How can we know the Bible is true and accurate?

[robinbaitz]

Ronnie and all,

In presenting the Bible as God’ word to you or an atheist I would not expect anyone to assume it to be true just because I said so. I would hope this standard would be applied to all religions, including Islam. For a religion to be true there must be evidence to it’s claims. In a court of law a jury wants to see evidence before it can make a decision for or against someone. I ask how many of us have made decisions upon someone’s arguments without first hearing all the evidence? Actually examining all the evidence first will help us to make a proper decision whether it is as a juror or seeking whom the God of creation is.

Since we are talking about the Bible in this discussion, I hope to demonstrate the authenticity of the Bible, which shows it is divine in origin, not merely man made. Please review some of the evidence here with an open mind and set aside your bias as much as possible.
1. The Bible itself claims to be supernatural in origin, not originating from the colorful imagination of human beings. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16), “if you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law, and if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut 20:10), “This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it” (Joshua 1:8). There are more examples of this but for times sake I am only posting these verses.

2. The scriptures in the Bible say they are from God, but are there evidences to demonstrate they are really from God? Yes.
A. Archeology- Many of the people and places of the Bible have been found to have existed. Also the fossil record shows us the devastation that had been caused by the global flood in the days of Noah. I saw a picture of a fish biting into another fish. This could have only happened with an immediate burial of mud caused by a massive amount of water. There are many such examples from the fossil record like this, even seashells were found on mountain tops in various parts of the world.
B. Oceanography- Oceans contain fresh water springs: Date of Discovery 1920, Job 38:16; Oceans have natural paths in them: Date of Discovery 1854, Psalm 8:8.
C. Biology- Both men and women posses seed of life: Date of Discovery 19th Century, Genesis 3:15, 22:18
D. Astronomy- Radio astronomy (stars give off signals): Date of Discovery 1911, Genesis 1:2; Earth is held in place by invisible forces: Date of Discovery 1650, Job 26:7.
E. History- Josephus, Tacitus, and other historians and writers as well as archeological finds support what the Bible has said even though some of the writers were not Christians themselves, so there would be no bias. The New Testament has the greatest amount of historical writing with over 24,000 manuscripts written in various languages and different parts of the world. There are no other works (ancient literature) that can compare to it, not even Plato and others.
F. Prophecy- Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophesies of the Old Testament. When Daniel prophesied about the temple being rebuilt, the Messiah coming, the Messiah dying, then the destruction of the temple (70AD) afterwards in Daniel 9, or Isaiah 53 showing the Messiah would suffer for the sins of humanity, then when we turn to the New Testament we see it’s fulfillment it should make any genuine seeking person be filled with awe. Jesus said, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will make it rise again” (John 2:19). Jesus fulfilled His own prediction as well as OT prophesies of His resurrection from the dead.
G. Typology- The study of typology is the study of a type or types that point to the anti-type. For example a picture of my car would be the type and the anti-type would be my actual car. Typology is clearly demonstrated throughout the Bible and shows Adam, Moses, the Levitical Priesthood, the animal sacrifices, Abraham sacrificing his only son Isaac (from Sarah), King David and more were types of the anti-type Jesus. The physical temple that Israel built was a type of the anti-type, the temple where God’s throne is in heaven. If you do your own study on typology you will see why they are a type of the anti-type. It is beyond coincidence that one precludes the other because of the vast amount or types and scripture telling us. “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount” (Hebrews 8:5).

I ask you, “Did the people of that time know about the discoveries that were made in just the past century?” No, of course not. Then the only conclusion as the Bible has been telling us is, the scriptures were not man made but divine in origin.

Next the chances of Jesus fulfilling just 8 of His fulfilled prophesies are so high it has been likened to you walking out your front door and finding a winning lottery ticket, but doing that for the next fifty years. Yet Jesus fulfilled over 300.

Then we have the various writers of the Bible, 40 different authors, in different times and locations who wrote in different languages, write in harmony on various topics and subjects but never contradicting one another. I would include with this that much of what was written includes typology that points to Jesus or the temple. This would be unfathomable if this didn’t come from the same source, God.

Last, how many of us would die for a lie we knew was a lie? The disciples of Jesus sunk within themselves when Jesus had died and was put into a tomb. The Bible says they would scatter (MT 26:31) when their shepherd was smitten and they did do just that. They went into hiding and shame at this point; they couldn’t believe their Messiah had died. However when Jesus rose from the dead we see a change in their lives. They no longer were in hiding, smitten or puzzled. What caused this change? What made the disciples bold in declaring the gospel of Jesus? What made them willing to die for what they were taught by Jesus? How did this massive change come over them? They witnessed the resurrection of their shepherd, Jesus. I would not give my life up for a lie and neither do I think the disciples would. This cannot be said for the Muslims who commit suicide killing or to the Japanese suicide bombers in WWII because they did not experience any truth first hand, as did the disciples.

I believe from the evidence presented here we can consider the Bible as God’s word. We must in order to understand the God of creation and His word in the Bible. Also in light of this we can test false teachers and false prophets. Jesus said many false prophets would be in the world and we can actually test people who claim to be prophets or speak for God in light of the Bible. Many of these false prophets will claim things that God has not said and will actually contradict what God has already said in the Bible.

Ronnie said, “The writer of 2 Kings 19 is unknown how in the world could he/she have cited the work copied.”

Reply: Just because today we may not know the writer, doesn’t mean the writer could not copy this chapter inspired by God.
If the chapter was copied from Isaiah or Isaiah copied it from the writer of 2 Kings 19, it doesn’t really matter much. It does show us however like I said previously that the scriptures have been accurately translated. I would not get hung up on this copying bit, it doesn’t disprove anything because as we established there is no plagiarism in the Bible. I would suggest for your clarification to look at the main themes and context of both books, which may help, in better understanding why God had one writer put what they did into what they wrote.

Next your understanding of God inspiring the writers to write but allowed them freedom to use their own words, styles, etc is accurate. I could not say it better myself.

A website I like a lot and is very helpful is www.carm.org
It presents a lot of the evidence for the Bible and Christianity.

In Christ,

Robin

PS: What happened to our discussion area we were originally in?
Also I'm still waiting to hear from you Ronnie about where in the Quran it says the Bible is corrupt?? Does it even say it? If it doesn't way do you think it doesnt??

[armiyya]

Fulfilled prophecies? Is Jesus Really the Jewish Messiah?

Let's examine the facts from a Jewish point of view.
Not only do the Christians believe that Jesus is their Messiah, but they think that he is the Messiah as foretold by the Jewish Prophets of the Bible, and they try to prove it with quotes from the Bible and missionary organizations such as the Jews for Jesus, which try to entice Jews into converting to Christianity by telling them that they can accept Jesus as their Messiah and still be Jews. Because of these false claims by these missionary groups, Jews must have the facts in order to reaffirm our belief that all the Christian claims that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah is false.

Here are some of the points which demonstrate the blatant discrepancies and inconsistancies in the Missionaries' arguments in favor of Jesus.

1. The Jewish Messiah is to be a mortal human being born to two mortal parents. He is neither to be a god, nor a man born of supernatural or virgin birth. There is nothing in the Bible that states that the Messiah would be a god or God-like, or that he would be born to a virgin. The concept of the former contradicts the Jewish concept of God being above and beyond taking human form and limitations. Jews believe that only God should be worshipped, not a being of His creation, not even the Messiah himself. Besides, nowhere in the Bible is there any virgins giving birth. This idea is only found in pagan mythology, where virgins often bare offsping of gods. The only purpose of the concept of virgin birth is to attract pagans to Christianity.

2. The Jewish Messiah is supposed to return the Jews to the Holy Land, but Jesus lived while the Jews were still there before they were exiled by the Romans. How can he return them to their land if they were still living in it?

3. The Messiah is to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, but Jesus lived while the Temple was still standing.

4. The Bible states that the Messiah will redeem Israel, but 30 years after Jesus died, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jews were exiled by the Roman to suffer 1900 years of persecution, mostly by the followers of Jesus.

3. The Prophets of the Bible foretold that all the nations of the world will acknowlege and worship the one true God (Isaiah 11.9, 45, and Zephaniah 3), but nothing like this happened after Jesus died; in fact, Islam develpoed and became the religion of many nations while Christianity splintered into many sects which constantly fight each other, and almost two-thirds of the human race worships idols. The world is very far from monotheism even to this day.

4. The Messiah's influence will extend to all who will worship God in the Jerusalem Temple. As the Prophet states, "My House will become the House of Prayer for all the Nations." This has clearly not taken place yet; therefore, the Messiah hasn't come yet.

5. A new spirit will fill the world and man will no longer sin or commit crimes, especially the Jews (Deuteronomy 30: 6, Isaiah 60:21, Jeremiah 50:20, and Ezekiel 36:21). Soon after the days of Jesus, ignorance of God, science, and philosophy filled the earth, and the Dark Ages began.

6. If Jesus was God, why did he pray to and talk to himself?

7. The true Messiah will reign as King of the Jews. Jesus' career as a wandering preacher and "faith healer" lasted only three years until he was crucified by the Romans as a common criminal without any official postition or authority whatsoever.

8. One of the Messiah's main tasks is to bring world peace by ending wars and arms manufacturing (Isaiah 2:4). Yet, Christian nations are very war-like, and wars continue to be fought to this day.

9. Mark 13:30 and Matthew 4 states that the prophecies about the Messiah would take place during Jesus' generation, but nothing was accomplished after 2,000 years.

10. Nowhere does the Bible say that the Messiah would come once, die, and return in a "second coming". Such a concept was a Christian concept meant to rationalize Jesus' failure to function in any way as the Messiah or fulfill the Hebrew Bible's prophecies.

11. The Bible says that the Messiah would be descened from King David. If Jesus is the "Son of God", how could he be descened from King David from his father's side?

12. Missionaries constantly and deliberatly distort the meaning of the prophets' words in order to substantiate their claims; for example, the Hebrew term in Isaiah , "almah" means "young woman", not "virgin". Honest Christian scholars now admit this is a "pious fraud", and they translate the word correctly in the "Reverse Standard Version" of the Bible.

13. If Jesus' raising from the dead was so important to demonstrate who he was, why did it take place in secret instead of in the presence of his "thousands' of followers?

14. Jesus claimed that he didn't intend to change the laws of Moses (Matthew 5), but he later abrogated some of the laws, and his followers later abolished or changed nearly all of them; for example, Christians still eat pork and fail to celebrate Yom Kippur or Rosh Hashanna despite what the Torah says. The Torah constantly says that its laws are eternal, and they can't be abolished or changed.

15. Judaism believes that God is eternal, above, and beyond time. He can't be born, die, suffer, "become flesh", or be divivded into sections ("Father, Son, and Holy Ghost").

16. If Jesus was the Messiah, why does the New Testiment admit that not one of the rabbis of the time accept his claim? Why did all the educated men and prominent men reject him?

17. If Jesus was the Messiah, why did most of his own people, the Jews of that time, reject him, including his own family? Why did his followers consist almost completely of a handful of poorly educated people?

18. Jesus ordered his followers to preach to the Jews only, not the Gentiles (Matthew 10), but his followers did the exact opposite. He clearly considered himself the Messiah of the Jews only, but he is accepted by foreign nations, and not the Jews.

19. The purpose of the Messiah is to bring us to the day when all the Jews will observe the Torah and to teach it to all humankind who will accept its truths. Nowhere in the Torah does it state that the Messiah will abolish it. The Torah is eternal.

20. Nowhere in the Torah does it state that forgivness of a person's sins can be brought about by someone else's death. Each man isaccountable for his own sins, and each man must repent of his own sins by changing his ways and seeking God's forgiveness.

21. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 both give different accounts of Jesus being descended from King David through his father Joseph.

22. If Jesus was the "Son of God", why did he say on the cross, "My God, my God, why did thou foresake me?" instead of "My Father"?

Some of these questions and observations echo Muslim concerns. But it is laughable how they claim Jesus' followers were all uneducated. It is also laughable that their "educated' rabbis mean anything when it comes to recognizing a messenger of allah and true teaching from Allah. Did not they reject the signs of God in Jeremiah 18:18 and "change the secriptures with their pens falsely"? Did they not pretend to accept Muhammad as the true prophet until he showed them he would not count himself as one of 'them' representing their (prideful) interest to lord it over the Arabs?

Christians claim 1000 prophecidies which turn out to be empty air, only "fulfilled in their New testament manipulation to try and fit 'the hand' of Christian trinitarian belief' into the glove of monotheism not made for it in the old testament.

Armiyya

[robinbaitz]

Armiyya,

I'll reply to your response, but let us stick to the information I already posted above, not passing over the evidence.

Robin

[Ronnie]

Peace,

Robin, I appreciate all that you have written. Believe me that I respect and take it in complete regard.

You write:
"1. The Bible itself claims to be supernatural in origin, not originating from the colorful imagination of human beings."

According to the Bible you are incorrect. Especially, since personal letters were included within the Biblical codex at its collection around 325 AD.

The Bible says:
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. (1 Corinthians 7:25-26 KJV)

Here Paul is giving his opinion not inspiration from God.

You write:
"2. The scriptures in the Bible say they are from God, but are there evidences to demonstrate they are really from God? Yes...Archeology, Oceanography, Biology, History etc..."

Rather than try to disprove these because it would lead us into useless conversation then I'd prefer pointing out things that are naturally untrue which would invalidate your second point. God knows his Creation and therefore could not make mistakes when He inspires men to write about it.

The Bible says:

"And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat." (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18)

Bats are nocturnal flying mammals not birds. Why would God include them in this species, He could've inspired the writer to place bats in their own category or with the other mammals.

The Bible says:
"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." (Lev. 11:20-21)

Fowls are birds, birds don't have four legs.

The Bible says:
"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." (Lev. 11:6)

Rabbits, hares...don't chew the cud (Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant and chewed again).

The Bible says:
"Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel." (2 Kings 8:25)

"Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri." (2 Chronicles 22:2)

Did God inspire the wrong age? Is this not a historical flaw?

The Bible says:
"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." (Acts 9:7)

"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." (Acts 22:9)

Excuse me but can Paul get his story straight? Did God inspire him to tell his own experience incorrectly?

You write:
"Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophesies of the Old Testament."

If you say so, but it still amazes me to this very day that Jesus does not fulfill his grandest prophecy of dying for three days and three nights and then reserrecuting after that. Friday to Sunday doesn't work out mathematically, no matter what system you use, but we'll have to stick to the one Jesus professed to, which is the 24 hour division of the day. No one has reconciled this and no one ever will.

You write:
"Then we have the various writers of the Bible, 40 different authors, in different times and locations who wrote in different languages, write in harmony on various topics and subjects but never contradicting one another."

I beg to differ. In the first place you don't even know who many of those writers were. That's like me giving you a book and saying look read this book it's the word of God but I don't know who wrote it. How absurd would that be? You would think I'm crazy. In regards to harmony that's gotta' be the worst piece of evidence you've presented. I've already shown some contradictions and would be happy to show more. There's plenty of contradiction. For God's sake, if Jesus himself was circumcised according to the Law and then Paul comes around and says, "nah, that's not important you don't have to do that..." Then what in the world would you consider "contradiction?"

You write:
"Last, how many of us would die for a lie we knew was a lie? The disciples of Jesus sunk within themselves when Jesus had died and was put into a tomb."

Are you telling me that the disciples didn't believe in Jesus until he performed the "miracle" of resurrection. Are you saying that they didn't want to die for a "lie" so that's why they went into hiding and didn't come out until they were shown a great miracle? I'm not trying to twist your words but by your logic it would mean that the disciples were not prepared to die because they were not convinced. If they were they would've died for the Truth. Please think about what you've written.

You write:
"If the chapter was copied from Isaiah or Isaiah copied it from the writer of 2 Kings 19, it doesn’t really matter much."

What matters then? You don't know the writer, you don't know where it came from except that for some reason you believe that God inspired it to someone. You claim it's not plagiarism, but every single word taken is exact, every single word. You even agreed that God only inspired the Bible writers, not gave them the words verbatim. So how in the world could you justify this blatant photo-copy?

You write:
"PS: What happened to our discussion area we were originally in?
Also I'm still waiting to hear from you Ronnie about where in the Quran it says the Bible is corrupt?? Does it even say it? If it doesn't way do you think it doesnt??"

I swear that I've answered this question twice already. I don't know why you keep missing it. It's under the heading "What part(s) of the Bible do Muslims believe in?" There's a new section called "Interfaith Dialogue" I think that's where all these conversations are going to move to so just click on "All Forums and you'll see it there."

The Bible says:
"" 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD ," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

The Bible itself tells you that the scribe (writers who wrote with the pens) have corrupted the Bible, will you then believe?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your comments.

Peace

[robinbaitz]

Armiyya and all,

Christianity is Jewish, it seems you are missing this point. Christianity is a fulfillment of the religion of Israel. The Jewish people were the people of God, the apple of His eye, however salvation was not just for the Jewish people, but also for all people. How do I know this? Well such prophesies that tell us from the Hebrew Scriptures (OT).

“He says, 'It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth” Isaiah 49:6
“Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; Then I will say to THOSE who were not My people, F11 'You are My people!' And they shall say, 'You are my God!” Hosea 2:23

Luke quoted Isaiah in the books of Acts 13:47. Luke was taught by Saul or Paul who was on his way to becoming a leader among the Pharisees. Have you forgotten Saul was killing Christians considering them to be a false religion? However on his way to Damascus Saul was met by Jesus from heaven who turned Saul from his sins to serve him. As a result Saul, also called Paul changed from persecuting Christians to becoming one of the persecuted. Remember Paul was a leader on his way up the Pharisees ladder, he had high status and was trained by Halelel’s grandson. He gave up all his status to follow Jesus and as a result of his faith in Jesus he willingly went to Rome to die to share his faith with others. Again, I ask you and all here, would you willingly die for something you knew first hand was a lie? I would not and I don’t think the apostle Paul would either or anyone for that matter.

You are incorrect in saying a Jew who accepts Jesus as their Messiah is no longer a Jew. Yes there is neither Jew or Gentiles in the body of Christ, but this doesn’t mean a Jew is no longer a Jew in the sense they no longer celebrate the Passover, Hanukah, and the like. Actually a Jew who accepts their Messiah Jesus is a complete Jew. Christianity is Jewish in its roots. Jeremiah 31:31-34 tells us there will be a NEW COVENANT. This new covenant was established at calvary where Jesus hung on a cross.

Anyway let me begin to reply to some of the things you said. I am not replying to everything because as I will demonstrate you willfully twist scripture, which may have resulted in your not understanding what the writer was saying.

1. You said, “There is nothing in the Bible that states that the Messiah would be a god or God-like…”
Reply: Isaiah 9:6 demonstrates Jesus as God. Do your own study of the Jewish meaning of Everlasting Father.
When you study closely pagan mythology you will find there are no virgin births as we see in the Bible. In mythology gods had sex with someone, this doesn’t happen with the virgin birth account of Mary. Next the Bible does mention the virgin birth of Jesus in Isaiah 7:14.
2. Who’s land were the Jews in at that time? Rome.
3. Where does it say the Messiah would built the temple? If you’re talking about what Jesus said in John 2:19 then you need to read the context there to understand what Jesus was talking about. He did raise his temple, his temple being his body.
4. a. Messiah redeemed by way of the cross, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. b. The temple was no longer needed. Sacrificing animals was only a type of Jesus the anti-type. c. Some people call themselves Christians, this doesn’t mean they are. Just look at what the Roman Catholic Church did in the Crusades and other. I don’t consider those who did that were Christians.
5. You purposely misquote scripture again. Deuteronomy 30:6 and it’s context must be read, not just one verse. This shows us a picture in the future, the lion will lie down with the lamb. There will be no more death disease or decay, this will come when God judges the world in righteousness and believers in Christ will reign on the earth with their God.
6. Jesus was God, the Son, in human flesh. There is only one true God, but we find in scripture God has manifested Himself in three distinct and co-equal persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Hebrew word “Elohim” is plural and is a plural name for God. When we compare scripture with scripture we find God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
7. Jesus forgave sins, only God forgives sins, Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead just like he said he would in his own power.
8. This is a future prediction as we can see in proper context of Isaiah 11:9, which you butchered in your post.
9. Again, you ignore the context of both Mark 13 and Matthew. Did you do a copy and paste from another website and not even look at the Bible for yourself? Both passages are talking about a future generation during the 7 year tribulation.
10. Read Daniel 9 please to answer your own denial of Messiah.
11. Please study Christology, it is the study of the person and works of Jesus as both God and man.
12. What scholars say this? Those of the Jesus Seminar?
13. Over 500 witnesses saw Jesus. I guess this is not enough for you?
14. Jesus fulfilled the Law. May I ask have you ever lied? Stole? Look at someone with lust? If you have then you are under God’s wrath and deserve punishment, hell. But that is why Jesus came to earth, to die on a cross for your sins so you don’t have to spend eternity in hell. Unless you repent you will perish. Turn from your sins to Jesus before it is to late for you.
15. God cannot die, however God became a person so he could die for the sins of the world. The perfect lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
16. You made another false claim for number 16 post. The apostle Paul was a leader amongst the Pharisees.
17. Jesus was rejected by his people because of pride, arrogance and spiritual blindness. But the rejection of the Jews mention salvation for the whole world. However in the last days God will turn back to Israel when the fullness of the Gentiles come (Romans 9-11).
18. Again Jesus and the disciples were to first reach the Jews, when they rejected them they were to go to the Gentiles (Rom 1:16).
19. Jesus said he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill. So what is your question?
20. Animal sacrifices did what? They were payment for what? Blood atones for what in the OT? Then why is it inconceivable that Messiah would be the perfect lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?
21. Matthew and Mark have two different account, one for Mary and one for Joseph.
22. Again when you do the Christology study you would see Jesus was both fully God and fully human, so as a human he cried out to his God as he took upon himself the sins of the world.


Robin

[armiyya]

Armiyya,

I'll reply to your response, but let us stick to the information I already posted above, not passing over the evidence.

Robin


***********
F. Prophecy- Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophesies of the Old Testament. When Daniel prophesied about the temple being rebuilt, the Messiah coming, the Messiah dying, then the destruction of the temple (70AD) afterwards in Daniel 9, or Isaiah 53 showing the Messiah would suffer for the sins of humanity, then when we turn to the New Testament we see it’s fulfillment it should make any genuine seeking person be filled with awe. Jesus said, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will make it rise again” (John 2:19). Jesus fulfilled His own prediction as well as OT prophesies of His resurrection from the dead.
****************

My post was in response to this:

[armiyya]

Each one of your responses is simply a restatement of the philisophical position that the Greek orientated Christians make which these twenty two Semetic Hebronic statements refute.

Should we believe the Greek philosophy with it's ingrained mythological foundation, or the Semetic interpretation of the scriptures, since the semetic languages are those through which revelation was made?

[nr]

The Phairasees didn't believe in Jesus
when he was with them. Why do you think
they will now?

[armiyya]

The Phairasees didn't believe in Jesus
when he was with them. Why do you think
they will now?


Who is it you are asking?

[armiyya]

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness”

*Please tell me what moral instructions these verses give. What ‘doctrine, reproof, correction’ do they give?

Song of Solomon
7:1 –8:14

"How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince's daughter! The curves of your hips are like jewels, The work of the hands of an artist. Your navel is like a round goblet Which never lacks mixed wine; Your belly is like a heap of wheat Fenced about with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.
Your neck is like a tower of ivory, Your eyes like the pools in Heshbon By the gate of Bath-rabbim; Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon, Which faces toward Damascus. Your head crowns you like Carmel, And the flowing locks of your head are like purple threads; The king is captivated by your tresses.
How beautiful and how delightful you are, My love, with all your charms! Your stature is like a palm tree, And your breasts are like its clusters.
I said, 'I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks.'
Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, And the fragrance of your breath like apples, And your mouth like the best wine! It goes down smoothly for my beloved, Flowing gently through the lips of those who fall asleep.”


"I am my beloved's, And his desire is for me. Come, my beloved, let us go out into the country, Let us spend the night in the villages.Let us rise early and go to the vineyards; Let us see whether the vine has budded And its blossoms have opened, And whether the pomegranates have bloomed. There I will give you my love. The mandrakes have given forth fragrance; And over our doors are all choice fruits, Both new and old, Which I have saved up for you, my beloved. Oh that you were like a brother to me Who nursed at my mother's breasts. If I found you outdoors, I would kiss you; No one would despise me, either.I would lead you and bring you Into the house of my mother, who used to instruct me; I would give you spiced wine to drink from the juice of my pomegranates. Let his left hand be under my head
And his right hand embrace me.”


"I want you to swear, O daughters of Jerusalem, Do not arouse or awaken my love until she pleases. Who is this coming up from the wilderness leaning on her beloved? Beneath the apple tree I awakened you; There your mother was in labor with you, There she was in labor and gave you birth. Put me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, jealousy is as severe as Sheol; its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord.”


“Many waters cannot quench love, nor will rivers overflow it. If a man were to give all the riches of his house for love, it would be utterly despised.”

“We have a little sister, and she has no breasts; what shall we do for our sister on the day when she is spoken for?”

“If she is a wall, we will build on her a battlement of silver. But if she is a door, we will barricade her with planks of cedar.”

"I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers. Then I became in his eyes as one who finds peace.”

“Solomon had a vineyard at Baal-hamon. He entrusted the vineyard to caretakers. Each one was to bring a thousand shekels of silver for its fruit.
My very own vineyard is at my disposal; The thousand shekels are for you, Solomon, And two hundred are for those who take care of its fruit. O you who sit in the gardens, my companions are listening for your voice - Let me hear it! Hurry, my beloved, And be like a gazelle or a young stag On the mountains of spices.”

* What are we to learn from these eulogies of sex from Solomon and from his lover(s) and gossipy chitchat between concubines. Were they inspired by God for “instruction”. What kind of “instruction”?

Armiyya

[armiyya]

*And what about this instructive story? What ‘doctrine, reproof, correction and righteous instruction’ does it give?

2 Samuel 11

Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king's house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance. So David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said,
"Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?"
David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. The woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said,
"I am pregnant."
Then David sent to Joab, saying,
"Send me Uriah the Hittite."
So Joab sent Uriah to David. When Uriah came to him, David asked concerning the welfare of Joab and the people and the state of the war. Then David said to Uriah,
"Go down to your house, and wash your feet."
And Uriah went out of the king's house, and a present from the king was sent out after him. But Uriah slept at the door of the king's house with all the servants of his lord, and did not go down to his house. Now when they told David, saying,
"Uriah did not go down to his house,"
David said to Uriah,
"Have you not come from a journey? Why did you not go down to your house?"
Uriah said to David,
"The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in temporary shelters, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field. Shall I then go to my house to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife? By your life and the life of your soul, I will not do this thing."
Then David said to Uriah,
"Stay here today also, and tomorrow I will let you go."
So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. Now David called him, and he ate and drank before him, and he made him drunk; and in the evening he went out to lie on his bed with his lord's servants, but he did not go down to his house. Now in the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah. He had written in the letter, saying,
"Place Uriah in the front line of the fiercest battle and withdraw from him, so that he may be struck down and die."
So it was as Joab kept watch on the city, that he put Uriah at the place where he knew there were valiant men. The men of the city went out and fought against Joab, and some of the people among David's servants fell; and Uriah the Hittite also died.

*What an example of voyeurism followed by adultery, followed by a disingenuous plan to pass off his ill begotten seed as the seed of the husband of the elicit affair! And when that doesn’t work, maneuvering the husband so that he dies without finding out he has been cuckolded. What are we supposed to learn from this incident?

Armiyya

[armiyya]

*And this one

Genesis 27
Now when Isaac was old and his eyes had become clouded so that he was not able to see, he sent for Esau, his first son, and said to him,
“My son!”
And he said,
“Here am I.”
And he said,
“See now, I am old, and my death may take place at any time. So take your arrows and your bow and go out to the field and get meat for me; and make me food, good to the taste, such as is pleasing to me, and put it before me, so that I may have a meal and give you my blessing before death comes to me.”
Now Isaac's words to his son were said in Rebekah's hearing. Then Esau went out to get the meat. And Rebekah said to Jacob, her son,
“Your father said to your brother Esau in my hearing, ‘Go and get some roe's meat and make me a good meal, so that I may be full, and give you my blessing before the Lord before my death’. Now, my son, do what I say. Go to the flock and get me two fat young goats; and I will make of them a meal to your father's taste. And you will take it to him, so that he may have a good meal and give you his blessing before his death.”
And Jacob said to Rebekah, his mother,
“But Esau my brother is covered with hair, while I am smooth. If by chance my father puts his hand on me, it will seem to him that I am tricking him, and he will put a curse on me in place of a blessing.”
And his mother said,
“Let the curse be on me, my son: only do as I say, and go and get them for me.”
So he went and got them and took them to his mother: and she made a meal to his father's taste. And Rebekah took the fair robes of her oldest son, which were with her in the house, and put them on Jacob, her younger son. And she put the skins of the young goats on his hands and on the smooth part of his neck. And she gave into the hand of Jacob, her son, the meat and the bread which she had made ready. And he came to his father, and said,
“My father!”
And he said,
“Here am I. Who are you, my son?”
And Jacob said,
“I am Esau, your oldest son; I have done as you said. come now, be seated and take of my meat, so that you may give me a blessing.”
And Isaac said,
“How is it that you have got it so quickly, my son?”
And he said,
“Because the Lord your God made it come my way.”
And Isaac said,
“Come near so that I may put my hand on you, my son, and see if you are truly my son Esau or not.”
And Jacob went near his father Isaac. And he put his hands on him, and he said,
“The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.”
And he did not make out who he was, because his hands were covered with hair like his brother Esau's hands; so he gave him a blessing.
And he said,
“Are you truly my son Esau?”
And he said,
“I am.”
And he said,
“Put it before me and I will take of my son's meat, so that I may give you a blessing. And he put it before him and he took it; and he gave him wine, and he had a drink.”
And his father Isaac said to him,
“Come near now, my son, and give me a kiss.”
And he came near and gave him a kiss; and smelling the smell of his clothing, he gave him a blessing, and said,
“See, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field on which the blessing of the Lord has come: May God give you the dew of heaven, and the good things of the earth, and grain and wine in full measure: Let peoples be your servants, and nations go down before you: be lord over your brothers, and let your mother's sons go down before you: a curse be on everyone by whom you are cursed, and a blessing on those who give you a blessing.”
And when Isaac had come to the end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob had not long gone away from Isaac his father, Esau came in from the field. And he made ready a meal, good to the taste, and took it to his father, and said to him,
“Let my father get up and take of his son's meat, so that you may give me a blessing.”
And Isaac his father said to him,
“Who are you?”
And he said,
“I am your oldest son, Esau.”
And in great fear Isaac said,
“Who then is he who got meat and put it before me, and I took it all before you came, and gave him a blessing, and his it will be?”
And hearing the words of his father, Esau gave a great and bitter cry, and said to his father,
“Give a blessing to me, even to me, O my father!”
And he said,
“Your brother came with deceit, and took away your blessing.”
And he said,
“Is it because he is named Jacob that he has twice taken my place? For he took away my birthright, and now he has taken away my blessing.” And he said, “Have you not kept a blessing for me?”
And Isaac answering said,
“But I have made him your master, and have given him all his brothers for servants; I have made him strong with grain and wine: what then am I to do for you, my son?”
And Esau said to his father,
“Is that the only blessing you have, my father? Give a blessing to me, even me!”
And Esau was overcome with weeping.

*Tell me the moral of this story. Jacob’s reservations are not because of the immorality of his mother’s suggestion, but concern that he might be caught out in the planned deceit. He gives the direct lie twice to his father concerning his identity, the second time despite Isaac’s misgivings. And he lies against god concerning the speed of his ‘return’ from hunting. What is it we are supposed to learn in terms of ‘doctrine, reproof, correction and righteous instruction’?

Armiyya

[armiyya]

There are many more such stories.

[robinbaitz]

Armiyya,

I could respond to your replies. I actually did a study with my wife on the Song of Solomon so I understand what this book is talking about.

However as I already noticed about you is you twist scripture then argue against your twisted view and think this shows the Bible is wrong and not from God. This is a great fallacy you begin and end with.

First learn the proper hermenutics of Biblical interpretation. You can get help from this website. http://www.e-grace.net/interpret.html
It was very helpful to me.

Also just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean it isn't true. There are a lot of things we don't understand, but are true.

RONNIE, I will reply to your post later today.

Robin

[armiyya]

Dear Robin Baites

[quote]
However as I already noticed about you is you twist scripture then argue against your twisted view and think this shows the Bible is wrong and not from God.


*Actually, one of my basic beliefs is that the Bible is based upon the revelation from God, in particular the Torah and Psalms. However, you are right if you mean do I think it has been processed by men. It is very obvious that it has, and no two Christian groups or biblical scholars can agree to what extent.

*I have not twisted one word of the scriptures I have copied out. The only "alteration" made was to insert inverted commas to indicate direct speech. The passages are from the New American Standard Version.

*I would love you to 'explain' the Song of Solomon and its allegorical meaning. It would really show up the tortuous thinking of Christian apologetists.



First learn the proper hermenutics of Biblical interpretation. You can get help from this website. http://www.e-grace.net/interpret.html
It was very helpful to me.


*Can you give me any reason why I should try and twist my mind around the Christian bias in interpretation. After learning your manner of interpretation, I would definitely find myself twisting the scripture to 'find' 300 prophecies about Jesus, and 1000 direct locutions at him (whenever a prophet uttered the word yhwh, probably ....) in the OT. I am far more likely to study and learn the Jewish approach to such interpretation because they are the ones who inherited the language of revelation, for one, and they also believe God is One (despite rebelling against Him).



Also just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean it isn't true.


*If you don't understand something, why do you express an opinion on it. Or is God the author of confusion?

*By the way, I seriously require an explanation. How are those passages (given by the inerrant inspiration of God, according to your belief) "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16)?

*By the way (smile) I am the nasty interrogator whom you should hate, while Ronnie is the one on your side, whom you should love.

Armiyya

[Ronnie]

Salam,

Armiyya, For some reason I couldn't grasp the meaning behind what you wrote:

"*By the way (smile) I am the nasty interrogator whom you should hate, while Ronnie is the one on your side, whom you should love."

Please explain :)

Wassalam

[armiyya]

[quote]
Salam,

Armiyya, For some reason I couldn't grasp the meaning behind what you wrote:

"*By the way (smile) I am the nasty interrogator whom you should hate, while Ronnie is the one on your side, whom you should love."

Please explain :)

It was a comment on the good cop, bad cop routine pattern which seems to have established itself in our trialogue. You are very thoughful and present the Islamic view while allowing him to express his Christian view freely. The good cop routine, that gets him listening to the Islamic view.

I think he has taken a dislike to me because I quote from his own scripture unpalatable writings that contradict the viewpoint he is trying to put over. I also challenge him to produce articulated proof which may expose him where he is vulnerable. So I am the bad cop, grilling him and knocking him off his poise.

It wasn't intended. But he has decided to take the defensive stand, and fob off actual engagement in dialogue with me by posting links he knows I may glance at, but would not use. So, willy nilly, we seem to have been pushed into these roles. I hope you are not offended.

Really, what I want to do is engage and debate but his own opinions and mind, rather than what he has been trained to say to Muslims.

Armiyya

[Ronnie]

Salam,

Armiyya, I'm not offended at all. Actually, I have tremendous respect for you. Thank you for the clarification. It is quite disheartening to try to dialogue with people who won't argue from their own understanding. However, you and I being on the same team :) must continue to try to promote the Truth as we understand it and seperate it from falsehood, even with our differing methods.

Thanks for your input and all the articles you've posted, as I said we're all here to learn and that's what I'm trying to do.

Wassalam

[nr]

How else would the monks and priest (who cannot get married) understand God's metaphores of Israel
being his wife? There are parts that clearly
show the author's intent. "Like a dove between
the crevice" mirrors Moses between the crevice
seeing God's back. Besides, who can describe
love better than a human being?



I am far more likely to study and learn the Jewish approach to such interpretation because they are the ones who inherited the language of revelation, for one, and they also believe God is One (despite rebelling against Him).

So God hinted at the Mesiah, picked up the prophesies
with David and Isaiah, but then he gave up for
2000 years?

The Jewish faith has since evolved during the last 2000 years.
At the time of christ, there were many Pharisee's advently
waiting for christ.

[robinbaitz]

Ronnie,

What is the Bible codex? And what personal letters are you talking about which you say were added to it?

Next concerning 1 Cor. 7:25-26 there are a few things to note.
1. Paul was giving his judgment
2. Paul was not giving his personal opinion
3. Paul was an apostle chosen by God
4. Paul had the mind of Christ
5. Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit (God the H.S.)
6. Paul was directed by the Holy Spirit
7. Paul was made trustworthy by God to minister to others
8. Paul taught God’s word
9. Paul because of the “present distress” probably foresaw the impending persecution of Christians that Rome would soon begin to do therefore made this judgment
10. In no way does this contradict what has been said before Paul. It is actually in harmony with the rest of scripture.

To properly interpret scripture you must follow the rules of hermeneutics so you don’t get off improperly interpreting scripture as some do. One of the rules is to interpret in light of the totality of scripture not just one or two verses.

Do you accept the archeology, oceanography, biology, history, prophecy and typology evidences I have displayed? Have you evaluated these things for yourself?

Then you quoted Leviticus 11:20-21 from the KJV. They translated the Hebrew word here as “fowls,” a better translation comes from the NKJV or NASB. “'All the winged insects that walk on {all} fours are detestable to you.” (Lev 11:20-21, NASB)
Remember the original manuscripts were inspired by God, not the copies. There is a margin of error in the copies, less then 5%, and these errors do not change the doctrines of the Bible but are minor grammatical errors as this one found in the KJV. But we have other versions such as the NKJV, NASB, NIV or the Hebrew and Greek text to look for clarification.

Now about the rabbits chewing the cud. This is an old argument but let me reply. Every year many species die out. That is why man began animal protection programs to stop or slow down a species from becoming extinct. I heard a joke about this, Why did the dinosaurs become extinct? They didn’t start animal protection programs soon enough. Well it is obvious that this animal was one of the species that died out.

Next concerning Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. We all were not there so, we don’t know what they heard. They could have heard thunder for all we know. However whatever those guys heard while with Paul whether thunder or something else, God spoke clearly to Paul. Again it seems to me because you don’t fully understand these passages you dismiss them, do you use this reasoning with everything? If so do you understand how the earth was formed? How God separated the waters from the waters or made the light? You see where I am going with this. See Daniel chapter 10 for a similar experience.

When I mention 300 prophecies Jesus fulfilled I would have hoped you would ask which ones? How do I know? Where does it say that? But you bring up a weightless argument that has already been shown to be erroneous. Have you read my posts of proper hermeneutics? This is how to interpret the Bible. Part of interpreting the Bible properly includes comparing scripture with scripture. The word “day” is not always a literal 24 hour day. The word day is also used for a portion of a day or part of the day. There are many verses that use the word day when it was only part of a day. Please see http://bible.crosswalk.com

Next you went onto talk about our other discussion on 2 Kings and we don’t know the writer. This however doesn’t disprove the writer, or what he wrote, as not inspired. People back in this persons day would have known who this writer was including the prophets and God. Another thing I must note is prophets always write or speak in harmony with one another. One prophet won’t say one thing in the name of the Lord when another prophet says something else in the name of the Lord both contradicting. One has to not be speaking for the Lord. We don’t find this among the Old or New testament prophets.

You noted Jesus and Paul were in contradiction with one another concerning the law of circumcision. Well I am here to tell you they were not and this is why. Jesus came to fulfill the law because he was the perfect Lamb of God. But when Paul told people not to be circumcised whom do you think he was talking to and about? This is important because it will help you understand why he said what he said and why. Paul spoke to the Gentiles, not Jews, and who was circumcision given to? The Jews. Paul told the people not to circumcise the Gentiles because they wanted to bring the Gentiles under law, not grace. We can only be saved by God’s grace, not by following the law of God. The law of God only shows we are all sinners who deserve hell, but that’s why Christ Jesus gave His own perfect life, to pay our fine of sin.

Last,

You said, “The Bible itself tells you that the scribe (writers who wrote with the pens) have corrupted the bible…”

Reply: What book are you talking about? If it is the one I am thinking of in the Old Testament, I would ask you to read the context. You wouldn’t have made a statement like that if you read the context and studied it for yourself.

Maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly about the apostles and Jesus death and resurrection. I believe the disciples had doubts. After all they were human. You have to understand something about that time. Most Jews thought the Messiah when he came would bring physical liberty at his coming so when he died they were taken back. But they didn’t understand fully that Messiah had to die for the sins of the world first, physical liberty will come at His second coming. But when Jesus rose from the dead they understood and their attitudes changed to boldness from fear. Peter denied His Lord 3 times but not after the resurrection. Doubting Thomas no longer doubted when he saw his risen Lord Jesus. Do you believe the prophets? Would you die for a lie you knew first hand was a lie? I don’t think any sane person would.

Robin

PS: the few replies I didn’t respond to I am looking into.

[Ronnie]

Peace,

Robin I was really looking forward to your explanation but I have to point out my disagreements with you.

You write:
"What is the Bible codex? And what personal letters are you talking about which you say were added to it?"

What I meant by codex is manuscript. The Bible was put together based on the Council of Nicea's judgement on what is God's word and what wasn't. I'm sure you know that Paul wrote thirteen (13) personal letters to various groups of people. These were included into the codex of the Bible. As a matter of fact my Bible study book says, "To read 1 & 2 Corinthians is to read someone else's mail." Maybe you didn't know this but part of the Bible is Paul's personal mail, but I'm sure it was inspired ;-)

You write:
"Do you accept the archeology, oceanography, biology, history, prophecy and typology evidences I have displayed? Have you evaluated these things for yourself?"

Scientific facts in the Bible hold no water. Most of it is based on interpretation so I could say it's untrue and you could say it's true. I think clear indications of scientific facts are the only ones we should be discussing such as the ones I've posted. For instance I can easily point out that the Sun and Moon were created on the fourth day but how were there any days of the week when they hadn't existed yet? That's a rhetorical question. You'll probably give some answer, typically metaphorical or something I can't verify using the Bible itself so I find no purpose in that. It's easier for the both of us to point out and clarify mistakes such as bats aren't birds, flying insects don't have 4 legs etc...

You write:
"Then you quoted Leviticus 11:20-21 from the KJV. They translated the Hebrew word here as “fowls,” a better translation comes from the NKJV or NASB."

Did I know that the KJV was not your preferred Bible? Besides you still have the dilemma of trying to explain winged, four legged insects. Is there such a thing?

You write:
"Remember the original manuscripts were inspired by God, not the copies. There is a margin of error in the copies, less then 5%, and these errors do not change the doctrines of the Bible but are minor grammatical errors as this one found in the KJV."

I respectfully say this, but this has to be the most absurd part of the your argument. I don't even know where to begin showing the irratonality in this statement. I could easily say ok, case closed the Bible has mistakes, less than 5% by your count. C'mon, don't you think this is a little bit laughable. You don't have the orginal manuscripts, you go by translations, you know the translation "copies" contain minute errors, yet you maintain that this doesn't change the doctrine. How could you possibly know? Please reconsider this argument, I'll act as if you never said it.

You write:
"Now about the rabbits chewing the cud. This is an old argument but let me reply. Every year many species die out."

This is a close second in absurdity. Please, I'm trying to have a serious dialogue here and you present me with some mythical extinction story. Unless you can prove such an animal existed then you have no case whatsoever. The rabbit is part of the Leporidae family and none of the animals belonging to this family chews the cud. Again, this is terrible on your part I was expecting better. Why can't you just admit that it's a mistake within the 5% but widen the scope of errors to more than just grammer and spelling. Include "some scientific facts regarding hares," and you will be covered.

You write:
"Next concerning Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. We all were not there so, we don’t know what they heard."

The two stories are exactly related to each other how could you even defend it by saying "we were not there"? You weren't there for any of it but you believe in it. The problem is which narration is more accurate: did they see anything or didn't they see anything; did they hear or did they not hear anything? It's not that I don't understand, actually it's because I understand is why I point these things out. They're ridiculous but you want to point out my lack of comprehension.

You write:
"The word “day” is not always a literal 24 hour day. The word day is also used for a portion of a day or part of the day."

Believe me I'm quite familiar with this concept, but this in no way absolves you from explaining the miracle. Besides how many ways could you possibly interpret 3 days and 3 nights?

You write:
"This however doesn’t disprove the writer, or what he wrote, as not inspired. People back in this persons day would have known who this writer was including the prophets and God."

"Disprove the writer"? What writer? The people in "his day" knew him, who were the people? I see you've totally ignored my example. If I told you I had a book written by someone but I don't know who that someone is. Then I tell you that the book is inspired by God would you take it as such? If yes, then you would only prove no foundation to your beliefs. If no, then you must apply that to the Bible or at least parts of it.

You write:
"Paul spoke to the Gentiles, not Jews, and who was circumcision given to? The Jews."

So Jesus is for the Jews and Paul was for all mankind? Somehow I doubt that. I've heard this argument far too often. Then how do you distinguish what is for the Jews and what is for the Gentiles? Do the Ten Commandments apply to the Gentiles? In other words you have entire works by prophets inspired by God that are really meaningless to you because they are directed at one group of people. Sort this out first then get back to me.

You write:
"What book are you talking about? If it is the one I am thinking of in the Old Testament..."

Jeremiah 8:8. Of course I know what it's talking about you're the one that would probably want to put some spin on it. Scribes write with pens and with these pens the scribes put falsehoods into the "law of the Lord." Corrupting the scripture also corrupted the people's beliefs and the practice of God's religion. Again, I don't think you should use my supposed lack of comprehension for your scapegoat purposes.

You write:
"Doubting Thomas no longer doubted when he saw his risen Lord Jesus. Do you believe the prophets? Would you die for a lie you knew first hand was a lie? I don’t think any sane person would."

Thank you. It took one of the most incredible miracles to convince the Apostles to believe in Jesus. They had doubts and hid until he proved them wrong. You're right, no sane person would die for a lie and the Apostle's were not willing to either.

Thanks for your time in responding. I look forward to further discussions.

Peace

[nr]

"To read 1 & 2 Corinthians is to read someone else's mail." Maybe you didn't know this but part of the Bible is Paul's personal mail, but I'm sure it was inspired ;-)

If I could write like Paul, I would sure want my mail to be read.

You got my botched attemt at explaining the 3 days and 3 nights.
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/3days-3nights.html

Locust have 4 legs.



You write:
"Paul spoke to the Gentiles, not Jews, and who was circumcision given to? The Jews."

So Jesus is for the Jews and Paul was for all mankind? Somehow I doubt that. I've heard this argument far too often. Then how do you distinguish what is for the Jews and what is for the Gentiles? Do the Ten Commandments apply to the Gentiles? In other words you have entire works by prophets inspired by God that are really meaningless to you because they are directed at one group of people. Sort this out first then get back to me.

Circumcision was a sign of the old covenant made with Abraham.
They are not meaningless because everything in the old covenant
corresponds to the new covenant. The jews would
often sacrafice bulls etc for sin offerings. It is not that
God needs the flesh of the bull. It is to reinforce repentance
and the giving up of one self because of sin. This is why
genesis says that after Adam and Eve sinned God clothed
them in animal hides.

Pauls companions saw the light, were blinded
and could not make out the figure. They may have heard
Paul's voice but not Jesus' or maybe his companions had
different experiences. An example of this is
in the unbibical account of the execution of Polycarp.
The believers hear the voice but the unbelievers don't.

[nr]

Jeremiah 8:8. Of course I know what it's talking about you're the one that would probably want to put some spin on it. Scribes write with pens and with these pens the scribes put falsehoods into the "law of the Lord."

1. The Torah consist of only the first 4 books of the bible.
I don't really see Jeremiah studying these 4 books with another
scribe's 4 books to find minute differences. Now if this was
God telling Jeremiah that the Torah was corrupted by malice, Jeremiah
would have instantly asked what parts were. The scribes
so feared God that they left out the vowels of God in hebrew.

2. The law of the Lord is written first on our heart. God will order
different people to serve different task. Noah did not serve
God the way the high priest of Israel did. He cannot be
judged under the hebrew law. So God's law here is
his word. And God's word is his law.

[armiyya]

"Locusts have 4 legs".

Locusts happen to be the only insects Jews are allowed to eat (John survived on Locusts and honey). Muslims are allowed to eat them, too.

Have you seen a locust? When I was at school (a good 40 years ago), we had locusts in our biology lab. They looked like large, heavily built, grasshoppers. In fact, they are large, heavily built grasshoppers. They metamorphose into locusts opartly because of population density.

This one looks like it has 4 legs. but it doesn't. Its jumping leg is folded along its thorax.
http://www.junglewalk.com/popup.asp?type=s&AnimalwebsiteID=1214

This poster of a grasshopper shows all six legs clearly:
http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?aid=187318&item=145560

Armiyya

Edited by - armiyya on 03/21/2003 10:47:27

[nr]

I've never seen them. I have looked
at pictures of them.

[Ronnie]

Peace,

NR thanks for answering:

You write:
"If I could write like Paul, I would sure want my mail to be read."

That's your answer?

You write:
"You got my botched attemt at explaining the 3 days and 3 nights."

First you were with the Wednesday theory now you want to flip and go for another theory. Funny it doesn't hold water either. Did Jesus not know how long the day was. Guys please, the very foundation of Christianity rests upon the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Why isn't it the most blaring thing in the Bible? Why is there so much confusion surrounding it? Could it be that none of the writers witnessed this episode? If it's hard for you to clarify what you base your foundation on then what kind of ground do you stand on?

You write:
"Locust have 4 legs."

WHAT!!!!! Wait you're joking right? In case you're not then I challenge you to look up any source in the world to find a locust or a grasshopper or a cricket with four legs. They are insects! Orthoptera include all these and they ALL have six legs. Do I need to go on? It astonishes me how you will try to rationalize the irrational. You answered without regard to the facts. You are being over zealous. Now let me explain: All insects must have:
three body parts - a head, thorax, and abdomen
SIX jointed legs
two antennae to sense the world around them
an exoskeleton (outside skeleton)
http://www.ivyhall.district96.k12.il.us/4th/kkhp/1insects/buginfo.html

You write:
"They are not meaningless because everything in the old covenant
corresponds to the new covenant."

What? Did Jesus not come to fulfill the law and keep it? Did he not follow the law except that which was corrupted by the Jews? Please, understand Jesus' mission was not to change the law but to correct it and bring back the "lost sheep" to God.

You write:
"Pauls companions saw the light, were blinded
and could not make out the figure. They may have heard
Paul's voice but not Jesus' or maybe his companions had
different experiences."

Is this your effort at explaining the story? Maybe this...maybe that. How can I go by your conjecture? I'm sure you see the problem with your explanation.

Look I mean no harm or disrespect but I think you guys need to really look into your beliefs and question a little more. I mean one person says why should a day have 24 hours, another says locust has 4 legs, the other tries to explain that a species of rabbit that chews its cud has died out...etc... Can't you see how ridiculous all this is starting to sound. I pray that the Truth may be revealed to you.

Peace



Edited by - Ronnie on 03/21/2003 05:43:34

[armiyya]

Thankyou, nr, for that beautiful explanation of 3 days.

1. Note the part where they attempt to not only cut off criticism of their interpretation, but to label criticism of this reading as based on a single verse. They themselves go over 4 verses where at least 3 complete days are implied, so it isn’t based on a single verse.
2. If the Bible is inspired, a single verse has the same weight as a thousand other verses, no? Or are we staring a contradiction in the Bible in the face. And if we are, does that not nullify the Bible as the inerrant word of God?
3. Although they beautifully prove that the 72 hour theory is invalid, this still has to be reconciled with the prophecy (of Jesus) being akin to the experience of Jonah. That did “three days” mean to Jonah. This theme was not addressed.
4. Examine carefully the counting of time. The analysis, apparently, depends upon the interpretation of what “a day” is. Towards the end of the preamble, they identify the end of the day as being sunset, which means the beginning of the next day is sunset of the previous day. Such an explanation is correct according to the Islamic reckoning of time. But what does it imply about the death of Jesus.
a. Jesus was judged in the Gabbatha at the 6th hour (John 19:14), after which he was handed over to the crowds and forced to carry his cross up Golgotha
b. He died before the others crucified had died because the Jews asked their deaths to be hastened by the breaking of legs when the Sabbath approached (Luke 19:31). According to this, then, reckoning, just before sunset)
c. According to Luke 23:44, Jesus had already been hung on the cross for a while when the sky darkened and the Sun was covered. This took place between 6th and 9th hours (when he died)
d. In Mark, Jesus’s second (Roman) trial was in the morning (Mark 15:1) and he was crucified at the 3rd hour (Mark 15:25). Like in Luke, the darkness occurred from the 6th to 9th hours (Mark 15:33), whereupon he died shortly after. Joseph of Arimathaea asked Pilate for Jesus’ body “when evening had come”, after which he was buried (ie: he was buried at or after sunset).
e. Matthew puts Jesus’s trial by the Pharisees at “when morning had come”. He, too, places the darkness over the land between the 6th and 9th hour, whereupon he died, and the asking for the corpse ‘When evening had come”.
f. If the day started at sundown, then Jesus would have been on the cross in the 3rd hour - at 9 pm 'Friday' (eg: what we would think of as Thursday) and the sun would be covered in the 6th hour - at 12 midnight and Jesus would be dead around the 9th hour - just after 3 am long before he went on trial when the sun rose - at 6 am. All clear impossibilities

The analysis in the explanation depends on you falling for the idea that they used the afternoon preparing day (Friday, the day that he died) to prepare ointment and spices, which assumes Jesus was buried early in the afternoon. They also say that Jesus had a 12 hour period to rise on Sunday before the women found him not to be in his tomb (Sunset to Sunrise). However, in the synoptic Gospels, we see he died mid afternoon, but that his body was released to joseph when evening had already come. According to Luke’s sequence of events, the women prepared the ointments and spices after they had seen Jesus laid to rest, which would mean during the night. This is backed up by the fact that they used the Sabbath TO REST (after staying up much of the night).

John presents a problem. He identifies the Judgement to have been made at the 6th hour, by which time the other three Gospels say he had already been up on the cross a long time (Mark says 3 hours). Either he got it (inerrantly revealed) wrong, OR he is using a different measure (from Midnight) [one more proof that the person who wrote (this part of) John was from a different culture than the other three]. However, he too says they were in a rush to bury him because the Sabbath drew on – so it was late.

Based on the evidence of naming the hours of the day, my contention is that the Day was measured from Sunrise to Sunrise. If not, then the women were sinning when they prepared ointments and spices, and the burial of Jesus after evening had fallen was also forbidden, a sin. It also makes the times fit. Judgement at dawn, crucifixion at 9am, the sky darkens at noon until 3 pm, Jesus dies shortly after. The robbers have their legs broken late in the afternoon, but Jesus is found to be already dead, the bodies are taken down and put in the mortuary, and Joseph comes and collects the body “when evening comes”. They prepare the body (and do the funeral prayer?) and lay him to rest after nightfall, the women prepare ointments and spices and then they REST on the Sabbath.

But then the problem comes home to roost. Notice, Matthew said the women came to the tomb AT THE END OF THE SABBATH, as it BEGAN TO DAWN (John: WHILE IT WAS STILL DARK on the First Day [remember he is on a different timescale beginning at midnight]) TOWARDS (not on) the First Day of the week (Matthew Ch 28:1). Your proof “clinches” their argument with this verse, and I am going to do the same. If the women already found the tomb empty, and it was not yet the first day according to the schedule of the hours mentioned in the synoptic gospels, then Jesus Rose on the Sabbath, not the First Day. So, if he died 3 hours before sunset on the day of Friday and Rose sometime between the 12th and the 23rd hour of the day on the Sabbath, HE DID NOT RISE ON THE THIRD DAY even by your linked explanation, BUT ON THE SECOND.

The prophecies don’t match up. And, when properly analysed, the other 300 or so won’t either.

Armiyya

PS. Robin, please explain how I have misused the evidence to come to my conclusion? Or is it that the Christian explanation is the real "misuse" of the scriptures?

PPS. Though many non Jews disagree about the Jewish calander and there is much speculation about it, I found this on the net:

The Jewish-calendar.
The Jewish-calendar goes back to 3761 before Chr., which was for the Jews the day of the creation.

This calendar is based on the moon attitudes. A Jewish day begins and ends on sunrise.
Every Saturday there is the Sabbath, the saint day. In the old Jewish-calendar 50 was a saint number. Every 50 year guilds of people were remitted and slaves got freedom.

FROM
http://library.thinkquest.org/20499/cal.htm

PPPS. I worked out that, for the theory presented by nr to work, the day must begin and end at mid-night, as I think John bases his calculations. That way Jesus is buried between sunset and midnight on Friday, and rises between midnight and dawn on Sunday. However, I haven't seen one Christian come forward with such an explanation - because it doesn't chime with the synoptic measurement of time? Or the theories of the Jewish Calender? Besides, does it fit in with what happened to Jonah?


Edited by - armiyya on 03/21/2003 10:11:50

[armiyya]

Mr Baites,

You say of Paul, from your hermeneutical analysis of the Bible, that:

1. Paul was giving his judgment
2. Paul was not giving his personal opinion
3. Paul was an apostle chosen by God
4. Paul had the mind of Christ
5. Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit (God the H.S.)
6. Paul was directed by the Holy Spirit
7. Paul was made trustworthy by God to minister to others
8. Paul taught God’s word
9. Paul foresaw the impending persecution of Christians that Rome would soon begin. (Here I cut all the probales etc. Either he did, or he didn't.)
10. In no way does this contradict what has been said before Paul.

I prpared this document earlier on another site. But it fits in with this topic and the two verses in acts about 'the revelation' of paul that you and Ronnie are arguing. Please note that my commentry between the verses quoted is to help the reader be critical aware. They are not "interpretation". That comes in the concluding part of the article. If you disagree with the commentary, you are free to comment and amend for the readers to see the way you think.

HERE GOES (in colour, this is far more effective, but no color coding here).

Given some of (St.) Paul’s damning admissions, can we trust his word to be the inerrant word of god? These are Saul’s (Paul’s) own words:

2Co:11:12: But what I do, that I will continue to do, so that I may undermine the claim of those who desire their mission glorified; that wherein they boast that their work may be found even as ours.

Who does Saul want to undermine?

2Co:11:13: For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as the apostles of Christ.

Who is he talking about? The Pharisees? Surely not! They reject Christ. Who, other than himself, preached the gospel? Can it be the disciples he is talking of?

2Co:11:14:And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Who is he accusing of being Satan? ‘The Jesus’ before his death? Simon Cephas (the ‘Rock’). Or the man he recently quarrelled with, his erstwhile partner, Barnabas?

2Co:11:15: Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

His justification for these barbed attacks on those ‘others’ who preach the gospel?

2Co:11:16-21 I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face. I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit where-in-so-ever any is bold, (and I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.

And he goes back to complaining about the others (who teach differently from himself):

2Co:11:22: Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I.

So he is talking about Jews ; Israelites: The people whom Jesus was sent to, and from whom he chose his followers!

2Co:11:23: Are they ministers of Christ?

So these others claim to be ministers of Christ. They sound more and more like the disciples: the Nazarene disciples.

Then he justifies his superiority over them by the amount of suffering he has undergone because of his ‘work’.

2Co:11:23: (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

He also says:

1Co:9:18-23 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. For though I be free from all men, yet I have made myself servant unto all, that I might win the more.
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

We see, then, that Saul (Paul) professes to be a trickster and hypocrite for the sake of the message he wants to convey. One whose means justified his ends. Is he a liar, too? Let us look at his story of ‘conversion’.

Acts:9: 3-9: And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.


The same story is told by Saul (Paul) in the first person, with subtle differences which don’t amount to changing the message – but do amount to changes in the ‘witnesses’.

Ac:22: 66-11 : And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest: And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

In both of these accounts, he was to be instructed in what to do and preach under the authority of the disciples. So what were the disciples teaching?

1. There is only One God, who ‘glorified’ Jesus.

Ac:3:13: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, [b]the God of our fathers, hath glorified his son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had determined to let him go.

2. Jesus is a man and a prophet of God.

Ac:2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know

1Tm:2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (this is Paul, himself, inerrantly admitting it).

Lu:24:19: And he (the ‘resurrected Jesus’) said unto them, What things? And they (the disciples) said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.

M't:21:9-11: And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? And the multitude said, this is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

3. Christians need to turn away from sin.

Ac:3:26: Unto you first God, having raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.

4. God (‘the father’) is The Creator & the source of refuge, knowledge and miracles.

Ac:4: 24-30: And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, Thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of Thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ. For of a truth against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done. And now, Lord, behold their threats: and grant unto Thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak Thy word, By stretching forth Thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of Thy holy servant Jesus.

5. Praying and fasting is part of Christian faith, as Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount/plain.

Ac:14: 21-23: And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

A contentious issue is raised by proselytisers and missionaries from Israel. The first rift between Barnabas and Saul (Paul) occurs.

6. Circumcision was mandatory

Ac:15:1-2: And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

After consultation, Peter decides that Gentiles should be treated exactly the same way as Jews.


Ac: 15: 6-9: And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

James suggests a compromise, citing Moses and David as proofs of his judgement.

6. But abrogated after compromise

Ac: 15: 13-21: And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.

After more argument, the following rules were set as a minimum for Gentiles to follow as a start.

7. The strict dietary Law of must be enforced.

8. The Laws against adultery and casual sex also must be enforced.

Ac: 15: 27-29: We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

So we see the disciples trying to maintain and promote Jesus’s mission in the face of innovators like Saul (Paul) as Jesus had told them in Matthew 5, 17-22.

After Simon Cephas (Peter) and James had made their decision, Paul completed the rift with Barnabas, whom the elders had chosen to pair with him.

Ac: 15: 36-40: And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, “Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do”. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus: And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

So what was Paul’s (Saul’s) message?

1. Christians are free from the law of Moses.

Co: 10: 25-27: Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake. For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

Ro: 7: 4-6 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the Law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the Law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

2. The Law of Moses is abrogated because Christ redeems us if we break it.

Ro: 3: 19-28: Now we know that what things so-ever the Law saith, it saith to them who are under the Law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the Law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the Law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law.

And the Johanine Gospel fully supports Paul’s doctrine:

3. Jesus, the redeemer is the 'Son on God'

Joh: 3: 13-18: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Where did Paul he get it from? Well, we have to turn to the revelation on the road to Damascus again. After quarrelling with the Nazarene Christians and departing on his own mission, in which he would remind us:

2Tm: 2: 8: Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the deadaccording to my gospel:

He changes his story concerning his conversion. No longer was he to be “told all things which are appointed for thee to do” by the disciples. No. This new story makes him his own man with direct authority from ‘Jesus Christ’.

Acts:26 :12-18: Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.


Jesus’s Gospel, then, as preached by the faithful Nazarenes, was to be laid aside in favour of his own. And to this day, the majority Christians follow that one, instead of Jesus’s own.

Hence: “And lead us not into the way of those who have angered you, Nor those who have gone astray.”
Surat Al Fatiha, Aya 7.

May Allah guide you

Armiyya


Edited by - armiyya on 03/21/2003 10:29:42

[robinbaitz]

Concerning "Rabbits chewing the CUD"

Lets go to the scientists for this one,

"In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification, at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong."

Taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3725.asp

Robin

PS: Can we stick with on thing at a time, I wish I could respond to all your replies but they are growing to much for me. Can we stic with one thing at a time, then answer/talk about it then move onto the next thing?

[robinbaitz]

Jesus 3 days and 3 nights.

So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart
of the earth.

That Christ means himself by the "son of man", there is no reason to doubt; and his being laid in a tomb, dug out of a rock, is sufficient to answer this phrase, "the heart of the earth", in distinction from the surface of it; but some difficulty arises about the time of his continuing there, and the prediction here made agreeable to the type: for it was on the sixth day of the week, we commonly call "Friday", towards the close, on the day of the preparation for the sabbath, and when the sabbath drew on, that the body of Christ was laid in the sepulchre; where it lay all the next day, which was the sabbath of the Jews, and what we commonly call "Saturday"; and early on the first of the week, usually called "Sunday", or the Lord's day, he rose from the dead; so that he was but one whole day, and part of two, in the grave. To solve this difficulty, and set the matter in a clear light, let it be observed, that the three days and three nights, mean three natural days, consisting of day and night, or twenty four hours, and are what the Greeks call (nucyhmera) , "night days"; but the Jews have no other way of expressing them, but as here; and with them it is a well known rule, and used on all occasions, as in the computation of their feasts and times of mourning, in the observance of the passover, circumcision, and divers purifications, that (wlwkk Mwyh tuqm) , "a part of a day is as the whole" F14: and so, whatever was done before sun setting, or after, if but an hour, or ever so small a time, before or after it, it was reckoned as the whole preceding, or following day; and whether this was in the night part, or day part of the night day, or natural day, it mattered not, it was accounted as the whole night day: by this rule, the case here is easily adjusted; Christ was laid in the grave towards the close of the sixth day, a little before sun setting, and this being a part of the night day preceding, is reckoned as the whole; he continued there the whole night day following, being the seventh day; and rose again early on the first day, which being after sun setting, though it might be even before sun rising, yet being a part of the night day following, is to be esteemed as the whole; and thus the son of man was to be, and was three days and three nights in the grave; and which was very easy to be understood by the Jews; and it is a question whether Jonas was longer in the belly of the fish.

Taken from,

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=mt&chapter=12&verse=40

You must understand the Bible within its context and the time, in its historical setting.

Robin

[robinbaitz]

Concering Council of Nicea's judgement.

The Roman Catholic Church thinks, it, the Roman Church has power to decipher what is God's word or not. Instead of allowing God' word to speak for itself. What I mean by that is this, God's word is authoritative, not the Church. Rome believes the Roman Church is authoritative. That is why they added the apocrypha considering it divine revelation.

They did this because they believe they have this authority. As a result of this their traditions have co-equal importance to God's word and sometimes they consider them higher then God's own word. For example their own extra biblical teachings on Mary, purgatory, salvation, the gospel is different from that which the bible teaches, papicy, priests, indulgences and more.

God used Rome to an extent in throughout history, as God used the pagan nations around Israel to an extent.

Robin

[nr]

"The Roman Catholic Church thinks, it, the Roman Church has power to decipher what is God's word or not. Instead of allowing God' word to speak for itself. What I mean by that is this, God's word is authoritative, not the Church. Rome believes the Roman Church is authoritative. That is why they added the apocrypha considering it divine revelation."
How can you say this? What happended to
those Levites who offered sacrafices improperly to
God in the OT? The problem with every one having their
own interpretation is that everyone would have there own
different interpretation. We have Calvins, Anglians,
Presbyterians/puritans, mormons, Lutherans, Methodist,
and Jehova Witnesses all interpreting the Bible differently.
Surely everyone's going to read
and interpret the Bible to fit best in their lifes, this is good.
But crucial doctrins such as communion and confession are best left to
the Church. It's not like Martin Luther was
an inspired Saint anyways. We all can read what he said about the Jews.



That is why they added the apocrypha considering it divine revelation.

What books in the Catholic bible are apocrypha?

What is wrong about the Church teaching on Mary.
We do not worship Mary as divine.
Look at the Hail Mary. We ask Mary to pray for us.
And how much more can she do in heaven than in earth.
Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee,
blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary mother of God, Pray for
us Sinners now and at the hour of death.

The first part is from the Angle Gabriel's annucation.
If the angles can say it, we should be able to say it.
Infact the "blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus" honors
Jesus. Only the last two lines were added by Elizabeth upon
seeing a vision of Mary.

purgatory, salvation,
Everyone who goes to heaven must be baptize. Can
you really accept that peoples who were not christian, were not baptized, and knew nothing about the Law but did follow
the natural Law will be thrown into eternal hell. No they will recieve light punishment in purgatory and then will go to heaven.
In our society anyways if you commit a crime say stealing.
You will be punished and forgiven by the state. But
if you do not confess to stealing and at least give back what
you stole, how will the state forgive you.

papicy
Any sort of faith or nation needs leadership.
It is clear that Peter acted on his own with the holy spirit
to decide issues in the early church.

indulgences and more.
Maybe overdone in the time of Luther. A Saint, I forgot her name, recieved a vision where the only ones recieving a plenary indulgence were herself and a old lady. Ultimatly this will be decided by God but this does not make the Church's teaching false.

[armiyya]

Mr Baites,

1. If we can trust the Christian church’s assertion of the meaning (or lack of distinction in meaning) concerning ‘chewing the cud’, then we can agree that at least the discription of the hare might be scientifically valid (insects still don’t have four legs).

2. I am sorry, but the argument presented does not convince. Firstly, it means one has to accept that being laid in the earth 'when evening had' come is during the daylight of Friday (to include the night before) – which is very difficult to prove, and secondly, that the first day before the sunrise (2 out of 4 gospels place it at dawn or while still dark- one going so far as to say it was late on the Sabbath is actually ‘the first day (of course, it would be if “the night before is included in the next day). However, both the traditional Jewish Calendar and Matthew indicate the day begins at sunrise, as do the naming of the hours in every New testament book except John. So even if the body of Jesus was place in the tomb before sundown (making a day and a night), his resurrection on the Sabbath at dawn means he was (even in the “explanation” you have given to twist the facts and get round the problem of “the lack of nights and parts of days”), it would still mean two days and two nights. Twist the semantics all you want, the prophecy is not fulfilled.

3. Well, it is nice to have confirmed what it says in the Qur’an, that 'the people of the book take their Rabbis and Priests to be Lords besides Allah'. Makes you wonder how they interfered with the writing down of the revelations God gave to man.

Armiyya

[robinbaitz]

Armiyya,

Concering Insects with four legs. What does another scientist say about this passage in the Bible.

"The passage? "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing, that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; (including) the locust . . . the beetle . . . and the grasshopper after his kind" (Leviticus 11:21,22). Tucked within a list of dietary regulations for the people of Israel, it refers to a number of animals whose exact identification is obscured by antiquity. But let's look closely.

First, we must recognize that modern day taxonomic categories, like species, genus, family, etc., are not the same as the Biblical "kind." Even the term "creeping thing" finds wide application meaning, in general, small animals which exist in great numbers. In this chapter it is used for insects (v. 21), various small mammals and reptiles (vv. 29,30), as well as animals which "move" in the ocean (v. 10).

Likewise the term "flying" applies both to flying insects and birds (vv. 13-19). Obviously, the context and description must take precedence in identification, and in this case, the "four legged insect" applies, in particular, to the grasshopper/locust kind.

In our modern classification system, all insects have at least six legs. They are members of the large and varied arthropod phyla, which includes also the eight-legged spiders, the multi-legged centipedes, as well as crabs—anything with segmented legs. Some insects also have wings, but these don't count as legs.

Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping." Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle. Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct. Far from being an embarrassment to Bible believers, this passage bears sterling testimony to the accuracy and inspiration of Scripture. As always, arguments which claim that the Bible is wrong are themselves wrong, and the Bible still stands!"

Taken from ICR, http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-151b.htm

Another good scientific website.

Robin

[robinbaitz]

nr,

"The Roman Catholic Church thinks, it, the Roman Church has power to decipher what is God's word or not. Instead of allowing God' word to speak for itself. What I mean by that is this, God's word is authoritative, not the Church. Rome believes the Roman Church is authoritative. That is why they added the apocrypha considering it divine revelation."

You said: What happended to those Levites who offered sacrafices improperly to God in the OT?

Reply: What does this have to do with divine authority?
The Levites who improperly sacrificed disobeyed God’s instructions. That is why Aaron’s two sons were killed.

You said: The problem with every one having their own interpretation is that everyone would have there own different interpretation. We have Calvins, Anglians, Presbyterians/puritans, mormons, Lutherans, Methodist, and Jehovah Witnesses all interpreting the Bible differently.

Reply: I agree, there is only one way to interpret scripture. This is why there are cults like the Mormons and JW’s. However the only differences between the genuine Christian Churches are minor differences, not foundational doctrine. Sin really messes things up! However the Roman Church has strayed far from biblical Christianity, even the gospel is a different gospel, and the only reason they are not considered a cult is because they teach the trinity.

You said: Surely everyone's going to read and interpret the Bible to fit best in their lifes, this is good.

Reply: First you said everyone having their own interpretation is bad resulting in cults and different sects. But here your saying it is good. Which is it? There is only one way to interpret scripture, the literal way, also known as hermeneutics. If everyone kept to these principals there would be no divisions. But we have cults who twist scripture, take things out of context, spiritualize things when it should be or take things literally when they shouldn’t be.

You said, “But crucial doctrines such as communion and confession are best left to the Church. It's not like Martin Luther was an inspired Saint anyways. We all can read what he said about the Jews.

Reply: I don’t know what you mean “left to the Church”? What do you consider the Church? What is your definition? The definition I get is the Church is the body of believers who passed from death to life by grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus alone. In the Bible the word Church in Greek is “gathering” and this gathering is called the Church because it involved gathering to worship, praise, read the scriptures and encourage one another in Christ. These kinds of gathers happened all over the place. The only head of the Church we find in scripture in Jesus, the head of the body.

You asked, What books in the Catholic bible are apocrypha?
Reply: Wisdom of Solomon 30BC, Ecclesiasticus 132BC, Tobit 200 BC, Judith 150 BC, 1 and 2 Esdras 150-100 BC, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, Additions to Esther and more. Rome added apocrypha books as single book in the bible and added them to other books. Even though Jesus or the apostles NEVER quoted from them as they did of most of the OT. Also they used some of these books to support purgatory, which actually doesn’t (2 Macc). These books can be considered historical books, but not inspired, Maccabees even says there was no prophet in the land then.

You said, What is wrong about the Church teaching on Mary. We do not worship Mary as divine.

Reply: God is omnipresent, meaning he can be everywhere at once. So the believers of the OT and NT prayed to God. But praying to Mary who is not omnipresent is meaningless, she cannot hear you. Next the Roman Church elevated Mary to co-mediatrix with Jesus. So Mary can save, just like Jesus saves. Does this sound like the Mary of the Bible who said, “and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior,” Luke 1:47 Ask yourself, why would Mary need a Savior? Because she was a sinner like you and I. But the Roman Church declares Mary to be sinless from birth.

Catholicism asserts that Mary never sinned and, hence, was redeemed (saved) from the moment of her birth:

"By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long." Pg. 124, #493 "Espousing the divine will for salvation whole-heartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son..." Pg. 124, #494 "Mary is the most excellent fruit of redemption (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life." Pg. 128 #508 (See also Pg. 191, #722)

If you are wondering if this doctrine is taught in God's Word, it isn't. The Catechism admits that it is another church tradition:
"Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, 'full of grace' through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception." Pg. 123, #491

But the Bible identifies Jesus as the sinless One, not Mary:
"For he hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Corinthians 5:21
You said, Everyone who goes to heaven must be baptize.

Reply: Was the guy next to Jesus on the cross able to get baptized? No. But he would be with Jesus in heaven. I do believe Christians should be baptized after they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Nowhere in the Bible are babies baptized. Another RCC tradition.

You mention: Purgatory

Reply: Where in the bible is purgatory mentioned?
You mentioned: Saints. RCC tells us who are saints right
Reply: The Bible says anyone who is a genuine Christian is a saint. Phil 4:21

Robin

[nr]

"The Roman Catholic Church thinks, it, the Roman Church has power to decipher what is God's word or not. Instead of allowing God' word to speak for itself. What I mean by that is this, God's word is authoritative, not the Church."

There were really dangerous herecies such as Arianism and
Albigensian. If the Church was not a collective body working
against these herecies we might have a very different faith.
Even stuft that is made repeativly clear by Jesus, OT, and early
church writers such as communion are left out in these sects.

"Reply: First you said everyone having their own interpretation is bad resulting in cults and different sects. But here your saying it is good. Which is it? There is only one way to interpret scripture, the literal way, also known as hermeneutics. If everyone kept to these principals there would be no divisions. But we have cults who twist scripture, take things out of context, spiritualize things when it should be or take things literally when they shouldn’t be."

American slaves viewed Exodus differently
then their slave holders. Hebrews before Christ interpreted
Passover differently than christians. Typically there
is more than one correct interpretation in some passages.

"However the only differences between the genuine Christian Churches are minor differences, not foundational doctrine."
In the early church few people could read and write. It
is hard to imagine them relying only on Scripture. So
they drew pictures of Mary and Jesus etc. Scripture
was important but a faith solely on Scripture was not
possible simply because most people could not read.
Topics such as Predestination, infant baptism, communion etc are important. Predestination attacks repentance.
Without baptism, they are not christians. Babies are circumsized
after 8 days and our convenant is much more important than the old
convenant.

"But praying to Mary who is not omnipresent is meaningless, she cannot hear you."
Of course she can. http://www.sancta.org/

"Does this sound like the Mary of the Bible who said, “and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior,” Luke 1:47 Ask yourself, why would Mary need a Savior? Because she was a sinner like you and I. But the Roman Church declares Mary to be sinless from birth."

Mary is the Queen of Heaven mentioned in Revelations.
She does all things *through* God. She cannot create
Heaven -- she thus needs a savior.



You asked, What books in the Catholic bible are apocrypha?
Reply: Wisdom of Solomon 30BC, Ecclesiasticus 132BC, Tobit 200 BC, Judith 150 BC, 1 and 2 Esdras 150-100 BC, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, Additions to Esther and more. Rome added apocrypha books as single book in the bible and added them to other books. Even though Jesus or the apostles NEVER quoted from them as they did of most of the OT

Apocrypha implies unattributed false writing but we know
the writers is most of these books. The book
of Enoch was quoted in Jude. That does not make the book of
Enoch canonical. Weren't all the books standardized at Nicea. It would Martin Luther who left out books.



Reply: Where in the bible is purgatory mentioned?

I've already mentioned where I think there is a case for
purgatory. Most of the interpretations did agree that Jesus
was the judge, the oponent God the father, and the prison being hell. But they did not go the one step further -- this was a
prison that you could get out of. I know that it's a little
bit unclear because the last penny could be the soul. The bible
doesn't talk about other important places such as where God
creates the soul. That does not mean nonexistance of that
place.

[nr]

You said, Everyone who goes to heaven must be baptize.
Reply: Was the guy next to Jesus on the cross able to get baptized? No. But he would be with Jesus in heaven. I do believe Christians should be baptized after they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Nowhere in the Bible are babies baptized. Another RCC tradition.

Jesus said that you must be born again of the spirit. The
Church also teaches baptism by blood. I should have said
strait into heaven. It is possible that a non-christian could go
to purgatory or they could be born again of the spirit after they die and then go into heaven. Certainly
baptism by water is the standard way.

[nr]

If you are wondering if this doctrine is taught in God's Word, it isn't. The Catechism admits that it is another church tradition:
"Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, 'full of grace' through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception." Pg. 123, #491

Mary is the only women or man greeted this way by the angle Gabriel.
Not Moses or any of the prophets are greeted this way.
Gabriel never commited any sin either. She was
filled with grace even unto comparison with him. We have no records
of where Mary died. We do know where John the Apostle died
and he was taking care of her. The Church and all early christian
documents teaches that she accended into heaven. If she was stained by original sin this would not be possible. She would have died just
as all human beings under the first curse die.
She can thus be considered the new Eve.

[robinbaitz]

Nr,

1. Is the Bible your soul authority?
2. Do you believe the Bible to be God's word?

If you do believe the bible is God's word then please elaborator on these passages,

"we have all sinned and fall short of God's glory" Rom 3:23
"there is none righteousness no not one..." Rom 3:10

Who does "all" imply? What do you think "none righteous" means?

Remember Adam passed along a sin nature to all humanity. However only Jesus was born miraculously, Joseph not being his biological father. So like scripture says, he was the second Adam. The first Adam brought death, but the second Adam (Jesus) brought life. Since the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) and all have sinned, which means to have transgressed the law (1 Jn 3:4) Mary is included it "all sinned" and "there is none righteous no not one".

Where in the Bible does it tell us Mary was born immaculately? Nowhere, it came from human tradition, not the Bible. That is why it flies in the face of the Bible. Is the bible wrong or is the traditions of men wrong? The immaculate conception doctrine of Rome came out when by the way? Sometime in the middle ages, right?

Robin

[nr]

"we have all sinned and fall short of God's glory" Rom 3:23
"there is none righteousness no not one..." Rom 3:10
Who does "all" imply? What do you think "none righteous" means?

All implies to himself and to all of the recipiants of the letter.
All doesn't imply the angles or all of God's creatures.



Where in the Bible does it tell us Mary was born immaculately? Nowhere, it came from human tradition, not the Bible. That is why it flies in the face of the Bible. Is the bible wrong or is the traditions of men wrong? The immaculate conception doctrine of Rome came out when by the way? Sometime in the middle ages, right?

As I said already. Mary did not die. Thus she
was never under the first curse of mankind.
Her blood nurished Jesus in the womb.
She must be held as pure.
The sheer number of visions of Mary support this.
The first Adam was from the virgin earth(not stained by the blood of
Abel). So should the second Adam.

1. Is the Bible your soul authority?
God is my first authority.
You can never treat a text as your sole authority.
For example, I would never use the bible
to build a computer etc. Other texts may be used
to gain historical perpective and human wisdom but this
should be shown through the light of Christ.

2. Do you believe the Bible to be God's word?
The parts that quote God are God's word. The
messages of faith are inspired the historical accounts
are just that -- historical accounts.

[robinbaitz]

NR,

This is why we are not seeing eye to eye and I agree to disagree here. I believe in God too, but how do you know God unless you trust in His word, and if you trust His word (Bible) then you would be trusting in the one it talks about, Jesus, God's Son.

Though there is no biblical support for Mary being sinless and not being under the curse, Adam/sin, why do you believe it?

Second, if you died today why would God allow you into His heaven?

Third do you consider yourself to be a good person?

Robin

[nr]

"This is why we are not seeing eye to eye and I agree to disagree here. I believe in God too, but how do you know God unless you trust in His word, and if you trust His word (Bible) then you would be trusting in the one it talks about, Jesus, God's Son."
God's word is not only in the Bible. Abstance of evidence is not abstance of existance.

"Though there is no biblical support for Mary being sinless and not being under the curse, Adam/sin, why do you believe it?"
There is historical support that Mary never died. The
early church believed that Mary never sinned.
God works in mysterious ways. He will
make your car skid off an enbankment, make you tow it
out scratchless, only to say to you follow my law and you
would go strait.

Second, if you died today why would God allow you into His heaven?
He would not.

Third do you consider yourself to be a good person?
Yes.

[ibnleroy]

This is just a BIT of information for those who believe the Bible is credible. The following quote is from Origin (185-254 CE), an early church father who established a school in Caesaria in 231 CE. He died seventy-one years before the canonization process of the current New Testament commenced:

"It is an obvious fact today that there is much diversity among the manuscripts, due either to the carelessness of the scribes, or the perverse audacity of some people correcting the text, OR AGAIN TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE THOSE WHO ADD OR DELETE AS THEY PLEASE, setting themselves up as correctors."

[nr]

Origen stayed a Christian though. There is
only two possibilites here
1. Origen is a total moron for accepting Christianity with
its totally corrupt books. Worse that would make
his own writing suspect.

2. There are minor copying errors and a few blatant errors in
the copies. They can be fixed by reading several copies.

[Ronnie]

Could there be a third possiblity that he remained an adherent to a different type or more correct type of Christianity? Something along the lines of what Arius believed. What do you think? I think there can be more than 2 possibilities, innumberable ones actually.

Best wishes

[nr]

I know that some of his beliefs were heresy but
he accepted the 4 gospels has athoritative.

[ibnleroy]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not considered "the 4 Gospels" until 325 CE, 71 years after Origin was dead and gone. You are right about one thing: he was POSTHUMOUSLY condemned as a heretic by the Roman Church in the 5th Century. If you study church history, you'll notice that anyone who believed differently from the Roman "authority" was declared a heretic. But how do you know this institution was authoritative? Because they said so? Please. Why is the early Roman Catholic Church worthy of trust when they have surely proven otherwise? How about flipping the script and condemning their beliefs as heresy? What if the Messianic Jews, the Gnostics, or any other group had wielded great sociopolitical power and crushed their opposition? Do you see where I'm going here? Just some food for thought.

[nr]

He was a heretic but that's beside the point.

"If you study church history, you'll notice that anyone who believed differently from the Roman "authority" was declared a heretic."
If the Pope had excuted Martin Luther we wouldn't have the
100 year wars, the wars between puritans and anglians, etc.
Religion was so entrenched in society that to have two oposing view points was deadly. It's wrong to make conclusions
based on two different erras. Certainly some of
the political decisions the church made were wrong but
I don't see any blatant faithwise mistakes.

"What if the Messianic Jews, the Gnostics, or any other group had wielded great sociopolitical power and crushed their opposition? "
God is with the Church. Why would God snuff out his own church?
I can quote bible passages supporting the church etc but I think
it's useless. You would rather go up against a mixmatch of beliefs
right?

[ibnleroy]

nr,

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like your posts always lack coherency. You also always seem to conveniently miss the point. Let me try to illustrate it one more time:

Let's say a bunch of rumors start about an alumnus of a college ten years after he graduated. Students at the college begin to record these rumors. After another ten years these records are collected by a fraternity and fixed to say whatever the members wish. After this arbitrary fixation, this huge mass of records is appropriated by the student government and "canonized" with some additional tampering. They also destroy the records of anyone who might have recorded something different than what they had decided upon as "true". If they didn't have the opportunity to destroy a different record, then the record is considered false. Later, they publish the rumors-turned-records, and claim that it is the true story of the alumnus. Who would you trust? And upon trusting them, how would you verify their credibility? Saying it's credible because many old copies exist is inadequate-the only reason the old copies are still around is because the powers that be preserved them. So you're left with the same question: why trust the student government when it is known that the records they put together were done so arbitrarily, on top of the fact that they had been doctored to fit the beliefs of the "authority"?

[ibnleroy]

If you put the elements that make up the New Testament in their correct chronological order, you can see how Christianity developed.
The Hellenized Jesus who was so ardently preached by the Hellenized Jew Paul (coincidence? yeah, right) is developed by the primitive story of Mark. This primitive gospel is developed significantly by Matthew and Luke. Then you have the even more sophisticated Gospel of John, with all of its "Word became flesh" doctrine and eloquent Greek monologues by Jesus. Finally you have a collection of legends about the apostles, which usurp the authority of the apostles to attack "heretical" Christians (read: Gnostics). Here is a rough timeline:

50 CE-The lettes of Paul: the Hellenized Jesus is further endorsed by a Hellenized Pharisee turned Christian. This view of Jesus was palatable to Gentile tastes (it mirrored their own theology) and alienated the original Messianic Jews.

70(?) CE-The Gospel of Mark: the mythological take on Jesus is applied to a historical narrative which barely incorporates the true teachings of his ministry

90-100(?) CE-The Gospels of Matt. and Luke: further detailed narratives that supplement Mark

120 CE-The Gospel of John: Christian theology is developed in classical Greek rhetoric

150(?) CE-Acts of the Apostles: created to account for Jesus' disciples and the church's infancy; is full of legendary elements

177-220 CE-Letters of the Apostles/Pastorals: letters attributed to Paul or other apostles are forged by the church in order to counter the "threat" of Gnosticism.

[nr]

"Maybe it's just me, but it seems like your posts always lack coherency. You also always seem to conveniently miss the point. Let me try to illustrate it one more time:"
I should be more clear. To attack the Church is to
attack God. Simply because we still have a Church we
can say the early heresys were false because if God
was with them they would have entered into the mainstream
Church. They are now long dead, so either Christianity
is totally false and God was never with the Church
or the Church is correct in its teachings. There is
no middle ground accepting Arius or Gnostic teachings.
It must be said that the Gnostics and Arius easily fit into Greek thought but Christianity came from the Jewish traditions. So why are you bringing up herecies that are obviously false? Have you actually read some of this garbage? We have the Apostatic tradition and the Holy Spirit as our advocate. Early christians such as Polycarp knew
John the apostle and all of them support the core teachings of the Church.

"177-220 CE-Letters of the Apostles/Pastorals: letters attributed to Paul or other apostles are forged by the church in order to counter the "threat" of Gnosticism."
Show me where. The only referance I can find is this one
http://www.friktech.com/rel/canon/ntcanon.htm

[ibnleroy]

nr,

The church did not come from Jewish traditions, it came from Hellenistic traditions. That goes for both Gnostics and Literalists. The early church was vehemently anti-Semitic, so saying they carried on Jewish traditions is ridiculous. It is a well known fact among Biblical exegetes that letters were forged, but don't take my word for it. The things I discovered about Christianity were discovered over a two and a half year period. I did my homework, and I suggest you do yours.

[nr]

"The things I discovered about Christianity were discovered over a two and a half year period. I did my homework, and I suggest you do yours."
I don't believe you. Produce the documents or take back what
you said. The early Church was not anti-semetic. Peter,
the first Pope, was a Jew. The early Church was against the Romans not Jews.

[ibnleroy]

nr, you are hilarious. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to take back anything. Visit a good library and you'll see all of the things I'm trying to tell you. Until you have adequate, OBJECTIVE knowledge of the beginnings of Christianity, I can't continue to discuss it with you.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all -

sorry for asking this in this way....

Why is it "critical" to accept the written text as the Word of God? Is it sufficient to be moved by the Holy Spirit?
(i suppose that this question could be addressed to all the various Holy Texts that are purported to be so).

If i say "the Bible, though inspired by God, was not written by Him" couldn't i still accept the teachings therein as valid?

It seems to me that scholars and the like use 'legitmacy' to assert that their reglious views are correct whilst refuting the views of others. discounting their religious texts and doctrines as "misguided" when being polite, to outright "blasphmey" to "win" converts to their view when being vindictive.

This seems to be a great mistake.

in my own tradition, the authors of various texts would "back date" or ascribe the text to a famous teacher that had long since died, attempting to lend legitmacy to thier own writings. this tactic works on a majority of the people for they are easily led astray.

i have to believe that if a person is a Christian, Muslim, Jew or Hindu they are motivated by the desire to fulfill God's Will and help the rest of humanity in whichever manner is most appropriate for their religion and culture. quite often humans fail to live to these standards however that does not invalidate the standard in and of itself.

on a personal note... i must say, it's a bit disconcerting to see so many personal attacks on this forum. let's try to elevate the debate and leave the acrimony aside :)

[Ronnie]

Vajradhara,

You write:

"on a personal note... i must say, it's a bit disconcerting to see so many personal attacks on this forum. let's try to elevate the debate and leave the acrimony aside :)"

Well sometimes they get heated but I assure that many of us feel like family here. We get on each other's nerves but in the end everyone is quite amicable. I do share your sense of always maintaining an elevated debated going, but every once in a while tempers flare a little. I don't think anyone's ever gotten malicious though.

Take care

[nr]

"If i say "the Bible, though inspired by God, was not written by Him" couldn't i still accept the teachings therein as valid?"
God did not directly write the bible, but just as He lets
Adam name the animals, He directed man to write Holy Scripture.
You have to decide if the teachings are valid.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste nr,

thank you for your response.

you wrote:

"God did not directly write the bible, but just as He lets
Adam name the animals, He directed man to write Holy Scripture.
You have to decide if the teachings are valid."


i absolutely agree with you, you must test each teaching to determine if it's valid or not... and even therein, you must determine teachings that do not require interpetation and those that do. some teachings are able to be proved with our own senses and abilities, these teachings do not require interpetation. some teachings are beyond our senses and as such need to be interpeted to understand their proper meaning.

however, i'm asking if it's possible to accept the validity of the teachings of the Bible (or the Qur'an for that matter) without accepting the Divine Inspiration authorship?

suppose i am able to prove to myself the validity of the teachings and thus accept them but i cannot accept the writings as being infalable?

though this is addressed to nr, anyone else who can help clarify my understanding please help :)

~regards~

[Ronnie]

Maybe I'm not understanding you quite correctly but you wrote:

"however, i'm asking if it's possible to accept the validity of the teachings of the Bible (or the Qur'an for that matter) without accepting the Divine Inspiration authorship?"

Although, what you say makes sense, at least the way I'm understanding it, however in terms of the Qur'an it's a little different. For instance, the Qur'an speaks of itself as the Book of God. So in accepting its validity of its teachings would that include such a statement?

Regards

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Ronnie,

you write:

"Although, what you say makes sense, at least the way I'm understanding it, however in terms of the Qur'an it's a little different. For instance, the Qur'an speaks of itself as the Book of God. So in accepting its validity of its teachings would that include such a statement?"

that's a very good question and i'll have to give it more thought.

can i infer from your statment that Islam teaches the Divine Inspiriation of the Qur'an? i note that the Bible says the same of itself and so does the Bhagavad-vita for that matter.

hmm... perhaps a better question would be.. is it possible to accept all of the Teachings except one and still be considered a "believer" (sorry.. that's a bit of odd wording there)? is it possible within the Islamic paradigm to accept some of the teachings and not others and still be considered a believer?

~regards~

[nr]

"however, i'm asking if it's possible to accept the validity of the teachings of the Bible (or the Qur'an for that matter) without accepting the Divine Inspiration authorship?"
Well you could accept only the moral code, but then
you are more likely to break it because there is nothing
backing up it.

"i absolutely agree with you, you must test each teaching to determine if it's valid or not"
You must be carefull though. Our God said to the Israelites through Isaiah, "Let us rationalize together". So we must ask for God's help. Some people try to read by putting the paper so close to
their eyes that they cannot see. So we have to take a step back
sometimes.

"suppose i am able to prove to myself the validity of the teachings and thus accept them but i cannot accept the writings as being infalable?"
We accept the bible theologically infalliable
but not always historically accurate. No body thinks
that their 1000 page history book is completly accurate
either. Right now I'm reading using the "New American Bible St.Joseph" and its pretty fair to history. This is the preface to
The First Letter of Timothy,

"From the late second century to the nineteenth, Pauline authorship of the three Pastoral Epistles went unchallenged. Since then, the attribution of these letters to Paul has been questioned. Most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the theological expressions found in these letters. A second group believes, on the basis of statistical evidence, that the vocabulary and style are Pauline, even if at first sight the contrary seems to be the case. They state that the concept of church organization in the letters is not as advanced as the questioners of Pauline authorship hold since the notion of hierarchical order in a religious community existed in Israel before the time of Christ, as evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Finally, this group sees affinities between the theological thought of the Pastorals and that of the unquestionably genuine letters of Paul. Other scholars, while conceding a degree of validity to the positions mentioned above, suggest that the apostle made use of a secretary who was responsible for the composition of the letters. A fourth group of scholars believes that these letters are the work of a compiler, that they are based on traditions about Paul in his later years, and that they include, in varying amounts, actual fragments of genuine Pauline correspondence.

If Paul is considered the more immediate author, the Pastorals are to be dated between the end of his first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:16) and his execution under Nero (A.D. 63-67); if they are regarded as only more remotely Pauline, their date may be as late as the early second century. In spite of these problems of authorship and dating, the Pastorals are illustrative of early Christian life and remain an important element of canonical scripture."

[Ronnie]

Vajradhara,

You write:

"can i infer from your statment that Islam teaches the Divine Inspiriation of the Qur'an? i note that the Bible says the same of itself and so does the Bhagavad-vita for that matter."

Actually, there's a difference in the Bible transmission and the Qur'anic one. So I would have to say no. The Qur'an is not inspired. For example the writers of the Bible were inspired to write things, but they used there own words, style of writing etc...That's my understanding of the inspiration, I welcome our Christian friends to correct me if I'm wrong. The Qur'an differs in that it is the actual Revealed Word of God. That's what I was referring to when I said it speaks of itself as such.

You write:

"hmm... perhaps a better question would be.. is it possible to accept all of the Teachings except one and still be considered a "believer" (sorry.. that's a bit of odd wording there)? is it possible within the Islamic paradigm to accept some of the teachings and not others and still be considered a believer?"

To my knowledge no. You either take the Qur'an as the actual Word of God or not. That is part of being a Muslim, a believer. It would be difficult to reject one part of what one considers to be God's Word, that's basically rejecting God's will.

Regards

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Ronnie,

thank you for your response.

you write:

"The Qur'an differs in that it is the actual Revealed Word of God. That's what I was referring to when I said it speaks of itself as such."

ah.. yes, this is getting to it i believe :)

can you explain, in a way that a simple person such as i can understand, what the relevance of "Revealed Word of God" has? what i mean to be asking is how is the "authorship" (if that's the right usage) of the Qur'an different than, say, the Bhagvad-vita? hmm.. that's probably not a good comparision but it may have to do for now.

it's been awhile since i've read the Qur'an, so pardon me if my information is slightly mistaken or downright incorrect :)

if a book says that it's the Word of God, does the fact that it proclaims itself so, make it so? if not, what does, in fact, indicate that a book is the Word of God? (there's a subquestion here that probably needs to be asked to facilitate my understanding.. is there a difference between the Revealed Word of God and the Manifest Word of God?)

this may not be a question that can be answered without resorting to quoting Scripture (the text in the Qur'an is called something else though, isn't it? Surrah? nevertheless, for ease of communication i shall stick with my standard convention through the remainder of this post) however, if i may be totally frank for a moment... quoting Scripture will not be a very strong or persuasive argument :) there are, as we all know, many sources of "divine" work that can be quoted to refute anothers point of view. doing so does not, usually, lead to any type of understanding of the others' view.. and that is my whole purpose :)

~regards~

[Ronnie]

Hello again,

This is like chatting with a delay... :)

You write:

"can you explain, in a way that a simple person such as i can understand, what the relevance of "Revealed Word of God" has? what i mean to be asking is how is the "authorship" (if that's the right usage) of the Qur'an different than, say, the Bhagvad-vita? hmm.."

You're not simple...you're quite savvy, especially with the questions you've just posed.

I don't know who wrote the Bhagvad-vita, I can honestly say I've read very little of it. However, I guess the answer would be if the author is God to one of them and not the other then I think we can easily see the difference.

You write:

"if a book says that it's the Word of God, does the fact that it proclaims itself so, make it so? if not, what does, in fact, indicate that a book is the Word of God?"

No. I don't think I implied that. I only stated that that's what it stated in the context of the reference we were discussing. Ah, what indicates that a book is the word of God is a long and tedious process of search, openness and understanding. Research is important. One thing is finding fault in it takes it out of contention but this takes a lot of study. The question almost asks to prove God's existence, don't you think?

Don't worry I won't quote scripture unless we are actually discussing scripture. Otherwise that would be a fallacy of begging the question and I don't do that to others because I can't stand when it's done to me.

Regards

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Ronnie,

yes, it is like delayed chat :) i am fortunate to work in a place that affords me internet access during the day :)

you write:
"Ah, what indicates that a book is the word of God is a long and tedious process of search, openness and understanding. Research is important. One thing is finding fault in it takes it out of contention but this takes a lot of study. The question almost asks to prove God's existence, don't you think?"

i reply:

yes, i can see how that could be asking that question.. of course, in my view, that implies that the Text is God in some sense. in my view, this is not consistent with my understanding, albeit limited, of God. perhaps i've mistaken this aspect, if so, my apologies :)

i'm not sure that i understand your meaning when you say "finding fault in it takes it out of contention.." are you saying that, if a book can be found to have internal inconsistencies, that in and of itself, is proof that it is not the Revealed Word of God?

~regards~

[Vajradhara]

Namaste nr,

thank you for the response :)

(it gets a bit confusing with multiple posts)

i said:
"however, i'm asking if it's possible to accept the validity of the teachings of the Bible (or the Qur'an for that matter) without accepting the Divine Inspiration authorship?"

you replied:

Well you could accept only the moral code, but then
you are more likely to break it because there is nothing
backing up it.

i respond:

hmm.. to a certain extent i agree with you. without a higher moral authority it is difficult to conduct oneself with moral behavior, though not impossible.

i said:

"i absolutely agree with you, you must test each teaching to determine if it's valid or not"

you replied:

You must be carefull though. Our God said to the Israelites through Isaiah, "Let us rationalize together". So we must ask for God's help. Some people try to read by putting the paper so close to
their eyes that they cannot see. So we have to take a step back
sometimes.

i say:

this is very interesting to me.. let us rationalize together. in which manner is it that a person should "rationalize" with God? from my limited knowledge of such things, the human mentality is overwhelmed by the Majesty of God and stands awestuck by His Glory. if this is so, the capacity to "rationalize" at least in every human sense is obliterated into a shining "oneness" with God, as God is the only Being that can Comprehend God. (that was very poor wording but it's difficult at times to get the phrases correct).

i ask:

"suppose i am able to prove to myself the validity of the teachings and thus accept them but i cannot accept the writings as being infalable?"

you said:

We accept the bible theologically infalliable
but not always historically accurate. No body thinks
that their 1000 page history book is completly accurate
either. Right now I'm reading using the "New American Bible St.Joseph" and its pretty fair to history. This is the preface to
The First Letter of Timothy, /snip/

i ask:

there are some Christian sects that believe the actual words are the Word of God, infallable, as it were to the written text, so i presume that you are not one of them.

perhaps i shall restate my question..

if i can accept the teaching's of Jesus as 100% complete, whole and valid but not accept the Bible as being "infallable" in any sense, does that mean that i could not be a Christian?

if i can accept the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) however i cannot accept the Qur'an as the Revealed Word of God, i would not be able to be a Muslim, is that correct? for the Prophet (PBUH) taught the Qur'an as the Revealed Word of God, is that correct?

~regards~

[Ronnie]

Salam Vajradhara,

You write:

"yes, i can see how that could be asking that question.. of course, in my view, that implies that the Text is God in some sense. in my view, this is not consistent with my understanding, albeit limited, of God. perhaps i've mistaken this aspect, if so, my apologies :)"

Don't apologies, we're all learning here. God being the text is not at all what I was trying to say. Investigating religion leads you to various paths. Before anyone gets to the question if a book is the Word of God or not they have to try to figure out if they believe God exists or not. After figuring out that massive task then they move into other things. Little by little beliefs develop. For instance, excuse my ignorance, but I'm not quite sure if you believe in God (my Buddhist teacher did not). I hope I haven't offended you. But also how is it that you came to believing that Buddhism was the way you wanted to "travel" in your life. What was it that captured you? What makes you believe what you believe? Do you see where I'm going with this? Anyway, it's most definetly an enormous investigative process.

You write:

"i'm not sure that i understand your meaning when you say "finding fault in it takes it out of contention.." are you saying that, if a book can be found to have internal inconsistencies, that in and of itself, is proof that it is not the Revealed Word of God?"

I only used that to simplify the concept. Yet, it's really deep. There are paradoxes, I would agree, however, anything that goes against its very nature cannot be from God. To take that Biblical verse: "God is not the Author of confusion." So to simplify things yes, if it contradicts itself, especially in guidance then I cannot imagine it being from God. One would have to ask themselves that if God sent to humanity "Guidance" to remind them of what He instilled in them inherently (conscience) then why would He say one thing and contradict it somewhere else. That's like you asking me for directions to a particular location and while I'm giving it to you the first time I say go right and later to make sure you got them I say go left. Keep in mind both don't lead to the same place. That would be terrible. So in that sense of, especially, Guidance I see no possiblity of contradiction attributed to God.

Regards

Edited by - Ronnie on 05/01/2003 22:05:17

[armiyya]

V (sorry, forgot how to spell your name),

It is recorded that the prophet (solla allahu alaihi wassalam, would be siezed by a revelationary episode, and sweat would pop out of him. Aparantly, he felt pressed on all sides, under considerable physical pressure. After the mode passed, he would recite what had been conveyed to him, and people would write it down (on whatever scraps of writing material they happened to have with them).

Every Ramadan, he was visited by the Angel Gibreel, to whom he would recite the portion of Qur'an already revealed to check his recitation and wording. In his final year (5 months before he died) he went over the Qur'an with the Angel Gibreel twice during the Ramadan period. Literally, God checked his prophet's wording and pronunciation through his holy spirit, Gibreel.

This has not been recorded as the way the scriptures of the Jews and Christians were recorded, although (apparently) Chronicles and Deuteronomy were actually written and recited by Uzair, and the Torah was inscribed by Allah himself on Tablets, but Moses smashed them to smitherenes when he found his people had turned Mushrik during the 40 days he was away.

So that lot had to be reproduced by fallible man. The Qur'an - direct from the lips of the prophet after revelation and checked by him 24 times (in 23 years) as a whole.

Armiyya

[Vajradhara]

Namaste and Salam Ronnie and armiyya,

thank you both for your responses.

armiyya, that is exactly the sort of information that i was seeking, i simply do not covey my meanings clearly on occassion :)

Ronnie, no offense whatsoever, i'm happy to discuss my views with those are are genuine :)

it's actually a bit of a long story on how i ended up at the point in life where i was making a choice.. nevetheless, actually the thing is, it's quite a simple question that i was not able to answer that lead me to accept the Buddha's teachings. the question is, where is the "self" that you speak of? where is the mind that "thinks"?

i've investigated in every manner possible from scientific theories and theological doctrine to the assertions of the worlds great mystical traditions, and in no place was the self to be found. only one path held the answer to that question, and that path is Buddhism.

now, i feel it necessary to say that by no means should my post be construed to mean that i'm advocating that anyone abandon their religion and become a Buddhist. far from it! i would encourage every being on the planet to engage in some form of spiritual practice, in whichever modality is proper for them.

in reference to your question do i believe in God, well fortunately for me the answer is yes :) actually the concept of God is not outside the realm of Buddhist though, of course, there are schools that will not share this same view.

in the Buddhist tradition that i practice there is a concept of the Primordial Buddha. without getting into a great deal of Buddhist theological detail, the Universe, as it is, exists due to the Primordial Buddha manifesting it. in essence, each being, each thing is an emmanation of the Primordial Buddha throughout the fabric of the space-time continuum. this is, in some sense the essence of what, in my view, is termed the Holy Spirit (the "willing" into existence of the Universe and all things within).

when we speak of "the" Buddha, we are referring to this epochs Historical Buddha (though there have been three before him :)) his name is Guatama Shakyamuni. the next Buddha will be Maitreya, the Buddha of Peace and Loving-kindness. the term "buddha" actually means "awake" :)

~regards~

[nr]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm
Usually when I use the Word of God, I mean
the bread of life: Jesus. Some Christians might
mean this, especially Catholics.

"hmm.. to a certain extent i agree with you. without a higher moral authority it is difficult to conduct oneself with moral behavior, though not impossible."
Most deliberate sin is caused by lack of faith or presuming
God's forgiveness before commiting it.

""this is very interesting to me.. let us rationalize together. in which manner is it that a person should "rationalize" with God? from my limited knowledge of such things, the human mentality is overwhelmed by the Majesty of God and stands awestuck by His Glory. if this is so, the capacity to "rationalize" at least in every human sense is obliterated into a shining "oneness" with God, as God is the only Being that can Comprehend God. (that was very poor wording but it's difficult at times to get the phrases correct).""
God allows us to partake in this glory. When Jesus says "only the son knows the father and only the father knows the son", he means that
all knowledge about God is given to us by God. It is a gift
that we have to say yes to. You can read Job and call out to God with all the reasons you cannot be convinced of him now in the modern age. Also, make sure that you don't try to test God. Just follow what Jesus says by feeding the poor and the helpless, and then find him in your heart. Once seed of faith has been planted, even if it's
in the sea, you should pray for more faith in God. Don't forget
Mary! Just her voice was able to go through the womb of Elizabeth.
Our hearts leap up to Jesus.

"Read, to be love.
Write, to send love.
See, to be in Love.
Hear love echo in a bottle at sea."

[Vajradhara]

Namaste nr,

thank you for your response :)

you write:

"When Jesus says "only the son knows the father and only the father knows the son", he means that all knowledge about God is given to us by God"

i respond:

i do not take it to mean that at all. nowhere does this phrase indicate that someone other than the Son and the Father understand each other. however, this is simply a theological difference in interpetation, in my opinion.

there is, however, a question still pending.

~regards~

[nr]

"there are some Christian sects that believe the actual words are the Word of God, infallable, as it were to the written text, so i presume that you are not one of them.

perhaps i shall restate my question..

if i can accept the teaching's of Jesus as 100% complete, whole and valid but not accept the Bible as being "infallable" in any sense, does that mean that i could not be a Christian?"

Yesterday I had this protestant teacher say that
I have 1000 demons in me because I rejected his interpretation
of "love thy nieghbor like thyself. So we cannot claim
that our interpretation is infalliable. Of course there are places where the authors use rounding of size of troops and we find some contradictions. Relevation itself use numbers figuatively and
they do not imply actual values. The bible clearly doesn't present the full life of Jesus nor his public life in the 2000 years after. But by drawing on the bible and life itself we can know and love God. Our faith teaches that theologically it is infallable but that begs the question "Is my own intepretation infallible." Now you are a Christian only when you are baptized and accept Christ in the Church, despite some whom say elsewise. Most Christians could not read or write, but accepted the Apostle's teaching. What verses are
you having trouble with?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste nr,

thank you for your post.

actually, i'm not having trouble with any verse in particular :)

it's the acceptance of "theologically infallible" that is where i get stuck. i've done a fair amount of studying of Christian and Pre-Christian writing and so forth, so i hope we can dispense with the very basic academic arguments.

perhaps, to my detriment, i cannot accept that the codification of the Bible as it is today was made by people that were "under the influence of God" (yikes, that's poor wording!) as i'm much to aware of the politcal motivations for codifying it.

one of the things that i find most interesting is that, by and large, the texts that were composed by the Apostles are not included in the Bible, by and large, it is Pauline Christianity that is represented. i hope that we can agree that before Pauline Christianity, there was, in fact another form.

~regards~

[nr]

Usually its the wrong interpretation of what Paul says. Peter
accepted the gospel of Paul with the reservation that it was
difficult to understand. Really Paul was a Pharisee and it shows somewhat in his writing. We have to base any interpretation on where the letters were written to. The ideas of Paul's
gospel could be developed from any of the four gospels and the OT.
Most of it is comentary on the events of Jesus along with the old testament.

"one of the things that i find most interesting is that, by and large, the texts that were composed by the Apostles are not included in the Bible"
What texts were composed by the Apostles and are not in the bible?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste nr,

thank you for the post.

i agree, Pauline epistles are markedly different than say Nestorian Christian tradition, for example.

off hand, the only one that i can think of is James.

i'm curious what your take of the Nag Hamadi Library is and what it's impact on contempary Christianity will be?

~regards~

[nr]

"off hand, the only one that i can think of is James."
I accept the gospel of John, the letters of John and relevation
to be written by John. I also accept that Peter 1 and 2 were
written by his secretary under his guidance. I don't really
care who they were written by. If the message
resounds in your heart, then it was written through God.
What was not written through God, was written by Satan. God
will not base judgement on your knowledge of historical facts.

My actually beliefs are
1. The body of Christ is fully present in the Eucharist.
2. Love your God with all your heart, mind and soul
3. Love your neighbor as yourself.

The rest flow from these 3.

[nr]

The only gnostic gospels that I've read
are the gospel of Thomas, which I concluded was trash,
and the book of Enoch.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste nr,

no worries :) if you have the opportunity to read the Gnostic Gospels, i'd encourage you to do so with an open mind.

what's your opinion, if you have one, on Christian meditation? specifically the tradition of the Desert Fathers?

~regards~

[nr]

I don't think that there is any case for the gnostic
gospels being correct. They talk alot about knowlege
without saying what kind of knowlege. I do not think
that it comes from the Jewish tradition where Adam sinned
by eating from the fruit of knowledge. For example there is the Jewish tradition that true wisdom is given to us by God, to the prophets and Solomon. I'm inclined to think
that Gnosticism is more of an out growth of Greek thought and mysticism than any of the Pauline gospels are. There might
be some truth in it. I don't completely reject all aspects
of stoicism or sophicles, but I never have had the ambition to read that kind of stuft.

When I was like 12 years old, I began reading the bible and
yoga, at the same time. When you begin listening
to your inner self you must be prepared to fight
voices that might not be your own. I don't want
to sound like a blithering idiot, but some yoga sects strive to
seperate the spirit from the body. Meditation also
depends on what your meditating on. For example I try or should be
meditating on the 15 mysteries of the rosary.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste nr,

thank you for your post.

i disagree with your assessment, they do specify what type of knowledge they are referring to when the term "gnosis" is used. no matter though :)

Meditating is a wonderful practice that is devoid of religious connotation, it can easily be practiced by all religions. a very good Christian meditation is to use the mantra of Maranatha, an Amerimaic (pardon my poor spelling) word that means something to the effect of "Come Lord Jesus" and is probably one of the oldest Christian prayers known. a very good site that you can visit, should you choose, is The World Community for Christian Meditation located here: http://www.wccm.org/

as for the voices, well my friend, i cannot say too much on this. suffice it to say that with proper technique the "inner dialog" ceases and you can attain, as much as possible, to Him that is hidden in Darkness.

~compassionately~

[armiyya]

Nr,
What about the biggest Gnostic Gospel of All (The Gospel of John). Is that "trash" too. I'd be interested in your opinion.

Armiyya

[nr]

The Gospel of John is my favorite gospel. When
I say the Gospel of Thomas is trash, I really mean trash.
I don't call the Qur'an trash.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
"He said, "They are like little children living in a field that is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, 'Give us back our field.' They take off their clothes in front of them in order to give it back to them, and they return their field to them."
Can you explain the hidden knowledge in this?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste nr,

here's the whole relevant portion of text {as an aside, it would really be helpful to cite the entire text in the future}:

21. Mary said to Jesus, "What are your disciples like?"

He said, "They are like little children living in a field that is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, 'Give us back our field.' They take off their clothes in front of them in order to give it back to them, and they return their field to them.

For this reason I say, if the owners of a house know that a thief is coming, they will be on guard before the thief arrives and will not let the thief break into their house (their domain) and steal their possessions.

As for you, then, be on guard against the world. Prepare yourselves with great strength, so the robbers can't find a way to get to you, for the trouble you expect will come.

Let there be among you a person who understands.

When the crop ripened, he came quickly carrying a sickle and harvested it. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!"

it should be evident now, what the intent of this passage was.

~compassionately~

[Ronnie]

I do not mean to be offensive in any way. NR, it would probably benefit us all if we refrain from calling any scripture trash. I honestly, know not just believe, that Armiyya was not calling the Bible trash. So I hope there's no misunderstanding. Varjadhara, thank you for clarifying the issue. I think we tend, as people, try to judge something we misunderstand. There's a lot in the Bible that over the years I've questioned. Certain wordings, certain phrases etc... Some I've cleared up others I haven't.

For example:

Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled. (Ezekiel 23:19-21)

Now I understand the lesson here, but the graphic use of the language? Why would God inspire words that discuss the size of a man's genitalea and compare it to donkeys? Why would God inspire words that talks about the amount of ejaculation (sperm) and compare it to horses?

Let us not jump to conclusions and let us understand.

Regards

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Ronnie:

thank you for your post.

i concurr with you, the language is most remarkable.


More than any other prophet, Ezekiel graphically portrays the perversity and effrontery of apostasy. Here, too, the fall of the temple is before him, since it is the gravity of Israel's sin that explains how God could have allowed the temple to fall.

In chapter 23 using the most graphic sexual imagery found anywhere in the Bible, Ezekiel set out the parable of the sisters Oholah and Oholibah. Oholah, he tells us, represents Samaria just as Oholibah represents Jerusalem. Oholah first turned away from Yahweh, her true husband, and "lusted after" Assyria and Egypt. In response to her adultery, Yahweh turned her over to the viciousness of the Assyrians (23:5-10); in other words, God allowed Assyria to destroy Samaria.

Oholibah learned nothing from her sister's experience but instead behaved even worse. She committed adultery with the Assyrians, the Egyptians, and the Babylonians out of a lust for their glory and strength. As a result, she too was doomed (23:11-49).

The almost pornographic character of this parable serves several purposes. First, it vividly displays apostasy as an act as disgraceful and brazen as adultery. Second, it brings out the character of Israel's apostasy. When the Jews allowed themselves to be awestruck by the power of the great nations and sought alliances with them, they were in effect turning their back on God in the way a wayward wife might abandon her husband for a rich and handsome paramour. In addition, alliances with these nations inevitably drew Israel into the worship of their gods (23:30). Third, the parable illustrates the folly of Jerusalem, in that its people did not learn the lessons vividly acted out before them in the destruction of Samaria. Guilty of such outrageous behavior, the people hardly had a right to be surprised when they saw judgment bearing down on their city and temple.

i hope that provides some avenue of concordance :)

~compassionately~

[Ronnie]

Thank you so much. Truly, your understanding is enlightening. However, I clearly see the "moral" lesson within the passages but what I find objectionable is the terminology. It may strike me as powerful wording as an adult but I read these words as a child. Now, you can see the difficulty in a child trying to appreciate the concept of comparing men's genitals and sperm to donkeys and horses. Regardless, I thank you very much for your efforts. You are truly a person of balance and I do appreciate you.

Thank you and regards

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Ronnie,

thank you for your kind words however i am nothing more than a bug :) a balanced bug, but a bug nonetheless :)

it's hard to count all the various tranlastion editions of the Bible that there are, however, it should be noted that by and large, though the gist of the words is the same, the exact wording is a bit different in the other translations. i suspect you were looking at the NIV translation which, by and large, i prefer as well.

i think it's important to keep in mind whom this text was written for and when it was composed. at that time in history, children, for the most part, did not read nor were they ever expected to do so unless they happened to have been born in a well off family or were going into the priesthood.

it's difficult for us to read ancient texts with our modern eyes and views without subtly judging the texts based on our own beliefs. one of the ways that i've found that helps me are things like this discussion board where i can get the opinions of several people on what the words actually equate to in everyday life.

~compassonately~

[armiyya]

Assalam alaykum, Ronnie and Nr,
You are right. I do not call any 'scripture' trash, mand was not calling John 'trash'. Remarkably, John contains many of the ideas that the injeel referred to in the Qur'an is said to teach, even if not completely explicit. The prophesy of a prophet to come in the passages concerning the paraclete jumps to mind, but also the 43 references he makes to be sent by God and Acting and Speaking only what God wills.

However, on the topic of graphic sexuality in the Bible, have you seen the 8 chapters of Solomon?

It starts off raunchilly, a maiden celebrating King Solomon's .... what?

Sgs 1:1-4 The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's.
O that you would kiss me with the kisses of your mouth! For your love is better than wine, your anointing oils are fragrant, your name is oil poured out; therefore the maidens love you.
Draw me after you, let us make haste. The king has brought me into his chambers. We will exult and rejoice in you; we will extol your love more than wine; rightly do they love you.

What does she brazenly suggest?

Sgs 3:1-4 Upon my bed by night I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him, but found him not; I called him, but he gave no answer.
"I will rise now and go about the city, in the streets and in the squares; I will seek him whom my soul loves." I sought him, but found him not.
The watchmen found me, as they went about in the city. "Have you seen him whom my soul loves?"
Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loves. I held him, and would not let him go until I had brought him into my mother's house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.

And what relationship does the King have to this object of desire?

Songs 4
You have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride, you have ravished my heart with a glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace. How sweet is your love, my sister, my bride! how much better is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your oils than any spice! Your lips distil nectar, my bride; honey and milk are under your tongue; the scent of your garments is like the scent of Lebanon. A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed.

Have we got the wrong idea? The next chapter clears it up.

Sgs 5 I come to my garden, my sister, my bride, I gather my myrrh with my spice, I eat my honeycomb with my honey, I drink my wine with my milk. Eat, O friends, and drink: drink deeply, O lovers!

I slept, but my heart was awake. Hark! my beloved is knocking. "Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my perfect one; for my head is wet with dew, my locks with the drops of the night."
I had put off my garment, how could I put it on? I had bathed my feet, how could I soil them?
My beloved put his hand to the latch, and my heart was thrilled within me.

The dialogue:

Songs 7: Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a master hand.
Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine. Your belly is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are pools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bath-rab'bim. Your nose is like a tower of Lebanon, overlooking Damascus. Your head crowns you like Carmel, and your flowing locks are like purple; a king is held captive in the tresses.
How fair and pleasant you are, O loved one, delectable maiden! You are stately as a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches. Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the scent of your breath like apples, and your kisses like the best wine that goes down smoothly, gliding over lips and teeth.

I am my beloved's, and his desire is for me.
Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the fields, and lodge in the villages; let us go out early to the vineyards, and see whether the vines have budded, whether the grape blossoms have opened and the pomegranates are in bloom. There I will give you my love.

What do you make of all that? The inerrant word of God. Or some addition to the "Scripture".

[nr]

"Sgs 3:1-4 Upon my bed by night I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him, but found him not; I called him, but he gave no answer.
"I will rise now and go about the city, in the streets and in the squares; I will seek him whom my soul loves." I sought him, but found him not.
The watchmen found me, as they went about in the city. "Have you seen him whom my soul loves?"
Scarcely had I passed them, when I found him whom my soul loves. I held him, and would not let him go until I had brought him into my mother's house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me."
You have read the psalm by David. "meditate on the word of God in your bed."

"I slept, but my heart was awake. Hark! my beloved is knocking. "Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my perfect one; for my head is wet with dew, my locks with the drops of the night."
I had put off my garment, how could I put it on? I had bathed my feet, how could I soil them?
My beloved put his hand to the latch, and my heart was thrilled within me."
Read the section where the dove is caught between
the crevices and where Moses hides between the crevice from God.
Read how Jesus bathed the feet of his disciples. Jesus
knocks on our doors.

":Sgs 5 I come to my garden, my sister, my bride, I gather my myrrh with my spice, I eat my honeycomb with my honey, I drink my wine with my milk. Eat, O friends, and drink: drink deeply, O lovers!"
Haven't you read of of the land of milk and honey. Wine
here represents the blood of Jesus.

Songs 7: Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a master hand.
Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine. Your belly is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are pools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bath-rab'bim. Your nose is like a tower of Lebanon, overlooking Damascus. Your head crowns you like Carmel, and your flowing locks are like purple; a king is held captive in the tresses.
How fair and pleasant you are, O loved one, delectable maiden! You are stately as a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches. Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the scent of your breath like apples, and your kisses like the best wine that goes down smoothly, gliding over lips and teeth."
This is similar to an egyptian poem. I won't try to find
it but the line "a king is held captive in the tresses" and
comparisons of female body parts are similar. This also could
be a references here to palm sunday. Jesus too was kissed.



I do not find gnostic or Ezekiel's language
to be abusive or offensive.
I was just using this quote to show the general confusion that I
have with the Gospel of "Thomas". Remember this is supposed
to be a learned Jew.

"7. Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
Transformation was not Jewish idea.

"114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
So females have to transform into males?

"Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away."
A heaven above heaven?

"The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"
Completely nonsensical.

"12. The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.""
So James is God?

"14. Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits."
Completely contradicts every orthodox Christian.

"27. "If you do not fast from the world, you will not find the (Father's) kingdom. If you do not observe the sabbath as a sabbath you will not see the Father."
Contradicts above.