TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:but they both were born by virgin birth from a mother named Mary who was visited by the angel Gabriel who told her of the impending miracle. They both performed miracles.megadoc1 wrote:because the Jesus in the quran and the Jesus in the bible are are not the same
one is the son of god ,one isnt the son of god ,one rise from the dead one didnt die...
if you look and compare for your self you would see many differences between the two
there was more than one Jesus and Mary?
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:^ ok! had they been written about exactly the same alot of people wouldnt have died in senseless wars like the crusades and in the middle east!
well if you looked at it carefully the crusades were in disobedience to the new testament
but in the middle east they are acting in obedience to the Qur'an
however, had they been written the same we would just have the bible, in the bible Jesus laid down his life for the sins of mankind but in Islam no man can pay for another man's sin
we can find more conflicting stuff like this if you compare them
brings me back to my most favourite question that you keep ducking and side stepping:
Which one is the accurate one and why?
In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.
Since the Qur'an came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and The Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself.
Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:^ ok! had they been written about exactly the same alot of people wouldnt have died in senseless wars like the crusades and in the middle east!
brings me back to my most favourite question that you keep ducking and side stepping:
Which one is the accurate one and why?
Humes wrote:It's multiple accounts of the same figure. Even the multiple portrayals of Jesus within the Bible are inconsistent with each other.
sMASH wrote:my napkin says that the way he is in it is the real way,lol...............
and some of their napkin says so too,,,and guess whats decides the 'uncorrupted' apart from the 'corrupted'?....you just end where you began mih boy
megadoc1 wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:but they both were born by virgin birth from a mother named Mary who was visited by the angel Gabriel who told her of the impending miracle. They both performed miracles.megadoc1 wrote:because the Jesus in the quran and the Jesus in the bible are are not the same
one is the son of god ,one isnt the son of god ,one rise from the dead one didnt die...
if you look and compare for your self you would see many differences between the two
there was more than one Jesus and Mary?
you missed the point, the characteristics of the Jesus in the bible differs from that of the one in the Qur'an
in other words the Jesus presented in the Qur'an differs from the one presented in the bible
QG wrote:
There are many questions I have concerning Christianity and Islam...such as why in the new Testament they left out the Book of Thomas???
the book of Thomas isn't considered inspired alongside lots of booksGraham H. Twelftree
The four Gospels in our Bible had all been written by the end of the first century. Apparently no other gospels were written by this time. By the last 20 years of the second century, when Irenaeus the bishop of Lyon was writing, the four Gospels had been widely and firmly established for some time as the only ones accepted by mainstream Christianity. However, many sections of the church did not use all of them.
Irenaeus argued against accepting other gospels, such as the Gospel of Truth, alleged to have been written by the Gnostic teacher Valentinus. He said it had only recently been written and “did not agree in any respect with the Gospels of the apostles”. This gospel is a homily or meditation and does not resemble our biblical Gospels in telling of the activities and teaching of Jesus, including His appearances after Easter. The same is true of the Gospel of Philip, an anthology of sayings from the mid-fourth century, as well as the second -century Greek Gospel of the Egyptians, about which we know little except that it was apparently a collection of sayings. The Gospel of Thomas, which also contains a collection of sayings of Jesus (some of which may be historically authentic) along with minimal narrative material, has been argued to be early. However, because of parallels with literature of this period, many date it late in the second century. More fanciful gospels include the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, with its miracles conducted by the child Jesus, ending with the story from Luke of the 12-year-old Jesus in the temple.
Other gospels approximate those in the NT. For example, the now largely missing Gospel of Peter came from the middle of the second century. From the fragmentary evidence we have, it told of the trial of Jesus, His crucifixion , and His appearing to a group of His followers. Also, the Gospel of the Ebionites, from Syria in the same period, is a harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Later in the century Tatian produced a widely used harmony of all four Gospels, the Diatessaron, which was highly valued particularly in Syria. From papyrus fragments we also have evidence of a handful of other gospels from as early as the second century. A letter of Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) discovered in 1958, which tells of a “secret gospel” of Mark, may be a modern forgery.
The Gospel of Hebrews, written before the mid-second century, perhaps in Egypt for Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, was the only gospel apart from the four in our Bible that was ever considered part of legitimate Scriptures by sections of orthodox Christianity. The few remaining quotations of it show that it probably began with Jesus’ preexistence and included His descent from heaven and subsequent birth. Jesus described Himself as the son of the Holy Spirit and reports His temptation. There are also examples of His teaching. During the Last Supper, James the brother of Jesus says he will not eat again until he has seen the risen Jesus. There was probably a story of the burial of Jesus, and those who guarded the tomb may have witnessed the resurrection. As anticipated, there is a story of Jesus appearing to James, reinforcing his importance to this gospel. Gnostic characteristics, divergence from the biblical Gospels, and lack of any connection with an apostle may account for its eventually being excluded from the NT by mainstream Christianity.
I saw on History Channel that Jesus spent 40 Days on earth after he was risen. But it was not recorded directly word for word in the Bible but Historians found few versus that was proof for them.alot of things took place that wasn't recorded where Jesus is concerned
this is how John summed it upJoh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Another thing...The Quran says we Christians worship the Mother of Jesus which is wrong (talks about some moutain falling on us as punishment or something like that)...but Christians DO NOT WORSHIP Mary.
I even asked several Chatolics and they all said they Acknowledge Mary but not worship her.
How can the Quran say we worship something that we don't??
These things are very puzzling!!
its a straw man argument that they use to refute the bible, even if you meet people doing such,(worship Mary) the bible does not condone it but most Muslims grabs every excuse available to refute the bible, this way the Qur'an is proven legit by default...because it is known that Islam cannot be true unless Christianity is shown to be false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
considered by whom?megadoc1 wrote:the book of Thomas isn't considered inspired alongside lots of books
ghostbusters wrote:^^^You are just another one of those conformist sheep whose thinking and imagination are limited by what you were taught in school. You were never taught to think outside the box were you? You are just the result of a failing education system, one that promotes the narrowest train of thought and thought development.
I do in fact have a good understanding of the theory of evolution and i am also quite certain that if you are reading this post you do not know the exact meaning of the word theory. If you did in fact know the meaning you would not purport that it is in fact a theorem. You statements show that you accept and are of the view that others accept evolution as a theorem, which it clearly is not.
In Physics research has shown, from inherent background radiation, that the universe is ever expanding, the result of a cosmic big bang, however in mathematics, in basic set theory, explicit rules were necessary and developed to counter the effect and implications that an infinite universe(brought about by russels paradox) could bring about.
The point i am trying to make is that you clearly don't know as much as you think on the matter, so it would do us all a world of good if you would refrain from insulting those who choose to believe in something that is beyond the scope of your narrow mind...
I dare you to read the entire post and respond without googling 'theory' or 'theorem'...retard
ghostbusters wrote:^^^You are just another one of those conformist sheep whose thinking and imagination are limited by what you were taught in school. You were never taught to think outside the box were you? You are just the result of a failing education system, one that promotes the narrowest train of thought and thought development.
I do in fact have a good understanding of the theory of evolution and i am also quite certain that if you are reading this post you do not know the exact meaning of the word theory. If you did in fact know the meaning you would not purport that it is in fact a theorem. You statements show that you accept and are of the view that others accept evolution as a theorem, which it clearly is not.
In Physics research has shown, from inherent background radiation, that the universe is ever expanding, the result of a cosmic big bang, however in mathematics, in basic set theory, explicit rules were necessary and developed to counter the effect and implications that an infinite universe(brought about by russels paradox) could bring about.
The point i am trying to make is that you clearly don't know as much as you think on the matter, so it would do us all a world of good if you would refrain from insulting those who choose to believe in something that is beyond the scope of your narrow mind...
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:considered by whom?megadoc1 wrote:the book of Thomas isn't considered inspired alongside lots of books
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:considered by whom?megadoc1 wrote:the book of Thomas isn't considered inspired alongside lots of books
Graham H. Twelftree
The four Gospels in our Bible had all been written by the end of the first century. Apparently no other gospels were written by this time. By the last 20 years of the second century, when Irenaeus the bishop of Lyon was writing, the four Gospels had been widely and firmly established for some time as the only ones accepted by mainstream Christianity. However, many sections of the church did not use all of them.
Irenaeus argued against accepting other gospels, such as the Gospel of Truth, alleged to have been written by the Gnostic teacher Valentinus. He said it had only recently been written and “did not agree in any respect with the Gospels of the apostles”. This gospel is a homily or meditation and does not resemble our biblical Gospels in telling of the activities and teaching of Jesus, including His appearances after Easter. The same is true of the Gospel of Philip, an anthology of sayings from the mid-fourth century, as well as the second -century Greek Gospel of the Egyptians, about which we know little except that it was apparently a collection of sayings. The Gospel of Thomas, which also contains a collection of sayings of Jesus (some of which may be historically authentic) along with minimal narrative material, has been argued to be early. However, because of parallels with literature of this period, many date it late in the second century. More fanciful gospels include the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, with its miracles conducted by the child Jesus, ending with the story from Luke of the 12-year-old Jesus in the temple.
Other gospels approximate those in the NT. For example, the now largely missing Gospel of Peter came from the middle of the second century. From the fragmentary evidence we have, it told of the trial of Jesus, His crucifixion , and His appearing to a group of His followers. Also, the Gospel of the Ebionites, from Syria in the same period, is a harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Later in the century Tatian produced a widely used harmony of all four Gospels, the Diatessaron, which was highly valued particularly in Syria. From papyrus fragments we also have evidence of a handful of other gospels from as early as the second century. A letter of Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) discovered in 1958, which tells of a “secret gospel” of Mark, may be a modern forgery.
The Gospel of Hebrews, written before the mid-second century, perhaps in Egypt for Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, was the only gospel apart from the four in our Bible that was ever considered part of legitimate Scriptures by sections of orthodox Christianity. The few remaining quotations of it show that it probably began with Jesus’ preexistence and included His descent from heaven and subsequent birth. Jesus described Himself as the son of the Holy Spirit and reports His temptation. There are also examples of His teaching. During the Last Supper, James the brother of Jesus says he will not eat again until he has seen the risen Jesus. There was probably a story of the burial of Jesus, and those who guarded the tomb may have witnessed the resurrection. As anticipated, there is a story of Jesus appearing to James, reinforcing his importance to this gospel. Gnostic characteristics, divergence from the biblical Gospels, and lack of any connection with an apostle may account for its eventually being excluded from the NT by mainstream Christianity.
megadoc1 wrote:amm .......Scoobert Bauce that post that you beat up on was not written for you ,
it was quoted as a reference.the person who wrote that did so in another ched .... please be guided accordingly
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:^ alot of "perhaps", "considered legitimate", "there was probably" and "may have eventually" in there
Graham H. Twelftree, Ph.D (born 8 July 1950) is an Australian born biblical scholar who currently serves as Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Regent University's School of Divinity in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Upon earning his master's degree from Oxford University, Twelftree went on to study under world renowned New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn at the University of Nottingham. After completing his doctoral dissertation Jesus, the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus, he would go on to author dozens of books and journal articles including his most noted work Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical & Theological Study (Grand Rapids: IVP, 1999). Through his writings, Dr. Twelftree has made a significant contribution to what has been called the third quest for the historical Jesus. He also serves on the editorial board of The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (Sheffield Academic Press). Before his tenure at Regent University, Twelftree was pastor of a Vineyard church in Adelaide, Australia.
Humes wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:considered by whom?megadoc1 wrote:the book of Thomas isn't considered inspired alongside lots of books
The pure-hearted, wise church leaders of Rome who definitely weren't corrupt or politically-motivated in how they put the Bible together.
They weren't buying their way into the church hierarchy, abusing their power and influence, or engaging in brutality either.
Just some good fellas who had an eye for what God really meant to say.
perhaps,megadoc1 wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:^ alot of "perhaps", "considered legitimate", "there was probably" and "may have eventually" in there
perhaps it should be considered a legitimate response,there was probably a lot of research done in this field given this guy's qualifications, in which he may have eventually arrive to this conclusion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_TwelftreeGraham H. Twelftree, Ph.D (born 8 July 1950) is an Australian born biblical scholar who currently serves as Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Regent University's School of Divinity in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Upon earning his master's degree from Oxford University, Twelftree went on to study under world renowned New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn at the University of Nottingham. After completing his doctoral dissertation Jesus, the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus, he would go on to author dozens of books and journal articles including his most noted work Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical & Theological Study (Grand Rapids: IVP, 1999). Through his writings, Dr. Twelftree has made a significant contribution to what has been called the third quest for the historical Jesus. He also serves on the editorial board of The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (Sheffield Academic Press). Before his tenure at Regent University, Twelftree was pastor of a Vineyard church in Adelaide, Australia.
most are availableQG wrote: There are many lost scriptures today that many has not seen due to this.
so what about the unbeliever? Isn't one of the functions of all holy texts is to convince and convert the disbelievers?megadoc1 wrote:most are availableQG wrote: There are many lost scriptures today that many has not seen due to this.
check this link http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html
what was put in the bible was enough for the believer and his relationship with God,
the muslims argue for the book of Thomas,that's only one but what about the others?
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:perhaps,
but there is definitely alot of research and testing being done by top researchers like Stephen Hawking and a barrage of scientists who have concrete evidence of evolution and big bang. All of whom are full of qualifications. It is an absolute FACT that the TOP scientists in the world today researching physics, biology and chemistry agree that evolution and big bang are fact.
there is concrete evidence of evolution and big bang now? wow!
and big bang is a a fact? OK the last time I checked this is what i saw
Tell the top scientists at CERN testing at the LHC that the big bang didnt occur - they are replicating it at small scale.I don't need to tell them that ,they are the ones working hard to prove it to us that's what they are qualified for
I know you had your list of creationist scientists - but what breakthroughs in science have any one of them produced? the same as what the guys you quoted produced..... nothing
'concrete'
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:so what about the unbeliever? Isn't one of the functions of all holy texts is to convince and convert the disbelievers?
not the bible we discussed this a few hundred pages ago
Can you answer Humes claim that the early RC Church had alot to do with choosing the books that would go into the bible and yet you say Catholics are not practising Christianity right?I will deal with that ,by the mean time tell me where in the bible states that we should pray to marry and we shall take it from there
Humes wrote:It's not according to the History Channel, eh...it's according to reality.
Roman Catholics put the Bible together. The leaders of the same Roman Catholic church that most evangelicals reject as unChristian today.
Even the KJV is based on the RC Bible, and not original research.
Humes wrote:That eh no claim, that is reality. The Catholic Church compiled the first "official" Bible. The KJV of the Bible is the Catholic Bible minus several books...it wasn't a back-to-the-drawing-board research and compile project.
The Protestant movement didn't reconsider any of the many, many gospels and volumes that the Catholic Church rejected. It boils down to Catholic Bible and Catholic Bible Lite.
The corrupt and overtly political nature of the Catholic Church at that time is public record. But these are the same fellas who megadoc and dem deem worthy of telling mankind what God really meant.
Fundamentally flawed. From foundation to finish.
megadoc1 wrote:your argument is flawed on the basis of miss information
the old testament of the bible was already compiled in Hebrew and greek before Jesus came
the new testament was written in Greek which was translated into Latin
with the old testament for use by the rc church(when the roman empire was Christianized)
with the addition of the other books (there goes your catholic bible lite theory)
The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian.
the KJV was an English translation directly from the Hebrew and Greek copies
of the bible
whilst the one used by the roman catholic church came from the Latin Vulgate which is alleged to be corrupted ,back then you would be burned at the stake for having a copy of the bible in English by the rc church...look up the history of the english bible and see if what you wrote make sense
Graham H. Twelftree
The four Gospels in our Bible had all been written by the end of the first century. Apparently no other gospels were written by this time. By the last 20 years of the second century, when Irenaeus the bishop of Lyon was writing, the four Gospels had been widely and firmly established for some time as the only ones accepted by mainstream Christianity. However, many sections of the church did not use all of them.
Irenaeus argued against accepting other gospels, such as the Gospel of Truth, alleged to have been written by the Gnostic teacher Valentinus. He said it had only recently been written and “did not agree in any respect with the Gospels of the apostles”. This gospel is a homily or meditation and does not resemble our biblical Gospels in telling of the activities and teaching of Jesus, including His appearances after Easter. The same is true of the Gospel of Philip, an anthology of sayings from the mid-fourth century, as well as the second -century Greek Gospel of the Egyptians, about which we know little except that it was apparently a collection of sayings. The Gospel of Thomas, which also contains a collection of sayings of Jesus (some of which may be historically authentic) along with minimal narrative material, has been argued to be early. However, because of parallels with literature of this period, many date it late in the second century. More fanciful gospels include the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, with its miracles conducted by the child Jesus, ending with the story from Luke of the 12-year-old Jesus in the temple.
Other gospels approximate those in the NT. For example, the now largely missing Gospel of Peter came from the middle of the second century. From the fragmentary evidence we have, it told of the trial of Jesus, His crucifixion , and His appearing to a group of His followers. Also, the Gospel of the Ebionites, from Syria in the same period, is a harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Later in the century Tatian produced a widely used harmony of all four Gospels, the Diatessaron, which was highly valued particularly in Syria. From papyrus fragments we also have evidence of a handful of other gospels from as early as the second century. A letter of Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) discovered in 1958, which tells of a “secret gospel” of Mark, may be a modern forgery.
The Gospel of Hebrews, written before the mid-second century, perhaps in Egypt for Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, was the only gospel apart from the four in our Bible that was ever considered part of legitimate Scriptures by sections of orthodox Christianity. The few remaining quotations of it show that it probably began with Jesus’ preexistence and included His descent from heaven and subsequent birth. Jesus described Himself as the son of the Holy Spirit and reports His temptation. There are also examples of His teaching. During the Last Supper, James the brother of Jesus says he will not eat again until he has seen the risen Jesus. There was probably a story of the burial of Jesus, and those who guarded the tomb may have witnessed the resurrection. As anticipated, there is a story of Jesus appearing to James, reinforcing his importance to this gospel. Gnostic characteristics, divergence from the biblical Gospels, and lack of any connection with an apostle may account for its eventually being excluded from the NT by mainstream Christianity.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 102 guests
