|
The Holy Gospel did not evolve! |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 45678 74> |
| Author | |||
Jack Catholic 
Senior Member 
Male Joined: 24 March 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 369 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 25 April 2011 at 11:31pm |
||
|
So, my brothers and sisters,
Since there is no solid evdience that the Holy Bible evolved over time, we all have to admit clearly that the Holy Bible did not evolve over time.
God Bless,
Jack Catholic
|
|||
 |
|||
|
semar
Senior Member 
Male Islam Joined: 11 March 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1830 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 April 2011 at 10:59pm |
||
|
I think the other way around, there is no solid evidence that the bible did not evolve. The argument that you present so weak, did not make sense, contradict with human instinct.
The divinity of Jesus (Jesus son of God) and the trinity concept (if this is true) is too important to be missed in early Bible, because this the most essential (the sametime also controversial) teaching of Christianity. Edited by semar - 26 April 2011 at 11:07pm |
|||
|
Salam/Peace,
Semar "We are people who do not eat until we are hungry and do not eat to our fill." (Prophet Muhammad PBUH) "1/3 of your stomach for food, 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air" |
|||
|
|||
|
Ron Webb
Senior Member 
Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 April 2011 at 4:37am |
||
|
I asked why Matthew omitted any mention of the virgin birth. Your reply (in part) was that each Gospel writer reported what he felt was important. Doesn't that imply that Matthew didn't think the virgin birth was important? You then changed your argument, suggesting that Matthew omitted it because it was already well-known. But that doesn't work either, because the crucifixion was if anything even better-known, and yet he reported that. Care to try again?
|
|||
|
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jack Catholic
Senior Member
Male Joined: 24 March 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 369 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 April 2011 at 6:14am |
||
|
Dear Semar and Ron Webb, You wrote, �I think the other way around, there is no solid evidence that the bible did not evolve. The argument that you present so weak, did not make sense, contradict with human instinct. The divinity of Jesus (Jesus son of God) and the trinity concept (if this is true) is too important to be missed in early Bible, because this the most essential (the sametime also controversial) teaching of Christianity.� In this post, I did not challenge anyone to prove that the bible did not evlove, but rather to prove that it did. Nobody has been able to do that. I did not present an argument, but rather an explanation that is historical fact. Just because you say the explanation appears weak to you does not necessarily make it a weak explanation. I�ll refer you to a websight not written to prove anything, but yet which does give a great analysis and plenty of information with will verify that my explanation is not my own personal modern interpretation of the Holy Bible. Maybe if you are interested, you might read it: http://www.domini.org/tabern/gospel.htm In reference to Matthew omitting the virgin birth, I�ve already stated that he did not omitt anything. Rather, his simply wrote down what he felt was the necessary message for his audience, which was located in Jerusalem, not Rome, or Egypt (during the time of the Gnostic controversy many decades later when John wrote his). When you suggest that some writers omitted things because they were not believed at the time of the writing, or that I am changing my arguments, or whatever, you are grasping desperately to defend the biblical evolvement argument. I say desperately because if you truly knew your history of the Roman world during that first century of Christianity, the civil makeup of the various cities of the Roman World, and the Spread of Christianity, you would see clearly that my explanation is clearly what happened and would not even bother to try to defend the rediculous idea that the beliefs recorded in the New Testament evolved over time and so can�t be taken seriously. God Bless you, Edited by Jack Catholic - 28 April 2011 at 6:18am |
|||
|
|||
|
Ron Webb
Senior Member
Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 April 2011 at 4:38pm |
||
|
What would you consider adequate proof? I have often said, I cannot offer absolute proof even of my own existence, let alone yours. And yet I live my life under the confident assumption that I do exist, and am not a subprogram in some massive computer simulation; and I participate in discussion with people like you, never questioning that you are a real person. In the same way, I can't absolutely prove that the Bible evolved, nor can you prove that it didn't. All we can do is examine the evidence and decide which explanation better fits the facts. It seems to me that the evidence we have discussed is much more consistent with an evolving story than otherwise.
You can say whatever you want, but he clearly did omit the part about the virgin birth. The only question is, why?
So in Jerusalem at the time, the virgin birth was not a necessary part of the message? |
|||
|
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jack Catholic
Senior Member
Male Joined: 24 March 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 369 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 April 2011 at 11:36pm |
||
|
Dear Ron,
Let's look at the situation of the 4 gospels.
Doesn't it seem odd to you that one would expect 4 different writers to write exactly the same material? Where we come from, the word for this is redundancy, and "one size fits all." If everything was said in the first gospel, no one would have needed to write another Gospel... Think about it. It's basic logic.
Even the Muslim debators on the Christian-Muslim debate video's on the internet admit that the Gospels were written to different audiences. What is so hard about facing up to the fact that one audience"s needs are different than another, and that a writer would be foolish to write things that meet the needs of the wrong audience and that just don't touch the concerns of the intended audience adequately. If you ever study the art of speach writing, you will learn all about this stuff. But it should be common sense if you just think about it.
Since the challange of this post is to proove that the New Testament of the Holy Bible did in fact evolve, it is not necessary for me to prove anything else accept to show the weeknesses of the arguments that the New Testament evolved. On my side of the issue, the first century bishops knew the real circumstances that led to the writing of each Gospel. They wrote about these reasons profusely in their letters, which the Catholic Church has but which are not included in the Holy Bible. These writings are available to anyone who wishes to read them, but Protestant Christians and Muslims seem to ignore them. I suspician that this is because they lead one to admit that the Catholic Church is the legitimate authority on Christianity established by Jesus himself, and they lead one to admit that perhaps the Qur'an might not be accurate in what it claims about Jesus and about Christianity.
When you say that Matthew ommitted Mary's virgin birth, you are suggesting that he deliberately left it out. The reason I say that he did not omitt anything is that he simply did not see fit to include it. There is a slight difference in what you are claiming and what I am claiming, but it has huge implications. For you to claim the Matthew is hiding something is to attribute dishonesty to him (which he was not) in an effort to discredit him. Your insistance that he deliberately omitted valuable information simply show your personal bias. Your bias is that you must discredit the Holy Bible and its authors, or admit that the Qur'an is not accurate where it differs with the Holy Bible, which is quite a few Qur'anic pages. To see the truth, you must let go of your personal biases.
You finally wrote, "So in Jerusalem at the time, the virgin birth was not a necessary part of the message?" Here you are right on, for the following reason. As I said in the first post, the Jews already knew Mary and knew of her virgin birth. My comparison to prove this assertion was mention Jesus' quote while hanging on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (first line of Psalm 22)." The Jewish custom here was to say the first line of whatever biblical passage was being referenced. The only Gospel writer to write extensively on the virgin birth and accompanying stories was the one Gospel writer writing to a Gentile audience which knew little to nothing of the details of the life of Jesus, and that was the physician, Luke. He traveled to Palestine (where most of the Jews lived who new Mary) where he interviewed Mary and the Jews for 3 years, gathering and checking stories. This was the same Jewish community that Matthew had written to earlier where the stories had not been included simply because these people already knew Mary's story. Common sense...
My case is simple, well made, and well documented. Pray about what I am saying, and perhaps the Good God in Heaven will grant you a moment of understanding and you will see clearly the truth of what I am saying.
God Bless you,
Jack Catholic
Edited by Jack Catholic - 29 April 2011 at 5:26am |
|||
|
|||
|
honeto
Senior Member
Male Islam Joined: 20 March 2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2487 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 April 2011 at 11:47am |
||
you can be kidding yourself, if that's what important to you and satisfy you.
The reality is that so far everyone has showed you something that shows that Bible has evolved and you don't like that, the evidence that the Bible has evolved/altered over time.
Here is my favorite one that people like you don't have an answer for, if you do please post it:
"Christians" altered the places of words here to fit their new doctrine. The OT that Jews hold has it very different than what those (Christians) who adopted it as part of their holy book.
Here is the verse I am referring to and how it appears in Jewish Bible:
Isaiah 9:5. For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
Now just look how the evolved version of the same found in the Christian Bible. The playing around with positioning of the same words to mean somthing else.
Same verse in Christian versions appears at:
Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. " You be truthful now to yourself dear.
Hasan
Edited by honeto - 30 April 2011 at 11:56am |
|||
|
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron Webb
Senior Member
Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 April 2011 at 1:39pm |
||
|
One would expect differences on minor points, but not on fundamental dogma. The virgin birth is a major miracle, without which Christ cannot be the son of God and the whole framework of Catholicism collapses. And the early Christians did leave it out. Luke 3:23 says that it was generally supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Mark obviously made the same assumption.
No, I am suggesting that he omitted it because it wasn't true. The story was still evolving, and that part hadn't been made up yet. |
|||
|
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 45678 74> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Jack Catholic wrote: