91% of matthews is plagiarized from mark
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26801
Printed Date: 19 April 2024 at 3:27am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 91% of matthews is plagiarized from mark
Posted By: iec786
Subject: 91% of matthews is plagiarized from mark
Date Posted: 31 October 2013 at 11:21am
|
91% of matthews is plagiarized from mark
50% of Luke is plagiarised from Mark. Now why would they cheat and steal one anothers writings if they were eyewitnesses? What happened to the Holy Ghost while all this was happening??? why did he not stop this from happening??? Some early gospels may have vanished because they were secret gospels and very few copies were made. Others could have been lost due to wars, conquests, upheavals, and persecutions. In addition, there have been accusations that early church leaders intentionally destroyed some books in order to cover up embarrassing facts about the origins of Christianity. Some intentional destruction did take place, but exactly what was lost can't be determined. |
Replies:
Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 31 October 2013 at 12:48pm
|
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=69381&FID=10 -
iec786 read " http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140006922X/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=140006922X&linkCode=as2&tag=islamicitycom-20 - Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth " by Reza Aslan why Mathew and Luke have a lot of content from Mark. There are some verses that Luke and Mathew are the same (similar) that are not in Mark, thy got it from what Reza call it as "the source". This book very informative, he wrote it as scholar not as muslim so its away from "faith" based contain. ------------- 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" |
Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 14 November 2013 at 10:01am
Thanks semar   I will download it.
|
Posted By: Webber
Date Posted: 17 November 2013 at 2:14am
|
And other imaginative stories to make Muslims look good(er). Another swoop from Onceuponatime.com ------------- I'm a Gentile. Numb. 6:24-26 |
Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 18 November 2013 at 8:53am
|
A Great Introduction to Jesus the Man
By Jerry Davis on July 25, 2013 Format: Hardcover A disclaimer: I'm an atheist, I majored in classics and I paid full price for this book at a brick & mortar. Let that say what it will about my judgment. Now, if you seek confirmation that Jesus was/is the one, true Son of God, the savior of humanity, through which all can attain an everlasting life...that's not in this book. If you want a book by a Christian and for Christians, which will echo and confirm your Christian beliefs, then this is not the book for you. Don't buy it, don't waste your time and money. There are plenty of other books out there that are just what you're searching for. I can't give you any recommendations (my apologies) but I'm sure a quick search on google or a trip to your local Christian book seller will get you started. Good luck, have a nice day. On the other hand, if you have an open mind and an interest in history, you probably will enjoy this book. Christian, Atheist or whatever, there is no denying the impact Jesus has had on history. There is so much we will never know - can never know - about the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth - not the Jesus you learn about at Sunday school or vacation bible study. This book is about the Nazarean, whom every Christian will tell you walked as a man among men. Reza Aslan investigates this man and the world that he was born into, his short life and his agonizing death, and tries to fill in the blanks where he can with conjecture based on scholarship. |
Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 22 November 2013 at 7:01am
|
Hi iec,
Quote from Post 1: 91% of matthews is plagiarized from mark 50% of Luke is plagiarised from Mark. Now why would they cheat and steal one anothers writings if they were eyewitnesses? What happened to the Holy Ghost while all this was happening??? why did he not stop this from happening??? Response: --- So here is a chance for you to understand that the same Message was written to the different people groups, the Jews, the Romans and the Greeks. You need to be careful how you speak of the Holy Spirit, --- read Luke 12:10. It was the Holy Spirit that inspired the writers, �Holy men of God spoke as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.� There is evidence that Matthew, as a businessman was the �recorder� or �secretary,� for Jesus and the disciples. --- That he wrote even while Jesus was speaking to the crowds, --- and they travelled together for the three years of training, so Matthew could verify anything with Jesus, to have it right. --- Their first language was Aramaic, and there is evidence that Matthew first wrote, �The Sayings of Jesus,� in Aramaic, --- which was no doubt �The Sayings� in Matthew 5, 6, and 7, which are called ,�The Sermon on the Mount.� --- This would have been copied and distributed quickly as anything written was valuable to the people. Then he wrote a Gospel in Aramaic (a dialect of Hebrew), which is verified different times. ---There is only one Gospel Message so it would have been copied and distributed quickly, and each of the Apostles would have a copy, or access to it. --- This would be the written Gospel in Aramaic that the Apostles would have when they went out into the world after the Day of Pentecost,(Acts 2), in the years, 35-50 --- (as the quote says about the Apostle Bartholemew), and it may have been translated into local languages in other countries, as Scriptures often were. Eventually, about 58-60 AD, because the Language of Commerce was Greek, the three Gospels were written. --- While Mark wrote his account in Rome, with input from Peter, a few years before Matthew and Luke, the critics get excited about Mark being the first. --- But Matthew was placed first because he was the principle writer, and his first Gospel was writer in Aramaic. So they would each have access to the same Gospel material to use as a format for their Gospel account in Greek. --- Mark has 16 chapters and Matthew has 28, almost twice as many. --- The difference is that Matthew wrote to the Jews, so emphasized the OT laws and prophecies, --- and their fulfillment in the NT. --- They said he got the extra material �from what Reza calls it as "the source". --- Others said from the mysterious �Q� which meant �Source.� --- So the �Source� was undoubtedly the original Gospel in Aramaic. --- There have been no copies or fragments found, but once it was incorporated into the Greek Gospels, it was no longer needed. Quote: All of our surviving versions are in Greek.But the early Fathers of the Church (Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius) tell us that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Saint Jerome tells us that a Hebrew version of Matthew was still extant in his day at the library in Caesarea or Alexandria. Eusebius tells us that Pantaenus the missionary went to India, and was told by the locals that Bartholomew the Apostle had brought the Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew, to India in the first century. --- If you notice, the Gospels are written in the �third person� because the focus was on Jesus, the Christ, the Savior and Messiah, and a Sign for all peoples, as it says in Surah 21: 91 And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples. Luke, who was a medical doctor and a Greek historian, wrote his Gospel in Greek for his own people. He identified himself in his opening, when he addressed it to the Greek, Theophilus. --- Luke later travelled with Paul and wrote another intro in the opening of the Book of Acts. --- It was after that missionary journey that they went together to Rome, where Luke finalized them both. --- As a historian, Luke wrote about the birth of Jesus which info he could only have gotten from Joseph and Mary. John wrote a General Gospel years later, and having access to the others, did not follow the same format, but emphasized the work of the Holy Spirit. He repeated the important events, Jesus� Baptism, His miracles, His death, burial, and Resurrection. --- So there are 4 accounts witnessing these events. --- The OT says, �By the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.� --- About 365 AD the NT was finalized and then translated into Latin and other languages, and in 625 AD Gabriel confirmed it as true, and there have been no changes, just translations and updates since then. Placid |
Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 22 November 2013 at 7:30pm
|
Hi Placid,
91% of matthews is plagiarized from mark 50% of Luke is plagiarised from Mark. Now why would they cheat and steal one anothers writings if they were eyewitnesses? What happened to the Holy Ghost while all this was happening??? why did he not stop this from happening??? This was my question? I was reading the NIV study Bible and in the beginning of each chapter they give an account of the author of the book in question,and this is where i found that 91% of matthews is plagiarized from mark.So my next question is where was the Holy spirit while this was happening could he not have stopped Matthew from cribbing Marks work??? Then as you read further it says in the book of Matthew their are remnants of several writers??huh why would several writers put their fingers in Matthews book ??? My next question is while all this was happening where was the Holy ghost while this was happening?? should he not have smite them and correct the book even now???? I never spoke bad of Ny Holy Ghost.Then you talk of translation/againe where is the Holy Ghost to correct this translation? or is he just going to leave this translation with all the mistakes and interpolations and let the Christians wonder in the wilderness as he left the Jews for 40 years????lots of questions no answers. I think the next step is to find a church father let him explain why the limbo,and why are the people being led astray. According to my reference bible most of the authors of the Bible are anonymous books it says Genesis attributed to Moses but some 4 different authors writing in the book are evident.So i will leve you to explain who gives anyone the permission to put their fingers willy nilly into someone elses book. I would sue them if they touch my work. 
|
Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 25 November 2013 at 7:11am
|
Hi iec,
Quote: This was my question? I was reading the NIV study Bible and in the beginning of each chapter they give an account of the author of the book in question,and this is where i found that 91% of matthews is plagiarized from mark.So my next question is where was the Holy spirit while this was happening could he not have stopped Matthew from cribbing Marks work??? Response: --- The simple answer is in your statement, --- �I was reading the NIV Study Bible and in the beginning of each chapter (Book) they give an account.� --- �Where was the Holy Spirit?� --- They weren�t writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. --- The Holy Spirit wasn�t with them. --- What you read is not the Scriptures that they translated, but the comments of the scholars and critics who produced this �International� version. It is a �Scholarly� version, --- it is not a Spiritually guided version. --- What you read in the comments is not the Scripture itself, but the words of the final committee, who present a more �critical� focus on the authors, --- rather than the Scripture, --- given originally by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you look at the Preface, --- It will likely say the same in the Study Bible as it does in my copy. Quote: The New International version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars. Wikipedia �The New International Version project was started after a meeting in 1965 at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, Illinois, of the Christian Reformed Church, National Association of Evangelicals, and a "group of international scholars.� --- End of quote. From the Preface: �This group, though not made up of official Church representatives, was trans-denominational.� --- �The responsibility was given to a self-governing body of fifteen, the Committee on Bible Translation, composed for the most part of Biblical scholars from colleges, universities and seminaries.� --- These institutions have secular professors and teachers. --- It goes on to mention representatives from various Countries and denominations to give it international flavor. --- And they have a mixture of: 1. The Accurate Scriptures, which are the Books themselves, --- And: 2. Their secular comments in the introductions and, in some cases, footnotes. However, the translation is perhaps accurate to Scripture from a scholastic point of view. Quote: �All this involved many thousands of hours of research and discussion regarding the meaning of the texts and the precise way of putting them into English.� --- The Scholars seemingly did not know the history of the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect, --- and that it was no doubt the format for the three Synoptic Gospels, --- so their comments have misled readers. --- If you read the NIV with no comments you would be, not too far astray, but, since it is not from Spiritual origin, it is not a good translation to rely on. It is better to put it on a shelf and get an authorized version as your study Bible. --- The King James Bible was translated from the Greek Manuscripts in early 1600 and is still widely used. --- The New King James updates the language from the Old English, and I believe is the best version today. --- It is very simple, it doesn�t matter what version you read, if you have been influenced away, by secular scholars, from believing that God inspired the writers, through His Holy Spirit, --- you will always be trying to make a case against God, as a critic. --- It is God�s word, and Gabriel �confirmed� the former Scriptures as true in Surah 3: 2 God! There is no god but He, - the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal. 3 It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus). Placid |
Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 02 December 2013 at 10:47am
|
Hi Placid,
The Scholars seemingly did not know the history of the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect, --- and that it was no doubt the format for the three Synoptic Gospels, --- so their comments have misled readers. corrupted in your own words not mine. If you read the NIV with no comments you would be, not too far astray, but, since it is not from Spiritual origin, it is not a good translation to rely on. In the bin goes my NIV Bible.Thank you. The King James Bible was translated from the Greek Manuscripts in early 1600 and is still widely used. --- The New King James updates the language from the Old English, and I believe is the best version today. Preface to the Revised Standard Version Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making the revision, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the cooperating denominations. After all the revision they revised it and it is still in a mess. |
Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 04 December 2013 at 6:33am
|
Hi iec,
Quote: Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making the revision, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the cooperating denominations. Response: --- Notice again that the RSV is the result of the thirty two scholars, who conferred with an advisory board of fifty of the �co-operating denominations.� Quote from intro to the RSV: �The Council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version; and in 1937 it authorized this Committee to undertake a further revision, on the grounds that there is need for a version which will --- �embody the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of the Scriptures, and express this meaning in English diction which is designed for use in public and private worship and preserves those qualities which have given to the King James Version a supreme place in English literature.� Thirty two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making the revision; and they have secured the review and counsel of an advisory board of fifty representatives of the co-operating denominations.� End of quote. --- (Note: --- This would not include the mainline Evangelical denominations because it was the work of scholars and boards of Religious education. --- And it does not mention prayer or Spiritual guidance, so it is, like the NIV, a scholarly version of the Scriptures. --- However, this revision is perhaps �less accurate� than the NIV, --- which I can show you later.) To continue, quote: �The Committee has worked in two sections, one dealing with the Old Testament, and one dealing with the New Testament. Each section has submitted its work to the scrutiny of the other section, however; --- and the Charter of the Committee requires that all changes be agreed upon by a two thirds vote of the total membership of the Committee.� End of quote. --- (Note: --- so the final revision was agreed upon by only 66% of all of those that worked on the Committees. --- Reports have been that it was to be a readable version that would be used in schools and homes. --- However, its attempt to adapt with the times has never made it popular. --- It is not that revisions are so wrong, but the scholarly versions are decided on by the opinions of men, --- so, there�s another one to set on the shelf for reference.) I want to show you a change that was made from the King James to all the newer translations, 1 Corinthians 13: ** 1 King James: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. ** 1 RSV: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. ** 1 NIV: If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. ** 1 NKJ: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. --- You see, the only change is the word �charity� from the 16th century, to �love.� The idea of a �sounding brass� or �a noisy gong� --- and a clanging symbol, is that they are not �solo instruments.� --- A noisy gong doesn�t give a message to the hearers. --- And a clanging symbol is usually the finality of a �crescendo.� So unless the words of charity or love are genuine, they are just noise. --- Our present meaning of love is inadequate to carry the meaning of the Greek. People say, �I love chocolate cake� --- �I love football,� --- but they may rarely say to their family members, �I love you.� --- In any language there are words that are hard to translate with meaning, and this is one from Greek to English. --- However, the Amplified Bible is for that purpose. --- Where needed, it gives the full meaning of the Greek, and that is why it is a good one to have on your shelf for reference, as well. --- Notice this ** 1 Amplified Bible: If I [can] speak in the tongues of men and [even] of angels, but have not love (that reasoning, intentional, spiritual devotion such as is inspired by God�s love for and in us), I am only a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. --- (You see, it does not change the wording of the Scripture, but adds in brackets the full meaning of the Greek word. --- (that reasoning, intentional, spiritual devotion such as is inspired by God�s love for and in us). --- So it is a Spiritual, devotional, giving, love, --- and our casual word �love� doesn�t express that, does it? So --- what did the word �charity� mean? This is where our modern culture has made it a cold hard word. --- �I don�t want this any more so I will give it to charity.� --- �These clothes are old, but somebody might wear them so I�ll give them to charity.� --- What did charity really mean? --- It was a giving to others and not expecting anything in return. --- It was an expressing of God�s love through them to others. --- So the original meaning of �charity� in the King James is the best word, is it not? However, to know the meaning you have to read the context where it explains that kind of �giving� love, as in these verses: 4 �Love suffers long (is patient) and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up (with pride); 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth.� --- (Another example later) Placid |
Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 04 December 2013 at 9:53pm
Hi Placid, Yet the King James Version has grave defects. [18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: [19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. |
Placid wrote:Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 05 December 2013 at 6:32am
|
Another example of the Scholarly RSV revision of the NT is where they make a decision and, I guess, if they have over two thirds in favor, they made the change;
--- The Apostle John was perhaps only 20-22 on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was given to empower them in Acts 2. --- He wrote the Book of Revelation on the Island of Patmos where he was exiled by the Roman Government during the reign of the emperor Domitian (81-96), when persecution was increased against the Christians. --- This was the testimony of Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. --- (John would have been 80-85 years old when he wrote this). --- He gives this intro in Revelation 1: 9 �I, john, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.� --- Chapters 2-3 are seven messages for seven Churches in Asia Minor that they believe John was associated with in the years before Patmos, and that he perhaps lived in Ephesus. The 3 letters of John were written a few years before the Revelation, but John was the oldest and last writer, and he reveals some wisdom not in other books. --- One theme of controversy for critics is this, in 1 John 5: 6 "This is He who came by water and blood�Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one." I won�t take time to explain the verses now, but will zero in on verse 7: ** KJ: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. ** NKJ: For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. --- (With a footnote). ** NIV: For there are three that testify: --- (with a footnote) ** RSV: And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth (No footnote) ** Amplified Bible: So there are three witnesses in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One; The footnote says the words from 'in -to -One' are not found in some manuscripts. So, the NKJ, the NIV, and the Amplified each clarifying that there are some manuscripts without the wording �in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One; The first thing to notice is that the whole verse had to have been in the Manuscript they followed away back there when they started numbering the verses, was it not? --- In the NIV the verse would be only --- �For there are three that testify� And your new revision the RSV borrows its whole verse from 6, and says: �And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.� --- So, you see, by men�s opinion they made it more readable, but intentionally distorted the Scripture. So who can you blame for this? Can you blame God? --- Can you blame the Holy Spirit, who wasn�t invited to guide them? --- Or do you have to blame the two thirds majority of scholars, who wanted to make it: --- (Quote from intro) --- a version which will --- �embody the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of the Scriptures, and express this meaning in English diction which is designed for use in public and private worship.� We can�t be critical of God for what men decide to do, can we? Placid |
Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 06 December 2013 at 11:35am
|
Hi Placid.
1.2.2.5 1 John 5:7 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." Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God's people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "Trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the true nature of God as being a "Trinity." Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see chapter two). If these people were being "inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did they need to put these words into other people's mouths (in our example, in the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to "inspire" his "true" nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself? The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words: "Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza." "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418. Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year 400C.E.(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33). Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said "His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text." To which Mr. Bentley responds: "In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the interpolation." Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had predicted, the simple fact that the most learned scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication. Peake's Commentary on the Bible says "The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus." It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all: "In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books� Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best" Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156 According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament. For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations got together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of the RSV Bible, please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible. Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt", or was it an "ass and a colt"? see point 42 in the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read: "And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring [him]. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed [them] in the way And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest." Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of any description of the "Trinity" which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. I found myself asking the question: If every aspect of Christian faith is described in such detail such that even the description of this ass is so vividly depicted for us, then why is the same not true for the description of the "Trinity"? Sadly, however, it is a question for which there is no logical answer. greetings iec |
Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 09 December 2013 at 5:12pm
|
Hi iec,
The faulty Trinity doctrine from the Roman Church started after the year 300. They called the Church �Catholic,� meaning �Universal.� --- And in order to bring everyone in line with their new structure, with a hierarchy like the Judaic system of the Pharisees, with Priests, and then a High Priest, (a Pope), to represent God on earth instead of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, --- they had to write a new set of �doctrines� or teachings, for everyone to follow. --- Those who disagreed with their theology were persecuted, some Leaders were imprisoned and some were killed. --- Would that be the desire and guidance of God, to persecute and kill His faithful servants? --- Or was that the continual persecution of the Roman Government on the believing Christians? --- Then the Roman Dynasty went on to wage war in the name of the Church. The problem with the Roman Trinity is that it put Jesus in place of the Word (Logos), and says that the three are co-equal, which is also wrong according to the Scriptures, so we will look at it from a different angle. As I said, 1 John 5:6, 7, and 8 had to have been in an early Manuscript to have been numbered as full verses, and there is nothing to say that some �scholars,� who didn�t understand what it meant, and who didn�t agree with the �Three in heaven,� could easily have destroyed those old manuscripts in the second, third, or fourth century. --- However, it must have been in the Latin Vulgate, to be in the Douay Rheims Version, of which I have a copy. --- And there is no footnote. The King James was written from the ancient Greek Manuscripts and they may have found one that survived, --- However, in the NKJ there is a footnote to the affect that it is not found in the older Manuscripts. --- (That is not to say that it hadn�t been, because it written in, --- or in a footnote in nearly all the versions.) However, the verse 7 is a confirmation of other Scriptures which have not been considered by the critics, --- such as Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, �Let there be light�; and there was light. So it simply says in verse 1--- �God created the heavens and the earth.� Verse 2 --- �And the Spirit of God was hovering (or moving) over the face of the water (the sea).� --- So the Holy Spirit of God was there in the beginning with God. Verse 3 --- And God said, �Let there �Be.� --- The action word �Be� refers to the �Logos� the Creative power of God. --- So God said �Let there �Be� light.� --- So, the Word (Logos) was also there with God in the beginning. --- So there you have it. --- The Father (God), --- the Word, and the Holy Spirit. --- Not three gods, but One God, who is the Designer, and His Word, and His Holy Spirit as �Divine Servants� to bring God�s Design into �Being.� So, the three witnesses in heaven are identified in the first three verses of the Bible. --- And the first three verses of John identify the Word, and say in John 1: 1 �In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.� --- So, the Word here is called God, and was the Logos, the Creative power of God. In the same way that the Spirit of God gave �Life� to the sea creatures while hovering over the waters, the Word (Logos), brought �creation� into �being� on planet earth. --- Great mysteries, but it gives enough info to understand the origins and the Three Personages involved in Creation, --- However, they were One in Divinity and harmony. --- In Hebrew, �Ashad� can refer to Elohim, which is a plural name for God, as in Deuteronomy 6: 4 �Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. --- It has been rendered this way: �the Lord (Elohim) our God, the Lord is One (ashad), meaning in Divinity and harmony. --- Also, when two people are married they become one (ashad) in union. An army of 1000 men can be one (ashad) in purpose. Next we can look at what the Quran says. Placid |
Posted By: Spiritlead
Date Posted: 11 December 2013 at 6:45pm
Hello Iec, Your argument sounds like plagiarism ? Mathew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic gospels. The word "synoptic" means "with the same eye" or "seeing together." They are inter dependent on each other. The Gospels were a collection of oral stories passed around from the eye witnesses. Before the eye witnesses died they decided to write them down. Mathew did not copy Mark. Mathew probably used Mark and referred to it but didn�t copy it. And so what if Mathew referred to Mark? It shows good sense that Mathew would refer to all sources to make his own writing more reliable. All the gospels contain material not found in other gospels. None of the gospels was composed simply by copying other gospels. The wording differences are great enough to rule that out. Important differences exist. For example Matthew includes fifteen parables which were taught by Jesus. Ten of these parables are not found anywhere else in the New Testament. Matthew also records twenty miracles which were done by Jesus. Three of these are not found elsewhere. You ask what happened to the Holy Ghost? The Gospels weren�t written by The Holy Ghost. They were written by imperfect men inspired by the Holy Ghost. You need to view the New Testament more like your Hadith rather than the Quran. Muslims claim that the Quran is the literal Word of God. This is obviously false when the truth about the origin of the Quran is known. How do you know what your Quran consisted of before Uthman burnt all early copies? The Sanaa Quran found in You say some early gospels got lost or destroyed? Where is your proof? When did this happen? Who did it? and why? I�ve asked Muslims this before and they can never provide proof. Maybe you are referring to the Gnostic Gospels which have been proven to be written much later than Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and were Gnostic � not Christian. Yours is just the same old conspiracy theory with no proof? The Quran is clear in its support for the Gospels - He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel. Sura. 3:3. |
Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 12 December 2013 at 10:58am
|
Your argument sounds like plagiarism ? why?
Mathew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic gospels. The word "synoptic" means "with the same eye" or "seeing together." They are inter dependent on each other.Interdependent for what?were they not inspired??? The close relating of the synoptic gospels has never made them false.The writers of the Gospels say they are false. Any modern historian would also make use of other documents about their subject.What happened to the holy ghost?? The similar passages can be seen as evidence of the thoroughness and accuracy of the gospel writers. The Gospels were a collection of oral stories passed around from the eye witnesses.Hence the reson it is damaged beyond repair. Before the eye witnesses died they decided to write them down.God and the Holy ghost did not see fit to preserve them. Mathew did not copy Mark. Mathew probablyHe had no right to use someone elses work.It is called stealing plagiarism. used Mark and referred to it but didn�t copy it.lol what did he do with it play games???? And so what if Mathew referred to Mark?Then God nor Jesus had any part of this failed storey. It shows good sense that Mathew would refer to all sources to make his own writing more reliable.That would make him a thief he had no right to do that at all. All the gospels contain material not found in other gospels.Why should there not be only one None of the gospels was composed simply by copying other gospels.You running in circles. The wording differences are great enough to rule that out. Important differences exist. For example Matthew includes fifteen parables which were taught by Jesus. Ten of these parables are not found anywhere else in the New Testament. Matthew also records twenty miracles which were done by Jesus. Three of these are not found elsewhere. You ask what happened to the Holy Ghost? The Gospels weren�t written by The Holy Ghost. They were written by imperfect men inspired by the Holy Ghost.the holy ghost gave them the wrong thing because they started stealing one another's work according to the Bible scholars. You need to view the New Testament more like your Hadith rather than the Quran.Jesus never saw the new Testament Muslims claim that the Quran is the literal Word of God.God says it is. This is obviously falseand your evidence is ??? when the truth about the origin of the Quran is known. How do you know what your Quran consisted of before Uthman burnt all early copies?It was memorised and the quran was kept by Hafsa [ra> The Sanaa Quran found in Yemen in 1972 was written before Uthman burnt all copies and the Sanaa Quran is full of mistakes and errors.Do you have a copy that we could verify it??? You say some early gospels got lost or destroyed? Where is your proof?oPEN THE niv Bible to the writings of Mathew and the Christian scholars mention it in the Bible use the study Bible.Author Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies -- in particular those that stress Matthew's alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel -- have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord's life, depend so heavily on Mark's account? When did this happen? Who did it? and why? I�ve asked Muslims this before and they can never provide proof. Maybe you are referring to the Gnostic Gospels which have been proven to be written much later than Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and were Gnostic � not Christian. Yours is just the same old conspiracy theory with no proof?Summary of the Gospel of Matthew This summary of the Gospel of Matthew provides information about the title, author(s), date of writing, chronology, theme, theology, outline, a brief overview, and the chapters of the Gospel of Matthew. Author Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies -- in particular those that stress Matthew's alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel -- have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord's life, depend so heavily on Mark's account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided. Matthew, whose name means "gift of the Lord," was a tax collector who left his work to follow Jesus (9:9-13). In Mark and Luke he is called by his other name, Levi. Date and Place of Writing Some have argued on the basis of its Jewish characteristics that Matthew's Gospel was written in the early church period, possibly the early part of a.d. 50, when the church was largely Jewish and the gospel was preached to Jews only (Ac 11:19). However, those who have concluded that both Matthew and Luke drew extensively from Mark's Gospel date it later -- after the Gospel of Mark had been in circulation for a period of time. See essay and chart, p. 1943. Accordingly, some feel that Matthew would have been written in the late 50s or in the 60s. Others, who assume that Mark was written between 65 and 70, place Matthew in the 70s or even later. However, there is insufficient evidence to be dogmatic about either view. The Jewish nature of Matthew's Gospel may suggest that it was written in the Holy Land, though many think it may have originated in Syrian Antioch. The Quran is clear in its support for the Gospels -not the one you hold in your hand. He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel.of which non exist today in its original form.Boath have been mutilated. Sura. 3:3. |
Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 12 December 2013 at 11:48am
|
Hi iec,
Sorry to be slow to get back to this topic but let�s look at what it says in the Quran about the �Three in heaven.� --- When you say there is no description of a trinity in the Bible, --- that is right, because the doctrine came out of the Roman Church and not the Bible. However what is written in the Quran corrects the faulty part of the trinity doctrine, if you will accept it. --- Let�s look at the Word (Logos, the creative power of God.) In the Quran it says this of the birth of Jesus in Surah 3: 45 Behold! the angel said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a �Word� from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God; 47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is! --- Also, Surah 19:20 She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" 21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed." --- It was announced that the Word (Logos) would come down from heaven to indwell the human Jesus. Mary said �How�? --- And the angel says, �When God decrees a plan He simply says to it �Be� and it is.� In 21 he says, �He will be a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed." So it was God�s plan to have the Word, who is invisible, the same as the Holy Spirit, to come down and indwell the physical body of Jesus so He could be seen, and would represent God on earth. --- Jesus was CALLED the Son of God, but He was not a biological son. --- So, let�s look at the verse that says it all, in Surah 4: 171 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs. 171 O People of the Book (in this case Christians, and particularly Trinitarians) --- �Commit no excesses in your religion, or say what isn�t true� --- don�t exaggerate the truth, as in the trinity doctrine. --- �Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God,� --- Since (no more than) is in brackets, it indicates that it was not in the Arabic, but other translators use �just� an apostle of God. --- This is to indicate that Jesus was not God, --- but �just an Apostle, or Messenger,� also called the Messiah. --- �An apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary,� --- So Jesus was an Apostle, Messenger of God (the Father of all), --- and His Word which He (God) bestowed on Mary, (as it says in 3:45,) --- and a Spirit from Him (God). --- So, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are all of God Is this not exactly what it says in 1 John 5:7 --- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, --- (they are all of God). --- Notice,: --- It says, �So, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are all of God,� But it says, �Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him.� --- And notice this: --- �Say not �trinity� meaning �three,�--- there has to be �three� to refer to, and the three are: --- God the Father, --- the Word, --- and the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of God) If you can understand this, you can see that the Quran is here correcting the faulty doctrine of the �trinity,� because Jesus was the visible Messenger of the �Three� from heaven. --- But notice, Jesus is NOT ONE OF THE 'THREE.� (A little more later) Placid |
Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 18 December 2013 at 10:26am
|
Hi Placid,
Would you then admit that the quraan has a better and correct understanding of the birth of Jesus pbuh. |
Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 16 February 2014 at 12:41pm
Hi Placid, This is what we Muslims are telling you that the Quran confirms that the Good news was given to Jesus(PBUH)But we are telling you that the Bible that you hold in your hand is not the good news that was given to Jesus you have a book that has forty different authors and anonymous books several were thrown out as apocrypha doubtful fabricated scripts.this in a book of God no my friend this storey that you are trying to pass on to us about the Holy Spirit is another of those fabrications. greetings iec |