of David.

So the whole notion was that Jesus was the coming King Messiah , not Save us from our sins Messiah.   They had no idea that he was God's Save-us-from our sins Messiah.    That's why the disciples were all disappointed when Jesus was crucified.   Their hope that he was the (King) messiah were dashed - because they didn't realize Jesus's prime mission.   It was a secret from all of humanity, including Satan and the demons.    So as Jesus hung on the cross, with the sign "King of the Jews" nailed there at the instruction of pilate, Satan and the demons (the bulls of Bashan) surrounded the cross, thinking they had stopped the kingdom of God, by killing the King.

In 1corinthians2:7-8, it says that the gospel, salvation from our sins by Jesus's death and resurrection, was kept as a mystery.     Had Satan and the demons realized God's plan was to free us from the power of sin (which Satan knew of and deceived Adam and Eve to eat from the forbidden tree) would be destroyed through the crucified Christ, they would not have par-taked in getting Jesus crucified.

7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

 8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The bulls of Bashan (the location of Og and the rephilim) were demons.


Doug L.


Posted By: IssaEl999
Date Posted: 09 April 2011 at 4:03pm
 Many Christians claim that verse of Psalms were written by Jesus , Yet how can a man at his point of death , And think about quoting quotes of someone else ? Or are you saying that when Jesus came into the world , he was Prophesied to say the same statement of David's Crucifixion as mentioned in Psalms 22 ; 1 , When Davis  States ; ... My God ( El ) , My God ( El ) , Why Has Thou  < Awzab > ( Forsaken ) Me ? ... It is the same statement that Jesus si - called states on the cross in Mathew 27 ; 46 , Where He States ; Eli , Eli , Lama ( Why ) Sabachthani ( Forsaken Me ) ? That Is To Say My God ( Thehos ) , My God ( Thehos ) , Why Hast Thou Forsaken ( Engkatalipo ) Me ? '' The story of Jesus ' Crucifixion  as fabricated by Christians was a replica of the true story of David's Crucifixion .  Now David  was Crucified ( Mark 2 ; 25 ) because he was a tyrant , which caused him to lose the respect of his people ; He danced in the street Naked ( 2Samuel 6 ; 14 - 16 ) ; Got Uriah , Bathsheba 's husband killed  ( 2Samuel 12 ; 9 ) , And of his intense Homosexual Involement with Saul's son Jonathan ( 2Samuel 20 ; 41 ) Where It States ; '' ..... They Cried Together And They Kissed One Another ... '' Davids downfall was disobeying the commandment of Yahuwa given to Abraham and his seed not to marry the daughter of The Canaanites in Genesis 24 ; 3 and marrying Bathsheba ,
 
A Canaanite , Daughter of Eliam , Which resulted in Solomon being a Mulatto , Or as they describe him in Song Of Solomon 5 ; 14 , As having a complexion which is clear to be ivory and his hair in The Song Of Solomon 5 ; 11 , Is black but like that of a Raven which would be straight hair , Not wolly . They refer to him back in Song Of Solomon 5 ; 10  , As White ( Tsakh ) and Ruddy ( Awdome ) , Which means ' Reddish ' Eliam the father of Bathsheba  was a Gilonite , From the children of Heth as mentioned in Genesis 23 ; 5 , Who were from The Canaanite Tribes that lived in and around Henron . David  committed adultery with Bathsheba and sent her husband Uriah to the front line to be Killed ( 2Samuel 11 ; 14 - 15 ) .  Now David was Crucified , ( And Make Note Of The Similarity In Jesus ' So Called Crucifixion , ) And by the way the concept for Crucifixion was taken from The Egyptian by The Romans  As mentioned in El's Holy Qur'aan 45 ; 71 Where The Pharaoh States ; '' And I Will Have You Crucified On Trunks  Of Palm Trees '' . David was also Crucified on a tree as the custom of The Israelites  according to Deuteronomy 21 ; 22 ; 23 . Which States , That a man that has committed a sin and is hung ( Taelaw ) On a Tree ( Ates - ) , Is cursed of Eloheem , And this Aramic ( Hebrew ) word for Tree ( Ates or Arsa - ) Is the same word used in Genesis 2 ; 9  For the Tree ( Ates - ) Of Good ( Tobe ) and Evil ( Rah )  Which Qadmon / Adam and Kekaybaw / Eve partook of , The Ashuric Syriac ( Arabic ) word is 'Asaa Meaning '' Stick' ,
 
And we know that Jesus was not cursed for what he did at it states in John 19 ; 4 and Luke 23 ; 14 , But David was accursed for what he did . David was Crucified at 12 ; 00 Noon on The Sabbath , And Jesus was supposedly Crucified at The Six Hour  ( John 19 ; 14 ) . In Psalms 22 ; 16 , It States ; '' ... They Pierced ( Qawraw ) My Hands ( Yawd ) And My Feet ( Rehgel ) ... This would also apply to Jesus As mentioned in John 19 ; 37   , Where It States ; '' And Again Another Scripture Saith , They Shall Look On Him Whom They Pierced , '' .... And as you can see it's even clearer in Psalms than it is in John , Because they literally declare they piereced my hands and my feet , Rather than just they pierced him , While Christians proudly parade The Crucifixion of a man pierced in his hands and his feet . So if you didn't have that Psalms 22 ; 16 , How would the artist have decided where he was pierced ? In Psalms 22 ; 18 It States ; '' They Part My Garments Amongst Them , And Cast Lots Upon My Vesture . ''
 
And it is also supposedly of Jesus In Matthew 27 ; 35 , Where It States ; ... And Parted His Garment , Casting Lots ; ... They Parted My Garment Among Then , And Upon My Vesture Did They Cast Lots , '' ;.... You Can See Clearly That This Was Taken From Psalms . With the last breath , David Said '' I Thirst '' , And Jesus Said In John 19 ; 28 ; '' .... I Thirst '' . In Psalms 69 ; 21 , David was given vinegar , Where It States ; '' They Gave Me Also Gall ( Rowsh ) For My Meat ( Bawrooth ) ; And In My Thirst They Gave Me Vinegar ( Khomets ) To Drink ) '' ;.....  Which is exactly what they copied and said that Jesus said in Matthew 27 ; 34 , Where It States ; '' They Gave Him Vinegar ( Ozos ) To Drink Mingled With Gall ( Kholay ) ;.... The above quotes in The New Testament are taken drrectly from The Psalms . It is clear that the Christian Crucifixion story was really The Crucifixion of David .
 
The soma drink given to David enabled a death like state for serveral days and to awaken afterwards into an exhilarated state that lasted a few more days . after David was given the soma , They assumed that he was dead , So they did not break his legs . This is also mentioned about Jesus in John 19 ; 33 Where It States ; When They Came To Jesus , And Saw That He Was Dead Already , They Brake Not His Legs ,'' ;..... David was pierced in his side by Noosoo with a Hasta as mentioned in Pdalms 22 ; 14  I Am Poured Out Like Water '' , ;..... Which is exactly the same adopred story of Jesaus in John 19 ; 34 , Where It Says ; '' But One Of The Soldiers With A Spear Pierced His Side , And Forthwith Came There Out Blood And Waater '' ;..... Thus , The point remains that this is not a recording of Jesus so-called Crucifixion , But the actual Crucifixion of David after he committed his Homo -Sexual act with Saul's son Jonathan as found in 1Samuel 20 ; 41 , In fact Jesus was not Crucified ,


-------------
El's Holy Qur'aan , States In Chapter 17 ; 81 , '' And Say ; Truth Has ( Now ) Arrived , And Falsehood Perished ; For Falsehood Is ( By Its Nature ) Bound To Perish (81 ) .


Posted By: IssaEl999
Date Posted: 10 April 2011 at 8:37am

Did Saul , Shaool , Paul's Gentiles Really Believe Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus Was The Father And Son ?



-------------
El's Holy Qur'aan , States In Chapter 17 ; 81 , '' And Say ; Truth Has ( Now ) Arrived , And Falsehood Perished ; For Falsehood Is ( By Its Nature ) Bound To Perish (81 ) .


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 10 April 2011 at 3:57pm

Dear Semar, truthnowcome, and Mansoor_ali,

 

I have been a reporter for a newspaper before.  I know all about reporting news in a hurry before any other newspaper gets the information printed, and about putting the most important information in the first two paragraphs.  The concept of newspaper writing as you and I know it is only about 150 years old.  2000 years ago, there was not publishing of news papers, or television news teams.  The standard of news reporting in our day did not exist back then, and therefore does not apply.   Sorry...

As for the orriginal language of the disciples, it is well known that in Jerusalem were spoken Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.  Jews living in communities outside of Israel spoke mainly Greek.  What was written by the Apostles and disciples was written for all Jews and Christians everywhere, not just those residing in Israel.  Jesus came for ALL Jews, Christians, and gentiles interested in Christianity.  The best language to reach them all was Greek.  Not many non-Muslims accept the language argument that you and many other Muslims keep asserting.  We rather laugh at the imaginings that the language of the oldest manuscripts would be an issue for anyone today...

I did not mention that Psalm 22 proved that "Jesus went on the cross."  Perhaps you might consider going back to reread what I wrote to know why I even mentioned Psalm 22 to begin with.  Be sure you understand what you are reading before you attempt to argue with it...

 

Thank you for the debate websights, Mansoor_ali.  I do enjoy listening to these.  I do not, however, consider Dr. James White to be an "excellent scholar," as he often argues against Catholicism from the perspective of his personal misunderstandings of what Catholics actually believe.

I've noticed that nobody has as of yet argued convincingly that the message of the New Testament developed over time.  So my challange to the Muslim assertion leaves remaining the Christian belief that its message always existed unchanged since the life of Jesus.  I assert that the Christian belief held since the beginning of the first century AD is the only correct one, and as so, Muslims have one more reason why any Holy Books written 600 years later cannot be accuratly true.

Well, God bless you all,

Jack Catholic



Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 11 April 2011 at 1:35am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Semar, truthnowcome, and Mansoor_ali,

I have been a reporter for a newspaper before.  I know all about reporting news in a hurry before any other newspaper gets the information printed, and about putting the most important information in the first two paragraphs.  The concept of newspaper writing as you and I know it is only about 150 years old.  2000 years ago, there was not publishing of news papers, or television news teams.  The standard of news reporting in our day did not exist back then, and therefore does not apply.   Sorry...

Come on, this is not about reporting standard, but this is just pure human instinct, even our toddlers will tell us what the most exciting things that they have experienced with right away.  No wait for 70 years.

-------------
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"


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 12 April 2011 at 12:13am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Semar, truthnowcome

As for the orriginal language of the disciples, it is well known that in Jerusalem were spoken Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Jews living in communities outside of Israel spoke mainly Greek. What was written by the Apostles and disciples was written for all Jews and Christians everywhere, not just those residing in Israel. Jesus came for ALL Jews, Christians, and gentiles interested in Christianity. The best language to reach them all was Greek. Not many non-Muslims accept the language argument that you and many other Muslims keep asserting. We rather laugh at the imaginings that the language of the oldest manuscripts would be an issue for anyone today...

Well, God bless you all,

Jack Catholic

Peace my friend!

            Br. Jack, you don’t know the trick of the Devil, let me fill you in. The best way to pull a vial over someone is to remove them from their native language and used a language that you can manipulate them with.  

Example:  To greet someone Jesus (S) said: “Shalom laka” If I am correct I don’t able to go and look it up. Anyway, that is to say Peace unto you.

Had it be used by the Christians you would not failed to recognize the Muslim’s Greetings.

          Most importantly the word “Rab” Lord! It is wrongly translated as “Lord” for Jesus (S). The proof for that is in your bible. The Disciples were calling him Rab and the Jews never object to although they knew the word “Rab” mean Lord, why?  Because Jesus (S) was the Rabbai for his disciples!  Who said so? The original language: 16Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020&version=KJV -

    The short form for master is Rab! The Devil changes the language and replaces Rab (master) to Rab (Lord) and the call Jesus (S) Lord instead of master. Nice trick ehh!

Had they used the original language you won’t fail to recognize the name of God “Allah”

         The language of Jesus (S): “Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Gospels are in Greek, and only rarely quote actual Aramaic words. Reconstruction of the Aramaic background of the Gospels remains a fascinating, but inordinately difficult area of modern research.” http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html -

         If you go to Go to the Aramaic Lexicon and Concordance type the word “God” the name Allah will show up.    http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi -

       The point is if they had used the original language of Jesus (S) and preaches his message Christians won’t find it hard to swallow the name “Allah”; in other, which ever language you translate the writings in they should put the original at the side. But no, if they do that it would let the cat out of the bag earlier. So you see how original language is important!!

tnc



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: IssaEl999
Date Posted: 12 April 2011 at 12:46am
Originally posted by truthnowcome

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Semar, truthnowcome

As for the orriginal language of the disciples, it is well known that in Jerusalem were spoken Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Jews living in communities outside of Israel spoke mainly Greek. What was written by the Apostles and disciples was written for all Jews and Christians everywhere, not just those residing in Israel. Jesus came for ALL Jews, Christians, and gentiles interested in Christianity. The best language to reach them all was Greek. Not many non-Muslims accept the language argument that you and many other Muslims keep asserting. We rather laugh at the imaginings that the language of the oldest manuscripts would be an issue for anyone today...

Well, God bless you all,

Jack Catholic

Peace my friend!

            Br. Jack, you don’t know the trick of the Devil, let me fill you in. The best way to pull a vial over someone is to remove them from their native language and used a language that you can manipulate them with.  

Example:  To greet someone Jesus (S) said: “Shalom laka” If I am correct I don’t able to go and look it up. Anyway, that is to say Peace unto you.

Had it be used by the Christians you would not failed to recognize the Muslim’s Greetings.

          Most importantly the word “Rab” Lord! It is wrongly translated as “Lord” for Jesus (S). The proof for that is in your bible. The Disciples were calling him Rab and the Jews never object to although they knew the word “Rab” mean Lord, why?  Because Jesus (S) was the Rabbai for his disciples!  Who said so? The original language: 16Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020&version=KJV - John20:16

    The short form for master is Rab! The Devil changes the language and replaces Rab (master) to Rab (Lord) and the call Jesus (S) Lord instead of master. Nice trick ehh!

Had they used the original language you won’t fail to recognize the name of God “Allah”

         The language of Jesus (S): “Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Gospels are in Greek, and only rarely quote actual Aramaic words. Reconstruction of the Aramaic background of the Gospels remains a fascinating, but inordinately difficult area of modern research.” http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html - http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html

         If you go to Go to the Aramaic Lexicon and Concordance type the word “God” the name Allah will show up.    http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi - http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi

       The point is if they had used the original language of Jesus (S) and preaches his message Christians won’t find it hard to swallow the name “Allah”; in other, which ever language you translate the writings in they should put the original at the side. But no, if they do that it would let the cat out of the bag earlier. So you see how original language is important!!

tnc

 
 
I Have Been Trying To Tell A Few Here The Same Thing <So you see how original language is important!!> LOLLOL


-------------
El's Holy Qur'aan , States In Chapter 17 ; 81 , '' And Say ; Truth Has ( Now ) Arrived , And Falsehood Perished ; For Falsehood Is ( By Its Nature ) Bound To Perish (81 ) .


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 12 April 2011 at 4:33pm
Dear IssaEl999 and brothers,
 
I do not have a problem with anything you have posted.  Accept for one thing: Teacher, Master, and Lord are synonyms in English.  Calling Jesus Lord is not an incorrect translation when we are speaking about English.
 
About the name of, "Allah," for Yahweh (Jehovah), I am all for calling God, "Allah."  The problem here on Islamicity.com is that though Christians have been calling God, "Allah" for 2000+ years (longer than Islam has existed), yet Muslims have told me they are offended when I referr to God in a Christian way while calling Him, "Allah,"  they are highly offended.  What's more, in Muslim countries, Muslims are putting Christians to death in the streets for using this name in reference to the Christian God.  Then Christians are being accused of provoking these murders.  Many of these countries have made it national law forbidding Christians from calling God, "Allah," saying that because we recognize God as a trinity, calling God, "Allah," is blasphemy against the understanding the Muslims have of God.  I did not make this controversy, nor do I kill people over the issue.  But Muslims are killing Christians regularly over it.  What can I say?  I'd like to see Muslims police themselves on this issue, bringing other Muslims to justice for these murders.  But the Holy Qur'an does not recommend the death penalty for murder should a Muslim kill a Christian, thought it does recommend the death penalty for a Christian who kills a Muslim.  Go figure that one.
 
About your post, you haven't made a case for the Holy Bible evolving over time, as many Muslims seem to assert.  Can you show that it has evolved over time?  So far, nobody has done so. 
 
God Bless,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 15 April 2011 at 3:04pm

Dear Mansoor_ali,

I listened to the debates.  They were great!!!  Whose argument do you think prevailed? Why?

Dear IssaEl999,

You should read the story of David in the Jewish Old Testament.  You will see clearly that David was never crucified.  You will also see that the Christian New Testament does not claim that David WAS crucified.  What point were you trying to assert in your post?  

Also, the very old custom that comes from the Middle East and the Mediteranian world of men kissing each other is no act of homosexuality.  We must be careful not to use modern ocurances to interpret something that happened nearly 4000 years ago.  The ancient custom is that a kiss means a promiss and is a sign of great respect.  It is placed on another’s cheek, or on the forehead, or on the hand.  A kiss on the lips is reserved only for husband and wife.  David and Jonathan kissed each other on the cheek, perhaps on both cheeks.  I am surprised you do not know this...  There was no homosexuality in the lives of either David or Jonathan.  Perhaps a little extra study for you is in order.

Dear Semar,

You use toddlers to show how my comment about newspaper writing couldn’t possibly be true, but in your example of toddlers you have proven my point.  Toddlers don’t write for the local newspaper.  In fact, Christianity did not spread by way of the written word, but rather by the spoken word.  The bible was not composed in news paper form, but rather in story form.  Christians who shared the Good News that had changed their lives and inspired them undoubtedly told the important material first.  But in the Catholic Mass that formed the worship of the first century Christians, they shared not the newspaper version of Jesus’ message, but the story form of it.  And it was this form that was written down in the 4 Gospels of the Christian New Testament.  You are passing judgment on the writings of well trained and God-inspired men based on your modern and personal expectations.  Thus, you are missing the point that the original authors had in mind by writing their books.

Dear Truthcomenow,

You have not showed with the argument of Original Language that the message of the Holy Bible had been altered over time.  Try again...

IssaEl999, Mansoor_ali, Truthcomenow, and Semar,

Can you prove that the message of the Holy Bible evolved over time into something different from what Jesus actually taught, or not?  With over 210 views on this string, one must assume that many readers are waiting to see if you can?  For if you cannot, we must assume that the Holy Bible is accurate in its message and in reporting the facts of the life of Jesus...

God Bless,

Jack Catholic



Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 15 April 2011 at 6:34pm
Dear Jack,
 
Spoken or written just a way of expression, its would follow the same instinct, so they would tell/write the most exciting thing. Not the other way around.


-------------
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"


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 15 April 2011 at 10:05pm
Dear Semar,
 
You seem to try to discredit my explanation about why the 4 Gospels are written the way they are.  I know that I am right because the letters written by the bishops of the time of St. John the Apostle's last days began writing letters about the problems they were having in the care of the believers of thier time.  What I say is historically accurate as to why St. John wrote yet another account of the life of Jesus, and why it is so different from the previous three.
 
Yet when you say that the most important issues should have been written first, I cannot say that I blame you for saying it.  In fact, the reason why Christianity spread so quickly over the world is that people did precisely what you are saying they should have done.  Whenever a person came to a realization of who Jesus was and opened himself up to a personal relationship with Jesus (through prayer, obedience, study, and good works based upon almsgiving and fasting), he became filled with the Spirit of God.  He would become overwhelmed by that Holy Spirit in all aspects of his life, and many of the problems he had had with others, with family, and with life all around dissappeared.  Others might ask him about the joy he experienced even in the midst of suffering.  What is the reason for his joy, or the change in his life, others would ask.  At that moment, the person would share who he had just met, who Jesus really was, and what Jesus had done in his life to transform it.  I can attest to this even now as a modern Christian.  I know many Christians who can also.  There is no greater witness to the truth of the christian faith or of Jesus Christ in the Gospels than a changed life.  The bible was written to help us know Jesus and who he was.  It was written to help us know God the Father better, and to recognize and desire the Holy spirit to be present in our hearts and lives.  I offer praise and thanksgiving daily for all that God has done for me through Jesus Christ as a Catholic.  I hope and pray that one day you might be able to put asside some of the missunderstandings preached by Islam and come to know Allah as I know him.  Perhaps you might see life differently...  Who knows...
 
May God Bless you always,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 April 2011 at 1:27pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

In the same way, the first Gospels of the Life of Jesus were written to communities that already knew that Jesus was the Son of God, and was in fact God Himself.  It was only some 70 years after the death of Jesus on the Cross that new Christians from throughout the world who had not known Jesus first hand were not getting the full story of Jesus and his message due to the full message not having been written down yet. Thus St. John the Apostle saw the need to write down what the first hand witnesses knew and took for granted that all believers in the first decades also knew. 
 
And yet neither Mark (generally considered to be chronologically the first gospel) nor John even mention the virgin birth, which I understand is central to Catholicism.  How could they have omitted it?  What's the point of writing a gospel, regardless of your audience, if you leave out the most important parts?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: IssaEl999
Date Posted: 17 April 2011 at 6:46am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear IssaEl999 and brothers,
 
I do not have a problem with anything you have posted.  Accept for one thing: Teacher, Master, and Lord are synonyms in English.  Calling Jesus Lord is not an incorrect translation when we are speaking about English.
 
About the name of, "Allah," for Yahweh (Jehovah), I am all for calling God, "Allah."  The problem here on Islamicity.com is that though Christians have been calling God, "Allah" for 2000+ years (longer than Islam has existed), yet Muslims have told me they are offended when I referr to God in a Christian way while calling Him, "Allah,"  they are highly offended.  What's more, in Muslim countries, Muslims are putting Christians to death in the streets for using this name in reference to the Christian God.  Then Christians are being accused of provoking these murders.  Many of these countries have made it national law forbidding Christians from calling God, "Allah," saying that because we recognize God as a trinity, calling God, "Allah," is blasphemy against the understanding the Muslims have of God.  I did not make this controversy, nor do I kill people over the issue.  But Muslims are killing Christians regularly over it.  What can I say?  I'd like to see Muslims police themselves on this issue, bringing other Muslims to justice for these murders.  But the Holy Qur'an does not recommend the death penalty for murder should a Muslim kill a Christian, thought it does recommend the death penalty for a Christian who kills a Muslim.  Go figure that one.
 
About your post, you haven't made a case for the Holy Bible evolving over time, as many Muslims seem to assert.  Can you show that it has evolved over time?  So far, nobody has done so. 
 
God Bless,
 
Jack Catholic
 
  http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20009 - Language Of The Bible For The Christian Here .
Let Keep It Real Here Ok No More Games . First The Bible Wasn't Written In English Ok . It Was Written In Aramic Any Of Your Socalled Religious Theologian / Scholar / Minister / Pastor Etc Will Tell You This , So Anything Written In English Is Fake Overstand . Not Only That Saul , Shaool , Paul  13th Self -Appointed Apostle Change The Teaching Of Moses / Yashu'a . So The Teaching You Accept Today Is Wrong . Now If You Like I Can Walk You Through It Step By Step Ok . Let's See  If You Really Know Your Scripture ok By The Way Check This Link Ok .. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19994 - Trinity Fact Or Fiction ?
 
Jack  ... How Come Most Christian I Say Most And Not All Christians Come With This Bull About  Muslims Killing Christian , When The Roman Went Around The World Killing / Rape Men / Woman Stealing Their Land / Resources Etc . Today They Call It Democracy . My Question To You What Name Did They Call It  Back Then ???


-------------
El's Holy Qur'aan , States In Chapter 17 ; 81 , '' And Say ; Truth Has ( Now ) Arrived , And Falsehood Perished ; For Falsehood Is ( By Its Nature ) Bound To Perish (81 ) .


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 18 April 2011 at 2:15am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear IssaEl999 and brothers,

I do not have a problem with anything you have posted. Accept for one thing: Teacher, Master, and Lord are synonyms in English. Calling Jesus Lord is not an incorrect translation when we are speaking about English.

About the name of, "Allah," for Yahweh (Jehovah), I am all for calling God, "Allah." The problem here on Islamicity.com is that though Christians have been calling God, "Allah" for 2000+ years (longer than Islam has existed), yet Muslims have told me they are offended when I referr to God in a Christian way while calling Him, "Allah," they are highly offended. What's more, in Muslim countries, Muslims are putting Christians to death in the streets for using this name in reference to the Christian God. Then Christians are being accused of provoking these murders. Many of these countries have made it national law forbidding Christians from calling God, "Allah," saying that because we recognize God as a trinity, calling God, "Allah," is blasphemy against the understanding the Muslims have of God. I did not make this controversy, nor do I kill people over the issue. But Muslims are killing Christians regularly over it. What can I say? I'd like to see Muslims police themselves on this issue, bringing other Muslims to justice for these murders. But the Holy Qur'an does not recommend the death penalty for murder should a Muslim kill a Christian, thought it does recommend the death penalty for a Christian who kills a Muslim. Go figure that one.

 

Jack Catholic

 

Br. Jack, you are using diplomacy in attacking the Muslims here; no wonder they recognize you long before. Never mind, we accustom to that!

 

The reason for that is that you make Allah (S) into a man and that is blasphemy!

 

Are God and his law a curse?

 

Ø  13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." Galatians 3:13

 

Let me remember you what Jesus (S) said, he said:

Ø  "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18)

Jesus (S) teaches to obey the law:

Ø  "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.  So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.(Matthew 23:1-3)"

If you claimed to be a follower of Jesus (S) then you have to be obedient to the law, are you?

Let us look at the law, it says:

Ø  "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people." Deuteronomy 13:6-9

Ø  "And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, .....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die." Deuteronomy 17:3-5

Are you obeying  the law?

Let us look at what Paul has to say, he said:

Ø  "20.   For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 
21.  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 
23. 
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24.  Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie,
and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26.  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28.  Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30.  slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 
31.  they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32. Although they know God's righteous decree that
those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." Romans 1:20-32

Which law do you follow? Does the GOD Almighty of the Mosaic Law really sound like One who cares about our opinions in these Verses?

Ø  "And as for a man or woman in whom there proves to be a mediumistic spirit or spirit of prediction, they should be put to death without fail.  They should pelt them to death with stones.  Their own blood is upon them." Leviticus 20:27

Ø  15 Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death. Exodus 21:15

Ø 
16 Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. Exodus 21:16

Ø 
17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. Exodus 21:17

Ø 
19 Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death. Exodus 22:19

Ø 
14 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. Exodus 31:14

Ø 
15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.  Exodus 31:15

Ø 
12 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. Leviticus 20:12

Ø 
13 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Leviticus 20:13

Again, Jesus (S) said:

Ø  "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18)

 

Do you believe what Jesus (S) prophesied there will not fulfilled? He said: I tell you the truth,” until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. 

 

The God of the Moses (S) said:

Ø  For from the “rising of the sun” even unto the “going down” of the same “my name [Allah (S)] shall be great among the Gentiles”; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [Allah (S)] shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%201&version=9 - :11

 

TNC



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: IssaEl999
Date Posted: 18 April 2011 at 6:32am
According to '' The American Heritage Dictionary '' The word '' Law '' Is defined as ..
1 . A rule of conduct or procedute established by custom , Agreement , or Authority . 2 . A . The body of rules and principle governing the affairs of A community and enforced by A political Authority ;

The Ashuric Syriac ( Arabic ) word for Law is Shari'ah which means ; '' A Rule Established By Authority ; Society Or Custom 2 . A Code Of Ethics Or Behavior , '' This word takes it's root from ; Shara'a meaning to introduce , Enact , Prescribe , Give , Make Laws .

The Aramic / Hebrew word for Law is ; '' Towrah '' or '' Torah '' These letters are equivalent to The Ashuric Syriac ( Arabic ) word wariyya Which means '' A View '' . In Greek , The Word For Law Is ; Nomos ''
 
As mentioned previously the word for Laws in Ashuric Syriac ( Arabic ) Is '' Shari'ah '' .
The word for commandment is '' Wasiah '' And means direction , instruction , Injuction , Order '' . Many times throughout The Scriptures you will see A Distinction Being Made Between A '' Law '' And A '' Commandment '' . Take A LQQk At ( Exodus 24 ; 12 ) ;

Exodus 24 ; 12 ( Revealed In The Year 1512 B.C.E. And I Quote ; And the Lord said unto Moses Come up to me into the mount , and be there ; and I will give thee tables of stone , and a Law and Commandments which I have written ; that thou Mayest Teach them .

As you can see The Most High made A Disinction Between Law , Commandment And Stone Tablet . The Commandment Is What Is Asked Of You , For Instance The First Commandment That Was Given To Man , Kadmon ( Adam ) , Was Not To Partake Of The Tree Of Knowldge Of Good And Evil ;

Genesis 2 ; 16 -17 ( Revealed InThe Year 1512 B.C.E. ) And I Quote ; And the Lord God Commanded the man , saying , of every tree of the garden 'thou mayest freely eat ; Verse 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil , Thou shalt not eat of it ; for in the Day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely Die ....

Genesis 6 ; 22 ( Revealed InThe Year 1512 B.C.E. ) And I Quote ; Thus dis Noah according to all that Commanded him , so did he .

Genesis 17 ; 10 - 12 ( Revealed InThe Year 1512 B.C.E. ) And I Quote ; The is my covenant , which ye shall keep , between me and you and thy seed after thee ; Every Man Child among you Shall Be Circumcised . Verse 11 . And ye Shall Be Circumcised . the Flesh of your Foreskin and it shall be a Token of the covenant between me and you . Verse 12 , And he that is eight Days old Shall Be Circumcised among you , every man child in your generation , he that is born in the House , or bought with money of any Stranger which is not of thy seed .

Genesis 26 ; 5 ( Revealed InThe Year 1512 B.C.E. ) And I Quote ; Because that Abraham obeyed my voice , and Kept my Charge , my Commandments my Statutes , and my Laws .

( Genesis 2 ; 17 ) The was the first commandment given to man . This was Asked of him because man violated This Commandment , He was Punished for this Action , And was Expelled From The Garden Of Delight And His Gift Of Everlasting Life Was Revoked , As time went on , Man was given A Second Chance By The Most High To Amend For His / Hers Sins And If He Obeyed , Then He Would Inherit His Right Back To The Enclosed Gaeden Of Delight ( Commonly Know Today As '' Heaven '' Or '' Paradise '' ) .

However , Man Continued Disobeying His Commandments Until Man Became So Displeasing In The Eyes Of The Most High , That He Destroyed The Entire Population By Water ( Known To Many As The Great Flood Or Deluge ) During The Time Of Utnafishtim ( Noah ) Son Of Lamech And Kamiylah . ...
 


-------------
El's Holy Qur'aan , States In Chapter 17 ; 81 , '' And Say ; Truth Has ( Now ) Arrived , And Falsehood Perished ; For Falsehood Is ( By Its Nature ) Bound To Perish (81 ) .


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 18 April 2011 at 1:56pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Mansoor_ali,

I listened to the debates.  They were great!!!  Whose argument do you think prevailed? Why?

Dear IssaEl999,

You should read the story of David in the Jewish Old Testament.  You will see clearly that David was never crucified.  You will also see that the Christian New Testament does not claim that David WAS crucified.  What point were you trying to assert in your post?  

Also, the very old custom that comes from the Middle East and the Mediteranian world of men kissing each other is no act of homosexuality.  We must be careful not to use modern ocurances to interpret something that happened nearly 4000 years ago.  The ancient custom is that a kiss means a promiss and is a sign of great respect.  It is placed on another’s cheek, or on the forehead, or on the hand.  A kiss on the lips is reserved only for husband and wife.  David and Jonathan kissed each other on the cheek, perhaps on both cheeks.  I am surprised you do not know this...  There was no homosexuality in the lives of either David or Jonathan.  Perhaps a little extra study for you is in order.

Dear Semar,

You use toddlers to show how my comment about newspaper writing couldn’t possibly be true, but in your example of toddlers you have proven my point.  Toddlers don’t write for the local newspaper.  In fact, Christianity did not spread by way of the written word, but rather by the spoken word.  The bible was not composed in news paper form, but rather in story form.  Christians who shared the Good News that had changed their lives and inspired them undoubtedly told the important material first.  But in the Catholic Mass that formed the worship of the first century Christians, they shared not the newspaper version of Jesus’ message, but the story form of it.  And it was this form that was written down in the 4 Gospels of the Christian New Testament.  You are passing judgment on the writings of well trained and God-inspired men based on your modern and personal expectations.  Thus, you are missing the point that the original authors had in mind by writing their books.

Dear Truthcomenow,

You have not showed with the argument of Original Language that the message of the Holy Bible had been altered over time.  Try again...

IssaEl999, Mansoor_ali, Truthcomenow, and Semar,

Can you prove that the message of the Holy Bible evolved over time into something different from what Jesus actually taught, or not?  With over 210 views on this string, one must assume that many readers are waiting to see if you can?  For if you cannot, we must assume that the Holy Bible is accurate in its message and in reporting the facts of the life of Jesus...

God Bless,

Jack Catholic

Jack,
Gospel you claim did not evolve since it was given to Jesus (pbuh). I am sorry to say that your claim cannot be proved true if we use the Bible as a refrence.
I will use two claims made by people like yourself that are fundamental to your belief which you claim to have come out of the same book which in turn proves them wrong.
1-The claim that Jesus is God. And you base that belief to have come out of the Bible.
I am sure you will agree with me that God does not have a God, right?
I am also sure you are quite familiar with NT quotes where Jesus is quoted to have said: " I am going to my father and your father, to my God and your God". Jesus has confirmed here that he has a God, your God and my God. This quote proves you and your claim is wrong.
 
The other claim you and people like you make is that God and Jesus are equal and same.
You will agree with me that there is none equal to God. If Jesus was God, he would have never said the statement I quoted above, nor this one:
" for my father is Greater than I".  Nowhere did he say, I am equal to God, but very clearly here he says: " for my father is Greater than I"
This is the truth, correct yourself while he has given you a chance, don't wait when nothing will save you from justice being served. Ask God's forgiveness for following your own ways, and He will forgive you your past mistakes, once you correct your path for good. Nothing other than following the truth will serve you any good.
Hasan 
 
 


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 18 April 2011 at 3:48pm
Originally posted by Mansoor_ali


 To Jack Catholic

 I recommend you to watch a more scholarly debate between Shabir Ally and Dr.James White:

 “Is the New Testament as it exists today the inspired word of God?”

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvqq6A7l-qQ&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvqq6A7l-qQ&feature=related

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdgAyhsjzg&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdgAyhsjzg&feature=related

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxja3mrrxKQ&feature=watch_response - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxja3mrrxKQ&feature=watch_response

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqetcw6DZoU&feature=watch_response - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqetcw6DZoU&feature=watch_response

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxja3mrrxKQ&feature=watch_response -
 





 Debate between Dr.Bart Ehrman and Dr.Craig Evans "Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?"

 
Click here to watch it: http://www.bartdehrman.com/flv_biblemisquotejesus/doesbiblemisquote.htm - http://www.bartdehrman.com/flv_biblemisquotejesus/doesbiblemisquote.htm


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 19 April 2011 at 3:58pm

Dear mr. Ron Webb,

 
Of the four gospel writers, only John and Luke spent any time with Mary, the mother of Jesus.  John cared for her, but he did not get the information that Luke did.  Luke was a medical doctor, John was not.  Luke followed St. Paul around for quite a few years.  As he traveled with Paul from place to place, he found quite a few communities that were missing knowledge of Jesus which other communities had.  So he began collecting stories.  He finished his research by spending 3 years with John and Mary in Ephesius.  There, he collected the stories of Jesus Birth, the visit by Mary to Elizabeth, the story of the birth of John the Baptist, and of the muting of Zachariah.  He also got quite a bit on the crucifixion of Jesus from Mary who was there with Jesus throughout the whole event.  So why does Luke contain in his nerative things the other Gospels don't?  Just do your research and you will answer your own question.  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.
 
God Bless,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 19 April 2011 at 4:11pm
Dear IssaEl999,
 
I do keep things real.  Romans did kill a lot of people, including Christians.  About what you say, "How Come Most Christian I Say Most And Not All Christians Come With This Bull About  Muslims Killing Christian," just look up on the internet, "muslim christian news" and you will find an almost daily news report from some part of the world of murder, riot induced killing, or other killings of christians by muslims.  I am not accusing you of any of this.  But I sure would appreciate some honesty on the part of non-christians regarding this ongoing issue in the world today.
 
You asked why we Chrsitians don't refer to God as Allah, I simply explained why, both from my personal experience and from the news reports I have read of goings on in Indonesia and Pakistan.
 
So what again was evidence that the Holy Bible evolved over time?  I haven't heard any.
 
God Bless,
 
Jack Catholic
 
 


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 19 April 2011 at 4:21pm
Dear truthcomenow,
 
 
You quoted, " "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18)"
 
 
Then you asked me if I am obeying the law.  What has this got to do with whether the bible has evolved, may I ask?
 
Based on the verses you provided, it seems that the New Testament agrees with the Torah as to what is right and what is wrong, no?  I don't see any evidence of evolving here. 
 
God Bless,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 19 April 2011 at 4:31pm
Dear Honeto,
 
Are you absolutely sure that you application of meaning to the words of Jesus as quoted in the bible are accurate?  I don't believe you are understanding what Jesus meant.  You are not considering the context of the verses which you suggest might be in conflict with Christian belief.  If you study the context in great depth according to what the Catholic Church has preserved from the teaching of the Apostles, you will find that it all makes sense, and that Jesus truly is the same God as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. 
 
But what has this got to do with the evolution of the Holy Bible?  I still don't see any evidence from you that the Holy Bible has evolved.  Are you admitting by your silence that the Holy Bible never truly did evolve?  that the Holy Bible is exactly what Jesus said and did, and what he taught the Apostles to teach to all Christians everywhere for all time?
 
God Bless you,
 
Jack Catholic
 
 


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 19 April 2011 at 4:54pm

 To Jack Catholic

 Another scholarly debate between Yusuf Ismail and Dr. David Seccombe

 "The Christian-Muslim Approach to the New Testament-Word of God or development of man? "

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpt5qU-Y0Zk&feature=related - Part 1

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul73Hpmtp18&feature=related - Part 2

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqYQE268Jt0&feature=related - Part 3

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SP2315iL68&feature=related - Part 4

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHCL0n0POfo&feature=related - Part 5

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gauo-Zr1CzE&feature=related - Part 6

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfW98HCsUHY&feature=related - Part 7

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v79KAB9F-0M&feature=related - Part 8

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruauNEYdruc&feature=related - Part 9

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTc3GgI2x48&feature=related - Part 10

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc0WdoU2TSI&feature=related - Part 11


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 19 April 2011 at 7:44pm
Dear Mansoor_Ali
 
Thanks again for the debate references.  These are awsome.  I like them because I can listen to them while I do my other work.
 
God Bless you, Mansoor_Ali!!!


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 20 April 2011 at 11:48am

 Thanks Jack.I will keep quoting those debates which have been among top class debaters.All my debates circulate around Authenticity of Bible.


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 20 April 2011 at 2:11pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Semar,
 
You seem to try to discredit my explanation about why the 4 Gospels are written the way they are.  I know that I am right because the letters written by the bishops of the time of St. John the Apostle's last days began writing letters about the problems they were having in the care of the believers of thier time.  What I say is historically accurate as to why St. John wrote yet another account of the life of Jesus, and why it is so different from the previous three.
 
Yet when you say that the most important issues should have been written first, I cannot say that I blame you for saying it.  In fact, the reason why Christianity spread so quickly over the world is that people did precisely what you are saying they should have done.  Whenever a person came to a realization of who Jesus was and opened himself up to a personal relationship with Jesus (through prayer, obedience, study, and good works based upon almsgiving and fasting), he became filled with the Spirit of God.  He would become overwhelmed by that Holy Spirit in all aspects of his life, and many of the problems he had had with others, with family, and with life all around dissappeared.  Others might ask him about the joy he experienced even in the midst of suffering.  What is the reason for his joy, or the change in his life, others would ask.  At that moment, the person would share who he had just met, who Jesus really was, and what Jesus had done in his life to transform it.  I can attest to this even now as a modern Christian.  I know many Christians who can also.  There is no greater witness to the truth of the christian faith or of Jesus Christ in the Gospels than a changed life.  The bible was written to help us know Jesus and who he was.  It was written to help us know God the Father better, and to recognize and desire the Holy spirit to be present in our hearts and lives.  I offer praise and thanksgiving daily for all that God has done for me through Jesus Christ as a Catholic.  I hope and pray that one day you might be able to put asside some of the missunderstandings preached by Islam and come to know Allah as I know him.  Perhaps you might see life differently...  Who knows...
 
May God Bless you always,
 
Jack Catholic
But again it's too worthy "Jesus son of God" to be missed from the gospel for that long. It's a super magical word that will move anybody heart right away. Like you guys preach this day it's featured the first thing in your speaches, flyer, brochure etc. It's a clear indication that's just a fabricated story that added to the bible.
 
(My middle schooler daugter just got a flyer the other day from somebody that distributed it at school, I didn't understand how it's posible, it's a public school. Anyway, on the flyer, as usual  "Jesus Son of God the savior, featured on the first pages).


-------------
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"


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 20 April 2011 at 3:13pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Honeto,
 
Are you absolutely sure that you application of meaning to the words of Jesus as quoted in the bible are accurate?  I don't believe you are understanding what Jesus meant.  You are not considering the context of the verses which you suggest might be in conflict with Christian belief.  If you study the context in great depth according to what the Catholic Church has preserved from the teaching of the Apostles, you will find that it all makes sense, and that Jesus truly is the same God as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. 
 
But what has this got to do with the evolution of the Holy Bible?  I still don't see any evidence from you that the Holy Bible has evolved.  Are you admitting by your silence that the Holy Bible never truly did evolve?  that the Holy Bible is exactly what Jesus said and did, and what he taught the Apostles to teach to all Christians everywhere for all time?
 
God Bless you,
 
Jack Catholic
 
 
 
Jack,
are you kidding me, you got to be deaf to think I am quiet or haven't you read my posts dear.
Look you do quite opposite to what the Bible teaches but you still find excuses and try to find other meanings while the obvious and clear meanings don't mean anything. I am refering to carving images and putting them in places of worship, kneeling to them and so on. Do you obey to the ten commandments, do you really? How do you dodge them then?
And please don't talk about Catholic Church, I know a little bit about its over five centuries of Mafia style terror that stretched accross the world, not just to Spain after its reconquest from Muslims. So, please don't open my mouths about its history. I admit that for about a century it has been trying to improve its image by extensive social and public work and charity. But all of that still cannot erase what it purpetrated for so many centuries by brutally eliminating anyone who resisted or questioned its authority.
 
The reason for my conclusion that the Bible evolved or altered through time is simple. Gospel or Torah for example were originally God's word. And I believe that God's word is never inconsistant or contradictory to His Godhood. If we through examination find them (OT and NT) to be inconsistant or contradictory is not because God is so, rather that in human hands it has been altered or evolved. Simple as that.
So in order to prove this, we need to pick any major issue first and see if that is the case. We have so far seen that there are several issues that show us that it did infact evolved or been altered. Issue of God for example is one of such. The Bible as a whole is inconsistent about God, who is He, and His abilities.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 20 April 2011 at 3:35pm
Dear semar,
 
You example of data that was missing from the Holy Bible until it was added later (evidence of evolving and then tampering with the Holy Bible) is calling Jesus the Son of God.  I'm printing verses that show both that indeed the gospel writers did include the most important information first, and that your assertion is not a valid argument).
 
You said, "...it's too worthy "Jesus son of God" to be missed from the gospel for that long. It's a super magical word that will move anybody heart right away. It's a clear indication that's just a fabricated story that added to the bible."
 
Here are the verses that show that this bit of data was both included in the beginning of the Gospels, and that it was present in all four gospels regardless of when each was written.
 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16:16&version=NIV - Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27:54&version=NIV - Matthew 27:54
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+1:1&version=NIV - Mark 1:1
[ John the Baptist Prepares the Way ] The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God,

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+1:11&version=NIV - Mark 1:11
And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+5:7&version=NIV - Mark 5:7
He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1:32&version=NIV - Luke 1:32
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1:35&version=NIV - Luke 1:35
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:49&version=NIV - John 1:49
Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+5:18&version=NIV - John 5:18
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

There you have it.  Still no clear evidence has been provided prooving that the Holy Bible's content evolved over time.  Do you have any other evidence?

God Bless you,

Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 20 April 2011 at 4:16pm
Dear Honeto,
 
I assure you that Catholics DO NOT worship immages.  Allah in the Torah also does not forbid the making of images accept for the purpose of worshiping them instead of Himself.
 
What has the history of the Catholic Church got to do with whether or not the Holy Bible evolved as a document?
 
About inconsistancy between the New Testament and the Torah, I was presenting the Muslim assertion that the New Testament evolved over time and that this was the evidence that the News Testament was not fully the Word of God.  In order to prove your case you would have to show what in the New Testament was consistant with the Torah, and how in the earlier writings of the New Testament  there was consistancey, but in later writings of the New Testament on the same topic the inconsistancy/change is clear.  What do you think?
 
God Bless you,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 April 2011 at 4:34pm
Originally posted by semar

(My middle schooler daugter just got a flyer the other day from somebody that distributed it at school, I didn't understand how it's posible, it's a public school. Anyway, on the flyer, as usual  "Jesus Son of God the savior, featured on the first pages).
 
I agree, it shouldn't happen.  Why not tell http://ffrf.org/legal/report/ - these folks about it?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 April 2011 at 5:07pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Of the four gospel writers, only John and Luke spent any time with Mary, the mother of Jesus.  John cared for her, but he did not get the information that Luke did.  Luke was a medical doctor, John was not.  Luke followed St. Paul around for quite a few years.  As he traveled with Paul from place to place, he found quite a few communities that were missing knowledge of Jesus which other communities had.  So he began collecting stories.  He finished his research by spending 3 years with John and Mary in Ephesius.  There, he collected the stories of Jesus Birth, the visit by Mary to Elizabeth, the story of the birth of John the Baptist, and of the muting of Zachariah.  He also got quite a bit on the crucifixion of Jesus from Mary who was there with Jesus throughout the whole event.  So why does Luke contain in his nerative things the other Gospels don't?  Just do your research and you will answer your own question.  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.
 
So you're saying that Mark and John didn't think the virgin birth of Jesus was important? Confused


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 21 April 2011 at 7:00am

Dear Ron Webb,

 
About Mary's Virgin Birth, I'm saying that Mark and John were writing to communities that already knew about it.  It was so well known in their communities that there was probably not any thought at all in their mind that maybe they should include it.  Mathew was the first mention of it and his account is brief, written also to a community that knew of the virgin birth.  Luke, on the other hand, had circulated amongst many non-Jewish Christian communities with St. Paul which really didn't know Mary, had never met her accept through the mention that she had had such a birth, and St. Luke, being a doctor, felt it necessary to go and interview her directly and report her story in depth from a doctor's point of view.  His account was enough, and any question on Mary's virgin birth did not arise again until the Protestant reformation 1500 years later.  Remember that the Gospels are about Jesus, not Mary, and the emphasis has been placed on Him more than on Mary. Contrary to Muhammad's missunderstanding recorded in the Qur'an, Mary is not one of the three members of the Blessed Trinity, so the Gospels do not really dwell on her beyond "mention". 
 
Again, you must consider the circumstances behind each of the Gospels that were written as well as the communities they were written to.
 
About the invitation going home from school, I am a teacher.  We reagularly block handing out of invitations in the classroom.  But when a child wants to invite his friends to go somewhere like a birthday party, a concert, or a church event and hands out some invitations to his friends at recess or outside the campus gates where children get picked up, there is absolutely no way that the teachers or school administration can stop that, and why should we?  Religion is not an evil thing, nor is it something to be ashamed of.  Do we teach our children to hide their faith from the community at large?  That is not what this nation is about.  If you are Muslim and want to invite people to an Islamic event, send invitations with your child to school and tell him to hand them out to his friends at recess or outside the gate and I'm sure the school will not complain.  As long as your child is not promoting religiouse beliefs on the campus during school hours, their is nothing wrong with invitations to anything.
 
God Bless,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 22 April 2011 at 9:23am
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

About Mary's Virgin Birth, I'm saying that Mark and John were writing to communities that already knew about it.  It was so well known in their communities that there was probably not any thought at all in their mind that maybe they should include it.
 
C'mon Jack, this is simply not credible.  If you're going to tell a story, you don't leave out the most important parts even if they are well-known.  In fact, especially if they are well-known -- just try telling a bedtime story to your kids and leaving out their favourite bits, and see what reaction you get.
 
Moreover, are you suggesting that the virgin birth was better-known than the crucifixion?  Surely Christ's very public death on the cross would have been widely reported and discussed by friends and foes alike; and yet all of the Gospels include it.  Mary's impregnation, on the other hand, was a completely private affair no matter who you think the father was.  It is the ultimate tall tale with no evidence to back it up.  You seriously imagine that it would have been such common knowledge at the time, and so universally believed, that there was no need even to mention it, let alone testify to its truth?
 
The bottom line is that you can't use a lack of evidence for your claim as evidence in support of it.  If Mark didn't mention the virgin birth, that doesn't suggest that it was common knowledge.  It suggests that it wasn't part of the story when he told it, and therefore that it was added later.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 24 April 2011 at 1:19am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by semar

(My middle schooler daughter just got a flyer the other day from somebody that distributed it at school, I didn't understand how it's posible, it's a public school. Anyway, on the flyer, as usual  "Jesus Son of God the savior, featured on the first pages).
 
I agree, it shouldn't happen.  Why not tell http://ffrf.org/legal/report/ - these folks about it?
Thanks Ron, I've double checked to my daughters, they said that the distributor gave the fliers to my douthers in the front yard of the school, while they wait for me to be picked. I'm not sure this is consider legal or not, they were still in school property/land.

-------------
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"


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 25 April 2011 at 4:12am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear truthcomenow,

You quoted, " "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

 

Then you asked me if I am obeying the law. What has this got to do with whether the bible has evolved, may I ask?

Based on the verses you provided, it seems that the New Testament agrees with the Torah as to what is right and what is wrong, no? I don't see any evidence of evolving here.

God Bless,

Jack Catholic

 

          Br. Jack, I was not responding to weather the bible evolved or not. I was responding to your claimed that Muslims are killing Christians because they call Jesus (S) Allah. That is blasphemy! And the Law stated, if you worship other Gods than the God of Israel you must be put to death. Muslims are simply obeying the law of your bible (not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.) and you are not. They understood the concept of God the way the Jews understood it; trinity is blasphemy!  

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

About the name of, "Allah," for Yahweh (Jehovah), I am all for calling God, "Allah." The problem here on Islamicity.com is that though Christians have been calling God, "Allah" for 2000+ years (longer than Islam has existed), yet Muslims have told me they are offended when I referr to God in a Christian way while calling Him, "Allah," they are highly offended. What's more, in Muslim countries, Muslims are putting Christians to death in the streets for using this name in reference to the Christian God. Then Christians are being accused of provoking these murders. Many of these countries have made it national law forbidding Christians from calling God, "Allah," saying that because we recognize God as a trinity, calling God, "Allah," is blasphemy against the understanding the Muslims have of God. I did not make this controversy, nor do I kill people over the issue. But Muslims are killing Christians regularly over it. What can I say? I'd like to see Muslims police themselves on this issue, bringing other Muslims to justice for these murders. But the Holy Qur'an does not recommend the death penalty for murder should a Muslim kill a Christian, thought it does recommend the death penalty for a Christian who kills a Muslim. Go figure that one.

 

Jack Catholic

You do not follow the law, you worship created things [Jesus (S)]: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, “a man approve of God” among you by miracles and wonders and sign, which God did by him in the midst of you, as you your self also know” ( http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ac+2%3A22&section=0&it=kjv&oq=ac%25202%3A22&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=ac&ng=2&ncc=2 - - Acts 2:22 )

 

Ø  "20.   For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 
21.  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22. 
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 
23.  and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man
and birds and animals and reptiles.
24.  Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25. 
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26.  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28.  Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30.  slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 
31.  they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32
Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." Romans 1:20-32

Jesus (S) teaches to obey the law and commandment:

Ø  "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.  So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.'  (Matthew 23:1-3)"

Ø  “And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: V.30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:29-30&version=9 - -

 

I hope you this will clarify my response, Inshallah!

 

TNC



-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 25 April 2011 at 4:14pm
Originally posted by semar

Thanks Ron, I've double checked to my daughters, they said that the distributor gave the fliers to my douthers in the front yard of the school, while they wait for me to be picked. I'm not sure this is consider legal or not, they were still in school property/land.
 
No, it is almost certainly not legal, although if the school was not involved and was not aware that it was happening, then it may be difficult to figure out who is responsible.  At a minimum, however, the school has a resonsibility to be aware of what is going on on its property, and to make a reasonable effort to prevent activities that violate the First Amendment.
 
This is exactly the kind of thing that the http://ffrf.org/legal/report/ - Freedom From Religion Foundation exists to investigate.  I'm sure they would be happy to give you a legal opinion, and possibly take action on your behalf if warranted.  (And just to be clear, FFRF is not opposed to private belief in religion.  Their only purpose is to keep religion out of our governments and schools, so that people like you and your daughters will not be subjected to religious propaganda that conflicts with your own faith.)


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 25 April 2011 at 11:19pm
Dear Ron,
 
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?
God Bless you,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date 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


Posted By: semar
Date 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.


-------------
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"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date 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.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date 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.  I’ll 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 - http://www.domini.org/tabern/gospel.htm

 

In reference to Matthew omitting the virgin birth, I’ve 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 can’t be taken seriously.

 

God Bless you,

 

Jack Catholic


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date 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, I’ve 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.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date 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   
 


Posted By: honeto
Date 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


 
 


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date 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.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date 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


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date 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 


Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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” "#fen-NIV-24218c" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%201&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24218c - c ]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
   make straight paths for him.’” "#fen-NIV-24219d" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%201&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24219d - 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."  http://net.bible.org/#%21bible/Mark+1:1 - [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)



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date 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.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date 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 


Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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)



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date 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 - 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


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date 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
 


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 02 May 2011 at 8:04pm

Before I address the unnamed authors of the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) document, by the start of the second century C.E., false teachings had begun. Just as inspired prophecy had foretold, after the death of the apostles, certain ones abandoned the truth and turned instead to “myths.”  

2 Tim. 4:3, 4 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.

John, the last surviving apostle, warned of such erroneous teachings and of people “who [were] trying to mislead” faithful Christians.—1 John 2:26; 4:1, 6 “…Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world”

Following the death of Jesus Christ’s apostles in the first century, many men expounded on their teachings, however these writers were not inspired as the Bible writers were. Certain currents of early “Christian” thought deviated from the teachings of Christ and his apostles. For example, contrary to the practice instituted by Jesus at the Lord’s Evening Meal, known also as the Last Supper, the author of The Didache advised the passing of the wine before the bread. (Matthew 26:26, 27)

Some Apostolic Fathers accepted extra-Biblical texts as if they were inspired. Clement of Rome, f,or one, cites the apocryphal works Wisdom and Judith.

In the second century C.E., false gospels spread spurious accounts of Jesus’ life, and the Fathers frequently lent credence to them. Ignatius, for instance, quoted from the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews.

Although the Didache was considered by some church fathers as part of the NT it was rejected as non-canonical by others, eventually not accepted into the NT canon.

Originally posted by islamispeace

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:

Regarding islamispeace “misinterpretation” of Mark 1:2, there is no problem with this verse what so ever but your lack of understanding the prophecy of this scripture in connection with the Messiahs coming and John the Baptist being the messenger of this prophecy.   

Isaiah (40:3-5) applied this prophecy to none other than John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus Christ. Matthew 3:1-3 … This, in fact, is the one spoken of through Isaiah the prophet in these words: “Listen! and in Mark 1:1-4 … Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: confirms its fulfillment. Also, in Luke 3:3-6 and John 1:23 … MAKE the way of Jehovah straight,’ just as Isaiah the prophet said.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John confirm what Isaiah and Malachi had already said centuries earlier about John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus. That is why the OT and the NT goes hand and glove; they complement each other in their fulfillment of Bible prophecy concerning the Christ, they are harmoniously joined together unlike the Quran to the Bible. The Quran consistently has a different message and spirit!

So, there is no blunder as you would like to think but your lack of understanding of the Gospel.

But, as long as you continue to put Bible scholars ahead of Bible writers you will always come short to the teaching of God and Christ our lord and savior.  Amen.



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 4:34pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Ron,
 I notice that you seem concerned that Jesus' miraculous birth is not mentioned as often as the Crucifixion.  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.   
Jack, your arguments are around and around. I might agree with what you said that the virginity of Marry less important than the crucification. But I think the definite of Jesus (the son of God) not less important. So based on that the concept of "Jesus the son of God" it wasn't there it's fabricated. Perhaps the later writers of bible had difficulties to convince people to follow Jesus teaching then he made up a story about the definite of Jesus, hoping this would help them. Or this just was  their assumption because Jesus had so many miracles and didn't have a father, so he must be son of God. Even if like you mentioned Adam was more special compare to Jesus in term of his existence.

-------------
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"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 7:34pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

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

Well, for a start, the assumption that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and not just a collection of mutually reinforcing fantasies and delusions collected over millennia.

But given the authenticity of the Bible, you are still assuming (contrary to Luke 3:23 and Matthew 13:55, as well as plain common sense) that the Jews already knew about the virgin birth.

And even assuming that, you still are assuming (contrary to common experience, and contrary to the example of the crucifixion) that storytellers omit essential parts of a story (and surely the virgin birth is an essential part of Catholicism) because their audience already knows it.
 

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

The fact that he didn't mention it.  As I explained above, there is no other credible explanation.
 
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.

No, we don't know that.  We both assume that, but all we really have as evidence is some books written thousands of years ago.

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.

Huh?  Even assuming that is true, how does it follow that it couldn't have been his child?  At best, it suggests that he didn't want to admit to it being his child, which I think is understandable.  Mary wouldn't have been the first unwed teenager abandoned by a guy after he got her pregnant.

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...

Exactly.  So why on earth would you think that it would be common knowledge, and therefore not worth Mark even mentioning it?
 

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%5b/quote - http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

There is nothing in that reference that explains Matthew 13:55, which only makes sense with the literal translation of "brothers".

 

I notice that you seem concerned that Jesus' miraculous birth is not mentioned as often as the crusifixion.

No, my concern is that it is not mentioned at all in the earliest Gospels, which is consistent with the assumption that the Bible evolved, but is hard to explain otherwise.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 8:17pm
Dear Shiboleth,
 
Well said!!!  Well said!!
 
Bible scholars say one thing last century, then change their minds and say something else.  The something else is politely called, "current thought."  But the authors knew what they were writing, and their contemporaries knew as well.  You are so right.   The only inconsistancies in the Holy Bible are everchanging "current thought" and individuals personally missunderstanding the meaning of the scriptures.
 
Again, well said!
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 03 May 2011 at 8:28pm
Dear Semar,
 
In the first post of page 4 of this string, I listed a few of the references from each of the 4 Gospels that refer to Jesus as the Son of God.  You say that later Christian teachers had trouble teaching people to listen to Jesus, so they fabricated the idea and added it to the Gospel.  But each of the 4 Gospels refer to Jesus as the Son of God, showing that this was believed from the beginning.  Even some of the letters of the Apostolic period refer to Jesus with this title.  This does not show that the title was fabricated later and added later.  We need more solid proof that clearly shows that the title of Jesus as Son of God was indeed fabricated and added later.  Have they found Gospel copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John dating to around the first decade or so after the death of Jesus that fail to refer to Jesus as the Son of God?
 
God Bless you,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 04 May 2011 at 5:38am
Dear Ron,
 
Do you believe that the Holy Bible is just a collection of mutually reinforcing fantacies collected over a millenia?
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 04 May 2011 at 3:21pm
Dear Ron,
 
As I read over your last post a few times, it seems to me that perhaps you may not truly know what the Catholic Church knows about the birth of Jesus, but which I grew up with and take for granted that everybody knows.
 
This is the verbal tradition of the Catholic Church which is older than the letters of St. Paul or the Gospels and letters of the Apostles in the New Testament.
 
First, Mary:  Mary as a child was taught the scriptures by her mother, St. Ann, and her father, St. Joachim.  When she was a young girl, she dedicated her life to Yahweh with plans to serve as a virgin in the Temple.  This ment that she would never have relations with a human male in marraige, much like the vows of the nuns of the Catholic Church today.  After serving about 2 years, the temple priests chose a man to marry her, knowing of course that he would not be having children with her because of her vow. 
 
Joseph was a widower who may or may not have already had children of his own.  During the time that they were betrothed, which is like our modern engagement period leading up to marraige, she was met by Gabriel and consented to haveing a child according to God's wishes.  Betrothal in Mary's time was equivalent to already being married.  So if Marry turned up already pregnant before the wedding date, it would not have been that big of a deal.  But if Joseph claimed the child was not his own and divorced Mary, she would have been subject to some pretty horrible tests to see if she was guilty of any wrong doing.  As it was, Joseph went ahead and married Mary.
 
Neither Mary nor Joseph told anyone about the circumstances of Jesus' birth, as the Holy Bible repeatedly says that Mary treasured these things in her heart.  But by the time Jesus had died on the Cross and the first Christian community grew in Jerusalem, its members were Christian, but of Jewish origen.  The Jews of that first community were in the presence of 170 trained desciples, 12 of whom were called Apostles, and also in the presence of Mary.  They were eager to know everything about the life of Jesus, and these great figures of that early community were present to tell the stories of Jesus.  There was no need to write anything down because you only had to go to their home and ask questions, or invite them over, or just go to Mass and listen to them.  The only reason the Gospels were written down were because as time went by, those first 170, 12, and Mary began to pass on from this life and take their stories with them.  When the Gospels were written down at first, it was only to write down the most important things that the Gospel author's deemed it important to write down.  As time went by, it became clear that somethings not written down were also important to other communities not in Jerusalem.  So new Gospel accounts were written down.  Soon it became necessary to sift through the accounts to see which ones were accurate.  So it was that the council of Nicea set out to form the first cannon.  This is history, not opinion.  The history shows no evidence of a Gospel evolving over time, nor does it show that the Story of Mary and Jesus' birth evolved over time. 
 
I am still waiting for any solid, irrefutable evidence that the Gospels did evolve over time.  I notice that the discussion on this topic seems to be tapering off without the evolvement argument being proven by anybody.  But maybe some poster might take a read of the posts on this string and offer something new and challanging which we can all take up, research, and discuss.
 
Untill then, continue to pray about and contemplate what we Christians are saying about the scriptures and the Holy Bible.  Perhaps through us the Good Lord above might be calling you...
 
God Bless you, Ron,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 04 May 2011 at 4:46pm
Shibbo, the misquote of the OT in Mark 1 is the result of two separate verses from two separate books, the book of Malachi and the book of Isaiah.  Your response failed to take this into account.  It also failed to explain why Irenaeus, whom you have appealed to in the past as a reliable witness, also failed to pick up on the error.  The fact that later copies changed the phrase "in Isaiah" to "in the prophets" answers Jack's challenge for proof that the Gospel(s) has/have evolved.  It was a major misquote and Christian scribes realized it as such.

Concerning the Didache, I already mentioned in my original post that it was eventually not accepted into the canon!  So what you said was nothing new.  The point is that the same people whom Christians Like you appeal to as reliable early witnesses to the "preservation" of the Bible were actually part and parcel to its corruption.     

-------------
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)



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 04 May 2011 at 5:10pm
Dear Shibboleth,
 
Indeed, the verses in Mark 1 are taken from bothe Isaiah and from Malachi.  Attributing the quote in whole to one author instead of to two authors, however, is not neither a "major blunder," or a "major misquote"  but could have been made by anyone who did not check his work for minor errors and omissions before making it public.  Newspapers are always publishing corrections to their news articles on such simple mistakes as these.  The fact is that both parts of Mark 1 are traceable to the Old Testament, and constitute a fulfilled prophecy without any alterations or missinterpretations such as are necessary to be able to claim that the Holy Bible somehow predicts a prophet such as Muhammad.
 
The Catholic editions of the bible which I have do indeed attribute bothe verses to Isaiah, preserving the error.  This error is not proof of any evolution of New Testament Scripture, but rather of the humanity of the author who penned the Gospel.
 
This error of Mark does not in any way shake my faith in Jesus Christ.  Does it shake yours, Shiboleth?  Does it shake any Christian's faith who might be following this discussion?  Feel free to post about whether it does or not...
 
The assertion that the error in Mark 1 somehow makes the Holy Bible untrustworthy and an evolved document is truly a weak assertion.
 
God Bless you in your efforts, Shibboleth,
 
Jack Catholic 
 


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 May 2011 at 5:20pm

Originally posted by Shibboleth

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John confirm what Isaiah had already said centuries earlier about Jesus.

Except that it wasn't Isaiah.  The first part of it at least was Malachi.  You can http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%203:1&version=NIV - look it up yourself : "I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me."  So Mark* got it wrong.

Later manuscripts and translations, including the King James version, tried to fix the mistake by changing Mark* 1:2 from "Isaiah the prophet" to just "the prophets"; but virtually all the earliest sources mention Isaiah specifically, and virtually all modern translations and modern scholars agree that "Isaiah the prophet" is more authentic to the original.

You can read more about this at http://bible.org/article/mark-12-and-new-testament-textual-criticism - bible.org , which concludes its analysis by admitting that they have no credible explanation for the error, except that "It is acceptable to say, at times, 'I don’t know.'”

By the way, there is another important example of the Bible's evolution in the very first verse of Mark (1:1): "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God...".  Those last three words, "Son of God", probably were not in the original manuscript.  They too were a later addition to try to compensate for Mark's failure to report the virgin birth.  You can read more about it http://1001errors.com/files/Err140-146.html - here .

* Edited to correct the name of the book.  I keep thinking "Matthew" instead of "Mark" because Matthew is the first book of the New Testament, and to my orderly way of thinking it ought to be the earliest book as well.  Oh well, if the "infallible" word of God can contain errors, then why should I hold myself to a higher standard? :-)


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 May 2011 at 5:31pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Do you believe that the Holy Bible is just a collection of mutually reinforcing fantacies collected over a millenia?
 
As a matter of fact I do, but I'm not arguing that here.  For the sake of argument lets just take it at face value and see where it leads.

-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 04 May 2011 at 9:35pm
Dear Ron,
 
I've read quite a bit now from the web sight 1001 errors in the New Testament Bible to which you referred all of us.  All of your assertions and arguments seem to come right out of that book.  I'm very interested in how much you have acutally studied from what the first century church wrote about verses how much you have studied this web sight.  It seems as if you are actually parroting this author's opinions, which I see as very much his personal opinions somewhat based on "current" thought.  I've already said that current thought changes from century to century.  In effect, I'm telling you that current thought is but theory proposed by those who cannot bring themselves to accept what the orriginal authors did and why.
 
This author seems to be an armchair skeptic.  How much do you know of the direct writings and teachings of those who knew the Apostles, or Jesus, and gave their lives for what had known?  I'm sure this author of whom you seem to be a student would not give up his life for what he thinks or believes.
 
I would tend to give more credibility to those who witness to the truth with their very lives.  Consider who is more believable:  an arm chair potato intellectual, or many who witnesses with their lives.
 
God bless you in your struggle know the truth,  which will set you free,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 05 May 2011 at 9:29am

I agree Jack and thanks! It is a very week assertion but I’m glad it was mentioned to clear up the misconception that is so prevalent when it comes to the “Good News of the Gospel” indeed it is good news for all of mankind no matter who we are and where we are and it strengthens my faith even more so because of it's reliability.

Perhaps by saying Mark’s quote in the Gospel was one of the biggest blunders which = a gross, st**id, or careless mistake to now using the word “misquote” which = a passage quoted inaccurately was grossly exaggerated. God’s Word is infallible, which have yet to be proven otherwise.

Can anyone go on record and say they never misquoted their closest and most respected fellow believer? Would you have malicious intentions because of doing so, I would hope to think not. To suggest that somehow there were some evil intentions here when the message still remains the same and doesn’t take away from its context is ludicrous. What is even more absurd is to think the Gospel evolved or was being develop just because of what imperfect uninspired scholars wrote about Jesus. The Christian congregation was at its infancy in the beginning of the 1st cent but by the end of it the original Gospel was completed with the help of Jesus.

John 14:26 - But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach YOU all things and bring back to YOUR minds all the things I told YOU.

Emphasis was placed on ‘Y’ meaning his disciples not the unnamed authors of works known as The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, etc. these Christian men meant well but there writings as you and I agree to were not canonical.

One can clearly see that the holy-spirit would thus act as a teacher and as a remembrancer. As a teacher, it would help Christians grasp things not previously understood. As a remembrancer, it would help them recall and apply correctly what had been explained.

But allow me please to get into this text again in more depth without getting into technicalities, the book of Isaiah and of Malachi was written before the book of Mark, Isaiah being written before the two. It seems to me that Mark was absolutely correct in quoting Isaiah who said it before Malachi although Malachi was prophesying and restating what Isaiah had already noted.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Shibbo, the misquote of the OT in Mark 1 is the result of two separate verses from two separate books, the book of Malachi and the book of Isaiah.  Your response failed to take this into account. 

Was Mark even quoting from Malachi since he repeats Isaiah by name, not that it even matters because they all agreed with the prophecy. There is no problem here but a confirmation of the book(s) which is common between both testaments, so Mark is correct in what he says and that’s perhaps why they stuck to the original.      

My question though is, how did this text take away from its original message "I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me."

I think we should be asking who is this messenger and who is he preparing the way for? The fact that Isaiah, Malachi and Mark agreed upon and recognized the prophecy shows that John the Baptist was preparing the way for Jesus as verse 4 shows.

In any event, there are variations that I pointed out in another thread which is common in copying over any ancient writings, the Quran not being excluded. You asked the question why? Why didn’t others pick up these errors [if you will]?  The question is easily answered; it was because of human error. However, the NT compliments and fulfills the OT in every way without taken away from its original message and doctrine as was shown.

In conclusion all the quotes thus mentioned on this thread only solidifies what the ‘past’ Prophets including Isaiah uttered before the writing of the Gospel and that is the preparation of “the coming of Jesus” through John the Baptist (messenger) which Mark acknowledged. This only gives further support of the harmony of the Hebrew (OT) and Christian Greek scriptures (NT).



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 May 2011 at 8:21pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

I've read quite a bit now from the web sight 1001 errors in the New Testament Bible to which you referred all of us.  All of your assertions and arguments seem to come right out of that book.

Actually I had never seen that site before.  I only linked to it because it explains the alterations in more detail.  I've read the same information in a dozen other places, notably in Bart Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus.  Frankly, I didn't worry too much about an authoritative reference because it seems to be the mainstream opinion among Biblical scholars (as opposed to theologians).

I'm very interested in how much you have acutally studied from what the first century church wrote about verses how much you have studied this web sight.  It seems as if you are actually parroting this author's opinions, which I see as very much his personal opinions somewhat based on "current" thought.  I've already said that current thought changes from century to century.  In effect, I'm telling you that current thought is but theory proposed by those who cannot bring themselves to accept what the orriginal authors did and why.

And I'm telling you that the earliest of the original authors did not know of or believe in the virgin birth, among other things.  That is what the evidence suggests.
 

I would tend to give more credibility to those who witness to the truth with their very lives.  Consider who is more believable:  an arm chair potato intellectual, or many who witnesses with their lives.

And I would tend to say that neither is believable.  Only facts supported by evidence are believable.
 

God bless you in your struggle know the truth,  which will set you free,

No worries, Jack.  http://ffrf.org - I'm already free.   :)



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 06 May 2011 at 6:04am
Dear Shiboleth,
 
Wow!!!  Your last post I find to be so refreshing and full of the truth that I clearly see but cannot always clearly explain.  Awsome post.  I hope that some of our Muslim brothers and sisters will recognize the truth that is pact therein and the hope and promiss that shines from it.
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 06 May 2011 at 6:37am
Dear Ron,
 
I am gradually getting a clearer picture of where you are in your faith life, of exactly what you believe, and of what this permits you to see in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
 
I, too, was once "free from religion."  I threw off what I saw as the bondage of religion and mocked all those who held tightly to what I had come to see as made up stories about a man and a God I was not so sure had EVER existed.
 
But what I had done, it became clear to me in time, was given myself the freedom to do whatever I wanted to do, and that seemed to be to wander into things that felt good and appeared to be gratifying.  But I could not decifer the difference between what appeared good but had hooks and barbs embeded in it, and what was truly good through and through.  I soon found myself getting caught on some things, trapped by them through repetitions mistakes.  I began hurting not just myself, but others, and I became more and more prone to anger, pessimism, and short temper.  Others also became angrey and distrustful of me.  Many of those I'd always loved began to see me as unsafe.  I became enslaved to things such as eating, sex, anger - I gradually began loosing control of my life.
 
And you know what?  Those in my family who had never left the faith were not trapped as I.  Sure, they were not "free" as I saw myself "free" from religion, but in the end, they remained considerably more free and less enslaved that I was becomming, and they were HAPPY!  In spite of this general drift in my life, I still could not admit that I had made the poorer choice, untill the course of my life became clear to me, that my life was about to be cemented permanantly in a direction I did not want to go, and with people I really didn't like.  I began to wake up everymorning not wanting to get out of bed and go to work.  Yes, I recognized this as the early warning signs of depression.  I cried out to the God I once knew, and heard a call to stop doing my own thing, which was leading me into a living destruction, and start to trust Him and do His (God's) will.  So I did.  Withing a year, God had pealed away the things that were enslaving me.  My giving of myslef to God's will could be a form of enslavement, but it was something I did voluntarily, and it was so much better and more freeing than doing my own thing and drifting into things that would cut off my opportunity, my future, and my self control.  I look back at it all now, and I see it as choosing to love and obey a loving parent and choosing to live in that parent's household.  I wouldn't go back to that "freedom from religion" even if my life depended on it.  Freedom from religion is a code word for freedom to become enslaved to whatever passion grips you first.
 
As I have gotten to know God and see evidence that he does indeed exist, I just cannot say enough that I no longer doubt the Gospel or the Holy Bible.  I feel that God is not a slave driver, but a loving parent who only wants our happiness and wants us to grow and become the best that we can be both in this life and in the life to come.  He has a plan for us, a future full of hope and promiss.  Freedom from religion NEVER gave me this, nor did it give me any security after a while.  So be honest.  Do you struggle to get up everymorning because of an annoying feeling of, "What's it all for?"  Are there things you keep returning to as if you are on automatic pilate, and which seem to leave you feeling disgusted with yourself.  Are there things you do which seem to keep you from becomming the person you most desire to be, or from having the life you truly long for?  Do you feel uncontrolably frustrated with people and situations that never seem to go away?  If you say yes to any of these things, then you are in bondage.  There is one who will set you free from bondage and give you back your free choice, and your opportunity, and your joy in life, and your hope for the future.  That one is named Jesus Christ.  Though he died on the cross and you are not privilaged to have been alive when he walked the earth, yet once you have been touched by his promiss and your spirit has been set free by his promiss and his love, you will know without a doubt that he lives, and your life will be changed in a way that you will never want to go back to "freedom from religion again.  I know, because I have been there.  I can truly say without a doubt that Jesus Christ has set me free! 
 
I'll pray for you, Ron, and for real freedom for you,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 06 May 2011 at 3:43pm
To repeat once again...Mark clearly misquoted Isaiah and took a verse from another book and mixed it with a verse from Isaiah.  Regardless of your attempts at special pleading, it is a clear error.  What else can explain why later Christians attempted to remove it?  The King James version removes this error and that is only because it is the result of later manuscripts.  Earlier manuscripts reproduced the error. 

What it shows is that at least of gospel of Mark is not "inspired" by the Holy Spirit, for if it were, why would there have been this error in the first place?  The Catholic Encyclopedia states on the matter of the " http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm - inspiration ":

"The influence of the Holy Ghost had to extend also to all the executive faculties of the sacred writer — to his http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10174a.htm - memory , his http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07672a.htm - imagination , and even to the hand with which he formed the letters. Whether this influence proceed immediately from the action of the Inspirer or be a simple assistance, and, again, whether this assistance be positive or merely negative, in any case everyone admits that its object is to remove all http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm - error from the inspired text."

Once it is admitted that there is an error, as Jack did, it takes away the "inspirational" origin of the earliest gospel written.  In addition, the fact that later Christians tried to hide the error is proof of its evolution.


-------------
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)



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 May 2011 at 6:53pm

Well Jack, it appears that you have given up any attempt to justify your position rationally and have completely abandoned the topic, so I guess this discussion is over.

For the record: no, I don't struggle to get up in the morning, or to find meaning or purpose in life.  On the contrary, I find meaning and purpose everywhere around me, in the real world -- in my friends and family, my coworkers, in music and the arts, in science and politics and philosophy and a thousand other things.

In short, as a humanist I find meaning and purpose in all of humanity.   To paraphrase Carl Sagan: if you want your life to have meaning, do something meaningful.   There is real work to be done, real people who need our help, real value to be appreciated and real problems to be overcome, right here on earth, without looking skyward to imaginary Beings. Frankly, the idea of serving an omnipotent God who by definition doesn't need anyone's help is about the most meaningless life that I can imagine.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 06 May 2011 at 9:10pm
Isse, you would say that. But I take inspired men over uninspired men anytime, no matter how well meaning they are, although the message is still clear and point well made "the coming of the Messiah".  

-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 07 May 2011 at 9:18pm
Dear Ron,
 
You have not proven that the Holy Bible evolved.  I have made my case using history and the teachings of the first century father's and apostes.  All you have done is say that I can't prove my position and you can't prove yours, but that it doesn't matter because you don't believe any of it is real anyway. 
 
So there is really no discussion here between you and I nor between you and anybody else for that matter.
 
So the basic matter here is that you haven't proven any evolution of the Holy Bible and claim that you can't prove anything.  Thus, as fare as your arguments are concerned, the Holy Bible did not evolve.
 
About meaning in life,  may the things that provide you with meaning always provide you with meaning, even till the moment of death.  Amen.
 
God Bless you, Ron,
Jack Catholic


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 May 2011 at 2:46pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

Isse, you would say that. But I take inspired men over uninspired men anytime, no matter how well meaning they are, although the message is still clear and point well made "the coming of the Messiah".  



The problem is that "inspired men" don't make errors.  The presence of any error, large or small, in a supposedly "inspired" book is proof that it is not "inspired".  Answer this for me: why would the Holy Spirit have missed this error? 

For those people who still think this is not evidence of evolution and yet compare the Gospels to newspapers which "...are always publishing corrections to their news articles on such simple mistakes as these", it just shows the contradictions in their arguments and in their theology.  If a newspaper article make corrections and issues "editions", this is a form of evolution.  Conversely, if the Gospels contained errors in their original "editions", and these errors had to be removed, it is a form of evolution.  Those with open eyes can see this. The rest will either make attempts at special pleading or be in denial.  To each his own, I guess.




-------------
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)



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 08 May 2011 at 6:32pm

Jack, allow me to summarize.  The virgin birth is one of the cornerstones of your belief and is crucial to the claim that Jesus is the literal Son of God.  And yet there is no mention of a virgin birth in the earliest Gospel.  That part of the story only appeared in later Gospels.  If this is not a clear example of a story evolving, then I can't imagine a better one.

The only explanation you have offered for this glaring omission is that it was common knowledge, and therefore unnecessary to be mentioned.  This is flatly contradicted by Luke 3:23 and Matthew 13:55, besides being inherently improbable and hardly qualifying as an explanation anyway.

No, it's not absolute "proof" of anything, but no other explanation makes sense.  Unless you want to try again.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 09 May 2011 at 2:57pm

Islamispeace, Ibn Anwar and others can continue to “assume” what the Apostle Mark meant by quoting the Prophet(s)but the fact still remains, Isaiah, Malachi, Mark and even Moses (Ex. 20:21) agreed upon and recognized the prophecy, that John the Baptist was preparing the way for Jesus as verse 4 of Mark 1 shows, not the way for Muhammad as you would like to suggest.

Again, this only gives further support of the harmony of the Hebrew (OT) and Christian Greek scriptures (NT).

“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)

May God (YHWH) grant you peace.



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 09 May 2011 at 9:45pm
Dear Ron,
 
You are constantly propping up the Mary argument, dead as it now is in this discussion.  I have also shown in my arguments all that is necessary to show Luke 3:23 not applicable, nor supporting any argument but my own.
 
Matthew 13:55 is explained by  http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp - http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp  .  The facts show clearly that my belief, the very same explanation of the early Church Fathers  of that first century guts any idea that Matthew 13:55 has nothing to do with the argument that the Holy Bible evolved.  In fact, Mat 13:55 simply does not suport the "evolved" arguemnt in any way.
 
The first century explanation of the differences in the 4 gospels' mentioning of Mary or lack thereoff makes sense to me, and to many around the world and to many, many over the past 2000 years.  I'm sorry it does not make sense to you. 
 
I will pray for you, Ron,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 09 May 2011 at 11:17pm
Dear shiboleth,
 
I see you keep mentioning the inspiration of the New Testament.  I am with you on this.
 
Some might say that the error we have all recognized in Mark is evidence that the New Testament couldn't have been inspired by the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit would not permit error.  Now I could see this angle of interpretation of the meaning of "inspiration" because it is said that the Holy Qur'an was delivered by the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad exactly as Allah spoke it, and that the very Qur'an is contained on tablets in heaven.  And yet it, too, contains errors.  It states that the Christian Trinity is actually three gods, God the father in heaven (Allah), the Son (Jesus), and the Mother (Mary).  As Christians, we know that this is a glaring error.  The Holy Bible does not contain errors of this caliber.  For the meaning of Mark regarding the prophecy is not in error, only his assigning of the authorship of the quotations from the Jewish Old Testament.
 
You see, inspiration can come in many ways.  It can come as a form of motivation to begin a project (such as writting an account of Jesus life for an audience), it can come as a passionate desire to deliver a message (such as what Jesus wanted for us and why).  Some say that inspiration means that the author went into a trance and that the Holy Spirit controlled his hand and what it wrote.  But the Catholic Church has never taught or accepted this last version of the meaning of "Inspiration."  There fore let no man try to say that minor human error violates this last definition of Inspiration and so proves that the Gospels are not inspired.
 
Also, I have heard some claim in debates that each Gospel in succession was written to correct the errors and omitions of the previous Gospels. Yet history does not bare this out.  The Gospels were not written as corrections, but rather were written to different audiences to tailor the message to those audiences.  The Gospels included there fore what their intended audience neede to know to meet their needs, accept the final Gospel of John, which was written in part to counteract the Gnostic Herasy.  As the Gospels were not written as corrections to previouse Gospels, they do not constitute evolution. 

While it is true that Protestant Bibles try to publish updated bibles with corrections and bible scholars rescent "insights."  Yet the Catholic Bible does not include alterations and such in this way.  It includes what was written by the authors from the beginning, including the minor errors.  So for Cathoics, one cannot say that the Holy Bible is even now evolving.
 
I suppose you are still, like me, waiting for some credible evidence that the Holy Bible has evobved.  So far there is not one thread of evidence, nor proof postive, that indeed the bible has evolved.
 
Thanks for hanging in there with me...
 
Jack Catholic 


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 10:47am
Originally posted by Shibboleth

Islamispeace, Ibn Anwar and others can continue to “assume” what the Apostle Mark meant by quoting the Prophet(s)but the fact still remains, Isaiah, Malachi, Mark and even Moses (Ex. 20:21) agreed upon and recognized the prophecy, that John the Baptist was preparing the way for Jesus as verse 4 of Mark 1 shows, not the way for Muhammad as you would like to suggest.

Again, this only gives further support of the harmony of the Hebrew (OT) and Christian Greek scriptures (NT).

“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)

May God (YHWH) grant you peace.



Ibn Anwar?  What does he have to do with this?  Yes, he is a great writer and has exposed many of your fellow Christians' flimsy arguments, but why you bring him up here is beyond me.  You have a habit of trying divert to unrelated issues when you know you are cornered.

Anyway, there is nothing to "assume" on this matter.  The Gospel of Mark, just two lines in, takes two separate verses from the OT and assigns their authorship to Isaiah, when in reality, he took one verse from Malachi and one verse from Isaiah.  On this thread, we have two individuals desperately trying to protect the reputation of the Bible in light of this error, but with two different perspectives.  We have a Jehovah's Witness who is obviously suffering from a case of denial and we have a Catholic who despite all of his self-contradictions and failures at refuting the claims of evolution presented in this thread, maintains that nothing has evolved.  Perhaps he does not know what it means to "evolve"?     

Shibbo, what you need to realize is that whether the verses Mark alludes to are actual prophecies which were fulfilled or not is not even the issue.  We haven't even gotten that far yet!  Why would we need to go that far when the Gospel of Mark has proven itself to be unreliable already?  Why would we trust a book which could not even quote the OT correctly?  Imagine this scenario:

c. 65 CE - Mark sits down to write his gospel.  He contemplates how to begin and then writes the first sentence:

The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

Then he writes down the part from Malachi and then the part from Isaiah, not realizing that he had already committed an error!  Imagine that!  Just a few lines in to his "gospel" and Mark commits an error!  Great start, right?  We don't have to go any further.  There is an error here, period.  There is no need to delve on the actual prophecies (of course we can if you insist).

And for those silly people who maintain that this does not take anything away from the "inspired" nature of the gospel, I present again what a Catholic source says on the matter:

"The influence of the Holy Ghost had to extend also to all the executive faculties of the sacred writer — to his http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10174a.htm - memory , his http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07672a.htm - imagination , and even to the hand with which he formed the letters. Whether this influence proceed immediately from the action of the Inspirer or be a simple assistance, and, again, whether this assistance be positive or merely negative, in any case everyone admits that its object is to remove all http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm - error from the inspired text." (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Perhaps it is safe to say that both of you are in denial?




-------------
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)



Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 10 May 2011 at 7:06pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

Why would we trust a book which could not even quote the OT correctly?

Hmmm, sounds like the Quran to me, it quotes most of the OT incorrectly and yet your focus is on the Gospel of Mark, don’t that beat all!

In any event Jack our hands are washed clean, you bring humility and level headedness to the forum which is admireable in any setting. By looking into the Gospel account in depth one can only develop a deeper appreciation of Jesus and his mission. No wonder Muhammad tells Muslims  to believe it in S 3:84 & S 4:136

Regards,

Shibboleth



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 10:36am
So we get another non-response from Shibbo.  Keep it up!  Every post you make damages your cause more and more. 

I guess we can put a fork in both of you.  You're done! 

To the actual level-headed people on this forum and those who have contributed to this thread, I think we can conclude that there has been no credible response to the evidence presented by myself and others regarding the evolution of the Gospels.  Feel free to disagree.


-------------
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)



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 5:17pm

Hello, Brothers and Sisters of Islamicity.com,

I want to list the efforts to prove that the New Testament of the Holy Bible evolved, but which have failed to hold up to cross examination.  Each assertion is presented, and the rebuttle follows indented and in red.  If you don’t agree, speak up...  with proof... or conceed that the New Testament of the Holy Bible has NEVER evolved!

 One would think that the most important issues in the New Testament, such as Jesus being the Son of God, would have been mentioned first, as in the earliest of the Gospels.

                Each Gospel had been shown to refer to Jesus as the son of God.

The New Testament was translated into other languages (from Hebrew to Greek)and the beliefs of the Christian faithful were then manipulated over time using other languages.

                The languages of Palestine were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and had been for over 200 years since the days of the Maccabees.   Only Matthew had been orriginally written in Hebrew.  The rest were written in Greek.

 
All Gospels should have mentioned that Mary had miraculously conceived Jesus, but only the last two do, showing that the miraculous conception of Jesus was only taught and believed some decades after the death of Jesus.  This is evolution.

                Jesus’ conception was believed from the beginning, so much so that it was not necessary to write about it until Gospels were being written for non-Jewish communities outside of Palestine    where believers did not already know much about it.

Isaiah 9:5 in the Jewish Bible says one thing, but in the Christian Bible the words of Isaiah 9:5 have been changed around to mean something different that supports the Christian doctrines.

                A Jewish Bible written in Hebrew was presented with a word for word translation, and its meaning was exactly what the Christian Bible indicated with its wording of the verse.

Rewrites of the Holy Bible over time where the meaning is altered in order to return the Holy Bible to its “orriginal” text and meaning is evidence of the evolution of the scriptures.

                The Catholic Holy Bible is not altered in any way to accomodate current thought.  Therefore, it is not accurate to say that the Holy Bible even now is evolving.

So there you have it.  Every bit of evidence presented which indicates that the New Testament has evolved has been cleanly and clearly refuted.
 
God Bless you all always,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 5:32pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

You are constantly propping up the Mary argument, dead as it now is in this discussion.  I have also shown in my arguments all that is necessary to show Luke 3:23 not applicable, nor supporting any argument but my own.

If you addressed Luke 3:23 I must have missed it.  Luke leaves no room for ambiguity: "Everyone thought he was the son of Joseph."   (English Contemporary Version)  This all by itself pretty much demolishes your theory that Mark omitted the virgin birth because it was common knowledge.  But see also below.

Matthew 13:55 is explained by http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp - http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp .  The facts show clearly that my belief, the very same explanation of the early Church Fathers  of that first century guts any idea that Matthew 13:55 has nothing to do with the argument that the Holy Bible evolved.  In fact, Mat 13:55 simply does not suport the "evolved" arguemnt in any way.

The link doesn't even mention Matthew 13:55.  The main reason I mentioned the verse was that it quotes the people saying "Isn't he the son of the carpenter?"  Again, it clearly could not have been common knowledge that Jesus was the literal son of God.

Matthew 13:55 goes on to say, "Isn't Mary his mother, and aren't James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas his brothers?"   Your link indirectly addresses that by suggesting a broader meaning to the word "brothers" (even as Christians today might refer to each other as "brothers in Christ").  That may work in other contexts, but in Matthew 13:55 the only possible reason to name four brothers in particular is that they are his actual siblings.  The passage simply doesn't make sense otherwise.
 

I will pray for you, Ron,

Please don't.  Perhaps you don't realize how arrogant or condescending that sounds, but I can do without your prayers.  Really.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 11 May 2011 at 9:36pm
Dear Ron,
 
You are repeating yourself.  I must assume that you are doing this because you do not believe that I understood what you are trying to say.  So at the risk of repeating myself, I'll respond.
 
So, you say Luke 3:23 leaves no room for ambiguity: "Everyone thought he was the son of Joseph."
 
I did not address Luke 3:23 spacifically, but I did say that Mary and Joseph did not broadcast to all the neighbors, nor on the Morning news, that Mary became pregnant while engaged to Joseph - engagement in that era being equivalent to being already married.  However, at some point during the ministry of Jesus or shortly thereafter, it became known to the Jerusalem community of Christians that Jesus' conception was miraculous. This conception was well known enough that there was no need to write it down in a book designed to record the ministry (and its message) of Jesus Christ for the Jerusalem community of Christian believers.  See?  I dealt with Luke 3:23.
 
You wrote about Matthew 13:55, "The main reason I mentioned the verse was that it quotes the people saying "Isn't he the son of the carpenter?"  Again, it clearly could not have been common knowledge that Jesus was the literal son of God."
 
The way I dealt with Luke 3:23 basically deals also with this point about Mat 13:55.

You further said about Matthew 13:55 that it,  "...goes on to say, "Isn't Mary his mother, and aren't James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas his brothers?"   Your link indirectly addresses that by suggesting a broader meaning to the word "brothers" (even as Christians today might refer to each other as "brothers in Christ").  That may work in other contexts, but in Matthew 13:55 the only possible reason to name four brothers in particular is that they are his actual siblings.  The passage simply doesn't make sense otherwise.

Now I'll tell you why I gave you the reference on Catholic Answers that I gave you.  Anyone who knows the scriptures well knows that these 4 "brothers" are not the children of Mary, the wife of Joseph.  You read this, right?  Anyway, if you read verse 55 in context, you will see that there really is a reason that Matthew mentioned the incident, and it wasn't to announce that Mary had other children after Jesus.  Jesus grew up in Nazareth, a place not thought of very highly as one can see from this verse:  " /passage/?search=John+1:46&version=NIV - John 1:46
Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked."
 
In context, verse 55 is basically showing that Jesus went to his home and began speaking with great insight and wisdom and this jared the lowly concept that the Nazoreans had of themselves and of Jesus.  Some felt that Jesus was trying to puff himself up and show off, so they made an effort to cut him down to how they felt about themselves.  By their comment, they were reminding him that he was one of them and thus no better than they.  Amongst us Catholics and any other Christian who knows their Scriptures, what I am saying is common knowledge.  But if you read the context with the verse, namely Matthew 13:53-58, you will see for yourself that this is the purpose of the passage.
 
I hope that by our little discussion here on this topic, Ron, you will learn what all, including Muslims, should know about the Holy Bible:  that is that it is impossible to take a single verse or tiny passage of the Scriptures and expect to know the truth about the Christian faith, about Yahweh in Heaven above, and about life on earth from it without first taking time to study its context, the rest of scriptures, and reflect deeply on them.  Learning the Christian faith is a lifetime adventure that will bring greater joy and hope than anything you will ever experience on the face of the earth.  I invite you, Ron, to consider such an adventure...
 
Either way, neither Matthew 13:55, nor Luke 3:23 proves that the New Testament evolved.
 
God Bless you, Ron,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 13 May 2011 at 5:56am
Dear Ron,
 
Perhaps you can tell me exactly what it is about offering to pray for someone that is condecending.
 
Then I urge you to explain how you would feel if I said, "All right, I wont pray for you?"
 
If you don't like either, then I urge you to explain what it is about the act of praying for someone that is to you a such a negative experience.
 
I am very interested in your thoughts on the practices of the Christian faithful,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 14 May 2011 at 9:22am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

You are repeating yourself.  I must assume that you are doing this because you do not believe that I understood what you are trying to say.

No, I'm repeating myself because, as you yourself admitted, you had not addressed Luke 3:23 (among other things) specifically.
 

I did not address Luke 3:23 spacifically, but I did say that Mary and Joseph did not broadcast to all the neighbors, nor on the Morning news, that Mary became pregnant while engaged to Joseph - engagement in that era being equivalent to being already married.  However, at some point during the ministry of Jesus or shortly thereafter, it became known to the Jerusalem community of Christians that Jesus' conception was miraculous. This conception was well known enough that there was no need to write it down in a book designed to record the ministry (and its message) of Jesus Christ for the Jerusalem community of Christian believers.  See?  I dealt with Luke 3:23.

You say that "it became known" that his conception was miraculous.  How exactly could it have become known?  Did someone do a DNA test?  Were there witnesses who could testify that Joseph had no opportunity to impregnate Mary?  Did a doctor provide evidence of her virginity?

No, it couldn't have "become known".  There's no way anyone could know that.  What you mean is that at some point it became believed, which is obvious.  The question is, when did this belief originate?  You say it was widespread and well-established among the community and at the time that Mark wrote -- and your only evidence for this is that Mark doesn't mention it?  Surely this turns common sense on its head.  It is the ultimate argumentum ad ignorantiam.  As I said earlier, by that logic, since Mark does mention the crucifixion, we should assume that the crucifixion was not well-known?

The way I dealt with Luke 3:23 basically deals also with this point about Mat 13:55.

Right.  I have offered two verses clearly showing that the belief did not originally exist.  You have acknowledged this, and agreed that "at some point ... it became known" (i.e. believed) that Jesus's birth was miraculous.  How is this different from the belief evolving over time?


Now I'll tell you why I gave you the reference on Catholic Answers that I gave you.  Anyone who knows the scriptures well knows that these 4 "brothers" are not the children of Mary, the wife of Joseph.

Any Catholic believes (not "knows") this.  Most non-Catholics who know the scriptures think otherwise.

In context, verse 55 is basically showing that Jesus went to his home and began speaking with great insight and wisdom and this jared the lowly concept that the Nazoreans had of themselves and of Jesus.  Some felt that Jesus was trying to puff himself up and show off, so they made an effort to cut him down to how they felt about themselves.  By their comment, they were reminding him that he was one of them and thus no better than they.  Amongst us Catholics and any other Christian who knows their Scriptures, what I am saying is common knowledge.  But if you read the context with the verse, namely Matthew 13:53-58, you will see for yourself that this is the purpose of the passage.

So if "brothers" in this context means fellow Nazarenes, why name these four "brothers" in particular?  And isn't it a rather awkward case of special pleading to assume that "brothers" is to be interpreted in this generalized, nebulous way, in the same verse where his mother and father are referred to specifically?  What indication or justification is there of this abrupt shift in focus from his family to the community at large?
 

I hope that by our little discussion here on this topic, Ron, you will learn what all, including Muslims, should know about the Holy Bible:  that is that it is impossible to take a single verse or tiny passage of the Scriptures and expect to know the truth about the Christian faith, about Yahweh in Heaven above, and about life on earth from it without first taking time to study its context, the rest of scriptures, and reflect deeply on them.  Learning the Christian faith is a lifetime adventure that will bring greater joy and hope than anything you will ever experience on the face of the earth.  I invite you, Ron, to consider such an adventure...

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, as they say.  May I in turn recommend to you the many, many similar "adventures" that await you in discovering Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, and yes, Islam too, just to name a few.  The world is full of made-up religions, stories that have been passed on for generations with no evidence aside from fanciful stories, testimonials and books of obscure origin.  I urge you to study them closely.  Once you properly understand why you disbelieve in those religions, you may come to understand why I disbelieve in yours.

 


Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Perhaps you can tell me exactly what it is about offering to pray for someone that is condecending.

It implies that you have some special connection with God and the ability to influence His decisions.  You don't think that is arrogant?  It also implies a closed-mindedness, an a priori assumption that you are right and I am wrong.  Of course we both believe ourselves to be right or we wouldn't be having this discussion, but your constant insinuation that our disagreement is due to my ignorance and your superior knowledge is insulting.

I know you don't get that, and I don't hold it against you; but really, you need to soft-pedal the "I'm praying for you" stuff.  Imagine if I were to constantly tell you that my buddies and I are organizing a campaign to destroy your faith in God.  Would you consider that a friendly message, or would you be offended?

Then I urge you to explain how you would feel if I said, "All right, I wont pray for you?"

I don't give a pachyderm's posterior whether you pray for me or stick pins in a voodoo doll effigy of me.  What I find irritating is the tacit assumption that I ought to care.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 14 May 2011 at 8:07pm
Dear Ron,
 
I think you have confused evolution with revelation in regards to how it bacame know to the first Christians of the Jerusalem community that Jesus' conception was miraculous.
 
You said, "I don't give a pachyderm's posterior whether you pray for me or stick pins in a voodoo doll effigy of me.  What I find irritating is the tacit assumption that I ought to care."
 
Dear Ron, you have said a few things about "brothers" meaning fellow Nazareans (it doesn't), about an article on the "brothers" of Jesus mentioned in the Holy Bible (which you clearly did not read, probably because you really don't care...), and you made two assumptions about my praying for you without checking to see if they were true or not (and they are not, I assure you) - making assumptions is what people do when they are to lazy or too full of "I don't care" to find out the truth). 
 
Ron, if you truly don't care, then why are you even bothering to spend time on this forum discussing hocus pocus with fervent but deluded individuals?  You said you have a fulfilling life outside of religion which suits you just find, yet you come onto this forum to waste time accomplishing nothing while spewing empty remarks about things you know very little about.
 
Stop wasting your time with us, Ron, and go on to those wonderful things that in life provide you with meaning and self fulfillment.  If you continue discussing as you have been, then indeed your life is empty and misserable, and I must believe that you are truly looking for something worth while to pour yourself into heart and soul.  Are you being truthful with yourself, Ron?
 
Jack Catholic
 


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 May 2011 at 9:52am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

I think you have confused evolution with revelation in regards to how it bacame know to the first Christians of the Jerusalem community that Jesus' conception was miraculous.

If you think there is a difference, you're welcome to try to explain it.
 

Ron, if you truly don't care, then why are you even bothering to spend time on this forum discussing hocus pocus with fervent but deluded individuals?  You said you have a fulfilling life outside of religion which suits you just find, yet you come onto this forum to waste time accomplishing nothing while spewing empty remarks about things you know very little about.

I don't care for my own sake, but I do care for yours.  As a humanist I am frustrated by the harm people do to themseves and others in the name of false gods, but I do find great satisfaction in spreading the real "good news" of spiritual freedom and rationalism.  I'm sorry if I offended you, but please bear in mind that at worst all I'm doing is holding up a mirror so you can see yourself.  Why did you come to this forum, Jack?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 15 May 2011 at 3:40pm
Dear Ron, my friend,
 
I am not frustrated, or offended, or seeing red or anything like that.  I am just wondering about the responses you give.
 
I noticed you said, "As a humanist I am frustrated by the harm people do to themseves and others in the name of false gods..."  Have I done any harm to myself or anyone in the name of false gods on this forum, or with my life that you know of?  What harm do you think Catholicism might lead me to do to myself or to others?  I'd just like to know from your perspective...
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 15 May 2011 at 8:25pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Every bit of evidence presented which indicates that the New Testament has evolved has been cleanly and clearly refuted.

Exactly! As shown by members of this forum in reference to the Gospel, before the end of the second century there is universal acceptance of the four Gospels as we all agree, the only disagreement is textual veriations, much like any acient book that is being copied over. The teachings of Jesus virtually remained the same down till this day.

Here’s a recap. . .

Early writers show their familiarity with a Gospel collection. Justin Martyr, about A.D. 150, speaks of “the memoirs, composed by them (the apostles), which are called Gospels.” (1 Apology 66) On another occasion he refers to “the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them” (Dialogue with Trypho 103), the last remark referring to Mark and Luke. Ignatius, who died A.D. 115, also refers to “gospel” in the singular, though he has knowledge of more than one.—Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaeans 5.1; 7.2.

Irenaeus argues, about A.D. 190, that there were just four Gospels. His term ‘fourfold gospel’ shows that he knew the Gospels as a collection, and he recommended these writings as the rule or canon of truth. (Against Heresies III. 11.8) Clement of Alexandria, indicating both the authority and collected form of the Gospels, states, “We do not find this saying in the four gospels that have been handed down to us, but in that according to the Egyptians.”—Miscellanies III. 13.

A unique work of the second century was Tatian’s “Diatessaron,” meaning “of the four.” This was an early harmony, weaving together into one narrative the various sections of the four canonical Gospels. This again indicates the acceptance of the four as a collection and testifies to their undisputed authority as the authentic record of Jesus’ life and words.

But the most important confirmation of the Gospel is Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In keeping with the divine principle (Deut. 17:6) that ‘at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter must be established,’ God saw to it that four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ were recorded to establish the truthfulness of these events.

Greetings



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 16 May 2011 at 11:21am
Originally posted by Shibboleth

Originally posted by islamispeace

Why would we trust a book which could not even quote the OT correctly?

Hmmm, sounds like the Quran to me, it quotes most of the OT incorrectly and yet your focus is on the Gospel of Mark, don’t that beat all!

In any event Jack our hands are washed clean, you bring humility and level headedness to the forum which is admireable in any setting. By looking into the Gospel account in depth one can only develop a deeper appreciation of Jesus and his mission. No wonder Muhammad tells Muslims  to believe it in S 3:84 & S 4:136

Regards,

Shibboleth

Dear Shibbo,
Here is one of the ref. you used from the Quran: 3:84 (Y. Ali) Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)."
Please read the last line loud: " We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will."
You know what it means, it means that Jesus (pbuh) was no diffferent than Moses, Abraham and many other prophets (pbut) God sent. So this verse does go against your preaching that Jesus was not like other prophets because he was God. They all, including Jesus bow down to only Allah in submission as we Muslims (those who believe in God and worship God and none else) do. You decided to force yourself not to accept that truth and you, only you will bear it's consiquences.
Hope you understand what I am trying to convey to you, to worship God and none else.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 16 May 2011 at 12:19pm
Dear Shiboleth and Hasan,
 
The Qur'an's faithfulness to the books of the Holy Bible are a little bit off topic.  Why don't you two set up a new first post for a new debate on Sura 3:84 of the Qur'an.  The issue could be who remains more faithful to the books of the Holy Bible, Muslims or Christians.  This could potentially become the hottest topic on the forum, because the topic keeps comming up in string after string on this forum out of topic.  What do you say?
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 16 May 2011 at 12:28pm
Everyone seems silent on the issue of the evolution of the doctrines and content of the New Testament.  I have shown in summary how all evidence claiming that it evolved have been defeated.  Is there no more evidence?  Can we consider that this assertion that "the New Testament evolved as people made up new stuff about Jesus after he died" is officially a dead assertion?
 
If so, then I invite everyone to consider what the New Testament says in its entirety, and to consider the hope and promisses it gives us for a new and better life here on earth, and a better life after death.  I invite everyone to consider Jesus Christ and his claims and prommises, his teachings and his sacrifice.
 
God Bless you all, as always,
 
Jack Catholic


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 May 2011 at 4:46pm
To be precise, though, 3:84 says that Muslims make no distinction among the books given to the prophets, not among the prophets themselves.  Those books, in particular the books of the Bible, do regard Jesus as distinct in many ways (see http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-unique.html - http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-unique.html , for example).  Even the Quran, if I recall correctly, gives Jesus a special place among the prophets as the one who will return to preside over the end times.
 
Moreover, Muslims do make a sharp distinction when it comes to Muhammad and the Quran, which makes 3:84 all the more puzzling.  How can Muslims say that they "make no distinction" between the Quran and the books of the Bible?

-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 17 May 2011 at 3:24pm
Originally posted by Shibbo

Exactly! As shown by members of this forum in reference to the Gospel, before the end of the second century there is universal acceptance of the four Gospels as we all agree, the only disagreement is textual veriations, much like any acient book that is being copied over. The teachings of Jesus virtually remained the same down till this day.


And this is evidence of Christianity's evolution over the centuries!  More on that later. 

First, you once again ignore the evidence or purposefully alter it to fit your view.  The disagreement is not just on "textual variations" but rather additions and deletions which can only be attributed to deliberate changes made by scribes.  We are not talking about errors in copying.  We are talking about deliberate changes to the text, not due to mistakes but due to calculated intention.  I have already presented the testimony of early Church fathers who admitted to this phenomenon.  Those who chose to ignore this are only deluding themselves.

Now on to what I said about Christianity's evolution.  Shibbo has appealed to the writings of some 2nd century Christians, such as Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons.  What he does not realize is that the appeal to these individuals serves to actually prove that the Christian canon was evolving, an issue which is relevant to this thread.  We can quickly refute any argument that the references to the Gospels by these writers in the 2nd century proves anything about the authenticity of those Gospels.  All it would show is that 2nd century Christians were using those books.  So for instance, just because Justin Martyr may have referred to a verse from the Gospel of Matthew (without actually naming it), this does not prove that the entire Gospel of Matthew has not been changed and is thus reliable.  The archaeological evidence suggests otherwise, as we have previously seen.

So how does the appeal to the three Christian apologists actually damage the central argument of this thread?  Simple: if we consider the writings of the three in chronological order, we find the following:

1.  Ignatius of Antioch can be shown to have referred to only two of the Gospels, and those also only via fragmented verses.  He refers in three instances to the Gospel of Matthew and in one instance to the Gospel of Luke http://ntcanon.org/Ignatius.shtml - [1] .  He also quotes from the letters of Paul and the Book of Acts.  There are no references to the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John.  The fact that the latter is conspicuously absent is very telling.  The Gospel of John, as Christian tradition states, should have already been completed by the time Ignatius was writing. 

2.  Justin Martyr references three of the Gospels, again only via fragments.  He also perhaps refers to the Book of Revelation, but none of the letters of Paul or the Book of Acts http://ntcanon.org/Justin_Martyr.shtml - [2] .  Whether he actually referenced the Gospel of John is a matter of debate.  It has been claimed that 1 Apology 66 is a reference to John 3:3-5, but Justin Martyr does not refer to this quote as he does to other quotations from the other Gospels using the phrase "recorded in the memoirs of the apostles..."  Therefore, in the absence of clear quotations from the Gospel of John, we can only be certain that Justin Martyr was familiar with only three of them: Mark, Matthew and John [05/18/2011 - Correction: Mark, Matthew and Luke].

3.  Irenaeus of Lyons does indeed say that there are only four Gospels and as such, he is the absolute earliest Church father to say this.  He also quotes heavily from the letters of Paul and also some of the other epistles.  But, he also quotes from the aprocryphal book, the Shepherd of Hermas!

From the above, we see a clear evolution.  Even if we accept that Justin Martyr may have referred to the Gospel of John, it is clear that in the early 2nd century, Ignatius was familiar with only Matthew and Luke.  Therefore, the popularity and usage of the Gospels clearly changed over the course of the 2nd century.  Therefore, the Christian canon evolved! 

It should be pointed out again that even if Ignatius had referred to all of the canonical Gospels in the early 2nd century, it would prove nothing about the textual reliability of those books.  Several decades would have already passed (if the traditional dates are correct) since the first three Gospels were written.  Whatever changes may have occurred during that span cannot be known.     

Furthermore, as I have already show several times, Church fathers like Dionysius and Origen were aware of the scribal changes and decried them.  There has been no response from either Shibbo or Jack to these damning testimonies. 

And finally, let me repeat once again for those who have trouble reading simple English, that the presence of an error, no matter how small or insignificant, in a book which claims to be "inspired" is proof that the book is not "inspired", as the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

""The influence of the Holy Ghost had to extend also to all the executive faculties of the sacred writer — to his http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10174a.htm - memory , his http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07672a.htm - imagination , and even to the hand with which he formed the letters. Whether this influence proceed immediately from the action of the Inspirer or be a simple assistance, and, again, whether this assistance be positive or merely negative, in any case everyone admits that its object is to remove all error from the inspired text.""

Furthermore, the fact that the error had to be eventually removed is evidence that the Gospel in question had to be proof-read by an "editorial staff" to ensure that it was error-free.  This, ladies and gentlemen, is evidence of that Gospel's "evolution" from a purely human book into an "inspired" book which is now error-free (although that depends on which version of the Bible you read).

And God knows best!  


-------------
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)



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 17 May 2011 at 4:52pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

I noticed you said, "As a humanist I am frustrated by the harm people do to themseves and others in the name of false gods..."  Have I done any harm to myself or anyone in the name of false gods on this forum, or with my life that you know of?  What harm do you think Catholicism might lead me to do to myself or to others?  I'd just like to know from your perspective...
 
I was somewhat surprised by this question, although I guess in retrospect I shouldn't have been.  It seems to me like almost every time Catholicism is in the news on any subject, it is taking a position that causes (or at least allows) harm to somebody; but I guess if you're a true believer, you have some kind of mental filter that blocks such cognitive dissonance.
 
I don't want to digress into an anti-Catholic rant so I'm not going to mention homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, or the harm done by clerical celibacy.  (Oh dang it, I guess I just did, didn't I?Smile)  I'm not even going to focus on contraception per se.
 
Instead, let's just consider the Pope's prohibition of condoms, even to reduce transmission of AIDS.  That was certainly his position until recently, although I understand that recent remarks have opened up some ambiguity on the subject.  Even so, how many thousands of people have suffered and died unnecessarily because of this dogmatic foolishness?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 17 May 2011 at 9:10pm

Dear Ron,

 
Got-cha!  I know all about the issues you have mentioned:  homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, clerical celibacy, and contraception (such as condumns), as well as euthanasia, adoption, and many others.  You are right, this is a digression.  I can probably explain your side of these issue so as to make you think that I oppose the Catholic Church very deeply.  I know the phylosophical perspectives, statistical, medical and moral perspectives of these issues as well.  Perhaps we might one day discuss them on this forum.  I'd be interested in the Muslim perspective on them.  One, day, maybe...
 
I admire you for being aware of so many issues, and hope that one day we'll actually discuss some of them.
 
Hey, I'll talk to you later.  It's time for me to go to bed.
 
Jack Catholic
 
 



Print Page | Close Window