Posts: 1,129
Threads: 34
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Bismillah
This says:
"There is only one God
The Father is God
Jesus is God
The Holy Spirit is God
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons."
There is only one lawyer.
Steve is a lawyer
John is a lawyer
and Betty is a lawyer
Steve, John, and Betty are all distinct persons"
This just says to me, that one can define God as one wants as long as you state "God is One" first. To me that is like the phrase "no offense." As long as I put that before any statement then I feel justified saying what I want. "No offense really, but your child is the ugliest I have ever seen." Of course this is an extreme to make a point.
This is not logical. God gave us reason and commanded us to use our gifts, so we are supposed to suspend reason? Look at the Roman, Greek, and Celtic pre-christian gods. Seems very similar. Seems interesting to me that the concept of trinity was picked up quickest by these people.
God is not a man, just as the carpentar is not a table.
Posts: 567
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
0
Quote:Bismillah
This says:
"There is only one God
The Father is God
Jesus is God
The Holy Spirit is God
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons."
There is only one lawyer.
Steve is a lawyer
John is a lawyer
and Betty is a lawyer
Steve, John, and Betty are all distinct persons"
This just says to me, that one can define God as one wants as long as you state "God is One" first. To me that is like the phrase "no offense." As long as I put that before any statement then I feel justified saying what I want. "No offense really, but your child is the ugliest I have ever seen." Of course this is an extreme to make a point.
This is not logical. God gave us reason and commanded us to use our gifts, so we are supposed to suspend reason? Look at the Roman, Greek, and Celtic pre-christian gods. Seems very similar. Seems interesting to me that the concept of trinity was picked up quickest by these people.
God is not a man, just as the carpentar is not a table.
Sorry you don't understand.
The nature of God in three persons was first revealed as early as Genesis.
"Let us make man in our image...."
“God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us…"
Obvioulsy there is at least a duel nature to God.
We also know that Jesus was present during the creation.
<b>“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.” – John 1:1</b>
<i>I want to pause just a moment to discuss the verses above. The Greek word for God is theos. In John 1:1, we read that the Word (Jesus) was with theos and was indeed theos. Jesus was (and is) God! This is a very powerful statement! The word theos is used not only in John 1:1, but also in verse 18 and in John 20:28. Theos is used in the New Testament in reference to Jehovah/Yahweh God. Theos is also used in reference to Jesus. We’re beginning to see the plurality found within the one God. </i>
<b>"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being." – Revelation 4:11 (the words of the 24 elders to Jesus).</b>
<b>“…Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” – Acts 20:28 </b>
<i>Once again, in the verses above Jesus is referred to as theos. In Acts 20:28, we know that Jesus shed His blood for the church, and as one person of the triune God, this action is the action of God. Now let’s look at some common compound references to Jesus:</i>
<b>“…the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” – Titus 2:13</b>
<b>“…To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” – 2 Peter 1:1 </b>
<i>In the passages above, both “God” and “Savior” are used in reference to Jesus Christ. There is no division of the clause. Scholar Robert Reymond writes, “The two nouns [‘God’ and ‘Savior’] both stand under the regimen of the single definitive article preceding ‘God,’ indicating…that they are to be construed corporately, not separately, or that they have a single referent.”[5] In other words, attempts to divide this clause into a reference to God and a separate reference to Jesus as Savior flies against the Greek grammatical construct. These verses provide additional powerful and clear evidence that Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh God. Let’s now turn our attention to more verses that reveal Jesus to be Jehovah/Yahweh.</i>
<b>“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…. for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” – Romans 10:9,13. Note: Paul reveals Jesus to be the same “Lord” referred to in Joel 2:32, which he quotes. In Joel 2:32, “LORD” is Jehovah/Yahweh. </b>
There is more.
Posts: 1,129
Threads: 34
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
07-11-2006, 09:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2006, 09:41 PM by Dan.)
Bismillah
Sorry, I do understand.
Christians have taken an opinion that Jesus is God and they work backwards from that hypothesis looking for evidence to support this view in scripture. How can you interpret the old Testament in a manner in which Jews never understood it?
A council was held hundreds of years later deciding which scripture would be acceptable out of the many gospels available. Here we have MEN choosing what will be their revelation and MEN defing who God is.
A new book has been published by a man who studies ancient scripture called "Misquoting Jesus." There are points that he raises also that would be interesting to see resolved. In fact, this man was a christian at the beginning of his scholarship only trying to prove the voracity of the gospels but actually resulted in his agnosticism. Has there been any comment from the christian community regarding this book?
So in conclusion, evidence from your scripture will not be acceptable to me. Gleening from other threads, evidence from my scripture will not be acceptable to you as evidence.
"To you your way and to me mine."
Posts: 567
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
0
Quote:Bismillah
Sorry, I do understand.
Christians have taken an opinion that Jesus is God and they work backwards from that hypothesis looking for evidence to support this view in scripture. How can you interpret the old Testament in a manner in which Jews never understood it?
A council was held hundreds of years later deciding which scripture would be acceptable out of the many gospels available. Here we have MEN choosing what will be their revelation and MEN defing who God is.
A new book has been published by a man who studies ancient scripture called "Misquoting Jesus." There are points that he raises also that would be interesting to see resolved. In fact, this man was a christian at the beginning of his scholarship only trying to prove the voracity of the gospels but actually resulted in his agnosticism. Has there been any comment from the christian community regarding this book?
So in conclusion, evidence from your scripture will not be acceptable to me. Gleening from other threads, evidence from my scripture will not be acceptable to you as evidence.
"To you your way and to me mine."
You forget about the Holy Sprit though. The Holy Spirit is what guided these men to write the Bible and minister to the Nations. The Holy Spirit also reveals what is scripture and what wasn't. It wasn't a hard task by the way. If a book or "gospel" was contradictory in nature and of dubious origin then it wasn't accepted into cannon.
Posts: 1,301
Threads: 135
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
Quote:You forget about the Holy Sprit though. The Holy Spirit is what guided these men to write the Bible and minister to the Nations. The Holy Spirit also reveals what is scripture and what wasn't. It wasn't a hard task by the way. If a book or "gospel" was contradictory in nature and of dubious origin then it wasn't accepted into cannon.
<b>which Bible </b> are you talking about that the "<b>Holy Ghost guided these men to write</b>"?
we are talking about more than a thousand versions. (AND WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED WHAT IS VERSION BEFORE)
Salam
Wael.
Posts: 308
Threads: 7
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
wel_mel_2 wrote:
> we are talking about more than a thousand versions.
Here we go again...
Is the following an accurate summary of what you believe?
(1) there is more than one English language version of the bible. Therefore, the bible is full of lies and half truths.
(2) there is more than one English language version of the koran. Therefore, every word in the koran is true.
Posts: 1,301
Threads: 135
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
07-13-2006, 12:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2006, 12:15 AM by wel_mel_2.)
Bismillah:
Quote:Here we go again...
Is the following an accurate summary of what you believe?
(1) there is more than one English language version of the bible. Therefore, the bible is full of lies and half truths.
(2) there is more than one English language version of the koran. Therefore, every word in the koran is true.
Yes here YOU go again.
mine is <b>TRANSLATIONS</b>, yours is <b>VERSIONS</b>. both terms are totally not the same thing.
hope that you gott this clear in your mind by now.
Salam
Wael.
Posts: 308
Threads: 7
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
07-14-2006, 04:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2006, 04:22 AM by reepicheep.)
wel_mel_2 wrote:
> mine is TRANSLATIONS, yours is VERSIONS. both terms are totally not the same thing.
OK, let's see if I understand.
Lets look at the beginning of surah 4:11 of the koran:
<b>YUSUFALI: </b> Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more,
<b>PICKTHAL:</b> Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two,
Clearly, these two versions contradict each other, since "two or more" has a different meaning than "more than two".
So you'd agree, then, that since I have proved there are at least two versions of the koran, then (using your logic) I have also proven that the koran is full of lies and half truths.
Agreed?
Posts: 1,301
Threads: 135
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
07-14-2006, 04:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2006, 04:51 AM by wel_mel_2.)
Bismillah:
Quote:wel_mel_2 wrote:
> mine is TRANSLATIONS, yours is VERSIONS. both terms are totally not the same thing.
OK, let's see if I understand.
Lets look at the beginning of surah 4:11 of the koran:
<b>YUSUFALI: </b> Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more,
<b>PICKTHAL:</b> Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two,
Clearly, these two versions contradict each other, since "two or more" has a different meaning than "more than two".
So you'd agree, then, that since I have proved there are at least two versions of the koran, then (using your logic) I have also proven that the koran is full of lies and half truths.
Agreed?
clearly you don't understand the meaning of "contradiction"
by the way, the same question you have asked in another thread and i've replied you. but you can't see still.
any sane person can understand that "2 or more" could also very well mean "more than 2". or dont you know the meaning of the word "OR".
see, i will tell you what is the meaning of VERSION so you can understand the difference between your BIBLES VERSIONS and our QUR'AN TRANSLATIONS.
you open your KJV at Hebrew 7:3 and check up the same verse in the RCV (roman catholic version)
you will see that the KJV says: Melchisedec, King of Salem is "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;......
amazingling you will read the same verse in the RCV says that Mellchisedec, there is no mention of his father, mother or where he was born, when will he die.. THERE IS NO MENTION. totally the meaning is different. this is because it is different VERSION. its not the same and that's why the protestant have rejected this Bible and they do not accept it to be the word of God.
just few days ago, i was talking with CC about Mathew 24:36 and i said in several Bibles it says that the son of God does not know about the day of Judgment, but some other VERSIONS of the Christians Bible DOES NOT MENTIONED HIS NAME AT ALL. indecating that he knows... it is totally different meaning because this is ANOTHER VERSION. its not the same.
go and count the numbers of books of the protestant Bible, you will find them 66 books, but at the same time, go and count the numbers of books of the roman catholic Bible and you will find them 73 books. why??? because its differetn VERSION REEP.
so you did not prove that there are 2 versions of the Qur'an at all. you just informed us that we have 2 different translations of the original text. which we agree.
hope by now you have learned what is the different between translation and version.
Salam
Wael.
Posts: 308
Threads: 7
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
wel_mel_2 wrote:
> any sane person can understand that "2 or more" could also very
> well mean "more than 2".
You are claiming that, mathematically speaking, the number 2 is greater than 2. Correct?
In other words (using mathematical notation):
<b>2 > 2</b>
If so, then you are obviously wrong.
The phrase "2 or more" covers the case of exactly 2 daughters.
The phrase "more than 2" does NOT cover the case of exactly 2 daughters.
Therefore, these two passages contradict each other.
|
