|
CHRISTIANS - Answer this Question |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345 13> |
| Author | |||||||||
Placid 
Senior Member 
Male Joined: 01 November 2012 Status: Offline Points: 236 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 03 November 2012 at 1:56pm |
||||||||
|
Hi Abu,
Quote: With regard to John :17 it can be interpreted as that verse was inserted much later by pro Jesus the god trinitarian activists. It just does not make sense with the context of the chapter. Response: --- Since we were talking about the law, I assume you were commenting on John 1:17, --- so I checked John 1:17 in its context in the Codex Siniaticus which was from 400 AD, --- about the same time that the Scholar Jerome translated the whole Bible into the Latin Vulgate, --- which, in about 1600 AD was translated into English in the Douay Version. --- (You can compare and check the differences.) Also, about 1600 AD, King James commissioned 47 Bible scholars and linguists to translate from the Greek to the English, at that time, the language of the people. --- You would think that if there were any discrepancies they would certainly show up between the Latin Vulgate, which travelled from 400 AD to 1600 AD in Latin, --- and the Greek manuscripts which made up the Canon of Scripture, which had been copied and distributed from the time they were written, --- first as individual Books, then in groups of Books in the second and third century, and finally being accepted and confirmed as the Canon of the 27 Books of the NT in 367 AD, --- to be added to the 39 Books of the OT. Then it was these 66 Books of the King James Bible, which were also preserved in the Greek scrolls or manuscripts from 367 AD to 1600, when they were translated to English. So to start with, these verses are from the Codex Siniaticus of John 1: 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, to those that believe on his name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified of him and cried, saying: This was he of whom I said: He that comes after me has been advanced before me, because he was before me. 16 For of his fullness have we all received, and grace for grace; 17 for the law was given through Moses, the grace and the truth came through Jesus Christ. Now the Douay Version of John 1: 12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. 13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me. 16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Now the New King James version of John 1: 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, �This was He of whom I said, �He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.�� 16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Placid |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
Experiential
Guest Group 
Joined: 23 November 2010 Status: Offline Points: 311 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 November 2012 at 2:15am |
||||||||
You can analyse and dissect the verses all you like. Your original allegation was that Paul dispensed with the Mosiac Law. Luke 22:20 shows that it was Jesus that dispensed with the Old Covenant Mosaic law. Not Paul. Where is your proof Luke 22.20 was added later? |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Abu Loren
Senior Member 
Joined: 29 June 2012 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1646 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 November 2012 at 11:35pm |
||||||||
What does copying prove? Nothing. Some copies were consistent and others were not. Watch the youtube videos I've posted to hear the opinions of modern day scholars about copying and the mistakes and additions made. They will give you a clear picture. Don't forget they are scholars, not laymen.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Salaam_Erin
Groupie 
Male Joined: 30 October 2012 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 41 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 November 2012 at 7:34am |
||||||||
|
OK, Abu Loren. some points to make.
Jeremiah 31:30 refers to crime and punishment and God forbidding the saying, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." Cutting a covenant, however, requires sacrifice for atonement. See the Book of Leviticus. Blood atonement for sin is a different issue. Ezekiel elaborates more on what is said in Jeremiah 31:29-30, with Ezekiel 18- something Muslims use to deny blood atonement by something innocent in our place to obtain forgiveness. But again that refers to crime and punishment and repentance, non repentance and apostacy. On that logic, then having someone else dying in place of Jesus contradicts that, since nobody is supposed to die in the place of another yet here in Surah 4:157 someone did. Also, the New Covenant is NOT for Jesus but Israel and Judah- the Gentiles come in as the prophecies connect this New Covenant with the Gentiles coming to worship God and coming to the Temple in Jerusalem to pay tribute to God. God the Father was the pratron and Jesus was the broker of this Covenant. As for your claim that Luke 22:20 had the reference to Jesus saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you," this was NOT added later. It's the original reading, according to the Nestle-Aland 26th and 27th editions and the United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament. I've checked it over with Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament and the critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland 26th edition. When a mixed bag of manuscripts of different types like Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus), A (Codex Vaticanus), B, C, K, L, T T(vid), W, X, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi, Family 063 of the papyri, f1, f2 and f13 (textual families of the early manuscripts), including all minuscules, the Itala in c, q, r1, Latin Vulgate, Syriac pal, Copsa, Copbo (as in Coptic), arm geo. That's an impressive and weighty testimomy to the authenticity of this passage. Most likely you are concocting a convenient conspiracy theory without knowing the textual history of this verse. There is a problem in that some rogue Western texts and Itala translations (ita, b,c,d,e) from the Western miss out on it, due to the problem of copying similar endings (a mistake called homoiteleuton), and some oddball Syriac manuscripts like syrc, syr8 and syrv. The chain of transmission of the verse is strong, and the erroneous ones have a weak chain and mor to the point, lack weight, besides, Jesus is shown to affirm the New Covenant in 1 Corinthians 11, Matthew 26, Mark 14. That's four times over. Matthew does not use the word new, but Jesus still says that His blood is the blood of the covenant. Ditto with Mark. Paul's reference says new covenant, and there is no textual dispute. Sorry, the reference is authentic. "16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." This is not relevant to a new covenant. The problem, as God says to Jeremiah in chapter 31, is that the people of Israel did not keep that covenant. Your claim that John 1:17 is an interpolation is also untrue, there is no textual dispute over John saying that Moses gave the Law, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. There are a few manuscripts which add the particle de, which means but. So your theory about changes fails again. To say that Paul wrote letters makes them not Scripture is also a failure, as there are many letters sent out by the prophets containing their oracles. You only have to read the Old Testament prophetic books, especially Jeremiah, to see that. You might also ponder on the fact that Peter also visited Corinth after Paul founded it, and that Barnabas was also known to the Corinthians, whom Paul defended (Barnabas that is), and 1 Peter is the same in theology as Paul's letters. As I have said, Paul said Christ is the end (telos) of the Law, which does not mean its abolishing, but that Jesus is its destination and fulfillment. Even if Jesus isn't God and/or Son of God, your argument breaks down since Moses was used by God to set up the Sinai Covenant. God was the Patron, Moses the Broker. The Father is the patron of the New covenant, Jesus the Broker. You said, "Everything falls down flat I'm afraid. You must take Paul out of the equation, don't believe anything he says. His letters are just his opinions poured out to the new churches and which somebody decided to include in the new Christian canonical works." Guess who it was who decided Paul's letters were Scripture? Peter. "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things thart are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16) We know from Mark's Gospel, which is really Peter's Gospel, that Peter preached that Jesus on the night He was betrayed, and said this cup is the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many. (Mark 14:24) This is not just Paul's teaching. So why was the Gospel of Peter excluded? Well, according to this, Jesus rose from the dead in public, became 200 foot tall, rose in front of Pilate, the High Priest and everyone else, and that His Cross actually could talk and preach. A wooden cross which can talk. I've read the Gospel of Mary, an esoteric Gnostic Gospel which denies Jesus was even physical, but a phantom to show us that matter was evil and only spirit was good, and we had all the divine spark in us. Why would anyone amongst us accept that as genuine? The same with Judas- who is said in the Gospel of Judas plotted with Jesus to fake a crucifixion to show that Jesus was not real, and how only Judas had Gnostic enlightenment. Also, Judas is supposed to be writing about Jesus' apparent crucifixion. Except that in reality Judas was already dead by suicide when Jesus was crucified. Why take a 3rd century esoteric Gnostic text with the view that we are all gods if we have the divine spark in us and access to special knowledge as the real thing? It has nothing to do with the real Historical Jesus of Second Temple Judaism in the Roman period. The Gospel of Thomas- denies the real, physical world. Jesus says that Mary Magdalene has to become a man in order to inherit the Kingdom of God. And those sayings of Jesus which are in the canonical Gospels, are written in Syriac, identical to Tatian's Syriac translation of his Diatessaron, a rolling of the Four Gospels into one. So Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Gospels in Greek, the Diatessaron, harmony of the Gospels by Tatian in Greek, then translates into Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, but it just so happens to have the Gospel of Thomas with sayings the same as in the Syriac translation? That indicates that since the Diatessaron comes from AD 170, that Thomas is based on the Diatessaron! "Watch the youtube videos I've posted to hear the opinions of modern day scholars about copying and the mistakes and additions made. They will give you a clear picture. Don't forget they are scholars, not laymen." Well, in that case, you need to pay attention especially to your claims about Christians making up stuff about Jesus instituting a covenant, a new covenant being shown to be false, especially the textual discussion concerning Luke 22:20. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Abu Loren
Senior Member
Joined: 29 June 2012 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1646 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 November 2012 at 8:38pm |
||||||||
This doesn't make sense as Christians DO believe Jesus (pbuh) to be the son of god or god incarnate;
No he did not decide it was scripture. If you read the example you have given carefully, all it says is that people distort his message LIKE THE OTHER SCRIPTURES.
How did you come to the conclusion that Mark and Peter are the same person? Scholars are not even sure who Mark really was. With regard to your comment about the 'other gospels' what I meant to convey was that the early church fathers who were really preaching the Trinity decided what to include and which gospels to exclude. The Trinitarians somehow became the majority and pushed all the others aside. Hence modern Christianity was born.
As I've stated earlier, all of the Prophets of God were given a covenent, so Jesus's covenent did not mean that it was a new covenent which will abrogate all the other covenents. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Placid
Senior Member
Male Joined: 01 November 2012 Status: Offline Points: 236 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 November 2012 at 5:13am |
||||||||
|
Hi Abu,
The reason for repeating the verses that contain John 1:17 was because you said it was inserted later. --- So I quoted from the Codex Siniaticus from 400 AD, --- Then from the Douay Version from 1600 AD, --- Then from the New King James, from 1980. They all contain verse 17, --- and they all say the same, do they not? You quote from Jeremiah 31: 29 In those days they shall say no more: �The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children�s teeth are set on edge.� 30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. Response: --- Because they had broken their covenant there was no more provision for their salvation. --- The Law said to repent of sin and bring an unblemished animal for sacrifice, and then live righteously before the Lord. --- But instead, they were disobedient as it says in Isaiah 66: 3 Just as they have chosen their own ways, And their soul delights in their abominations, 4 So will I choose their delusions, And bring their fears on them; Because, when I called, no one answered, When I spoke they did not hear; But they did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight.� --- And again it speaks of their contempt for God in Malachi 1: 7 �You offer defiled food on My altar, But say, �In what way have we defiled You?� By saying, �The table of the Lord is contemptible.� 8 And when you offer the blind as a sacrifice, Is it not evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, Is it not evil? Offer it then to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you favorably?� Says the Lord of hosts. --- (And because of these things< God rejected them, and they would die in their sin. --- �Their teeth set on edge,� --- they would live and die in fear and anger, and because they had rejected God, they had no hope of salvation.) --- And God said: 31 �Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah� 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. --- (So God was providing a New Covenant to those who would return to righteousness, and it was a New Covenant to the Jews in Israel.) 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, �Know the Lord,� for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.� --- (And the prophecy of the New Covenant, is fulfilled through their Jewish Messiah, Jesus), in Hebrews 8: 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: �Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah� 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, �Know the Lord,� for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.� 13 In that He says, �A new covenant,� He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Placid |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Abu Loren
Senior Member
Joined: 29 June 2012 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1646 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 November 2012 at 1:16am |
||||||||
You seem to be a very confused person who thinks that the Old Testament is all about the Holy Trinity. In that if Trinitarians like you had the chance you would invent a new Bible called The New Revised Edited and Added Version (NREAV). That Bible would begin thus... "In the beginning God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit made the heavens and the earth.......". Just a question that arises out of curiosity. Why would God Almighty need to have 3 distinct personalities? Is He an incapable God?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
bunter
Senior Member
Male Joined: 28 March 2011 Status: Offline Points: 123 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 November 2012 at 3:12am |
||||||||
Not sure what you are getting at, are not prophets generally 'mere' men? Biblically speaking it's not so much the man we look at but the message. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345 13> |
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
Abu Loren wrote: