| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Caringheart 
Senior Member
Joined: 02 March 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 2991
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 10 November 2014 at 8:20pm |
 The Saint wrote:
Greetings. I am not alone at arriving at this conclusion. It is a widely held scholarly accepted idea that the Bible is corrupted. It may have some portions of the revelation given to Jesus PBUH. But most of it is written by Paul.
We know through recorded history that a lot has been added to the Bible, as we know it today, by men. And a lot has been kept out from it by a committee of men. Only four gospels find a place in it. Scores of them by other apostles were kept out.
Besides this said of book of God has been revised and re-revised scores of times. |
Greetings The Saint, What scholars? Islamic scholars? Biblical scholars? Atheistic scholars? How much study about the Bible have you done? Your conclusion that 'a lot has been added' has no basis. Yes, the writings of many men were scrutinized in compiling the account of Yshwe's life... the accepted Gospels. If you have studied scholarly evidence then you know that the Dead Sea Scrolls(among others) confirm what is written in the Biblical scriptures to this day. Are you perhaps confusing the fact that there are many translations, with the idea of revision? If you are going to islamic sources, which have a vested interest in disproving the Biblical scriptures as a way of defending the islamic religion, then you are getting a skewed viewpoint. You must seek several viewpoints to get a balanced picture. No part of the Gospels... which record the words of Yshwe... were written by Paul. Paul used the words of Yshwe to teach to the gentiles the Word of Salvation. It is Luke, the physician, that is purported to have recorded the Acts of the Apostles. asalaam and blessings, Caringheart
Edited by Caringheart - 10 November 2014 at 8:25pm
|
|
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis
|
 |
Muslim75
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 06 August 2014
Location: Senegal
Status: Offline
Points: 485
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 November 2014 at 12:19pm |
------------------------------------------
Edited by Muslim75 - 20 March 2015 at 2:08pm
|
|
The Saint
Senior Member
Joined: 07 November 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 832
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 November 2014 at 5:39am |
Caringheart wrote:
The Saint wrote:
Greetings. I am not alone at arriving at this conclusion. It is a widely held scholarly accepted idea that the Bible is corrupted. It may have some portions of the revelation given to Jesus PBUH. But most of it is written by Paul.
We know through recorded history that a lot has been added to the Bible, as we know it today, by men. And a lot has been kept out from it by a committee of men. Only four gospels find a place in it. Scores of them by other apostles were kept out.
Besides this said of book of God has been revised and re-revised scores of times. |
Greetings The Saint,What scholars?Islamic scholars?Biblical scholars?Atheistic scholars?How much study about the Bible have you done?Your conclusion that 'a lot has been added' has no basis.Yes, the writings of many men were scrutinized in compiling the account of Yshwe's life... the accepted Gospels.If you have studied scholarly evidence then you know that the Dead Sea Scrolls(among others) confirm what is written in the Biblical scriptures to this day.Are you perhaps confusing the fact that there are many translations, with the idea of revision?If you are going to islamic sources, which have a vested interest in disproving the Biblical scriptures as a way of defending the islamic religion, then you are getting a skewed viewpoint.You must seek several viewpoints to get a balanced picture.No part of the Gospels... which record the words of Yshwe... were written by Paul.Paul used the words of Yshwe to teach to the gentiles the Word of Salvation.It is Luke, the physician, that is purported to have recorded the Acts of the Apostles.asalaam and blessings,Caringheart
|
Muslim scholars may have a vested interested. But I am actually talking about christian experts.
Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, a prestigious Christian evangelical mission, says:
"..Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men...."
"It is Human, Yet Divine," W Graham Scroggie, p. 17
Another Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says:
"...Not so the New testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history..."
"The Call of the Minaret," Kenneth Cragg, p 277
For example, we read in the Bible the words of the author of "Luke":
"It seemed good to me (Luke) also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"
If you consider the Bible the word of GOD, well, it is quite obvious that Luke decided to write his Gospel because he wanted to please the president or the
leader at that time Theophilus. This however has several problems: (1) It compromises GOD because there is a biger purpose than GOD to write the Gospel, (2) It shows that Luke wouldn't have written his Gospel if it wasn't for that leader, and (3) Luke was not inpired when he wrote his Gospel because he said that he decided to write it after he had full understanding of it, which means that he wrote it with his own human words and thoughts and not GOD's.
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says: "This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."
|
|
Caringheart
Senior Member
Joined: 02 March 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 2991
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 November 2014 at 1:08am |
The Saint wrote:
Muslim scholars may have a vested interested. But I am actually talking about christian experts.
|
Greetings The Saint,
I will share my reactions in blue as I read this.
Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, a prestigious Christian evangelical mission, says:
"..Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men...."
"It is Human, Yet Divine," W Graham Scroggie, p. 17
Do you understand what it means to say 'it is human, yet Divine'?
While written by the hand of men, the Word is still the Divine Word of God, written by men guided by the inspiration, power, and protection of the Holy Spirit of God.
Another Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says:
"...Not so the New testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history..."
If this were true then the Protestants and the Catholics would have differing scriptures, which they do not. The scriptures which they accept in common are identical.
The ones that do have a differing, but similar scripture, and can not rightly be called Christians, are the Mormons(following the teaching of Joseph Smith), and the Jehovah's Witnesses(who are guided by a thing called the Watchtower). While both claim to be followers of Yshwe, they have a scripture different from that told by His Apostles.
"The Call of the Minaret," Kenneth Cragg, p 277
For example, we read in the Bible the words of the author of "Luke":
"It seemed good to me (Luke) also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"
If you consider the Bible the word of GOD, well, it is quite obvious that Luke decided to write his Gospel because he wanted to please the president or the
leader at that time Theophilus. How does this negate the Bible being the Word of God? Luke is recording the Word of God as it has come to him, as he has heard it told by those who witnessed and walked with Yshwe Messiah... and he is clear in stating this. He was not 'writing to please anyone'. He was writing to preserve the Word for posterity. ... for 'all future generations of people'. The same was true when men decided to try and record the things Muhammad had taught them as well. Even the Word of God given to Moses was recorded by the hand of man... the same is also true of Muhammad.This however has several problems: (1) It compromises GOD because there is a biger purpose than GOD to write the Gospel, (2) It shows that Luke wouldn't have written his Gospel if it wasn't for that leader, and (3) Luke was not inpired when he wrote his Gospel because he said that he decided to write it after he had full understanding of it, which means that he wrote it with his own human words and thoughts and not GOD's.
It actually says;
"having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first"
Luke having had close contact with the Apostles had 'perfect understanding' of the message they brought forth from Yshwe... from the beginning... 'from the very first'
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
There are also Yshwe's own words, as recorded in the book of Matthew;19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Regarding this, please see the following;https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20John%205:7 all translations refer to the triune nature of God.but at any rate I go to the words of Yshwe Himself as shared above.asalaam and blessings to you,
Caringheart
Edited by Caringheart - 18 November 2014 at 1:22am
|
|
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis
|
|
Ron Webb
Senior Member
Male
atheist
Joined: 30 January 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2467
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 November 2014 at 9:25am |
Caringheart and The Saint wrote:
There are also Yshwe's own words, as recorded in the book of Matthew;
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages.
Regarding this, please see the following;
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20John%205:7
all translations refer to the triune nature of God.
|
I think both of you are confusing the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), which is almost certainly a forgery, with the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19), which is also controversial but has better historical support.
|
|
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|
The Saint
Senior Member
Joined: 07 November 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 832
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 November 2014 at 2:01am |
Caringheart wrote:
The Saint wrote:
Muslim scholars may have a vested interested. But I am actually talking about christian experts.
|
Greetings The Saint,I will share my reactions in blue as I read this.
Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, a prestigious Christian evangelical mission, says:
"..Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men...."
"It is Human, Yet Divine," W Graham Scroggie, p. 17
Do you understand what it means to say 'it is human, yet Divine'?� While written by the hand of men, the Word is still the Divine Word of God, written by men guided by the inspiration, power, and protection of the Holy Spirit of God.
Yes, I know what it means. And so does Kenneth Cragg. Read below.
Another Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says:
"...Not so the New testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history..."
If this were true then the Protestants and the Catholics would have differing scriptures, which they do not.� The scriptures which they accept in common are identical.The ones that do have a differing, but similar scripture, and can not rightly be called Christians, are the Mormons(following the teaching of Joseph Smith), and the Jehovah's Witnesses(who are guided by a thing called the Watchtower).� While both claim to be followers of Yshwe, they have a scripture different from that told by His Apostles."The Call of the Minaret," Kenneth Cragg, p 277
I am sure you are aware that there are more than 3000 versions of the Bible. Versions not translations. Different from each other in terms of content. Also I request you to speak the truth. This is not a debate for personal glory.
The Douay Rheims version of the Bible which the Catholics believe in has seven more books than the Bible the protestants believe in. The latter considers those seven books as apochrypha.
For example, we read in the Bible the words of the author of "Luke":
"It seemed good to me (Luke) also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"
If you consider the Bible the word of GOD, well, it is quite obvious that Luke decided to write his Gospel because he wanted to please the president or the
leader at that time Theophilus. How does this negate the Bible being the Word of God?� Luke is recording the Word of God as it has come to him, as he has heard it told by those who witnessed and walked with Yshwe Messiah... and he is clear in stating this.� He was not 'writing to please anyone'.� He was writing to preserve the Word for posterity. ...� <span>for 'all future generations of people'.</span>� The same was true when men decided to try and record the things Muhammad had taught them as well.
Even the Word of God given to Moses was recorded by the hand of man... the same is also true of Muhammad.This however has several problems: (1) It compromises GOD because there is a biger purpose than GOD to write the Gospel, (2) It shows that Luke wouldn't have written his Gospel if it wasn't for that leader, and (3) Luke was not inpired when he wrote his Gospel because he said that he decided to write it after he had full understanding of it, which means that he wrote it with his own human words and thoughts and not GOD's.
It actually says;"having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first" Luke having had close contact with the Apostles had 'perfect understanding' of the message they brought forth from Yshwe... from the beginning... 'from the very first'
Yes, even though he had clear understanding from the very first he only wrote the gospel to please the leader. If he was inspired or informed by the apostles why did he not write the gospel straightaway?
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
There are also Yshwe's own words, as recorded in the book of Matthew;<span id="en-KJV-24215" ="text="" matt-28-19"=""><sup ="versenum"="">19�Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:</span>
This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Regarding this, please see the following;https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20John%205:7all translations refer to the triune nature of God.but at any rate I go to the words of Yshwe Himself as shared above.asalaam and blessings to you,Caringheart
|
You overlooked the verse on trinity which is now known to be a later interpolation. So, if there can be one interpolation there can be more. And so there are. Even Jesus PBUH words have been misquoted.Luke, admittedly wrote the gospel to please the ruler of the day. Please read my post again.
|
|
Caringheart
Senior Member
Joined: 02 March 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 2991
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 November 2014 at 11:16pm |
The Saint wrote:
Caringheart wrote:
The Saint wrote:
"...Not so the New testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history..."
If this were true then the Protestants and the Catholics would have differing scriptures, which they do not. The scriptures which they accept in common are identical.The ones that do have a differing, but similar scripture, and can not rightly be called Christians, are the Mormons(following the teaching of Joseph Smith), and the Jehovah's Witnesses(who are guided by a thing called the Watchtower). While both claim to be followers of Yshwe, they have a scripture different from that told by His Apostles."The Call of the Minaret," Kenneth Cragg, p 277
I am sure you are aware that there are more than 3000 versions of the Bible. Versions not translations. Different from each other in terms of content. |
note: now I am putting my replies in orange to make reading easier. 
Greetings The Saint,
What is your basis for this statement
'3000 versions'?
I do not agree that you have your information correct. I believe that what you are referring to are translations. Textual content is the same, just written differently for ease of understanding.
I wonder, have you ever studied languages? There are many ways of saying a thing, without changing the meaning.
I would need you to show me examples to illustrate what you are speaking of.
The Saint wrote:
Also I request you to speak the truth. This is not a debate for personal glory.
The Douay Rheims version of the Bible which the Catholics believe in has seven more books than the Bible the protestants believe in. The latter considers those seven books as apochrypha.
|
I do try to speak the truth, that is why I am here, for further exploration of the truth.
Yes, there are books which the Protestants rejected, when the movement was born... i.e., scripture which Martin Luther opposed... but Martin Luther was one person... it was the consensus of the many, of the original church (the Catholic church going back to the first disciples), which achieved agreement as to what was reliable to be included in the scriptures. The Catholic scriptures were decided upon consensus of the disciples of Christ, and never by one person acting on their beliefs alone, as was the case with Martin Luther... 1500 years later.
I never do remember how many books the Protestants reject, and I've never studied the reasons for the rejection. I trust the first church of Christ... the Catholic church, when it comes to the tenability of scripture.
[QUOTE=The Saint]
For example, we read in the Bible the words of the author of "Luke":
"It seemed good to me (Luke) also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"
If you consider the Bible the word of GOD, well, it is quite obvious that Luke decided to write his Gospel because he wanted to please the president or the
leader at that time Theophilus. How does this negate the Bible being the Word of God? Luke is recording the Word of God as it has come to him, as he has heard it told by those who witnessed and walked with Yshwe Messiah... and he is clear in stating this. He was not 'writing to please anyone'. He was writing to preserve the Word for posterity. ... <span>for 'all future generations of people'.</span> The same was true when men decided to try and record the things Muhammad had taught them as well.
Even the Word of God given to Moses was recorded by the hand of man... the same is also true of Muhammad.This however has several problems: (1) It compromises GOD because there is a biger purpose than GOD to write the Gospel, (2) It shows that Luke wouldn't have written his Gospel if it wasn't for that leader, and (3) Luke was not inpired when he wrote his Gospel because he said that he decided to write it after he had full understanding of it, which means that he wrote it with his own human words and thoughts and not GOD's.
It actually says;"having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first" Luke having had close contact with the Apostles had 'perfect understanding' of the message they brought forth from Yshwe... from the beginning... 'from the very first'
Yes, even though he had clear understanding from the very first he only wrote the gospel to please the leader. If he was inspired or informed by the apostles why did he not write the gospel straightaway?
|
The book of Luke was written down around the year 60 after the death of Yshwe
and the writer clearly states his reasons for doing so;
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Luke wrote not to please, but to reassure Theophilus of the Truth of the things in which he has already been instructed. I don't think Theophilus was even a leader. He is described as a friend.
Here is another translation that would perhaps be easier to understand and make things clearer;
1 Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2 They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. 3 Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4 so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.
I imagine what may be confusing to you is the salutation of 'most excellent', or 'most honorable', Theophilus... but I believe this was just the form of respectful greeting that the disciples used with one another.
[QUOTE=The Saint]
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
There are also Yshwe's own words, as recorded in the book of Matthew;<span id="en-KJV-24215" ="text="" matt-28-19"=""><sup ="versenum"="">19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:</span>
This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Regarding this, please see the following;https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20John%205:7all translations refer to the triune nature of God.but at any rate I go to the words of Yshwe Himself as shared above.asalaam and blessings to you,Caringheart
You overlooked the verse on trinity which is now known to be a later interpolation. So, if there can be one interpolation there can be more. And so there are. Even Jesus PBUH words have been misquoted.Luke, admittedly wrote the gospel to please the ruler of the day. Please read my post again. |
Regarding the Trinity my suggestion to all is that they must read the Word of Yshwe themselves and reach their own conclusion. For me it is clear that there was more to Yshwe than a human being. When I read the whole of scripture from old testament through the new I see the Trinity everywhere in it... beginning with the first 'We'... We made man in 'Our' own image.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
For me, seeing the Trinity is easy... it seems to me that all of everything the Creator designed is based on Trinity... the number 3.
Peace and blessings to you,
Caringheart
Edited by Caringheart - 21 November 2014 at 8:22pm
|
|
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis
|
|
Muslim75
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 06 August 2014
Location: Senegal
Status: Offline
Points: 485
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 November 2014 at 12:03pm |
------------------------------------------
Edited by Muslim75 - 20 March 2015 at 1:58pm
|
|
Tweet
