Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

A Precedent For The Three Day Ressurection

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...00.html?cnn=yes

Here is an article I read from the Times on CNN"s website: It claims that the so-called unique belief in ressurecting after three days was not so unique. Even though Jesus (as) did not fulfill such a prophecy Friday afternoon to Sunday morning falls short of three days and nights but they still employ it: they were not the only ones. Read this article I pasted below:

Was Jesus' Resurrection a Sequel?

Monday, Jul. 07, 2008 By DAVID VAN BIEMA / NEW YORK AND TIM MCGIRK / JERUSALEM

When David Jeselsohn, a Swiss-Israeli collector, bought this ancient tablet from a Jordanian antiquities dealer, he was unaware of its significance

When David Jeselsohn, a Swiss-Israeli collector, bought this ancient tablet from a Jordanian antiquities dealer, he was unaware of its significance

Dominic Buettner / The New York Times / Redux

Article Tools

Print

Email

Reprints

Sphere

AddThis

RSS

Yahoo! Buzz

A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation" could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the years just before the birth of Jesus and yet — at least according to one Israeli scholar — it announces the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified. However, such a contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle them nor shake anyone's faith.

Related Articles

Jesus ’Tomb’ Controversy Reopened

When the Discovery Channel aired a TV documentary last year raising the possibility that archeologis...

Judas: Foe or Friend?

For centuries, Christian tradition has painted Judas Iscariot as the ultimate sellout. But a 1,700- ...

Junior Jesus

Let us all take a moment to be shocked, shocked, that Anne Rice has written a novel about the life o...

Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop

N.T. "Tom" Wright is one of the most formidable figures in the world of Christian thought. As Bishop...

The ink-on-stone document, which is owned by a Swiss-Israeli antiques collector and reportedly came to light about a decade ago, has been dated by manuscript and chemical experts to a period just before Jesus' birth. Some scholars think it may originally have been part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a trove of religious texts found in caves on the West Bank that were possibly associated with John the Baptist. The tablet is written in the form of an end-of-the-world prediction in the voice of the angel Gabriel; one line, for instance, predicts that "in three days you will know evil will be defeated by justice."

Such "apocalypses," often featuring a triumphant military figure called a messiah (literally, anointed one), were not uncommon in the religious and politically tumultuous Jewish world of 1st century B.C. Palestine. But what may make the Gabriel tablet unique is its 80th line, which begins with the words "In three days" and includes some form of the verb "to live." Israel Knohl, an expert in Talmudic and biblical language at Jerusalem's Hebrew University who was not involved in the first research on the artifact, claims that it refers to a historic 1st-century Jewish rebel named Simon who was killed by the Romans in 4 B.C., and should read "In three days, you shall live. I Gabriel command you." If so, Jesus-era Judaism had begun to explore the idea of a three-day resurrection before Jesus was born.

This, in turn, undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up? But, as Knohl told TIME, maybe the Christians had a model to work from. The idea of a "dying and rising messiah appears in some Jewish texts, but until now, everyone thought that was the impact of Christianity on Judaism," he says. "But for the first time, we have proof that it was the other way around. The concept was there before Jesus." If so, he goes on, "this should shake our basic view of Christianity. ... What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."

Not so fast, say some Christian academics. "It is certainly not perfectly clear that the tablet is talking about a crucified and risen savior figure called Simon," says Ben Witherington, an early-Christianity expert at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. The verb that Knohl translates as "rise!," Witherington says, could also mean "there arose," and so one can ask "does it mean 'he comes to life,' i.e., a resurrection, or that he just 'shows up?' " Witherington also points out that gospel texts are far less reliant on the observed fact of the Resurrection (there is no angelic command in them like the line in the Gabriel stone) than on the testimony of eyewitnesses to Jesus' post-Resurrection self. Finally, Witherington notes that if he is wrong and Knohl's reading is right, it at least sets to rest the notion that the various gospel quotes attributed to Christ foreshadowing his death and Resurrection were textual retrojections put in his mouth by later believers — Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate.

Knohl stands by his reading. "The spelling and the phrasing is unique," he told TIME, "but it is similar to to other texts found around the Dead Sea." Yet for now, at least, Gabriel's Revelation must take its place among a slew of recently discovered or rediscovered objects from around the time of Jesus that are claimed to either support or undermine Scripture but are themselves sufficiently, logically or archaeologically compromised to prevent their being definitive. In 2002, a bone-storage box with the legend "James Son of Joseph Brother of Jesus" bobbed up that seemed to buttress Jesus' historicity while at the same time suggest that the Catholic teaching that he had no true brothers was false — but the Israeli Antiquities Authority declared the inscription as a forgery (although various experts continue to disagree). In 2007 the Discovery Channel aired a documentary (funded by Titanic director James Cameron) that purported to have located the "Jesus Family Tomb" in the Israeli suburb of Talpiot, with bone boxes with the names "Jesus Son of Joseph," "Mary" and one of the names of Mary Magdalene. If the ossuaries were for the gospel Jesus, his mother and Mary Magdalene, then the implications for Christianity would be dire; but despite considerable initial hoopla, the idea is regarded by many as speculation.

It remains to be seen whether Gabriel's Revelation, and especially Knohl's interpretation, will weather the hot lights of fame. Even the authors of its initial research seem a little dubious about his claims that it is a dry run for the Easter story. But, as often happens in such cases, they seem better disposed to a slightly toned-down assertion: in this case, that the Gabriel tablet does indicate a very rare instance of the idea that a messiah might suffer — a notion introduced in Judaic thought centuries before by the prophet Isaiah but which supposedly went out of style by Jesus' time. If that more modest theory gains traction, it will forge a link between a trend in first-century Judaism and one of Christianity's galvanizing thoughts — that God might throw in his lot with a suffering or even murdered man — that could contribute to a growing mutual understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad you posted this. I saw another version on the NY Times website. Atleast we now know how Paul sourced this insanity. It was part of popular Jewish folklore. But there is an argumentative fallacy by a defender of the faith,Ben Witherington;

Not so fast, say some Christian academics. "It is certainly not perfectly clear that the tablet is talking about a crucified and risen savior figure called Simon," says Ben Witherington, an early-Christianity expert at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. The verb that Knohl translates as "rise!," Witherington says, could also mean "there arose," and so one can ask "does it mean 'he comes to life,' i.e., a resurrection, or that he just 'shows up?' " Witherington also points out that gospel texts are far less reliant on the observed fact of the Resurrection (there is no angelic command in them like the line in the Gabriel stone) than on the testimony of eyewitnesses to Jesus' post-Resurrection self. Finally, Witherington notes that if he is wrong and Knohl's reading is right, it at least sets to rest the notion that the various gospel quotes attributed to Christ foreshadowing his death and Resurrection were textual retrojections put in his mouth by later believers — Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate.

Well to start with, he is playing semantics. There have been countless studies on how the Resurrection story was added into the Gospels. We also know today that the last 12 verses of Mark were added much later to retrofit the folklore and Ben Witherington will be blissfully ignorant of this fact. Barbara Theiring's study of the actual Dead Sea Scrolls in the book Jesus the Man also alludes to a similar notion that the NT is nuanced to old Jewish folklore.

The more important question is, if Jews accuse Christians of heresy,how will they explain this?

salaams

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of that really invalidates the Message at all. In substance, the Message is no different than that found in the Quran - it's just stated differently for a different audience and emphasizing different motifs. As is, and taking into account what the terms 'crucifixion' and 'resurrection' actually mean in spiritual/religious terms, this find only confirms the path to awakening and the role the figure of Jesus served and serves.

Of course, 'uniqueness' is very important in the losing battle of trying to prove which 'religion' or 'religious source' is 'true' and 'uncorrupted' over and against the 'others' - whatever those terms may mean - so Christians of the 'we have the unique message and set of books' bent and bound to the corrupt and self-serving theology of their past and present religious 'authorities' will find this very difficult to swallow or come to terms with. There IS a reason why the 'awaited one' who will 'return' isn't coming to validate ANY religion. Everyone is in for a rude awakening. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well to start with, he is playing semantics.

Why is he playing semantics? Its quite evident that people who want to discredit the resurrection always use terms that are read back into as a 'resurrection'. This is the same with all of those supposed pagan myths.

There have been countless studies on how the Resurrection story was added into the Gospels.

Countless?

We also know today that the last 12 verses of Mark were added much later to retrofit the folklore and Ben Witherington will be blissfully ignorant of this fact.

No. Christians admit that these are latter additions ever heard of Textual Criticism?

Of course perhaps a Muslim would want to say "Aha! You admit corruption!". Christians never suggested that the copies we have were free from error, rather were they so full of error that we are unable to construct the original?

The more important question is, if Jews accuse Christians of heresy,how will they explain this?

I would be careful about jumping to conclusions. This is a fairly new discovery. Similar to the Talpiot Tomb you should tread these waters carefully.

Of course, 'uniqueness' is very important in the losing battle of trying to prove which 'religion' or 'religious source' is 'true' and 'uncorrupted' over and against the 'others' - whatever those terms may mean - so Christians of the 'we have the unique message and set of books' bent and bound to the corrupt and self-serving theology of their past and present religious 'authorities' will find this very difficult to swallow or come to terms with. There IS a reason why the 'awaited one' who will 'return' isn't coming to validate ANY religion. Everyone is in for a rude awakening

What a reflection of the philosophical disaster the West has imposed on all religions.

The 'discovery' hasn't been validated from what I can tell aside from one person, and again its easy to see how many people can assume things like resurrection back into text. Have you ever examined any of the supposed pagan myths against Christian origins? Take for example Osiris, he was chopped into 14 pieces and latter collected and lived in an underworld. This somehow proof that Osiris rose from the dead like Jesus?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maranatha -

ILL explain this for you as best as I can. Your reference to Osiris compared to and with Jesus is an important one. In fact, it illustrates the SAME 'salvation message'. Of course, you are free to disagree with that, as you likely will - but the reality is the same.

First: Osiris is the 'first born of the 'gods' and does not exist, initially, in the 'underworld'. He is the rightful 'heir' to sit on and govern from the 'throne in heaven', but is slain by 'Set' - his 'brother' - who wishes to take the throne for himself. His body is 'broken' in the 14 pieces and he 'falls' into the underworld. He, then, 'comes together' with his 'wife' Isis which results in his being 'resurrected' and reenters the abode of the gods and sits on the throne. This 'union' gives birth to a son - Horus - who then slays Set and takes his Father's place on the throne as His heir. And the cycle continues. Mind you, that Set could not take the throne at all. His actions were to try to prevent the 'Father's Son' from doing so. In a sense, Set serves as a 'test' - and nothing more.

As you can see - these may or may not be multiple individuals. Because of the long history of ancient Egypt, multiple salvation story 'sources' are at work here and end up being mixed together over time. That is one of the reasons why the Message has to be given anew when things become, well, deeply confused.

At once, this all tells the story of the Father in Heaven, Adam, Mary, and Christ - along with Satan, the 'Jews', the fallen world, and so on - with obvious differences in events and motifs. However, it's still the very same Message with the very same point. That this same Message is retold at different times when 'new' human figures are 'crucified' and 'resurrected' and, then, serve as 'models' for the rest of the human population in a given time period is not only understandable, but necessary for the ongoing work to reach and restore fallen, Adamic humanity. The 'religions' that center around the Message become tools for the Adversary as people end up clinging to the 'religion' and not the Message, itself. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and so on are all distorted, corrupted, and tools for the Adversary to keep the 'body' split up, divided, and unrestored. When the Lord returns from the heavens, he will find very little faith on this planet at all.

Now, pay particular attention to Osiris' resurrection - it is the very literal 're-awakening' to one's actual, natural, elevated state of being. One must 'die to the fallen world' in order to be 'reborn'. In this case, the world is symbolized as the 'underworld' and the 'crucifixion' and 'resurrection' occur when Osiris and Isis are united together as one in the hierosgamos which results in the 'Son' (Horus) being born (this is actually the reborn Osiris). There are many layers here to ponder over as far as it all goes. Consider, also, that when Set slays Osiris and his body is broken into 14 pieces - that this is a type of 'crucifixion', as well - though not in the restorative sense, but as a symbol of 'spiritual death' which results in Osiris 'falling' into the underworld.

The 'forbidden fruit' that is 'eaten in 'Eden' is symbolilzed as hanging from a 'tree' - a symbol of the 'cross' inverted - which results in 'spiritual death', the body being 'slain', and then the 'fall'. Had there been no fall and Adam allowed to remain, then Adam would have been the equivalent of a 3 year old running around with his Father's loaded gun. The fruit is 'forbidden' in the Edenic state precisely because one has to 'grow up' and 'know themselves' to use it wisely. Part of the reason for the 'Fall' is to do preceisely this - grow up!

Then there is the 'forbidden fruit' in the fallen world that one must 'eat from' and is, also, symbolized as hanging from a tree - a cross - which results in spiritual and physical rebirth/resurrection and a 'rise' and 'return' to the Edenic state. What this 'forbidden' fruit is is nothing more - or less - than being 'crucified' to the fallen world and being Christed. 'Eating' of the 'flesh and blood' that is not 'cannibalism' - but a partaking in the 'internal gift' that flows dormant and ready for 'development' through fallen Adamic humanity's veins. It can be awakened, but the price is that one must 'die to the fallen world' itself.

It's an awesome Message and Reality, once one actually wake up to it within - as the 'Kingdom' is 'within'. The 'outer aspects' of how this reality is presented change with the context and motifs used to illustrate it.

There are many individuals who are 'Christ' throughout history - as this is a singular reality of Christ. It's when you get fixated on saying there is only 'one individual' such as Jesus, Osiris/Horus, Tammuz, Odin, and so on that is 'Christ' that the confusion and antipathy begins. The devil knows how to sow discord quite well in the fallen world.

I'm sure you can connect the dots of comparison as to how this Message is told in the Christian context. The main differences are in motif, symbolism, and the historical, individual circumstances that gave rise to the expression around different personages. Ironically, this Message is in the Quran, as well. ;)

Edited by Bro_Straight_Path
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

As Salam Alaykum:

The pagan precedent to the dying and ressurected sun god (who is a son of a god) of salvation has already been well documented: whether it is for creation or agricultural purposes. This "find" is interesting for it sets a Jewish precedent at the beginning of the common era. If anyone thinks Christianity did not adopt these features -- from insistance on blood sacrifice over Jewish piety and wordhip to saint worship and pagan holiday's (sun cult ones at that) -- they are deluding themselves. It is common knowledge in Judaic belief that God, audhu billahi, cannot die and be ressurected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is common knowledge in Judaic belief that God, audhu billahi, cannot die and be ressurected.

Likely because this reflects their condition as a fallen and unresurrected people - perpetually existing in outer darkness cut off from themselves and the real knowledge of God, itself. Saying there is 'one transcendent God' without equal awareness that God is also plurally immanent wholistically through ALL of his 'creation - and 'falls' through his creation (an eternal reflection of himself and also an illusion of death for those that forget their Identity such as Adamic humanity has) is a condition of this fall.

Dreaming and forgetting its a dream and who you are in that dream is a dangerous condition and state to be in. When you 'wake up' you don't 'exit the dream' - you become 'lucid' and 'aware' - with all that implies.

Transcendence and Immanence are two sides of the same coin and are never separate from one another. You can 'kill' matter - but it does not become 'nothing' does not 'die' - just takes on another 'form'. God 'dies' - yet he does not. The king is dead - long live the king! Most 'people' think they will literally 'die' when their current body 'dies' - or think that before they were 'born' into their current body they were literally 'nothing' - did not exist. This is not only not true of the reality - it is a maddening state of mind that cascades over time - bringing about levels of personal and collective destruction that can be witnessed today.

Fallen Adamic humanity is spiritually dead and asleep at the wheel until or if they are 'resurrected' as individuals. One can use any term they wish for this 'process of awakening' The fact is, they do not know who or what they are, the order of creation or the chain of immanent being, - and hence - don't know God. He is something wholly 'other' - 'beyond them' - 'transcendent'. They 'hope' they will be allowed to enter Paradise or the 'Kingdom' if they just 'obey' the 'law' and 'Allah' - but they have no idea who or what they are obeying. Conversely, some of the fallen even make themselves to be 'God' after their own, fallen and lost image - and hope to create their llittle permanent 'paradise' on the fallen Earth. Little do they know...

Islamically speaking, they do not know who 'Nahnu' is that brought the Prophet the Message - nor do they know their Rabb of Al Shirah - in immanent, concrete terms. In fact, they don't obey anyone at all but their own desires and the ramblings of religious authorities that either do not know themselves - or are willfully serving something other than the immanent Rabb.

To bow 'only to Allah' - this 'transcendent being' reflecting their own warped and unconscious minds - is to bow only to one's own diminishing self. If they did understand and live the Message, well, the 'Muslim' world wouldn't be in the position it is today - being destroyed exactly as it says in the Quran of the 'infidels'.

Who today will bow to the immanent position and potential of Adam resurrected and reborn, the literal creation and lineal children of the Rabb (El - Lord - Father of the Gods) and fashioned according to his command by 'Nanhu' (unfallen Gods - 'angelic hosts' - pick your favorite term), who is the 'heir' of the Rabb of the Throne, himself? Exactly - not many. They will call these pagan 'son gods' and so on and bow 'only to Allah'. Their fate is already written and on display today.

Not to single out Muslims and to be equally fair - this reality is true of just about everyone else on this planet too.

Of course, there's always time to rethink matters and get one's house in order before the 'end' of this Cycle - as all are being revealed for what they are. :)

Edited by Bro_Straight_Path
Link to post
Share on other sites

To Marantha and Bro Sarjlici

Bulk of key Christian doctrines are already present in Jewish folklore.The Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed insightful clues into this matter, So the concepts like Resurrection and Trinity were not alien to the Jews.

Here is an interesting link:

http://faculty.bbc.edu/ggromacki/deadseasc...eschatology.htm

Also a book entitled Jesus the Man, comes to the same conclusion that although Jews reject key Christian doctrines and brands them as heresy, but they fully practiced these doctrines before the advent of Jesus albeit within context and not as literally as Christians do.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Man-Barbara-Th...g/dp/0552139505

Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Christians admit that these are latter additions ever heard of Textual Criticism?

Of course perhaps a Muslim would want to say "Aha! You admit corruption!". Christians never suggested that the copies we have were free from error, rather were they so full of error that we are unable to construct the original?

Nah. We would just ask why you never had it in there to begin with. At the end of the day this all goes back to bits and parts of the Bible being added and others being subtracted. A never ending process of editing it is. And who is doing the editing; why fallible men that it. If you have the word of God, then pray tell why you didn't have access to the totality from the get-go. How can you be certain that what you have now is the full message when things from it can, have and continue to be added and subtracted? With Quran we can say we had the totality of the message from the beginning hence there was no need for us to rely on textual critics to add or subtract material from it. Are you willing to leave the fate of your eternal soul dependent on what material these textual criticis approve of, who btw happen to be fallible men? Why did God not just give you the whole thing the first time around? Ironically your textual criticism ends up proving our concept of tahrif ^_^

What a reflection of the philosophical disaster the West has imposed on all religions.

huh?

Edited by koroigetsuga
Link to post
Share on other sites
ILL explain this for you as best as I can. Your reference to Osiris compared to and with Jesus is an important one. In fact, it illustrates the SAME 'salvation message'. Of course, you are free to disagree with that, as you likely will - but the reality is the same.

Firstly we must establish what basis you have for suggesting that its 'reality' and did Egyptians themselves consider this to be real? You don't engage the existence of the Christian church, the upsurge in Christianity during the first century, the dead and rising messiah who begins a movement that has not died to this day. You simply look for 'clues' in history and then reinterpret them (as we shall see) with Christian language and then say "tada!". This is hardly impressive and unworthy of you.

First: Osiris is the 'first born of the 'gods' and does not exist, initially, in the 'underworld'.

And Jesus is the first born of God who never existed in an underworld. So at best the similarities you have are 'first born' and 'gods'. Which would make Christianity and Islam similar to all pagan religions in this sense at least. Afterall was not Imam Ali the 'first born' of all Imams? You would perhaps laugh at my parallels, but its the same torturing and anachronism you are doing to Christianity.

He is the rightful 'heir' to sit on and govern from the 'throne in heaven', but is slain by 'Set' - his 'brother' - who wishes to take the throne for himself. His body is 'broken' in the 14 pieces and he 'falls' into the underworld. He, then, 'comes together' with his 'wife' Isis which results in his being 'resurrected' and reenters the abode of the gods and sits on the throne. This 'union' gives birth to a son - Horus - who then slays Set and takes his Father's place on the throne as His heir. And the cycle continues. Mind you, that Set could not take the throne at all. His actions were to try to prevent the 'Father's Son' from doing so. In a sense, Set serves as a 'test' - and nothing more.

And we lose all parallels with Christianity. Nuff said. You are only reinterpreting the language of the text, and using Christian language in light of the story.

As you can see - these may or may not be multiple individuals. Because of the long history of ancient Egypt, multiple salvation story 'sources' are at work here and end up being mixed together over time. That is one of the reasons why the Message has to be given anew when things become, well, deeply confused.

Yes, and perhaps the message given in the Quran suffered the same fate. You can say that the Quran was promised to be preserved, but how do we know its preserved in light of the fact that the "Message" always becomes 'confused' ? We cannot then trust any historical document and are left in historical darkness, and this includes Quran. We cannot grant it special legitimacy simply because we believe it and not apply the same standards we use to interpret other texts.

Furthermore, if the Quran has suffered the same fate, how do you know you have the message? I noticed you read lots of Mormon literature, perhaps you have received a 'revelation' of this 'new' message? Is not the message always confused in history, so as to make it lost and therefore impossible to tell from the message you are giving. How do you know your message is true if you received it from texts that have all suffered the same fate? Its a double edged sword.

At once, this all tells the story of the Father in Heaven, Adam, Mary, and Christ - along with Satan, the 'Jews', the fallen world, and so on - with obvious differences in events and motifs.

That destroy the parallels, how is this hard for you to see?

However, it's still the very same Message with the very same point. That this same Message is retold at different times when 'new' human figures are 'crucified' and 'resurrected' and, then, serve as 'models' for the rest of the human population in a given time period is not only understandable, but necessary for the ongoing work to reach and restore fallen, Adamic humanity.

How does a dying god chopped into fourteen pieces who has a wife have anything to do with a historical figure who died in the place of his people? Mind you Osiris never rose to live with his people, rather died and was found in his fourteen pieces. The words 'resurrection' are being used conveniently to delude others into accepting this nonsense.

The 'religions' that center around the Message become tools for the Adversary as people end up clinging to the 'religion' and not the Message, itself. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and so on are all distorted, corrupted, and tools for the Adversary to keep the 'body' split up, divided, and unrestored. When the Lord returns from the heavens, he will find very little faith on this planet at all.

Well, now you are not even a Muslim. This is intriguing.

Now, pay particular attention to Osiris' resurrection - it is the very literal 're-awakening' to one's actual, natural, elevated state of being. One must 'die to the fallen world' in order to be 'reborn'.

Now pay attention to Jesus' resurrection. Its the very literal resurrection of the body, completely restored and in a similar, but glorified state than when he died. Do you see a parallel?

In this case, the world is symbolized as the 'underworld' and the 'crucifixion' and 'resurrection' occur when Osiris and Isis are united together as one in the hierosgamos which results in the 'Son' (Horus) being born (this is actually the reborn Osiris).

And this renders the parallel nonsense, when you have to anachronistically apply Chrisitan vocabulary in order to legitimize your argument.

There are many layers here to ponder over as far as it all goes. Consider, also, that when Set slays Osiris and his body is broken into 14 pieces - that this is a type of 'crucifixion', as well - though not in the restorative sense, but as a symbol of 'spiritual death' which results in Osiris 'falling' into the underworld.

And we see it again. This is tantalizing.

The 'forbidden fruit' that is 'eaten in 'Eden' is symbolilzed as hanging from a 'tree' - a symbol of the 'cross' inverted - which results in 'spiritual death', the body being 'slain', and then the 'fall'. Had there been no fall and Adam allowed to remain, then Adam would have been the equivalent of a 3 year old running around with his Father's loaded gun. The fruit is 'forbidden' in the Edenic state precisely because one has to 'grow up' and 'know themselves' to use it wisely. Part of the reason for the 'Fall' is to do preceisely this - grow up!

I'm not sure I can take this anymore.

It's an awesome Message and Reality, once one actually wake up to it within - as the 'Kingdom' is 'within'. The 'outer aspects' of how this reality is presented change with the context and motifs used to illustrate it.

There are many individuals who are 'Christ' throughout history - as this is a singular reality of Christ. It's when you get fixated on saying there is only 'one individual' such as Jesus, Osiris/Horus, Tammuz, Odin, and so on that is 'Christ' that the confusion and antipathy begins. The devil knows how to sow discord quite well in the fallen world.

I'm sure you can connect the dots of comparison as to how this Message is told in the Christian context. The main differences are in motif, symbolism, and the historical, individual circumstances that gave rise to the expression around different personages. Ironically, this Message is in the Quran, as well.

The Christian claim is not some esoteric nonsensical view. The claim is a historical person who acted historically, you have not engaged the actual historical validity and existence of things such as the overwhelming textual evidence of the NT, the existence of the Christian Church, the contemporaneous views of Jesus' death. You simply and freely, and sadly interpreted the Christian churhc along the lines of some pagan myth in order to somehow support your view, oddly enough this same message is contained in the Quran.

Koro

Nah. We would just ask why you never had it in there to begin with.

You are proving you dont know what textual criticism is.

At the end of the day this all goes back to bits and parts of the Bible being added and others being subtracted.

That is for you to show. Other questions to be considered would be: Do the additions imply changes in the texts and central doctrines of Christianity? If you can demonstrate this, by all means do so.

A never ending process of editing it is. And who is doing the editing; why fallible men that it. If you have the word of God, then pray tell why you didn't have access to the totality from the get-go.

Of course it was fallible men, you obviously don't know the Christian doctrine of inspiration.

How can you be certain that what you have now is the full message when things from it can, have and continue to be added and subtracted?

'added' and 'subtracted' implies that its threatening the central message of the faith. That remains to be demonstrates, where does the NT add doctrines that Islam disagrees with today, and can this be demonstrated? Care to do so? I already told you we don't deny this, now the point is what does that do specifically to doctrines such as the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, Incarnation and Resurrection? Care to demonstrate how Jesus was a Muslim who prayed five times a day?

With Quran we can say we had the totality of the message from the beginning hence there was no need for us to rely on textual critics to add or subtract material from it.

Lol, you obviously dont know what textual criticism is. So what if you 'have it all' ? My Bible wasn't written in 22 years.

Edited by Maranatha!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maranatha -

It's ok if you are a believer in a religion to the point where you are unable to separate the actual Message, from the historical packaging of that Message that was meant to meet the particular needs of the populations it was given to. Because of this condition, you are unable to see the connections or to even think critically about what 'resurrection', 'crucifixion', and so on actually mean or are. Differences in motifs and events that are telling the same story and giving the same Message doesn't change the Message. The fact that dieing and rising 'savior gods' are found in all cultures and across all time periods only proves the point that the same Message has always been revealed.

For creatures such as yourself, though, these facts of reality don't fit in with your own, programmed sense of religious self-importance and identity. If the particular 'motif' of the Message you identify with (the Christian one) isn't the only historically 'true' and historically 'real' one - then you, yourself will lose your self-importance and your sense of 'identity'. Never mind that you are limiting and diminishing your identity in the same way that you limit the Lord and His revealing the same Message throughout the history of 'Adam' on this planet.

In another thousand years, that is if there's anything left of 'humanity' at that time, your religious motif called Christianity will be nothing more than the very 'Osiris' myth you shrug off today as a myth and legend. That, ironically, will be your fate, as well, if you continue your present course of development - as you will have become nothing more than a faded and mythological memory of the 'past'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's ok if you are a believer in a religion to the point where you are unable to separate the actual Message, from the historical packaging of that Message that was meant to meet the particular needs of the populations it was given to.

You have yet to demonstrate how one can filter "The Message" from that which it has been confused with. Until you demonstrate how we can know "The Message" as opposed to the confusion of this "Message" then you are lost in a mire of skepticism. Its fine if you're a believer in skepticism, I refuse to cling to nonsense.

Because of this condition, you are unable to see the connections or to even think critically about what 'resurrection', 'crucifixion', and so on actually mean or are.

Because "The Message" is lost and always confused, you have no means of knowing if "The Message" you possess today is the actual "Message" that I am confusing. You have yet to demonstrate how these parallels have anything to do with Christianity, instead have merely made the "well, I'm sorry but I'm right" argument. You're not a prophet, nor the son of a Prophet. At best you are a slanderer of God and His Holy Prophets.

Differences in motifs and events that are telling the same story and giving the same Message doesn't change the Message. The fact that dieing and rising 'savior gods' are found in all cultures and across all time periods only proves the point that the same Message has always been revealed.

The fact that one needs to reinterpet the stories of cultures to make them fit the Christian theological view and rename the concepts that don't exist. There is no such thing as dying and rising gods who die and rise once and for all. The vegetative gods are nothing compared to Jesus Christ. Secondly, again you cannot argue that you possess a "Message" since you have no basis for demonstrating how that "Message" is contained in whatever knowledge you possess. Apparently you would want us to think you are some sort of Mormonlike Prophet.

For creatures such as yourself, though, these facts of reality don't fit in with your own, programmed sense of religious self-importance and identity.

Sir you must address the serious issues that logically cause problems in your philosophy of history. How does one know these are facts apart from the "message" that has been given, which is always confused? You are basically showing me that you have some form of elitist, or secret knowledge.

If the particular 'motif' of the Message you identify with (the Christian one) isn't the only historically 'true' and historically 'real' one - then you, yourself will lose your self-importance and your sense of 'identity'. Never mind that you are limiting and diminishing your identity in the same way that you limit the Lord and His revealing the same Message throughout the history of 'Adam' on this planet.

Firstly, the Christian system involves two kingdoms one of God, one of Man. You belong to the latter and you are as important to God's grand plan as I am, however; the importance doesn't lie in anything in me, but the manifestation of God's attributes and His glory displayed in wrath (against you) and mercy (against me). I lose no 'self importance' in demonstrating the absurdity of views that lead to skepticism and leave you without the ability to make historical claims at all.

In another thousand years, that is if there's anything left of 'humanity' at that time, your religious motif called Christianity will be nothing more than the very 'Osiris' myth you shrug off today as a myth and legend. That, ironically, will be your fate, as well, if you continue your present course of development - as you will have become nothing more than a faded and mythological memory of the 'past'.

And if you lived a thousand more years you'd be left with the pure skepticism your position espouses. I'll stick to revelation per scripture, not revelation per experience or emotionalism.

Edited by Maranatha!
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are proving you dont know what textual criticism is.

Straw-man!

I was not talking about textual criticism at all. Your inability to answer simple questions and derail topics astounds me

That is for you to show. Other questions to be considered would be: Do the additions imply changes in the texts and central doctrines of Christianity? If you can demonstrate this, by all means do so.

Changes in the text? There have been changes in the text going on for 2000 years. Where is Thecla? Why was a woman on the same reknown as Mary (pbuh) edited out of the texts? A women whose life-long virginity gave her independence from male authority was not tolerated hence she was removed. Which adds to the ever growing list of reasons why the NT is a piece of work that remains at the whims of charlettons who doctor what they wish to achieve their current goals. For crying out loud, your King James Bible only came about in 1604; which is God knows how many years post Jesus (pbuh).

The challenge stands. Why did you not have the totality of the message with you from the start and instead as centuries come remove and add continually in an endless process of editing.

Of course it was fallible men, you obviously don't know the Christian doctrine of inspiration.

Hence why it is unreliable. By the way since you claim to be an "evolution" of Judaism, you do realize that Jews also have a holy book that they claim was directly founded by their founding prophet. Why was the same not true with Christianity? Instead you rely on the works of fallible men, and yes the words of fallible men are unreliable, hence why they are fallible. If the christian God cannot even provide you with his authentic word through the prophet he sent you and instead must rely on fallible men who conjecture up contradicting scripture to guide is the best you can come up with, then sadly he has no competition with the islamic God.

'added' and 'subtracted' implies that its threatening the central message of the faith.

Which is the Achillees Heel of the christian doctrine. Why did you not have the right message from the get-go. Why as the centuries go on, your scholars continue to add and subtract. You clearly criticize the catholics for doing this with their ever changing doctrines, but yet are unable to tolerate the same being done with your scriptures.

That remains to be demonstrates, where does the NT add doctrines that Islam disagrees with today, and can this be demonstrated?

The discussion is not what Islam disagrees with, the discussion is that once fallible men start adding and subtracting with what God has sent down, then that scriptures is infected with the wills of those fallible men. There is no competition here with the islamic method, because with us we had the absolute message right from the begginning and are forbidden from adding or subtracting a single letter from it. The result; we have a Quran that doesn't contradict itself, you have gospels that very much do that.

Care to do so? I already told you we don't deny this, now the point is what does that do specifically to doctrines such as the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, Incarnation and Resurrection? Care to demonstrate how Jesus was a Muslim who prayed five times a day?

When we say the prophets were muslim we mean they each brought the message of monotheism but different laws to fit the times. Hence why in Judaism (and apparently Christianity since this in the OT) the punishment for rape is marriage between rapist and raped, whereas in islam the rapist gets executed.

Oh and since Jesus (pbuh) was following Jewish law, he very much did pray 5 times a day as that is exactly what Jews do ;)

Lol, you obviously dont know what textual criticism is. So what if you 'have it all' ? My Bible wasn't written in 22 years.

KnightsTemplar explained that this is not the case with the Quran. It was revealed over 23 years, not all at once and there are practical reasons why this was done, but that is a whole other topic

At least we had our holy book given to us in our prophet's lifetime. Your King James Bible is only 400 years old; calculate how many years that is after Jesus (pbuh)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Straw-man!

Do you know what the definition of 'straw-man argumentation' is?

I was not talking about textual criticism at all. Your inability to answer simple questions and derail topics astounds me

Sir the study of a the transmission of the Biblical text is called textual criticism, you obviously don't know what Textual Criticism is.

Changes in the text? There have been changes in the text going on for 2000 years.

Agreed, what does that have to do with central Christian doctrines?

Where is Thecla? Why was a woman on the same reknown as Mary (pbuh) edited out of the texts?

How do you know this? Appealing to extra-Biblical latter texts? Why do you believes these texts and not the scriptures? Also, how would you know Thecla was in the texts before establishing a consistent means of interpretation? Also, so what if Thecla is not mentioned in the Bible? How do we know she was 'reknowned' and how would we be able to even know this at all?

A women whose life-long virginity gave her independence from male authority was not tolerated hence she was removed.

I have no idea what this means.

Which adds to the ever growing list of reasons why the NT is a piece of work that remains at the whims of charlettons who doctor what they wish to achieve their current goals. For crying out loud, your King James Bible only came about in 1604; which is God knows how many years post Jesus (pbuh).

And again you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you know that there are 5500 manuscripts or pieces dating all the way back to the second century?

The challenge stands. Why did you not have the totality of the message with you from the start and instead as centuries come remove and add continually in an endless process of editing.

And the 'editing' you imply has to do with endless corruption that happened so much we have conmpletely different Christian doctrines.Can this be demonstrated?

Hence why it is unreliable.

According to Islamic standards, however; the Christian view of inspiration was never ever that we possess perfect manuscripts that give us the perfect Word of God, rather we have manuscripturs that convey exactly what happened and the PROPOSITIONS contained in this revelation are what is revealed. Do you know the meaning of PROPOSITIONAL REVELATION?

By the way since you claim to be an "evolution" of Judaism, you do realize that Jews also have a holy book that they claim was directly founded by their founding prophet. Why was the same not true with Christianity?

I claim to be the frution of what is now known as Judaism. Judaism is as apostate as Islam is. By way of Moses writing Torah? Thats fine. Jesus inspired Moses.

Instead you rely on the works of fallible men, and yes the words of fallible men are unreliable, hence why they are fallible.

Fallible men who were inspired infallibily. There is no 'free will' in Christianity, there is a will though. And through this will God moves and causes men to write what he wills to be revealed.

If the christian God cannot even provide you with his authentic word through the prophet he sent you and instead must rely on fallible men who conjecture up contradicting scripture to guide is the best you can come up with, then sadly he has no competition with the islamic God.

Did Muhammad have free will? How are you sure we have the Quran?

Secondly, my God did provide his Word its propositional not contained in a text which is why I can sit my Bible on the floor and read it without somehow offending God.

Which is the Achillees Heel of the christian doctrine.

Interesting. You've shown you don't even know what it is.

Why did you not have the right message from the get-go. Why as the centuries go on, your scholars continue to add and subtract. You clearly criticize the catholics for doing this with their ever changing doctrines, but yet are unable to tolerate the same being done with your scriptures.

No, I criticize Catholics for adding traditions not found in the scripture. I criticize Muslims for suggesting corruption while not providing an addition that dramatically changes the doctrines contained or believed by Chrisitians. Remember Catholics would be with me on this case, and I would too. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. :)

The discussion is not what Islam disagrees with, the discussion is that once fallible men start adding and subtracting with what God has sent down, then that scriptures is infected with the wills of those fallible men.

That still is for you to show. Last I checked the discussion was actually about 'confusing' a 'message' and how philosophically we can tell 'The Message' from "message", Bro hasn't been able to show that.

There is no competition here with the islamic method, because with us we had the absolute message right from the begginning and are forbidden from adding or subtracting a single letter from it. The result; we have a Quran that doesn't contradict itself, you have gospels that very much do that.

You have yet to show what variants in my text demonstrate corruption to the extent that there was a change in doctrine. ;)

Please do so, I'm waiting.

When we say the prophets were muslim we mean they each brought the message of monotheism but different laws to fit the times.

Then why do you moan about the fact that I eat pork?

Hence why in Judaism (and apparently Christianity since this in the OT) the punishment for rape is marriage between rapist and raped, whereas in islam the rapist gets executed.

Oh, can you quote a law under the New Covenant administration that demands this?

Oh and since Jesus (pbuh) was following Jewish law, he very much did pray 5 times a day as that is exactly what Jews do ;)

Thats right he probably did, this doesn' t make him a Muslim capital M, rather a Jew... Christians have always believed this. ;)

KnightsTemplar explained that this is not the case with the Quran. It was revealed over 23 years, not all at once and there are practical reasons why this was done, but that is a whole other topic

Cool. I'm glad to be corrected. :)

At least we had our holy book given to us in our prophet's lifetime. Your King James Bible is only 400 years old; calculate how many years that is after Jesus (pbuh)

Huh? Do you really think that my Bible is the only means of knowing what was written? You are seriously naive in this topic then, huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
According to Islamic standards, however; the Christian view of inspiration was never ever that we possess perfect manuscripts that give us the perfect Word of God, rather we have manuscripturs that convey exactly what happened and the PROPOSITIONS contained in this revelation are what is revealed. Do you know the meaning of PROPOSITIONAL REVELATION?

yes maybe its just a rewording for OBVIOUS INAUTHENTICITY

you might want to check that short article also from timesonline entitled Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

Edited by Nad_M
Link to post
Share on other sites
You have yet to demonstrate how one can filter "The Message" from that which it has been confused with. Until you demonstrate how we can know "The Message" as opposed to the confusion of this "Message" then you are lost in a mire of skepticism. Its fine if you're a believer in skepticism, I refuse to cling to nonsense.

It's not confusing at all. You want to know how to find the Message through that which it is being presented through? Or, to use your term, filter it through the 'mud' it's lost or hidden within? That's quite easy - all you have to do is THINK - but it requires you to know what the Message is in the first place. From this side of the discussion, there's nothing 'skeptic' about the Message. It's the 'forms' that need analysis and comparison - to sift the wheat from the chaf that ALWAYS builds up over time. I'm not sure if we're even in agreement with what the Message is - or we may be - but we certainly aren't in agreement that the same Message is found under and within these various 'forms' that are different than the 'form' you believe in. I'm not calling out and saying the 'form' you follow is wrong - I'm saying you can't see beyond that form of the Message you follow to see it for what it is (just a temporary form) - which makes talking about this with you difficult, at best. I do agree that the forms the Message appears through tend to get 'muddy' over time and am not arguing for the 'Egyptian form' as something more 'pure' or 'correct'. This 'muddying' is why we always have new presentations of the same Message happening over time as the 'need' arises. This is normal and natural. If you don't think filtering works, though, then I would simply ask you to brush up on how water purification works that makes 'dirty' water 'safe' for human consumption. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hi Bro Straight Path,

Quote,

I'm not sure if we're even in agreement with what the Message is - or we may be - but we certainly aren't in agreement that the same Message is found under and within these various 'forms' that are different than the 'form' you believe in.

--- When you mention the Message and what it is, --- is it not the same Message that is referred to in verse 42:13?

Pickthall: He hath ordained for you that religion which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the religion, and be not divided therein. Dreadful for the idolaters is that unto which thou callest them. Allah chooseth for Himself whom He will, and guideth unto Himself him who turneth (toward Him).

Khalifa: He decreed for you the same religion decreed for Noah, and what we inspired to you, and what we decreed for Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: "You shall uphold this one religion, and do not divide it." The idol worshipers will greatly resent what you invite them to do. GOD redeems to Himself whomever He wills; He guides to Himself only those who totally submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you know what the definition of \\\\\\\'straw-man argumentation\\\\\\\' is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Sir the study of a the transmission of the Biblical text is called textual criticism, you obviously don\\\\\\\'t know what Textual Criticism is.

Right and what has biblical textual criticism confirmed. I\\\\\\\'ll give one such example using the findings of Bart D. Ehrman; a reputted authority on biblical textual criticism:

What changes were made, by whom, and why?

A second major theme that runs through his more recent works is the analysis of why such biblical variations are there. The vast majority of the literally hundreds of thousands of differences are due to the unintentional mistakes of scribes. These variations have little to no effect on the meaning of the passages or core tenets of Christian dogma. Changes were made, however, that Ehrman believes with near certainty could not have been mistakes, but were in fact purposeful alterations by the early church fathers and theologians to mold the early Christian writings into what they felt they needed to support their agenda and/or interpretation of Christianity.

Two key examples will be given here to illustrate the critical nature of the variations. Two of the most striking additions that could not possibly be attributed to unintentional scribal error occur in the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark and in 1 John.

In the Gospel of Mark, Bart claims that the last 12 verses have been added on to the original text many years later.[8] Unlike some other scribal errors that had little bearing on the major tenets of Christian dogma, this addition to the text has had vast ramifications. In Mark, Jesus\\\\\\\' reappearance to his disciples is mentioned only in the 12 verses that were added to the original. Ehrman indicates that when one considers that the Gospel of Mark is generally regarded to be the earliest of the three synoptic gospels, and most likely one of the primary sources for the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke, it becomes apparent that the addition of these 12 verses could have had a monumental effect.

In 1 John, where we find a well known Biblical reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, Bart Ehrman notes that this section appears in no Greek manuscript before the 9th century.[

Agreed, what does that have to do with central Christian doctrines?

that they were made up. It certainly puts doubt on their authenticity. This is similar to the way the Torah works were bent to the whims of Judea

it is fact that there was a plethora of diversity in doctrine with early christianity. Like \\\\\\\"Iamanonymous\\\\\\\" said you are just another of 900 christian sects claiming you have the totality of the true message in your hands

How do you know this? Appealing to extra-Biblical latter texts?

The fact that these texts exist says something Marantha. Why were they not included in the scriptures and who made that judgement? It wasn\\\\\\\'t Jesus (pbuh) it was fallible men

Why do you believes these texts and not the scriptures?

Because it was fallible men who decided what should and what shouldn\\\\\\\'t be entered into the Bible.

Also, how would you know Thecla was in the texts before establishing a consistent means of interpretation? Also, so what if Thecla is not mentioned in the Bible? How do we know she was \\\\\\\'reknowned\\\\\\\' and how would we be able to even know this at all?

Its called research Marantha. Look her up and learn that her legacy was as well known as that of Mary (pbuh). However, Thecla a woman who chose to live a virginal life, was feared because her virginity meant no marriage, hence a sort of independence from men; a message the early church fathers would never permit to continue to be spread amongst the common woman for fear of what it may inspire in them

I have no idea what this means.

re-read what I wrote

And again you have no idea what you\\\\\\\'re talking about. Do you know that there are 5500 manuscripts or pieces dating all the way back to the second century?

the point remains why did you not have the perfect Bible from the get-go? Do you still have the perfect Bible and are you sure it will never be edited again?

And the \\\\\\\'editing\\\\\\\' you imply has to do with endless corruption that happened so much we have conmpletely different Christian doctrines.Can this be demonstrated?

read the notes from the Bart ehraman I posted above

Edited by koroigetsuga
Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Islamic standards, however; the Christian view of inspiration was never ever that we possess perfect manuscripts that give us the perfect Word of God, rather we have manuscripturs that convey exactly what happened and the PROPOSITIONS contained in this revelation are what is revealed. Do you know the meaning of PROPOSITIONAL REVELATION?

Then you are following religion that is determined by the wills of fallible men. the point remains that there is no competition here with the Quran. the second you have human beings messing around with what can and what can not be included in God\\\\\\\'s word, then it becomes unreliable hence I thank God for giving me a book where we are not allowed to mess with even a letter of his word.

I claim to be the frution of what is now known as Judaism. Judaism is as apostate as Islam is. By way of Moses writing Torah? Thats fine. Jesus inspired Moses.

Christianity CANNOT be continued or evolved from Judaism. The countless debates on this forum prove that.

Fallible men who were inspired infallibily. There is no \\\\\\\'free will\\\\\\\' in Christianity, there is a will though. And through this will God moves and causes men to write what he wills to be revealed.

so then why should I assume you have the true message of Jesus (pbuh) anymore than say ebionites or the nazarenes or the other hebrew christian sects who predated Pauline additions?

Did Muhammad have free will? How are you sure we have the Quran?

YES

Secondly, my God did provide his Word its propositional not contained in a text which is why I can sit my Bible on the floor and read it without somehow offending God.

I don\\\\\\\'t understand this.

Interesting. You\\\\\\\'ve shown you don\\\\\\\'t even know what it is.

elaborate?

No, I criticize Catholics for adding traditions not found in the scripture. I criticize Muslims for suggesting corruption while not providing an addition that dramatically changes the doctrines contained or believed by Chrisitians. Remember Catholics would be with me on this case, and I would too. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. :)

and what of you believing Jesus (pbuh) is god when there is not a single verse in the Bible where he admits to being God or the trinity for that matter

That still is for you to show. Last I checked the discussion was actually about \\\\\\\'confusing\\\\\\\' a \\\\\\\'message\\\\\\\' and how philosophically we can tell \\\\\\\'The Message\\\\\\\' from \\\\\\\"message\\\\\\\", Bro hasn\\\\\\\'t been able to show that.You have yet to show what variants in my text demonstrate corruption to the extent that there was a change in doctrine. ;)

Please do so, I\\\\\\\'m waiting.

Done ! read what I post on Bart ehraman

Then why do you moan about the fact that I eat pork?

I don\\\\\\\'t.

BUT.............................

Jesus (pbuh) was a rabbi. Clearly he followed Jewish law. From what can be produced from the Bible he was a fairly liberal rabbi but a rabbi none the less and since he followed kosher yeah that means no pork ^_^

Oh, can you quote a law under the New Covenant administration that demands this?

then why do you follow the 10 Commandments. If they were part of the old covenant then what are they doing with your new covenant. Do you realize they were never meant to be for everybody just for the Jews; it was the Noahide laws that were for everybody

Thats right he probably did, this doesn\\\\\\\' t make him a Muslim capital M, rather a Jew... Christians have always believed this. ;)

No. A muslim is one who submits to God. Clearly he didn\\\\\\\'t call himself that as in say \\\\\\\"I am muslim\\\\\\\" but he was one in spirit as he submitted to god as all prophets do

Huh? Do you really think that my Bible is the only means of knowing what was written? You are seriously naive in this topic then, huh?

missing my point you are.

We had the Quran since our prophet\'s time. It was revealed to us during his lifetime and has been with us since. Did you have the complete and perfect Bible with you since Jesus (pbuh) died.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hi Koro,

Quote,

For crying out loud, your King James Bible only came about in 1604;

Quote,

We had the Quran since our prophet\'s time. It was revealed to us during his lifetime and has been with us since. Did you have the complete and perfect Bible with you since Jesus died.

--- Koro, I am surprised that you are so ill informed.

On the cross the inscription was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek.

The OT was written in Hebrew, and the NT was written in Greek, --- but Latin was a well known language. The NT was written within the first century and the books were copied and distributed to Churches. However, the NT Scriptures were translated into Latin about AD 150. It was used from then on as well as other translations. Most of the 27 books were approved by then with only a few of the short letters to be decided upon. These decisions were finalized in the 300's

In AD 400, Jerome was commissioned to translate the whole Bible from the Hebrew and Greek. His completed Bible was called the Latin Vulgate. The English language did not exist at that time so the Latin was a common version used from 400, through to the 600's, when Muhammad was called to be God's messenger, and it would have been on hand for the angel Gabriel to approve to Muhammad, and to say that the Quran was a continuation of the Torah and the Gospel in AD 625.

Now here is the point, --- If Gabriel was approving the Gospel to Muhammad, was Gabriel not wise enough to know what the Gospel was? --- He must have approved of all the various language versions that were available at that time, or he would have made some distinction between them, would he not?

If you are saying that Gabriel was a 'know nothing' angel in AD 625, that approved of a faulty Book and told Muhammad it was true, --- then how can you claim that the Quran is 100%?

To go further, --- the Latin Vulgate from AD 400 was used through to the 1600's when it was translated into the Douay Version, which was the official English Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. --- Before 1600, King James commissioned 47 scholars and linguists to translate the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek to English for the common people to read.

I have a copy of the Douay Version as well as the King James Bible. They are very comparable, being written in old English. Since then, there have beem newer versions that update the language. The New King James Bible has been written since the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and many of them interpreted. --- As well as the Latin Vulgate spaning the period from before Muhammad until now, the Dead Sea Scrolls verify the OT Scriptures as well.

If you believe that the Angel Gabriel who came to Muhammad has any credibility, then you have to rethink your attack on the Scriptures that he approved of, don't you agree? --- (As a budding lawyer you need to check all the evidence.)

Now when you mention the accuracy of the Quran, there are a few questions, arent there?

If Muhammad passed the copy that he and Ali used over to Ali, then when Ali took it to Abu Bakr and Umar, why didn't they accept it? --- After all, it would be the authentic Quran, would it not?

Mr Pickthall says that over the next few years Abu Bakr and Umar called in those who had memorized the Quran by heart and compared that to the collection that Abu Bakr had and under the third Caliph Uthman, which by some counts, --- it could have been some 20 years after Muhammad's death before it was finally completed.

While the original was in the hands of Ali all the time, it was the rejected copy, and the new version, some years later, after burning all the other copies, --- was declared the Quran in Arabic that we have today. --- During those years after Muhammad's death did the Quran not go through a lot of human hands that could have changed it? --- And I understand that Mr Uthman himself was not the most honorable character, was he? --- I understand that at one point he lied to the people and was brought to account and had to apologize, --- Then eventually he was killed, was he not?

(Also, some accounts I have read said that some of the Surahs were not complete. That some verses were left out, and Mr Pickthall lists places where some Surahs were written at Mecca, but other verses within them were from Al-Madinah.)

Now, don't get me wrong, I accept the Quran as containing Scriptures from both the OT and NT, which is the word of God. --- But, I accept the OT and NT which came first, --- You see these are the Books, or Book that God has preserved. --- The books and gospels that were not included in the Canon of Scripture, God has not preserved, has He?

So, let's accept the OT, the NT and the Quran as coming from God, and get on with some intelligent discussion, that may benefit us all. --- Wouldn't that be a better use of time and space?

Placid

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Bro Straight Path,

Quote,

I'm not sure if we're even in agreement with what the Message is - or we may be - but we certainly aren't in agreement that the same Message is found under and within these various 'forms' that are different than the 'form' you believe in.

--- When you mention the Message and what it is, --- is it not the same Message that is referred to in verse 42:13?

Pickthall: He hath ordained for you that religion which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the religion, and be not divided therein. Dreadful for the idolaters is that unto which thou callest them. Allah chooseth for Himself whom He will, and guideth unto Himself him who turneth (toward Him).

Khalifa: He decreed for you the same religion decreed for Noah, and what we inspired to you, and what we decreed for Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: "You shall uphold this one religion, and do not divide it." The idol worshipers will greatly resent what you invite them to do. GOD redeems to Himself whomever He wills; He guides to Himself only those who totally submit.

Essentially, I agree with that, yes. The Message is one and all of the Prophets, Messengers, Imams, and so on have brought the very same Message. The issue, of course, if whether the FORM of the Message (religion as commonly understoood) was always the same - I do not believe it is or was. Messengers speak to and utilize the 'symbols' and 'motifs' of the people they are bringing it to in order to illustrate and teach the Message. This is why I do not find, at root, any difference in the Message as it appears through the various forms over history. The forms, of course, are subject to decay, metamorphosis, and otherwise can obscure the Message as more and more layers or veils end up getting piled onto the original form that the Message was given through - yet the Message IS there if we're able to see through it all and make the connections. That's why I find it important to understand what's actually being said with the use of certain terms as they apply to spiritual 'rebirth' or 'returning' to the true and elevated 'fitrah' that the Message is calling us all to see both within ourselves and 'out there', for instance.

As we can see, with all the current focus on the comparative 'forms' - this naturally leads us to the present discussions and, in light of the 'return' of the 'lord', 'imam', and so on that most of these forms speak of, a new form will be brought that is very hard on those that cling to forms that are subject to not only change - but being replaced altogether as conditions change and the Message is brought again to a perpetually confused and divided amongst themselves hunanity. Afterall, the Imam isn't coming to validate 'Islam' as a 'religion' - the 'Lord' isn't coming to validate 'Christianity' as a 'relilgion' - and the 'Messiah' isn't coming to validate 'Judaism' as a 'religion'. This is what most, though they might acknowledge that reality, still persist in doing - putting themselves at odds and even open conflict with the 'expected one' who, as we all know, isn't coming to give speeches. Now is the time to get 'right' - while we strill have the opportunity to in this 'age'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hi Bro,

Hey, you make some good points.

Quote,

--- This is what most, though they might acknowledge that reality, still persist in doing - putting themselves at odds and even open conflict with the 'expected one' who, as we all know, isn't coming to give speeches. Now is the time to get 'right' - while we strill have the opportunity to in this 'age'.

--- I agree that this is the 'age' to get right with God, and our expectations of how He will reveal Himself --- before, --- and when --- 'the trumpet is blown,' --- may not be accurate, we do not know.

However, there is an indication of what might be expected of us, and it is this,

In John 4 Jesus was talking to a Samaritan woman who was asking Him about worship.

19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.

20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”

21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.

24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.”

26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”

Since Jesus called Himself the Messiah, and Muhammad called Him the Messiah, --- and since we agree that it is He, Jesus Christ, who is returning, then we should notice His simple instruction.

"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

If God is seeking 'spiritual worship,' then our spirit needs to be in harmony with Him.

Placid

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good insights, Placid. The key is coming to know as best as we are each capable - the singular Reality that Jesus, Muhammad, and all of the Prophets and Imams have pointed us toward - to that which we submit in humility in the Divine Order of things - which is at once transcendent and beyond all our wildest imaginations on every level - and yet, it is intimately immanent 'within' and 'through' our very being and creation itself, on every level. The Prophets at once pointed to 'themselves' in terms of being 'the messenger' and a 'sign', a 'word', even 'god' if we know what that term actually signifies - but yet, they also pointed beyond themselves to the 'source'.

For example, the very real, living and 'breathing' Lord or Rabb - the Lord/Rabb of Al Shirah as referenced in the Islamic tradition - has a 'God' - and the same applies to Him as well as us - or 'We'. 'Allah' is, at once, beyond - yet not. Look in the mirror...as the saying goes - then recognize the Divine Order. It's ironic that the 'Elohim' - or 'the gods' - referenced in the biblical writings are the same beings speaking as 'nahnu' in the Quran - yet Christians call this by a singular 'god' as do Muslims. While this may be true in terms of all being manifestations of the 'one source' - the 'gods'/'nanhu' are very real beings and even if we wish to say that they are reflections of the Names and Attributes of the 'one source' - God/Allah - these always find their expression through 'us'/creation - the immanent projection/manifestation of God/Allah, itself.

The practical reality is that these are very real beings one is bowing to the source THROUGH, yet most do not know it - or in their actions, reject the 'Lord' and the 'gods' altogether - bowing only to 'Allah' divorced from his immanent order - in other words, the 'god' of their own disintegrating imaginations. As I said in another post, this is true of most everyone, not just Muslims.

Think of all the movies and what not that in a not so subtle way, encourage people to 'revolt' and 'rebel' against 'the gods' and 'the lord' - under whatever title they are presented. Then, witness reality - everyone is in a practical state of revolt - against not only the Divine Order, but themselves, as well. They will 'bow to no one' - but 'God' - which is to say, they will bow only to themselves. Iblis wouldn't bow to Adam, remember - and today, noone will bow to anyone else either. This is a deep subject that we can only hope will be addressed by those in a position to do so more effectively than on a message board. We'll just have to wait and see who steps up to the plate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Right and what has biblical textual criticism confirmed. I\\\\\\\'ll give one such example using the findings of Bart D. Ehrman; a reputted authority on biblical textual criticism:

Koro,

Firstly you are not understanding what I'm saying. You firstly assume Islamic doctrine of inspiration and them impose it on Christian argumentation to form what we call a straw man. We do not affirm the copies are infallible, therefore there is no necessity to argue from them as if we affirm their infallibility. This is not the Christian doctrine of inspiration. What we do affirm is that God inspired the originals and they were faithfully copied, and at times contained errors because of fallible men. I do not affirm that Paul was fallible while he was inspired, I do not affirm Peter was fallible when he wrote his epistles. I affirm that God inspired men and moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:21

For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Again, let me sum this up for you. Because, it seems you don't understand the Christian doctrine of inspiration: We do not affirm that God inspired the copies, but merely the originals. Which is why textual criticism exists in the first place, we appeal to the texts in order to construct what was originally said. Now let me demonstrate how we know what is in the Bible, and is not:

There are

5500 New Testament manuscripts or pieces dating all the way back to the 2nd cenutry.

10000 copies in other languages

1 Million quotes from the Fathers of the Church

This makes the New Testament the most supported text of antiquity, yet you approach it as if we cannot know anything at all, until the Quran 600 years ago. Not even the Quran has this textual basis for its composition.

Finally, you quote Bart Erhman. Let me quote to you what he says:

In his debate with Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, Bart Erhman (The man you quoted above) says:

"But the first thing to say...is that most of them (variants) don't matter for anything, they are absolutely irrelevant, immaterial, unimportant a lot of them you can't even reproduce a translation from the Greek. The kinds of mistakes you find in these manuscripts as it turns out, the majority of mistakes you find in these manuscripts show us no nothing more than that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than my student cant today.."

[Emphasis mine, 30 minutes into part 1/3]

So since I demand proof of the Muslim assertion that we must have a corrupted text where Christ's deity was added, or the Trinitarian doctrine was added then you must demonstrate what you did. I will answer the few passages you provided latter.

For now let us take a glimpse at Bart Erhmans interpretation of the history, and the texts of antiquity in gernal

In the Q & A above one persons asks a question:

Q: "If you said that the Bible is the most accurate of all the documents of antiquity, but we still can't know what it originally said then how can we determine what actually happened in any part of history?"

A: "I don't think I said the Bible was the most accurate, I said that we have more manuscripts of the Bible than for any other book in the ancient world...so the question is well how can we decide what anybody in the ancient world said and we cant. We wish we could, it would be nice if we could. You sort of think you can...the problem is we don't have the kind of evidence we need in order to establish what ancient authors wrote."

[Emphasis mine, 2 minutes into closing arguments]

Notice the utter skepticism that Bart approaches the text with? Given the standard above, we cannot know the Quran is inspired, or textually reliable. Therefore your position is self refuting, and Bart would argue the same method with you. There is no difference and you are utilizing a double standard.

Let me sum up here:

Since you utilize Bart Erhman as an authority to demonstrate that the New Testament is corrupt you utilize Bart's presupposition that no revelation is possible. Since Islam is a revealed religion, Islam is also precluded and you defeat your own position. At this point Islam is defeated and the arguments you use to put forth against my Christianity fall beneath the weight of his presuppositions.

So that we have demonstrates to this point that Bart agrees, (a)even with his presupposition that the Bible is still more attested to in antiquity than the Quran. (B) That a use of Bart as an argument against Christianity by someone who claims revelation refutes their own position since Bart claims utter skepticism in terms of history. © That Islamic arguments used against Christians on the basis of Erhmans theories and textual abilities fall because Muslims are utilizing a presupposition that doesn't inherently belong to Islam.

Finally,

It is not necessary to address the arguments you use against Christianity because your argument falls before it even begins. Its quite clear and had you *thought* through your argumentation before you would not have used it if you wanted to remain intellectually respected.

Because, I assume you won't accept my philosophical argumentation against your evidential approach. I will go ahead and address the minor points you made. But, I must demonstrate why a philosophy precedes an evidential claim and therefore if you don't demonstrate a consistent philosophical scheme, then you fall flat on your face. If Islam is true Christianity is false. But to argue from someone that begins with the presupposition that no inspiration is possible, then Christianity must by default be untrue, but no inspiration is possible which means that Islalm is also false.

I also asked you to demonstrate a textual corruption that renders the ability of the text to speak of things such as the resurrection of Jesus, the Trinity, and the deity of Christ. Now, you may not and cannot limit these verses to only what Jesus said. Remember, I'm a Christian so the red letters are as inspired as the black letters in my Bible, and therefore are as useful in demonstrating that Jesus claimed to be God, was God, and was called God.

Koro, thanks for your patience. I've been terribly busy, two jobs, moving and July is a crazy birthday month in my family! So, if you don't see a response quick, its because I'm very very busy. Repent and believe the Gospel my friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Koro,

Firstly you are not understanding what I'm saying. You firstly assume Islamic doctrine of inspiration and them impose it on Christian argumentation to form what we call a straw man. We do not affirm the copies are infallible, therefore there is no necessity to argue from them as if we affirm their infallibility. This is not the Christian doctrine of inspiration. What we do affirm is that God inspired the originals and they were faithfully copied, and at times contained errors because of fallible men. I do not affirm that Paul was fallible while he was inspired, I do not affirm Peter was fallible when he wrote his epistles. I affirm that God inspired men and moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:21

For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Marantha I am sorry my thesis did not come across to you. Let me try this again.

Here's how I see things.

God sends a message through a messenger. The messenger's word are the words of God. Once human hands get mixed in the delivery of that message, then to me that message is also liable to human error.

You won't agree, but to me the whole doctrine of inspiration is an excuse to counter the clear contradictions in the gospels. There are are four not one, and christianity must draw meaning from four books that don't see eye to eye on every matter.

I don't see how I am imposing islamic doctrine here (maybe I am and maybe I'm not). But I feel I am judging the Bible like I would any other religious scripture.

So since I demand proof of the Muslim assertion that we must have a corrupted text where Christ's deity was added, or the Trinitarian doctrine was added then you must demonstrate what you did. I will answer the few passages you provided latter.

For the last time. Tahrif means that if even one letter is missing from the original message/book that the prophet of the time brought. That's what constitutes tahrif.

Do your 4 gospels have contradictions in them? Yes or no. If yes then tahrif it is.

You may not see it as corruption, but by islamic standards that's what it is.

And as has been discussed beyond my ability to count, Jesus (pbuh) being god and the whole trinity remain ill-defined in both gospels and tanakh. And for the record even this alone constitutes tahrif. Believing Jesus (pbuh) is God, while there being nothing explicit in the text that says so.

For now let us take a glimpse at Bart Erhmans interpretation of the history, and the texts of antiquity in gernal

Notice the utter skepticism that Bart approaches the text with? Given the standard above, we cannot know the Quran is inspired, or textually reliable. Therefore your position is self refuting, and Bart would argue the same method with you. There is no difference and you are utilizing a double standard.

Quick question. Do you ask your biology teacher to help you out with your math homework?

Bart Erhmans' specialty is the New Testament not the Quran. I take him as an authority on what his specialty is. Unless I see him gain a phD in Quranic studies like he has with his credentials on the NT, he will not be an authority for me in that area.

Since you utilize Bart Erhman as an authority to demonstrate that the New Testament is corrupt you utilize Bart's presupposition that no revelation is possible. Since Islam is a revealed religion, Islam is also precluded and you defeat your own position. At this point Islam is defeated and the arguments you use to put forth against my Christianity fall beneath the weight of his presuppositions.

read what I wrote above. He is a scholar of the NT, hence I only deal with his findings in that regard. He has no specialty in Quranic sciences, hence his opinions there are irrelevant

So that we have demonstrates to this point that Bart agrees, (a)even with his presupposition that the Bible is still more attested to in antiquity than the Quran. (B) That a use of Bart as an argument against Christianity by someone who claims revelation refutes their own position since Bart claims utter skepticism in terms of history. � That Islamic arguments used against Christians on the basis of Erhmans theories and textual abilities fall because Muslims are utilizing a presupposition that doesn't inherently belong to Islam.

read above

It is not necessary to address the arguments you use against Christianity because your argument falls before it even begins. Its quite clear and had you *thought* through your argumentation before you would not have used it if you wanted to remain intellectually respected.

Because, I assume you won't accept my philosophical argumentation against your evidential approach. I will go ahead and address the minor points you made. But, I must demonstrate why a philosophy precedes an evidential claim and therefore if you don't demonstrate a consistent philosophical scheme, then you fall flat on your face. If Islam is true Christianity is false. But to argue from someone that begins with the presupposition that no inspiration is possible, then Christianity must by default be untrue, but no inspiration is possible which means that Islalm is also false.

I also asked you to demonstrate a textual corruption that renders the ability of the text to speak of things such as the resurrection of Jesus, the Trinity, and the deity of Christ. Now, you may not and cannot limit these verses to only what Jesus said. Remember, I'm a Christian so the red letters are as inspired as the black letters in my Bible, and therefore are as useful in demonstrating that Jesus claimed to be God, was God, and was called God.

One, I don't believe in inspiration.

Two, I already quoted in my previous post some examples of Ehraman considers purposeful alterations:

In the Gospel of Mark, Ehrman claims that the last 12 verses have been added on to the original text many years later.[8] Unlike some other scribal errors that had little bearing on the major tenets of Christian dogma, this addition to the text has had vast ramifications. In Mark, Jesus' reappearance to his disciples is mentioned only in the 12 verses that were added to the original. Ehrman indicates that when one considers that the Gospel of Mark is generally regarded to be the earliest of the three synoptic gospels, and most likely one of the primary sources for the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke, it becomes apparent that the addition of these 12 verses could have had a monumental effect.

In 1 John, where we find a well known Biblical reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, Ehrman notes that this section appears in no Greek manuscript before the 9th century.

And since the man is an expert on the Bible not the Quran, let us take him for what field he specializes in. The fact that a proud evangelical christian has now become agnostic because of his findings says a lot

Another example that I can think is the Secret Gospel of Mark. As you know it was not included in the NT because it portrayed Jesus (pbuh) as a homosexual, or something close to that. It the whole human beings aka fallible creations deciding what is and what is not included in the final work that is considered God's message to mankind, that bothers me.

Koro, thanks for your patience. I've been terribly busy, two jobs, moving and July is a crazy birthday month in my family! So, if you don't see a response quick, its because I'm very very busy. Repent and believe the Gospel my friend.

Have fun :)

Edited by koroigetsuga
Link to post
Share on other sites
God sends a message through a messenger. The messenger's word are the words of God. Once human hands get mixed in the delivery of that message, then to me that message is also liable to human error.

And, again that is the Islamic conception of inspiration or revelation. We don't agree on this point, and it would only be fair if you understood the Christian/Judaic view of inspiration, that God used men through their own personalities, and writing style to reveal things. I don't care what the Islamic conception of inspiration is, especially if we're talking about the Christian concept.

You won't agree, but to me the whole doctrine of inspiration is an excuse to counter the clear contradictions in the gospels. There are are four not one, and christianity must draw meaning from four books that don't see eye to eye on every matter.

Thats silly, we didn't invent this doctrine when we realized some 'errors' in the text, the doctrine was revealed and spoken by Jesus, Peter, and Paul.

No, if you were by quoting Bart Erhman you would eliminate the Quran. You cannot use someone who presupposes that revelation is impossible, we cannot know history, and we have to be hyper skeptical of all things including every historical event/document and holy writ in order to argue against Christianity because it invalidates your claim of revelation and is self refuting. I don't see how hard this is for Muslims to understand. Similarly if a Jew quotes against the New Testament, they then must demonstrate how consistently they can accept Torah to be the Word of God, and reject the New Testament without appealing to inner contradiction or lack of manuscripts because they assume the basic belief of supernatural revelation. We are not atheists. None of us are.

For the last time. Tahrif means that if even one letter is missing from the original message/book that the prophet of the time brought. That's what constitutes tahrif.

Remember I told you that you were imposing your understanding of what should be in the texts of the New Testament onto what Chrsitians accept as inspired? Here's a clear example. Christians do not ever argue that because there are variants int he text we cannot know what was said. Rather its primarily that there is large amount of manuscripts, quotes and non-greek manuscrips evidence that we can reasonably know what the New Testament said.

Do your 4 gospels have contradictions in them? Yes or no. If yes then tahrif it is.

And we now know that you impose Islamic understanding of the texts onto the Christian one. Also, we dont have contradiction for something to be a contradiction one Gospel would have to say "Jesus did x and Jesus did non-x" at the same time in the same sense. We cannot see this in the Gospels.

You may not see it as corruption, but by islamic standards that's what it is.

Ding! Ding! Thats exactly what I said. You impose an Islamic system onto the Christian system and its unfair. We don't argue against Islam on the basis of a Christian understanding of what we should expect Muslims to believe and this shouldn't be done by Muslims. If you want to argue against Christianity as a Muslim you must assume inspiraton is possible, God can speak to His people and that we can know history. You have cited Bart Erhman who denies inspiration is possible, God cannot speak, and we cannot know history. Do you see my drift?

And as has been discussed beyond my ability to count, Jesus (pbuh) being god and the whole trinity remain ill-defined in both gospels and tanakh. And for the record even this alone constitutes tahrif. Believing Jesus (pbuh) is God, while there being nothing explicit in the text that says so.

Yes this has been discussed a lot. The problem is you receive to concede that as Christians we get to define our revelation. Why? Because we're Christians. Furthermore, its called systematic theology, we summarize the text gather it from what we consider to be inspired and form a conclusion. Its called LOGIC, aren't Muslims fond of saying they use logic?

For now let us take a glimpse at Bart Erhmans interpretation of the history, and the texts of antiquity in gernal

Quick question. Do you ask your biology teacher to help you out with your math homework?

Of course not.

Bart Erhmans' specialty is the New Testament not the Quran. I take him as an authority on what his specialty is. Unless I see him gain a phD in Quranic studies like he has with his credentials on the NT, he will not be an authority for me in that area.

Sir, you have no thinking capacity. I just demonstrate that given the assumptions Bart Erhman brings to the table we must, as supernaturalists, reject Him as being able to consistently demonstrate what happened because he reject history as a whole. I just cited two quotes from Bart Erhman in regards to the text and history. His philosophy of history says that revelation is not possible, and we cannot know anything that happened historically, this includes the Quran and the Exodus story (For the possible Jew who is reading this) therefore Bart Erhman in arguing against Christianity invalidates Islam, and Judaism. So, to Bart Islam is as false as Judaism is and he believes this because of his presuppositions.

read what I wrote above. He is a scholar of the NT, hence I only deal with his findings in that regard. He has no specialty in Quranic sciences, hence his opinions there are irrelevant

And his findings are based on his inability to believe that the text of the New Testament is inspired because of variants. He presupposes an inability to know anything. Will you seriously believe in his hyper skeptical theory of history?

Two, I already quoted in my previous post some examples of Ehraman considers purposeful alterations:

In the Gospel of Mark, Ehrman claims that the last 12 verses have been added on to the original text many years later.[8] Unlike some other scribal errors that had little bearing on the major tenets of Christian dogma, this addition to the text has had vast ramifications. In Mark, Jesus' reappearance to his disciples is mentioned only in the 12 verses that were added to the original. Ehrman indicates that when one considers that the Gospel of Mark is generally regarded to be the earliest of the three synoptic gospels, and most likely one of the primary sources for the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke, it becomes apparent that the addition of these 12 verses could have had a monumental effect.

I know of no theological seminary that says "We believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Second Coming and that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection" as Dogma. Try again, as a Muslim the onus is on you to demonstrate a wholesale corruption of the text in order to demonstrate that what Christianity was, it no longer is. You haven't yet.

Furthermore, Bart already said that nearly all variants in the New Testament are spelling, or grammar and not debated. Why? Because scholars are fairly confident we can trust them in most areas, unless they(like Bart) presuppose an atheistic view of history.

In 1 John, where we find a well known Biblical reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, Ehrman notes that this section appears in no Greek manuscript before the 9th century.

I don't know if I told you this. But, so what? The Trinity was developed on the basis of the scripture during the Council of Nicaea in the early FOURTH century do you seriously think that scribes would have waited that long to scripturally support it?

And since the man is an expert on the Bible not the Quran, let us take him for what field he specializes in. The fact that a proud evangelical christian has now become agnostic because of his findings says a lot

No. You obviously don't keep up with Erhman at all and are copying and pasting Wikipedia articles. The man didnt' abandon Christianity ultimately because of the variants, but rather because of the Problem of Evil. Finally it only says that the man is driven by presuppositons that you cannot embrace. I don't know how many times i have to tell you this but here we go again:

If Bart presupposes a hyper skeptical view of history, and I have demonstrated this given the quotes I posted, then Islam is as false to Bart as Christianity is. Now if Bart is an agnostic because of the variants, or because of the Problem of Evil then Islam fails according to Bart so that in using Bart as an argument you use his presuppositions and become inconsistent.

If Islamic texts have no variants, then Bart still 'cannot know' and given his view of history he will never become a Muslim either. Why? Because of his presuppositions.

So that in using Bart you eliminate Islam and refute your own position. Making you argument inconsistent. Let me quote the Good ol James White in a debate with Shabir Ally :

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument, and this one is the argument par excellence

Another example that I can think is the Secret Gospel of Mark. As you know it was not included in the NT because it portrayed Jesus (pbuh) as a homosexual, or something close to that. It the whole human beings aka fallible creations deciding what is and what is not included in the final work that is considered God's message to mankind, that bothers me.

I don't really care about defending the Gospel of Mark since I would argue with Gospel-of-Markianitians the same way I would argue with you.

Have fun :)

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And, again that is the Islamic conception of inspiration or revelation. We don't agree on this point, and it would only be fair if you understood the Christian/Judaic view of inspiration, that God used men through their own personalities, and writing style to reveal things. I don't care what the Islamic conception of inspiration is, especially if we're talking about the Christian concept.

Then that is a conflict of interest.

I indeed have tried looking at this from your point of view. However, since I still remain a muslim the methodology that I use to determine whether something is from God or not remains in tact. Can't do anything about that

No, if you were by quoting Bart Erhman you would eliminate the Quran. You cannot use someone who presupposes that revelation is impossible, we cannot know history, and we have to be hyper skeptical of all things including every historical event/document and holy writ in order to argue against Christianity because it invalidates your claim of revelation and is self refuting. I don't see how hard this is for Muslims to understand. Similarly if a Jew quotes against the New Testament, they then must demonstrate how consistently they can accept Torah to be the Word of God, and reject the New Testament without appealing to inner contradiction or lack of manuscripts because they assume the basic belief of supernatural revelation. We are not atheists. None of us are.

That doesn't make sense to me. What a man's beliefs are inc0nsequential to his findings. I don't care whether he believes both the Bible and the Quran are man made. What I want to see is whether he can prove his findings in the NT. This is no different than say me going to my science teacher to learn science; whether she's christian, muslim, hindu, etc shouldn't affect what she can teach me which is science. Hope I'm making sense

Remember I told you that you were imposing your understanding of what should be in the texts of the New Testament onto what Chrsitians accept as inspired? Here's a clear example. Christians do not ever argue that because there are variants int he text we cannot know what was said. Rather its primarily that there is large amount of manuscripts, quotes and non-greek manuscrips evidence that we can reasonably know what the New Testament said.

I accept your criticism

And we now know that you impose Islamic understanding of the texts onto the Christian one. Also, we dont have contradiction for something to be a contradiction one Gospel would have to say "Jesus did x and Jesus did non-x" at the same time in the same sense. We cannot see this in the Gospels.

Jesus (pbuh) is reported to be praying to "his father" in texts. There is no he prayed to himself; and yet he's part of the trinity with God swt. See what I mean

Ding! Ding! Thats exactly what I said. You impose an Islamic system onto the Christian system and its unfair. We don't argue against Islam on the basis of a Christian understanding of what we should expect Muslims to believe and this shouldn't be done by Muslims. If you want to argue against Christianity as a Muslim you must assume inspiraton is possible, God can speak to His people and that we can know history. You have cited Bart Erhman who denies inspiration is possible, God cannot speak, and we cannot know history. Do you see my drift?

You caught me off guard where you said "I must assume inspiration is possible".

My friend, you would not tell an atheist that he must first believe in God; for you to be able to debate him correct?

Yes this has been discussed a lot. The problem is you receive to concede that as Christians we get to define our revelation. Why? Because we're Christians. Furthermore, its called systematic theology, we summarize the text gather it from what we consider to be inspired and form a conclusion. Its called LOGIC, aren't Muslims fond of saying they use logic?

Well I have a problem with that. If you have to use 4 different source documents and use that to form conclusions on what God wants you to know, then to me that problematic as people will obviously differ on what conclusions they draw from the four different documents. What I wish to know is why didn't God swt just give you a book with all the required data like he did with us; why did he leave you at the mercy of 4 different documents that don't see eye to eye on each matter. Even Torah has this problem in abundance. And bare in mind this is your eternal soul we are talking about. You would think God would give you a stronger foundation with which you can biuld your life on.

Sir, you have no thinking capacity. I just demonstrate that given the assumptions Bart Erhman brings to the table we must, as supernaturalists, reject Him as being able to consistently demonstrate what happened because he reject history as a whole. I just cited two quotes from Bart Erhman in regards to the text and history. His philosophy of history says that revelation is not possible, and we cannot know anything that happened historically, this includes the Quran and the Exodus story (For the possible Jew who is reading this) therefore Bart Erhman in arguing against Christianity invalidates Islam, and Judaism. So, to Bart Islam is as false as Judaism is and he believes this because of his presuppositions.

Read the example I used of my science teacher.

With the method you are prescribing, one can only use christian sources if that person is christian

And his findings are based on his inability to believe that the text of the New Testament is inspired because of variants. He presupposes an inability to know anything. Will you seriously believe in his hyper skeptical theory of history?

I don't see it that way precisely because I too don't believe in the doctrine of inspiration.

For argument's sake I will try to see it from the other side of the fence, but because I'm not a christian I don't do inspiration...sorry!

I know of no theological seminary that says "We believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Second Coming and that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection" as Dogma. Try again, as a Muslim the onus is on you to demonstrate a wholesale corruption of the text in order to demonstrate that what Christianity was, it no longer is. You haven't yet.

Can the trinity be produced from the Bible?

Does the NT; 2/3rds written by Paul count as an accurate depiction of Jesus' (pbuh) life?

Wouldn't a rabbi 2000 years ago know the Jewish law on executing men who claim to be God swt?

I, and others, just put two and two together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
God sends a message through a messenger. The messenger's word are the words of God. Once human hands get mixed in the delivery of that message, then to me that message is also liable to human error.

If that's the metric than the only words which DO NOT fit that description are Aseret Ha'Dibrot.

Everything else ever written which claims to be a sacred text has had human hands all over it.

Gays in Iraq terrorized by threats, rape, murder

A U.N. report on human rights in Iraq reinforces the accusations of violence. Although gays are supposed to be protected by law in Iraq, it says, they face extreme brutality.

"Armed Islamic groups and militias have been known to be particularly hostile toward homosexuals, frequently and openly engaging in violent campaigns against them," the report said, adding that homosexuals have been murdered.

"Militias are reportedly threatening families of men believed to be homosexual, stating that they will begin killing family members unless the men are handed over or killed by the family," it said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if I told you this. But, so what? The Trinity was developed on the basis of the scripture during the Council of Nicaea in the early FOURTH century do you seriously think that scribes would have waited that long to scripturally support it?

Woah before you posted a video from James White claiming that the Nicene Council had nothing to do with the trinity. You are now telling me that the trinity was "developed" on scripture during the council of Nicea. I'm sorry but if I needed proof of human intervention in christian doctrine then that is it, because I don't feel the trinity can be adequately produced from the Bible at all.

No. You obviously don't keep up with Erhman at all and are copying and pasting Wikipedia articles. The man didnt' abandon Christianity ultimately because of the variants, but rather because of the Problem of Evil. Finally it only says that the man is driven by presuppositons that you cannot embrace. I don't know how many times i have to tell you this but here we go again:

I was not aware of this. But thank you for letting me know.

If Bart presupposes a hyper skeptical view of history, and I have demonstrated this given the quotes I posted, then Islam is as false to Bart as Christianity is. Now if Bart is an agnostic because of the variants, or because of the Problem of Evil then Islam fails according to Bart so that in using Bart as an argument you use his presuppositions and become inconsistent.

Once again Barts views on the supernatural are irrelevant. He is a scholar of the NT; that's his profession and that's what I base him on. His views about God swt, religion, etc are irrelevant. I only see him as an expert on what his field is, his religious views are inconsequential.

If Islamic texts have no variants, then Bart still 'cannot know' and given his view of history he will never become a Muslim either. Why? Because of his presuppositions.

So that in using Bart you eliminate Islam and refute your own position. Making you argument inconsistent. Let me quote the Good ol James White in a debate with Shabir Ally :

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument, and this one is the argument par excellence

One last time. Has he studied the Quranic manuscripts. No. Then he is not an authority on those manuscripts. Has he done the same with the NT manuscripts. Yes. Then he is an authority on them.

For example. Take Karen Armstrong. She is a western authority on Islam. Obviously she doesn't feel the Quran is a book from God. But regardless of her creed people see her as an authority on the religion because as is with Bart, she has studied the religion so her opinion counts for something. (Personally I don't agree with a lot of her view, but regardless I won't deny that she has a status in islamic academics)

I am curious Marantha. Would you classify Bart as an anti-christian source? By that I mean do you feel that Bart seeks to undermine and destroy christianity. I personally just see the guy as someone who is neutral on the matter, just as I feel Karen Armstrong is neutral on Islam.

But if you tell me he is anti-christian then that will change everything as I am already used to liers, especially Jewish historians, such as Efraim Karsh, who wish to employ mass historical revisionism to everything in muslim history. So I certainly don't wish to impose any standards on you that I wouldn't employ on myself.

I don't really care about defending the Gospel of Mark since I would argue with Gospel-of-Markianitians the same way I would argue with you.

you lost me here?

Peace and God bless!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Woah before you posted a video from James White claiming that the Nicene Council had nothing to do with the trinity.

I never said that, and I only recall posting an article from Turetin Fan about the Canon and the Council of Niceae.

You are now telling me that the trinity was "developed" on scripture during the council of Nicea.

The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated at Nicaea, so? What do I mean? I mean it was declared to be the Biblical doctrine of the Church in response to the Arian controversy. What exactly is your point?

I'm sorry but if I needed proof of human intervention in christian doctrine then that is it, because I don't feel the trinity can be adequately produced from the Bible at all.

So what? That's besides the point. You suggested that somehow a later interpolation of the Trinity in the 9th century gave evidence that the doctrine was added. It would make sense if Christians relied on the verse to formulate the doctrine, but we don't. Therefore you become inconsistent in attempting to establish the case that major doctrines were added later on, we don't need a ninth century addition to establish a doctrine that we already had in the early second century. That is my point, now address that point since we've stayed fairly on topic since this began.

I was not aware of this. But thank you for letting me know.

No problem, perhaps you can spread the word to the Muslim apologia.

Once again Barts views on the supernatural are irrelevant.

This is completely false, see this is where bad philosophy leads to bad conclusions. You cannot divorce Barts commitments to anti-supernaturalism. Why? Because Bart excludes it, therefore Christianity AND Islam are false.

He is a scholar of the NT; that's his profession and that's what I base him on. His views about God swt, religion, etc are irrelevant. I only see him as an expert on what his field is, his religious views are inconsequential.

That is what you see him as, but you fail to realize that his commitment to atheistic, anti-supernaturalism lead him to these conclusions. Which is what I've been trying to tell you, if one wants to utilize this man, than given his anti-spiritualistic standards Islam is also false, and believe in a lie as well. Do you see my point? Worldviews are never ever irrelevant to how one interprets evidence.

One last time. Has he studied the Quranic manuscripts. No. Then he is not an authority on those manuscripts. Has he done the same with the NT manuscripts. Yes. Then he is an authority on them.

He is an authority on them, sure. I never denied this. My point is that you utilize scholarship that is inconsistent with your own profession therefore making Islam as false as Christianity is according to Bart Erhman. There is no revelation possible, therefore islam is false. Bart Erhman in his debate with Mike Licona said he believes that history is atheistic? Do you believe that history is atheistic? Do you believe we can know history at all? Bart has said more than once that he doesn't believe we can know history at all, do you see then why Bart Erhman denied his Christianity and in doing so denies the validity of Islam?

For example. Take Karen Armstrong. She is a western authority on Islam. Obviously she doesn't feel the Quran is a book from God. But regardless of her creed people see her as an authority on the religion because as is with Bart, she has studied the religion so her opinion counts for something. (Personally I don't agree with a lot of her view, but regardless I won't deny that she has a status in islamic academics)

Bart isn't giving us descriptions, or general knowledge about a revelation. You are explicitly using Bart Erhman on a polemical basis, and its this polemical basis by which you refute yourself and the Islamic position.

I am curious Marantha. Would you classify Bart as an anti-christian source? By that I mean do you feel that Bart seeks to undermine and destroy christianity. I personally just see the guy as someone who is neutral on the matter, just as I feel Karen Armstrong is neutral on Islam.

You've known me for quite a while dude, there is never any neutrality. All men are guided by their presuppositions.

But if you tell me he is anti-christian then that will change everything as I am already used to liers, especially Jewish historians, such as Efraim Karsh, who wish to employ mass historical revisionism to everything in muslim history. So I certainly don't wish to impose any standards on you that I wouldn't employ on myself.

I don't know what this means.

you lost me here?

Oh, I was talking about the secret Gospel of Mark.

Peace and God bless!

Repent my friend and trust in Christ for your justification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
*bump*

Koro just got tired of putting up with your idiocy. LOL Good for him. However, I do admire you in a way: you are persistant, pathetic, but peristant.

If that's the metric than the only words which DO NOT fit that description are Aseret Ha'Dibrot.

Everything else ever written which claims to be a sacred text has had human hands all over it.

Gays in Iraq terrorized by threats, rape, murder

A U.N. report on human rights in Iraq reinforces the accusations of violence. Although gays are supposed to be protected by law in Iraq, it says, they face extreme brutality.

"Armed Islamic groups and militias have been known to be particularly hostile toward homosexuals, frequently and openly engaging in violent campaigns against them," the report said, adding that homosexuals have been murdered.

"Militias are reportedly threatening families of men believed to be homosexual, stating that they will begin killing family members unless the men are handed over or killed by the family," it said.

Um the Torah is against homosexuality. If Muslims are putting God's law into practice mor ethan you then I suggest you convert to Christianity where you can do what you like because a god died for your sins. Its very pagan but it would suit you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I never said that, and I only recall posting an article from Turetin Fan about the Canon and the Council of Niceae.

The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated at Nicaea, so? What do I mean? I mean it was declared to be the Biblical doctrine of the Church in response to the Arian controversy. What exactly is your point?

So what? That's besides the point. You suggested that somehow a later interpolation of the Trinity in the 9th century gave evidence that the doctrine was added. It would make sense if Christians relied on the verse to formulate the doctrine, but we don't. Therefore you become inconsistent in attempting to establish the case that major doctrines were added later on, we don't need a ninth century addition to establish a doctrine that we already had in the early second century. That is my point, now address that point since we've stayed fairly on topic since this began.

No problem, perhaps you can spread the word to the Muslim apologia.

This is completely false, see this is where bad philosophy leads to bad conclusions. You cannot divorce Barts commitments to anti-supernaturalism. Why? Because Bart excludes it, therefore Christianity AND Islam are false.

That is what you see him as, but you fail to realize that his commitment to atheistic, anti-supernaturalism lead him to these conclusions. Which is what I've been trying to tell you, if one wants to utilize this man, than given his anti-spiritualistic standards Islam is also false, and believe in a lie as well. Do you see my point? Worldviews are never ever irrelevant to how one interprets evidence.

He is an authority on them, sure. I never denied this. My point is that you utilize scholarship that is inconsistent with your own profession therefore making Islam as false as Christianity is according to Bart Erhman. There is no revelation possible, therefore islam is false. Bart Erhman in his debate with Mike Licona said he believes that history is atheistic? Do you believe that history is atheistic? Do you believe we can know history at all? Bart has said more than once that he doesn't believe we can know history at all, do you see then why Bart Erhman denied his Christianity and in doing so denies the validity of Islam?

Bart isn't giving us descriptions, or general knowledge about a revelation. You are explicitly using Bart Erhman on a polemical basis, and its this polemical basis by which you refute yourself and the Islamic position.

You've known me for quite a while dude, there is never any neutrality. All men are guided by their presuppositions.

I don't know what this means.

Oh, I was talking about the secret Gospel of Mark.

Repent my friend and trust in Christ for your justification.

I REPENT! I know all my deeds will not make me close to the glory of God. I know that I am damned and so are billions for an apple someone ate long ago. Why did she and he eat it? Dear God was there nothing else to eat, was there no Tesco anywhere where they could have bought an egg salad? Forget it, the deed was done. I have come to the conclusion that God in his infinite love and justice has cursed all humanity to hell for something they did not do. Yet, yet there was light at the ened of the tunnel. God sent his son (or himself, I am still mixed up about this part) to die for our sin of eating the apple (wait I didnt eat the apple why should I be...I mean I have eaten apples but not that one). I must accept the sacrifice if I am to go to heaven. Now I can do anything I want as long as I believe that someone died for our sin of eating the apple. No more law because law is death (why did God send the Law then ... give me time I will work it out) but blood is the life. I will no longer sin now that the price has been paid. I am saved. Muslims please realize that you are living a lie. Turn to the gospels (the four gospels, not the hundreds of variants or other unaccepted gospels). Listen to Maranatha: Catholics are going to hell, mormons even though they accept Jesus (huh? how, wait I thought... nevermind I wil work that out as Maranatha teaches me). Maranatha yes, you were right all along. At first I found your take of humanity sickening, even psychopathic, I thought your understanding of the Jewish scriptures poor and pathetic, and your tendency to refer to copy/paste and constant mentioning of White and German scholars a sign of poor polemic. BUt no, not now, I know you are right. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said that, and I only recall posting an article from Turetin Fan about the Canon and the Council of Niceae.

You got my point though about Nicea and the trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated at Nicaea, so? What do I mean? I mean it was declared to be the Biblical doctrine of the Church in response to the Arian controversy. What exactly is your point?

So what? That's besides the point. You suggested that somehow a later interpolation of the Trinity in the 9th century gave evidence that the doctrine was added. It would make sense if Christians relied on the verse to formulate the doctrine, but we don't. Therefore you become inconsistent in attempting to establish the case that major doctrines were added later on, we don't need a ninth century addition to establish a doctrine that we already had in the early second century. That is my point, now address that point since we've stayed fairly on topic since this began.

Well at least you're honest.

So we agree that trinity came from the Council of Nicea. Great!

This is completely false, see this is where bad philosophy leads to bad conclusions. You cannot divorce Barts commitments to anti-supernaturalism. Why? Because Bart excludes it, therefore Christianity AND Islam are false.

That is what you see him as, but you fail to realize that his commitment to atheistic, anti-supernaturalism lead him to these conclusions. Which is what I've been trying to tell you, if one wants to utilize this man, than given his anti-spiritualistic standards Islam is also false, and believe in a lie as well. Do you see my point? Worldviews are never ever irrelevant to how one interprets evidence.

then we just going to have to disagree. Using your methodology the only scholars I would be allowed to consult to learn about christianity are those who are christians themselves.

I'm sorry but that just doesn't work for me. Karen Armstrong, while I disagree with her views, is an academic on islam without being muslim. One does not have to be part of a creed, in order to be an authority on it

He is an authority on them, sure. I never denied this. My point is that you utilize scholarship that is inconsistent with your own profession therefore making Islam as false as Christianity is according to Bart Erhman. There is no revelation possible, therefore islam is false. Bart Erhman in his debate with Mike Licona said he believes that history is atheistic? Do you believe that history is atheistic? Do you believe we can know history at all? Bart has said more than once that he doesn't believe we can know history at all, do you see then why Bart Erhman denied his Christianity and in doing so denies the validity of Islam?

Bart isn't giving us descriptions, or general knowledge about a revelation. You are explicitly using Bart Erhman on a polemical basis, and its this polemical basis by which you refute yourself and the Islamic position.

So only christian scholars can be consulted as academics on the NT? Is that what you are saying.

What about catholics? I am allowed to consult them on scripture, despite them strongly disagreeing with your worldview

You've known me for quite a while dude, there is never any neutrality. All men are guided by their presuppositions.

I don't know what this means.

I was simply asking your opinion on whether you feel Bart is anti-christian is just a neutral authority. If he HATES christianity then that certainly will make me doubt his credibility, however, if he is just a neutral person simply calling things like he sees them then I don't feel I should give him up as an authority on scripture.

Oh, I was talking about the secret Gospel of Mark.

Repent my friend and trust in Christ for your justification.

Don't worry I already believe in Yehoshuah Ben Yusuf (pbuh) as the messiah, who will return to this world and bring a global enrichment to the love of God swt

I just don't believe he himself is God swt ;)

Peace!

Edited by koroigetsuga
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...