The Religion Discussion

[TonyM]

^ LOL the irony of you accusing someone else of cherry-picking. If there are bad verses in a holy text promoting slavery, gender in-equality, blood sacrifice and intolerance ANYWHERE in the book, then such a text is NOT relevant today. Sorry.

Should we tolerate the intolerant?


even within your own religion, you will not tolerate people because they are from a different sect, claiming they are not of YOUR religion. Is this the bigotry we want to teach our children in school? Religion has NO place in school or public office. The same way we do not teach or talk about sexual preference in those places we should not teach it in school. Because that is all religion is, an irrelevant but egotistical preference.

[De Dragon]

^ LOL the irony of you accusing someone else of cherry-picking. If there are bad verses in a holy text promoting slavery, gender in-equality, blood sacrifice and intolerance ANYWHERE in the book, then such a text is NOT relevant today. Sorry.

Should we tolerate the intolerant?


even within your own religion, you will not tolerate people because they are from a different sect, claiming they are not of YOUR religion. Is this the bigotry we want to teach our children in school? Religion has NO place in school or public office. The same way we do not teach or talk about sexual preference in those places we should not teach it in school. Because that is all religion is, an irrelevant but egotistical preference.

Kinda like how you singled out one person?

[TonyM]

^ I did not single out anyone. I responded to his comment about cherry-picking and then added what I came in here to add, my comment and a video. Since when responding to a person is singling them out?

what I posted was for both AdamB and Habit7.

We all tolerate other people's personal preference, once people do it in the privacy of their own homes.

Blowing up a place because they do not believe what you believe is ridiculous.

[Habit7]

^^^TonyM I have addressed the issue of slavery in the Bible the thread before as laws for the people at that time and that place. The reason most of us in the West see slavery as immoral is because of a morality enlighten by the Bible. It was Christians such as William Wilberforce and deists/theists such a Abraham Lincoln who based on the view of man put forward in the Bible opposed the kind of oppressive slavery we last saw in the West.

I meant to address this earlier in response to AdamB's post but again the Bible leads the charge in gender equality. Paul told the Galatian believers that, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This equates men and women before God and shows them both as equal capable of worship, service and accountability before Him. Christ allowed His most crucial evidence of His resurrection be attested to first by women, in culture where her witness was not admissible in court. The Old Testament has a book chronicling how a woman named Esther saved the entire Jewish race from extermination. There are many other examples I can give from the Bible of God using women virtuously as He did with men.
However you and I live in a world that has be affected by 2nd Wave Feminism which has one of its tenants as no gender roles. This is in contradiction to God and how He created nature where we see from complex animals and even with us humans we have unavoidable sexual specific roles we cannot escape (sex, childbearing, strength and other physical attributes). As such, within the home and the church He has assigned sexual specific roles not based on perceived value, but based on how He wants us to operate. In all, the claim of gender inequality in the Bible is without merit.

The blood sacrifice claim you are making is not understandable to me. Are you against the killing of animals or that Jesus surrendered Himself as a propitiation?

Tolerance can only happen with people of differing views. Within these different views we respectfully tolerate each other and again this is typified in the Christian morality which according to the Bible calls on Christians not force faith on anyone but proselytise with the hope of God granting them faith Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

As I am a Christian, do you tolerate me?

[AdamB]

AdamB you want tackle this one, your sister may have over looked it

According to Sahih Muslim 142 and Sahih Al-Bukhari 2658, are women intellectually deficient?

Why is the witness of two women considered to be equal to the testimony of one man?
Praise be to Allaah.

What is meant by witness or testimony is something by which the thing testified may be proven and known to be true and correct, so it is information about it. With regard to the witness of two women being equal to the testimony of one man. Allaah has mentioned the wisdom behind specifying the number of two as being that a woman may forget or get confused, so the other woman can remind her, as He said:

“…And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her…”

[al-Baqarah 2:282 – interpretation of the meaning]

With regard to the phrase, “that if one of them (two women) errs”, Ibn Katheer said: “This means, the two women, if one of them forgets the testimony, then ‘the other can remind her’, i.e., she can remind her about the matter concerning which testimony is being given.” (Tafseer Ibn Katheer, part 1, p. 724)

Allaah has commanded the testimony of two women so as to be sure that they remember, because the mind and memory of two women takes the place of the mind and memory of one man. (See I’laam al-Muwaqqa’een, part 1, p. 75).

This does not mean that a woman does not understand or that she cannot remember things, but she is weaker than man in these aspects – usually. Scientific and specialized studies have shown that men’s minds are more perfect than those of women, and reality and experience bear witness to that. The books of knowledge are the best witness to that; the knowledge which has been transmitted by men and the ahaadeeth which have been memorized by men far outnumber those which have come via women.

This has to do with gender, i.e., the gender of men is more perfect than the gender of women. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allaah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband’s absence what Allaah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity and their husband’s property)”

[al-Nisaa’ 4:34]

Nevertheless, there are some women who are far superior to men in their reason and insight, but they are few, and the ruling is based on the majority and the usual cases.

A woman may compensate for her weaknesses by striving hard, and surpass men when they are negligent. Hence we find that in some colleges, female students surpass male students because of their greater efforts and their keenness to succeed when many of the male students are negligent and are not eager to learn. A man may also excel over a woman in some fields that are basically hers, so we find that some of the most skilled chefs, tailors, cosmeticians and obstetricians on the international level are men. The point is that usually – and no wise person would dispute this – most of the prominent people in the religious sciences, such as fiqh, hadeeth, tafseer, ‘aqeedah and preaching, and in the worldly sciences such as medicine, astronomy, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc. are men.

If we think about the western societies in which men and women are regarded as equal in all aspects, we will find that despite that men still prevail. Still, Allaah has given women pre-eminence and has favoured them over men in some aspects, such as caring for children, and showing patience, love and compassion towards them, and managing the home. Hence the sharee’ah gives custody to them, for the mother is the first school, from which the future men, leaders of the world and scholars of the ummah graduate. What virtue can be greater than this?

Islam encourages special care for the mother and her children, and enjoins upon children to honour their mother, treat her kindly and give her preferential treatment above the father. It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: “A man said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, who among the people is most deserving of my good companionship?’ He said, Your mother, then your mother, then your mother, then your father, then those who are closest in order of closeness.’” (Narrated by Muslim, 2548). What greater honour can there be than this?

So let everyone work in his or her field of specialization. Men should not interfere in pregnancy and breastfeeding, and women should not be involved in jihad, fighting the enemy, or holding the positions of khaleefah or ruler. Whatever is permitted to both of them should be done within the guidelines of sharee’ah, such as not allowing free mixing of the sexes and not neglecting other duties such as those of husbands and wives.

And Allaah is the Source of strength.

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

[MG Man]

and one more thing:
why is it you idiots insist on blaring your call to prayer from loudspeakers? For the love of good geera pork, is that really necessary? We have wristwatches and alarm clocks now...do you know how effing hard it is to get an extra hour sleep in charlieville when you backsides start up that sheit on a morning?.........effing inconsiderate rassholes............seriously, why the loudspeakers?
Why not let hassan or imran climb to the top and just bawl out like in olden days?
sheesh

Does anyone in society make these claims when fetes and parties are blasting for hours through the night when people are trying to sleep?

Try some ear plugs or ear muffs or sound attenuation in your bedroom. Or go to the particular mosque/s and make an official humane complaint.

Lastly, write a letter to the EMA. Collect signatures, etc.

So you likening call to prayer with a fete? Hmm....
And why must I lodge a complaint? You people supposed to be more considerate. Sure your book teaches about that. And yeah, as per le original question, why do you folks need a loudspeaker for this ritual?

[AdamB]

^^^Loudspeaker not a necessity but I suppose it's cheaper than building a tall minaret and less effort for the muadhdhin to climb up there to make the adhaan (call to prayer) by natural voice.

MGMan, likened to a fete from a NOISE pollution perspective. Isn't that what your complaint is about?

[AdamB]

^ LOL the irony of you accusing someone else of cherry-picking. If there are bad verses in a holy text promoting slavery, gender in-equality, blood sacrifice and intolerance ANYWHERE in the book, then such a text is NOT relevant today. Sorry.

Should we tolerate the intolerant?


even within your own religion, you will not tolerate people because they are from a different sect, claiming they are not of YOUR religion. Is this the bigotry we want to teach our children in school? Religion has NO place in school or public office. The same way we do not teach or talk about sexual preference in those places we should not teach it in school. Because that is all religion is, an irrelevant but egotistical preference.

Unfortunately our laws were done with religion and GOD in mind, that's why our National Anthem say, "May every CREED and race find an equal place, and may GOD bless our nation."

The effects of your GOD-LESS civilization is rampant in our schools. Visit one near you and talk to the Principal about it. Ie why the children of today are generally intolerant, rude, tardy and disrespectful to start with.

[MG Man]

^^^Loudspeaker not a necessity but I suppose it's cheaper than building a tall minaret and less effort for the muadhdhin to climb up there to make the adhaan (call to prayer) by natural voice.

MGMan, likened to a fete from a NOISE pollution perspective. Isn't that what your complaint is about?

what fetes make noise on a regular basis in charlieville?

[AdamB]

The biblical understanding of God is He is one in essence. He exists as the Godhead of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet related in essence. That is why it is said of Christ Colossians 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form

But as you have raised issue with the New Testament which back up the doctrine of the Trinity explained above, here are some verses from the Old Testament that speaks about the plurality of the Godhead: Gen. 1:26, Gen. 3:22, Gen. 11:7, Gen. 19:24, Psalm 45:6-7, Isaiah 6:8, Amos 4:10-11

I don't understand your imperfection argument because I never said God has need of a Son, we have need the Son's righteousness. God needs nothing, He is satisfied in Himself (another argument for the plurality of the Godhead).

I am willing to answer your Bible questions just as I supplied you with historical references to Jesus' existence and juxtaposed it to the Quran single account viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=13260#p6918237. However I saw earlier that you referenced Bible verses to validate your Islamic point.
How do you know which verses and good and which verses are bad?
Can you provide evidence for the corruption of the Bible from its true Islamic teaching?
Are you engaging in cherry-picking verses that affirm your teaching and disregarding verses that condemn it?

Sorry I didn't get a chance to check those verses, that's why I asked you to post them (not just the references).

Anyway I didn't see anything from The Gospels which are the only books quoting from the mouth of Jesus (as).

My point is that there is no CLEAR evidence for a Godhead comprising of a Trinity, neither Jesus commanding that worship be directed to him and not GOD (who is above and in heaven/paradise).

And who wrote the other accounts / books in the New Testament? Aren't these that have formed the Trinity / God has a son / worship Jesus concepts?

[AdamB]

^^^Loudspeaker not a necessity but I suppose it's cheaper than building a tall minaret and less effort for the muadhdhin to climb up there to make the adhaan (call to prayer) by natural voice.

MGMan, likened to a fete from a NOISE pollution perspective. Isn't that what your complaint is about?

what fetes make noise on a regular basis in charlieville?

You missing the point, it was a generality, not specific to Charlieville.

Maybe there's a reason why GOD has placed you in a large muslim community and so close to a mosque to hear the Call to Prayer. It is said that Satan urinates in one who does not hear the Adhaan and sleeps not going to the masjid for the Dawn Prayer. The fact that you hear and are awakened is not necessarily a bad thing. One day you may come around, insha Allaah!!

[MG Man]

lol surely you jest
you fuggers are just damn inconsiderate

[Chimera]

lol surely you jest
you fuggers are just damn inconsiderate

what area the noise bothering you?

organise a bbq pork lime a friday na.

[AdamB]

lol surely you jest
you fuggers are just damn inconsiderate

what area the noise bothering you?

organise a bbq pork lime a friday na.

Or move to Enterprise or Laventille.

[MG Man]

I doh desecrate the sanctity of my pork by enjoying it among those who do not believe

[AdamB]

I doh desecrate the sanctity of my pork by enjoying it among those who do not believe

Those who doh believe in pork, doh care what you eat. It's your choice, your body.

[Habit7]

AdamB you need to deal with the evidence at hand first before you ask for more.

[AdamB]

AdamB you need to deal with the evidence at hand first before you ask for more.

You quoted from the Old Testament but there is not one iota of evidence from the understanding of the Jews and early christians to substantiate that the concept of Trinity Godhead ever existed.

Are you saying that the Jews forgot or erased the Trinity concept from their books and teachings and replaced it with the concept of ONE GOD? How dare them!!

[AdamB]

AdamB you need to deal with the evidence at hand first before you ask for more.

You quoted from the Old Testament but there is not one iota of evidence from the understanding of the Jews and early christians to substantiate that the concept of Trinity Godhead ever existed.

Are you saying that the Jews forgot or erased the Trinity concept from their books and teachings and replaced it with the concept of ONE GOD? How dare them!!

habit7,

Which bible translation do you use? Can you post a link to an online wedsite where I can search the verses you posted? Better yet a pdf or similar that can be downloaded and which has a search included.

In the past, christians made issues about which translation i used. I am discussing with you, so it would be better if we on the same page.

[Habit7]

Well if you read the Old Testament verses I mentioned you will see the clear understanding of a plural Godhead yet one God. The role of Jesus was also to continue the progress revelation of Old Testament. All Jesus' actions were grounded in Old Testament prophesies and teachings so for a Jew to reject Jesus' teaching was not a display of fidelity to God but a rejection of His prophet. The Jews who accepted these teaching became Christians and is demonstrated in the words of Jesus and His apostles:
Matt. 3:16-17, "And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”
Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
Note that there is one name and three persons.
1 Cor. 12:4-6, "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons."
"Lord" here is probably Jesus. See next verse.
2 Cor. 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."
Eph. 4:4-6, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."
1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure."
Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."

The Jews did not erased anything, from the book of Genesis onwards there is clear understanding of the plurality of persons in the Godhead yet God being of single essence. This is clarified by Jesus even as He referred Himself in divine terms the Son of Man, a reference to Daniel 7 where a human Messiah is equated with God. The reason the Jews of this day reject the doctrine of the Trinity is because they rejected Christ in the hope of another messiah, but there will be none.


My translation of choice is the New American Standard Bible due to its more word for word translation style based on the earliest transcripts. But I don't mind using ESV, NIV or KJV.

[AdamB]

Well if you read the Old Testament verses I mentioned you will see the clear understanding of a plural Godhead yet one God. The role of Jesus was also to continue the progress revelation of Old Testament. All Jesus' actions were grounded in Old Testament prophesies and teachings so for a Jew to reject Jesus' teaching was not a display of fidelity to God but a rejection of His prophet. The Jews who accepted these teaching became Christians and is demonstrated in the words of Jesus and His apostles:
Matt. 3:16-17, "And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”
This is not from the mouth of Jesus. This is a third party account of what Jesus saw and heard? Questionable!

Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
Note that there is one name and three persons.
This is "the Great Commission". I quote Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Zondervan 1994, pp. 17.

"Some students of the historical Jesus, who do not believe the Scriptures are infallible or God's very words, as held by what may be called conservative evangelicalism, generally discount the Great Commission as reflecting not Jesus' words but rather the Christian community in which each gospel was written. (See Sayings of Jesus.) Some scholars, such as John Dominic Crossan, assert that Jesus did commission apostles during his lifetime, as reported in the Gospels. Other scholars, however, see even these lesser commissions to represent Christian invention rather than history.



1 Cor. 12:4-6, "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons."
"Lord" here is probably Jesus. See next verse.
2 Cor. 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."
Eph. 4:4-6, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."
1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure."
Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."
I don't care for these quotes because they represent "heresay" and christian INVENTION / INNOVATION away from what Jesus taught.

The Jews did not erased anything, from the book of Genesis onwards there is clear understanding of the plurality of persons in the Godhead yet God being of single essence. This is clarified by Jesus even as He referred Himself in divine terms the Son of Man, a reference to Daniel 7 where a human Messiah is equated with God.
Daniel 7 is the seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible. It is the last chapter written in Aramaic before it continues again in the Hebraic Masoretic text of the next chapter. This chapter begins the first series of apocalyptic visions that Daniel receives and is given cryptic (mysterious / puzzling) interpretations for a portion of them.

Much like the Book of Revelation, don't you agree? Hocus pocus = unclear!


The reason the Jews of this day reject the doctrine of the Trinity is because they rejected Christ in the hope of another messiah, but there will be none.
How can it be clear when those who lived and practised it know nothing of it's plurality. Please try to think outside the box, basing on evidence. The problem is that you take the false concept of new testament and go back looking for unclear verses in the Old Testament, and then say, "there it is , EUREKA!!"

When your creed is based on UNCLEAR, WEAK EVIDENCE, you have no choice but to be critical of it and question it's authenticity and correctness.

My translation of choice is the New American Standard Bible due to its more word for word translation style based on the earliest transcripts. But I don't mind using ESV, NIV or KJV.

I have said before that "word for word" translation from one language to another is not fully possible, inevitably true intended meaning will be lost.

[Habit7]

AdamB, you claimed there was no evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity among early believers, I supplied you with the relevant biblical quotes affirming the Trinity and you disregard them.

The historical accounts of Jesus' life are all third pary accounts. They are eyewitness accounts widely distributed within the lifetime of the other eyewitnesses who can either corroborate or disprove these accounts. 600 years later, hundreds of miles away, Muhammed put forwarded an opposing view substantiated by private revelation

Grudem's Systematic Theology is a great book and is the main initial text for many theology students. When I get home I will check to read what was before and after what you quoted. But as I can see Grudem, whose Systematic Theology delves deeply in the subject of the Trinity and the Scripture to support it, is engage into the broad topic of Textual Criticism. The Bible, the most verified book of antiquity, due to its several manuscripts is capable to stand the scruntiny of textual critics in all areas. Matt 28:19 is a verse that is subjected to textual criticism and while there is some contention about its inclusion, it is still widely supported within biblical scholarship. Plus, it not the sole proof text to support the Trinity, many other verses do.

You claim these verses as heresay but heresay is when ppl speak about events when they were not there (hint, hint ). These are the widely authenticated documents of the early church. Even if you as a Muslim wants to reject them and propose another historical account, bring the proof of the early church supporting Islam.

I think now you are being very disengenuous. You claim that we cannot understand your text because we do not speak the language. And the interpretations, such as Ali saying Sura 4:36 means that husband should beat their wives "lightly" even though it does not appear in the Arabic, are personal and not the true meaning. So because you cannot interpret the apocalyptic text in Daniel and Revelations they are cyptic. Jesus' claims of divinity by referencing Old Testament names of God to Himself were not cryptic to 1st century Jews. In John 10:22-39 Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and the Jews attempted to stone Him for blasphemy and He supernaturally elluded them. You might not understand, but the Jews did, and they eventually crucified Him, and He rose on the third day, further substantiating His divinity.

AdamB one interprets the Old Testament through the lens on New Testament. The OT does not give an adequate revelation of who God is once there is later revelation. It gives allusions to a fuller revelation of God, and that is found in Christ. Further, it contradicts with other alledged final revelations such as the Quran or the Book of Mormon. The evidence you claim to be weak and unclear was reveiled to it cheif propones, taught by them and they all died torturous deaths for teaching it. No one would die for a lie they invented, and among the eye witnesses, their message spread throughtout the known world at that time, not by rape and pilage, but by the power of God.

As a linguist, I know that a word to word translation is imposible, that is why I said "more" before it. It ends up sounding more wooden than a phase by phase, but to me it gives its purest interpretation.

[AdamB]

AdamB, you claimed there was no evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity among early believers, I supplied you with the relevant biblical quotes affirming the Trinity and you disregard them.

The historical accounts of Jesus' life are all third pary accounts. They are eyewitness accounts widely distributed within the lifetime of the other eyewitnesses who can either corroborate or disprove these accounts. 600 years later, hundreds of miles away, Muhammed put forwarded an opposing view substantiated by private revelation

Grudem's Systematic Theology is a great book and is the main initial text for many theology students. When I get home I will check to read what was before and after what you quoted. But as I can see Grudem, whose Systematic Theology delves deeply in the subject of the Trinity and the Scripture to support it, is engage into the broad topic of Textual Criticism. The Bible, the most verified book of antiquity, due to its several manuscripts is capable to stand the scruntiny of textual critics in all areas. Matt 28:19 is a verse that is subjected to textual criticism and while there is some contention about its inclusion, it is still widely supported within biblical scholarship. Plus, it not the sole proof text to support the Trinity, many other verses do.

You claim these verses as heresay but heresay is when ppl speak about events when they were not there (hint, hint ). These are the widely authenticated documents of the early church. Even if you as a Muslim wants to reject them and propose another historical account, bring the proof of the early church supporting Islam.

I think now you are being very disengenuous. You claim that we cannot understand your text because we do not speak the language. And the interpretations, such as Ali saying Sura 4:36 means that husband should beat their wives "lightly" even though it does not appear in the Arabic, are personal and not the true meaning. So because you cannot interpret the apocalyptic text in Daniel and Revelations they are cyptic. Jesus' claims of divinity by referencing Old Testament names of God to Himself were not cryptic to 1st century Jews. In John 10:22-39 Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and the Jews attempted to stone Him for blasphemy and He supernaturally elluded them. You might not understand, but the Jews did, and they eventually crucified Him, and He rose on the third day, further substantiating His divinity.

AdamB one interprets the Old Testament through the lens on New Testament. The OT does not give an adequate revelation of who God is once there is later revelation. It gives allusions to a fuller revelation of God, and that is found in Christ. Further, it contradicts with other alledged final revelations such as the Quran or the Book of Mormon. The evidence you claim to be weak and unclear was reveiled to it cheif propones, taught by them and they all died torturous deaths for teaching it. No one would die for a lie they invented, and among the eye witnesses, their message spread throughtout the known world at that time, not by rape and pilage, but by the power of God.

As a linguist, I know that a word to word translation is imposible, that is why I said "more" before it. It ends up sounding more wooden than a phase by phase, but to me it gives its purest interpretation.

Once again, you have proven my point in that your proof for Jesus' divinity is taken from the Gospel of John. See below:

Chapter 21 states that the book derives from the testimony of the 'disciple whom Jesus loved.' Along with Peter, the unnamed disciple is especially close to Jesus, and early-church tradition identified him as John the Apostle, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. The gospel is closely related in style and content to the three surviving Epistles of John such that commentators treat the four books together, yet, according to most modern scholars, John was not the author of any of these books. Recent Christian Scripture scholarship more and more has placed John within a first-century Jewish context.
"Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them." Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355

Interesting eh! This mysterious author wrote Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation!! Do we see a trend here? Introduction of falsehood.

John presents a "higher" Christology than the synoptics, meaning that it describes Jesus as the incarnation of the divine Logos through whom all things were made, as the object of veneration, and more explicitly as God incarnate. Only in John does Jesus talk at length about himself and his divine role, often shared with the disciples only. Against the synoptics, John focuses largely on different miracles (including resurrecting Lazarus), given as signs meant to engender faith. Synoptic elements such as parables and exorcisms are not found in John. It presents a realized eschatology in which salvation is already present for the believer.

Authorship
The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[11][12] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[13][14][15][16][17][18] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD.[19][20] According to the Church Fathers, the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Hebrew groups which they deemed heretical.[21][22][23] This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.[24]

There is also some evidence that John might not have written the "Book of John" and it was wrongly attributed to him, in the book The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved. For instance, the writing style is different, the author for reasons of humility refers to himself instead as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," while John in Revelation refers to himself as John at least five times. Also, the writer of the Fourth Gospel refers to the Sons of Zebedee (that is, James and John), while in a fishing trip after Jesus's death, refers to these two, but also refers to this "other disciple". This disciple is never mentioned as even being there in any of the common sections to other gospels, and is never mentioned at all until after Lazarus is raised. The author contends that Lazarus was the likely writer of the Fourth Gospel, and used the pseudonym because his sudden celebrity after being raised was detracting from Jesus's message. This also seems to work, given the fact that this "other disciple" believed when seeing the linens in Jesus's tomb, Lazarus, having been raised himself would have known what this means.[25]

The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[26] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[27]

1.An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
2.A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
3.The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD.[28]
In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.[29] The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth.[30][31]

[Habit7]

This is "the Great Commission". I quote Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Zondervan 1994, pp. 17.

"Some students of the historical Jesus, who do not believe the Scriptures are infallible or God's very words, as held by what may be called conservative evangelicalism, generally discount the Great Commission as reflecting not Jesus' words but rather the Christian community in which each gospel was written. (See Sayings of Jesus.) Some scholars, such as John Dominic Crossan, assert that Jesus did commission apostles during his lifetime, as reported in the Gospels. Other scholars, however, see even these lesser commissions to represent Christian invention rather than history.

I wanted to give you enough time to correct yourself but I can see you didn't. As promised, I went home and checked my copy to see Grudem's comment in its context. I went to pp 17 of my Systematic Theology and it was part of the Preface, written in the first person and there was no evidence of your quotation. I then rechecked the author, title, publisher and year of publication to see if my copy matched up with your reference and it all did. I then looked for Great Commission in the subject index and saw it is located at pp 27-28, so I realised that you may have mistyped a number. However, while the pages reproduced Matt. 28:19, again no evidence of your quotation was there. Furthermore, I checked the scripture index for Matt. 28:19 and it carried me to pp 237 and again no evidence of your quotation.

A google search of your quotation however revealed its probable source as Wikipedia as it matches verbatim and it to wrongly references "Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Zondervan 1994, pp. 17."

Dude, you cannot use Wikipedia as verifiable reference, as I could tangibly demonstrate, not all of its information is true. If I wanted to be equally intellectually dishonest with you, I too can post references from Wikipedia against the Quran with the requisite enlarged font you are so fond of.

[Chimera]

Language

[nareshseep]

[AdamB]

This is "the Great Commission". I quote Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Zondervan 1994, pp. 17.

"Some students of the historical Jesus, who do not believe the Scriptures are infallible or God's very words, as held by what may be called conservative evangelicalism, generally discount the Great Commission as reflecting not Jesus' words but rather the Christian community in which each gospel was written. (See Sayings of Jesus.) Some scholars, such as John Dominic Crossan, assert that Jesus did commission apostles during his lifetime, as reported in the Gospels. Other scholars, however, see even these lesser commissions to represent Christian invention rather than history.

I wanted to give you enough time to correct yourself but I can see you didn't. As promised, I went home and checked my copy to see Grudem's comment in its context. I went to pp 17 of my Systematic Theology and it was part of the Preface, written in the first person and there was no evidence of your quotation. I then rechecked the author, title, publisher and year of publication to see if my copy matched up with your reference and it all did. I then looked for Great Commission in the subject index and saw it is located at pp 27-28, so I realised that you may have mistyped a number. However, while the pages reproduced Matt. 28:19, again no evidence of your quotation was there. Furthermore, I checked the scripture index for Matt. 28:19 and it carried me to pp 237 and again no evidence of your quotation.

A google search of your quotation however revealed its probable source as Wikipedia as it matches verbatim and it to wrongly references "Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Zondervan 1994, pp. 17."

Dude, you cannot use Wikipedia as verifiable reference, as I could tangibly demonstrate, not all of its information is true. If I wanted to be equally intellectually dishonest with you, I too can post references from Wikipedia against the Quran with the requisite enlarged font you are so fond of.

What about the questionable authorship, origin and tampering with the Gospel of John along with the introduction of "divinity" to Jesus (as) - something not present in the other gospels?

[Sacchetto Boutique]

I came across this on FB...is there any truth behind it?

[metalgear2095]

I came across this on FB...is there any truth behind it?

The article says it's most likely fake. Did you even read it before wasting time

[MG Man]

that's how they run things