Originally posted by ahosyneyIf you come with an open mind, I'll discuss anything with you. I honestly don't believe you have a genuine interest outside your stated goal.
I don't remember I debated with you
may be you replied to one of my posts but we didn't continue talking. I only talked to whody and we didn't complete talking.
I don't try to ignore any thing or to make the scripture to go with my beliefs. Actually I don't need to do so.
Any way I really wanted to discuss the 7 questions but it seems it is not accepted here.
In the same way as I would not bother to discuss with anyone who comes here to proselytise, I'll decline your invitation to debate. Convince me I am mistaken, and I'll change my mind.
Originally posted by sjegIn the other thread when I said I'm here, I was talking about the thread.
If you come with an open mind, I'll discuss anything with you. I honestly don't believe you have a genuine interest outside your stated goal.
In the same was as I would not bother to discuss with anyone who comes here to proselytise, I'll decline your invitation to debate. Convince me i am mistaken, and I'll change my mind.
And that thread was only about Islam, I didn't talk about Christianity and didn't try too.
And even if I'm here to tell the message of Islam, why do you have a problem with that.
I accepted all what was said about Islam in the other thread although it all was talking about what media say about Islam and no one tried to talk about the thoughts and faith of Islam, but I accepted it and tried to replay as much as I can, and I was alone againest many Christians and unbelivers. And then you come here to say I'm not open minded just because I asked you questions about your Christianity.
I think you are so unfair.
Does this sound familar as an example:
'When you talk about Juses and how peacefull he was you talk only parts of your holy book and ignore many others..
Juses say in the bible Matth[5:17]
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil"
Which mean he didn't come with something new. And every thing in the law he agree with. And the call for fighting infidals every where in the OLD statement.
And also read this:
Matt[15:22] And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
Matt[15:23] But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Matt[15:24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
what this verses say is totaly aganist your claim that Juses call was unversial. Juses refused to help other than Jewish because he said he was only sent for Jewish. '?
How can anyone evey debate a point with someone who seemingly intentionally fails to comprehend in this case the Scripture he cites?
It's pointless. Utterly pointless. Now shuffle off and pray to Mecca like a good chap, and leave constructive thought alone for a while.
Or how about this doosie:
'I will ask you a very simple question. Is Juses the same GOD in the Old Testament. If yes then he is a very Bloody GOD. If no then either he is not GOD and your faith is not true, or you worship two GODs, and you are close to any other idolator'?
Do you read what you write? You come across as either bit of an eejit or someone who purposefully misinterprets things to bring them around to his argument. Sad either way.
Originally posted by sjegYou still so unfair and see it from your point of view.
Does this sound familar as an example:
[b]
'When you talk about Juses and how peacefull he was you talk only parts of your holy book and ignore many others..
Juses say in the bible Matth[5:17]
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil"
Which mean he didn't come with something new. And ever ...[text shortened]... purposefully misinterprets things to bring them around to his argument. Sad either way.
I didn't say I didn't talk about that before.
But you also take this examples out of its context.
For example the second post was in a thread from someone who was quting from Quran and taking things out from its context and interpret it the way he want. And also he claims that nothing like that exist in the bible. I said no, there are many places in the Bible where GOD asked for killing his enemies, and I'm not the only one who said that.
For your first example , what do you want me to do...
I gave you some scriptures from the Bible, and I said what you understand from it. My be I'm right, may be I'm wrong, but I didn't force to anything.
It seems that the problem is I'm Muslim.... I will pray to Allah that we all find the truth.
1 Timothy 3:16 Says, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the nations, believed on in the world, recieved up into glory."
Titus 2:13 "Looking fro that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ."
So much for the theory that Christ was made God in the 4rth century at Nicea. OK, OK so you don't like Paul and who can blame you if you don't agree that Christ is God. Moving onward....
John 10:30 "jesus said he was part of God. He said "I and my Father are one"
OK, OK so you think mortal man can be one with God. Moving on...
John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, "Verily, Verily, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Then they took up stones to cast at him..."
OK, OK, so a mortal man could have predated Abraham. Moving on...
John 5:18 "Therefore the Jews sought to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."
OK, OK so the Jewish religious leaders who were experts in the Torah did not understand that Christ was not making himself God. Nor did Christ correct them from this asumption. Moving on...
The author of john explains the trinity in this way. John 1:1 "In the begininning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God. John 1:14 then says "And the Word was made 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."
OK, OK so you don't like the book of John now and who can blame you? It must have been corrupted in some way. MOving on...
Matthew 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us."
Ok, Ok, so we can safely throw out the entire New Testament because it makes these assumptions. Moving on...
Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasing Father, the Prince of Peace."
OK, OK, so we can safely throw out the entire Bible as being corrupted. I guess it only leaves the Quran for us to read then, no? You know it is odd to me that another religion attaches itself to another religions holy book. Judism and Christianity predate Islam by leaps and bounds but somehow Islam are the experts in regards to the origins of the other two religions. You may say that Chrisianity has done the same with Judism but I would argue that we accept in full the Old Testament and there are many prophesies in the Old Testament that point to Christ's coming. Where are the prophesies for the coming of Mohammad I wonder? We do not simply pick and choose from the Torah what is palatible to us.
You are right in that Christ did not go around beating people over the head by revealing who he was. I think Mark 8:27 best sums it up.
And Jesus said, "Whom do you say that I am?" And the answered, John the Baptist; but some say Elias; and others, One of the prophets. And he said to them, "But whom say you that I am?" And Peter answered and said to him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him."
So to sum up, whom do you say that he is?
Originally posted by whodey[i]Complimenti, Whodey!
1 Timothy 3:16 Says, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the nations, believed on in the world, recieved up into glory."
Titus 2:13 "Looking fro that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ."
So ...[text shortened]... d tell no man of him."
So to sum up, whom do you say that he is?
Originally posted by whodeyAm I allowed to answer? I guess not?
1 Timothy 3:16 Says, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the nations, believed on in the world, recieved up into glory."
Titus 2:13 "Looking fro that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ."
So d tell no man of him."
So to sum up, whom do you say that he is?
Originally posted by whodeyOk , first I didn't say anything about Quran, you asked me about that before and you know what Quran say, and I said it here too. So I will not talk about that.
The floor is yours my freind. Be my guest.
I hope we take each scripture you refere to and discuss it. If you accept that just tell me. I don't want sjeq to be angry ....
1 Timothy 3:16 Says, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the nations, believed on in the world, recieved up into glory."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Timothy 3:16
The shorter portion of this dissertation was concerned with 1 Timothy 3:16, which reads (in King James Version):
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Newton showed how, by a small alteration in the Greek text, the word "God" was inserted to make the phrase read "God was manifest in the flesh." He demonstrated that early Church writers in referring to the verse knew nothing of such an alteration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most reliable manuscripts of 1 Timothy 3:16 do not say "God was manifested in the flesh" but "who" or which" was manifested in flesh." When the Christological controversies were occurring in the fourth and early fifth centuries, we do not see even one solitary person making a reference to this passage as evidence for the deity of Christ.
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/1Tim3_16.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The architects and advocates of the modern English translations of the Holy Scriptures often assure us that their numerous alterations, omissions and additions do not affect any vital doctrine. While this may be true of hundreds of minute variations there is nevertheless a substantial number of important doctrinal passages which the modern versions present in an altered and invariably weakened form. These inspired words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy have always been held to affirm the essential deity and pre-existence of the Lord Jesus Christ, but this testimony is not maintained by the modern versions which do not unequivocally declare that Christ was "God manifest in the flesh". The New English Bible reads, "He who was manifested in the body", without even the grace of a marginal note, either in the English edition or in the corresponding Greek text edited by Professor Tasker, to inform the reader that any other reading was ever to be found in any of the manuscripts.
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/truefalse/truefalse03.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is the answer of the above:
1 Timothy 3:16 is one of the most clearest teachings on the incarnation of Christ and His Deity. The Gnostics had removed “qeos” (Theos-God) which is a noun and changed it to “Ος” (Hos-He), which is a pronoun. This is a glaring attack upon the Lord Jesus Christ by removing the fact that He was and is God, and specifically as God being the Savior. (Isa 43:11 KJV) I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. If Christ, as God, did not die upon that cross for His children, then we are still in our sins. For no mere man can die for another and have their sins removed, for who will remove the sins of the one sacrificing himself? Sinner cannot redeem sinner!
Gnostic teaching did not allow for any deity to dwell in sinful flesh, so they removed the name of God and changed it to He, which can now make room to substitute anyone else’s name. The problem here is that this attack is answered by another verse of Scripture. (1 John 4:3 KJV) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Let us look at 1 John 4:3 in the NIV and you will see a pattern emerge. (NIV - 1 John 4:3) “but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.” What is missing from that verse? The part about Jesus coming in the flesh! Do you see the underlying spirit of Satan which permeates these modern versions? They remove “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16 and so no one will question it, they remove the reference of Christ coming in the flesh in 1 John 4:3. It is a shame that so many churches and Christians are doing the work of Satan by proliferating these evil books under the name of Christianity.
http://www.scionofzion.com/1_timothy_3_16.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So tell me what you understand from all of this.
Originally posted by ahosyneyThere have been a myriad attacks on the authenticiy of the Bible my friend. First you have such men as Mohammad who said that the Bible was full of errors, then you had such men as Joseph Smith who insisted that the Holy Bible was innacurate and started Mormonism, then you had the Jehova's Witnesses saying the same thing. Guess what all three religions have in common? They all ended up re-writing their own Bible and guess what, none of the newer Bibles created by each respective religion in any way agrees with each other. So who's reinterpretation would you have us believe?
1 Timothy 3:16 Says, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the nations, believed on in the world, recieved up into glory."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Timothy 3:16
The shorter porti ...[text shortened]... ------------------------------
So tell me what you understand from all of this.
Granted, no one interprets the Bible the same way. This is why you have different denominations within Chrisitandom. Personally, I think this to be a good thing. This is because man is imperfect. As a result, the theology of each denomination may not be 100% correct. Therefore, you have freedom within various denominations to pursue the perceived truth of the entire Bible. Despite this fact, in the end they seem to agree more than they differ. However, when you change the wording around of the inspired word of God, whether you claim it to have been changed in the past or not, then you wind up with a different religion altogether.
Islam has the same type of controversies with the Quran as you have differing sects such as the Sunni's and Shiites. However, if you had someone come in and begin to question the authenticity of the Quran and begin to change the wording around, you will wind up with a completely different religion altogether as well. How would you like Christians tampering with the authenticty of the Quran? My guess is he would not be long for this world if there was such an attempt yet Mulsims see no problems in doing the same to the Christian holy book and, in fact, feel obligated to do so.
So why are all these other religions pointing to the Bible you may ask? Could you imagine Mohammad coming along and beginning a religion that was different from any one religion of his day? If he wrote a seperate Bible for his religion, where is he to say God has been up until his revelations? You see each religion needs to acknowledge God as being active in the affairs of men in the past or come up with an explanation as to why he had been silent up until the time of the new religion being started. The only solution is to then latch onto a religion of the past and suck it dry for all it is worth and simply spew out what you don't like by saying it has been corrupted.
You may play games with the wording of the original text and say it has been altered, however, I don't see how you get around certain inherent problems regarding the overall message of the Bible. How can you read all four gospels and not come away with the realization that Christ came to die for our sins on the cross? You are not simply changing words around at that point, rather, you would have to be changing entire sentences and chapters around in the gospels. You would then have to do the same to the Pauline letters and the rest of the New Testament, assuming you have any respect for them whatsoever. The last time I checked, Islam has no use for the theology that Christ came to die for our sins.
Originally posted by whodeyHi Whodey
There have been a myriad attacks on the authenticiy of the Bible my friend. First you have such men as Mohammad who said that the Bible was full of errors, then you had such men as Joseph Smith who insisted that the Holy Bible was innacurate and started Mormonism, then you had the Jehova's Witnesses saying the same thing. Guess what all three religions have ...[text shortened]... ast time I checked, Islam has no use for the theology that Christ came to die for our sins.
when I gave you these links I was not trying to show you that the Bible is corrupted. Really that was not my intention. I know that scripture of Timothy 3:16 is different from one Bible to the other, and many scholars say the word GOD is added to the text. So we cann't use it to prove trinity. That is all. Don't you agree with me that I cann't build my faith over an unreliable source.
That is one point.
The other point is that when you talk about Quran you can find the same problem simply because there is only one Quran. Even Sheia has the same Quran that suna have. No difference in one word. Not only that. Quran is not only transmitted by writting but also by memorising it. Millions of Muslims memorize the whole book as it was told form the prophet Mohammed. So all Muslims in the world belive in the same book and you will not find any difference.
For the last portion of replay, I want you to show me where in the Bible I can find that. That what this all about. I really want to know. There are 4 billion Christians in the world and I want to understand what is the base of theit belive.
Sorry for my bad english, this is a big problem don't allow me to express all my thoughts.
Originally posted by whodeyI want to tell you something else.
There have been a myriad attacks on the authenticiy of the Bible my friend. First you have such men as Mohammad who said that the Bible was full of errors, then you had such men as Joseph Smith who insisted that the Holy Bible was innacurate and started Mormonism, then you had the Jehova's Witnesses saying the same thing. Guess what all three religions have ...[text shortened]... ast time I checked, Islam has no use for the theology that Christ came to die for our sins.
When I read the Gosbels I try to interpret it match your belives and mine.
I really find it hard to match you belives. I have to make many conclusiona and assumptions. I have to use words not in its real meaning.
But when I read it according to my belives it goes smoothly with no provlem.