Is Islam true?.

[total relism]

Going back to Genesis - Joseph is picked up by a caravan of camels, but there were no camels in the Levant at this date.

An anachronism introduced by later writers.



And here you show fundamental ignorance - Revelations is the "last" book of the Bible only because Saint Jerome put it there, and for no other reason. Prior to the formation of the Vulgate there was no commonly agreed sequence for the Books, and prior to the Council of Carthage there was much controversy surrounding the inclusion of Certain Books, including Revelations.



That is because I have no interest in your views on Islam, or much interest in Islam in general. Being a Christian I do not consider the religion at all relevent unless there's a Muslim horde knocking at my gates, in which case the question become how best to kill them. Thankfully, we are largely past that now.



That is correct - it says he is the Messiah, the Son of Go, the Lamb of God, the Son of Man, nowhere does it say "He is the Incarnation of God Almighty Himself."


[/B]
I said that the Bible does not say he is the Incarnation, not that he Is not.



There is no evidence that they are separate temporal events, or that both occurred. Matthew presents the meeting by the shore as the first time Peter and Andrew have met Jesus.



It's called "Divine Intervention".



Reading them in context means reading them as individual works by individuals who likely never met - the Canonical New Testament is a later invention.



Give me an example of when Jesus asks someone to do something and they don't do it.



Read John 21 - nowhere is the identity of the beloved disciple mentioned, it NEVER happens - read John 20 as well, there is a conscious effort not to name this disciple, but John is named. There is someone who is referred to a beloved of Jesus - and that is Lazarus, but he is not one of the 12 Apostles and so he is not counted as a disciple.

John is not the "original" disciple according to the Gospels, Peter comes first in Matthew, Mark and Luke.



Easy - translations differ. Jerome's translation was flawed, he uses "Inn" to translate "Upper Room", for example.



Perfect?

Will they have perfect powers of expression? It does not say this, and in any case it does not say they will write anything down.



It does not say that the person who wrote John saw these things - it merely says Jesus did things which are not written in John. Indeed, this is an admission that "John" is not a complete account of His life.



No - it leads them to testify. Others wrote that testimony down, this we know because they wrote after the Apostles died.



1. This refers to the Hebrew Scripture, as that was all the Scripture Paul knew.

2. It does not say the Scripture is infallible, merely that it is useful​, one use for the contradictions and mistakes in scripture is to teach that God's word cannot be accurately expressed by living men.



The Gospels are flawed - they cannot be the direct product of the Divine.



Paul was writing before the Gospels were written down, so it cannot refer to them, nor can it refer to the Epistles because Paul clearly did not see himself as a transmitter of Divine Will of a Prophet - his writings make clear that he saw himself as a fallen and flawed creature held up only by the Grace of God.



Yes it is, but you are willfully blind to it.

Some light reading to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels

[B]

Jesus talks - he doesn't write.



I have provided exegesis and scholarly opinion on the origin of the Gospels - nobody else here is in any doubt about the evidence I have presented.

As it is said, the heretic often feels persecuted, ignores reason, sees himself as inerrant and believes only he has access to the Truth.

This is a disorder of either the mind or the soul.

How desperate can you get? I ask for evidence of you claim john was not written by john, or nt not by the apostles and you say there were no camels at the time of Abraham?. Give me evidence of lions in isreal, we know they lived there, give me evidence. You wont find it. In archaeology absence of evidence is not evidence against. But here you go anyways.


The almost unanimous opinion of Biblical scholars is that mention of domesticated camels in the Patriarchal narratives (Gn 12:16; 24:10; 30:43) constitutes an anachronism. Camels, they say, were not domesticated until late in the second millennium BC, centuries after the Patriarchs were supposed to have lived. Even the great William F. Albright, well known for his support of the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, concluded that references to camel domestication in the book of Genesis were incorrect (1964: 153, n. 2).

Recent discoveries, however, have shown that this dismissal is unwarranted. Excavations in eastern Arabia, an area once believed to be a cultural backwater unworthy of archaeological investigation, have turned up evidence that camels were first domesticated by Semites before the time of Abraham. Much of this evidence has been examined by M. C. A. MacDonald of the Oriental Faculty at the University of Oxford and an epigraphist specializing in ancient North Arabian and Aramaic inscriptions. He wrote:

Recent research has suggested that domestication of the camel took place in southeastern Arabia some time in the third millennium [BC]. Originally, it was probably bred for its milk, hair, leather, and meat, but it cannot have been long before its usefulness as a beast of burden became apparent (1995: 1357).


for more
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...l.aspx#Article



your ignorance of bible not mine. As the books are, revaluation was last written book by any apostle, by john around 95 AD. Last in theology [future jesus second coming] It is last in everyway. I dont care were it is placed in bible [it just happens to be last were it fits.]




So you admit to lying and claiming to have read my posts, that is what I wanted to point out. Perhaps not kill, but learn there religion and discus.? such as i try to. Also if your christian why do you lie so much?.


5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen
Romans 9.5
#1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us
john 1.1,18
God[a] was manifested in the flesh,
######Justified in the Spirit,
######Seen by angels,
######Preached among the Gentiles,
######Believed on in the world,
######Received up in glory.
1 timothy 3.16
he is called Emmanuel [god with us] matt 1.23
Luke 4.2 Jesus is being tempted by the devil, 4 9-11 Jesus reply 4.12
Just a few of the passages that could be cited.




so were do you get the idea from?



There is no evidence to suggest they are the same account, and much to say they are not. You are creating this, not the bible. Read side by side its clear.




That what you call would be against the bible, as god could control people to do what he wants. But he wants all to be saved, yet many are not. Well here is just one example
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
matt 23.37



I read them as god breathed as they claim to be, reading them side by side or together still, no contradiction you hoped for.



I have read I dont know what your argument is, john the disciple , author of the gospel of john is a original [not first] disciple, one of the twelve. As i pointed out with many passages.




and? I never said every translation ever made is 100%. I said provide evidence today's bible has been mistranslated and the original has been mistranslated. Were does it effect doctrine? as far as I am aware inn and upper room come can both be translated from same word.




but the claim is when they write down they have this knowledge. This is clear from bible.



I was referring to other john passage showing he was a original disciple.
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.




circular reasoning, with no evidence to back up at all.




1] peter refers to pauls letters as scriture, paul refers to luke as scripture.
2] God-breathed is what we were looking for, god is the author. problem being you cant show one contradiction.



By all means show evidence why.


agreed, but has nothing to do with the claims in john and others that the holy spirit led them to write down what god wanted, as paul said.

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
1 peter 19-21

"not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
1 Corinthians 2:13

In this verse Paul says, "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."
1 Corinthians 14:37


When Paul speaks as an apostle of Jesus Christ to the churches it is "Christ that speaketh" in him (2 Cor. 13:3).

Paul did not learn his gospel at the feet of men but rather received it "through revelations of Jesus Christ," Gal. 1:12, some of which were "exceeding great" (2 Cor. 12:7).

my friend,you need to leave Jehovah witness and come to the truth.



I will respond to wiki last response below.


and?



I love this the most of all your responses so i will bold.
"I have provided exegesis and scholarly opinion on the origin of the Gospels - nobody else here is in any doubt about the evidence I have presented.
As it is said, the heretic often feels persecuted, ignores reason, sees himself as inerrant and believes only he has access to the Truth.
This is a disorder of either the mind or the soul."


So to support your claims with "scholarly opinion". You posted a wiki article. I have posted from actual 4 scholars with references that disagree with your wiki article. You claim wiki is "scholarly". can you show me in one debate on the translation of the bible, were a scholar quotes or refers to wiki? Yet you will see them refer to my quotes I posted and video references. I have asked from beginning for actual evidence of how the bible has been corrupted, you have provided nothing but your baseless opinion and baseless opinions on wiki with no evidence to support any of them. I can find you biblical scholars that say the bible talks about and saw aliens in Ezekiel, or that the bible teaches evolution. You can find liberal scholars that will claim anything you can imagine. I want evidence,not baseless claims. Do you truly believe I have not herd all the "theories" about how the gospels were written? I have watched hours of debate on subject. The problem is when you start with a worldview that demands the bible to be false, apostles to not have written books, than you must come up with some evolutionary process of how the bible was written/rewritten over time. because we know jesus was not really god, he did not really do miracles, he did not really rise from the dead. So these must be stories that grew over time, or invented to trick people into following there new religion etc etc. For example, the book of matt must have been written after 70 ad because it predicts the temple to fall, and since prophecy does not happen, we know matt was written after 70 ad. I dont care about people bias against god/divine author/bible miracles etc. I care about facts, what facts do you have the gospels were not written by the original apostles or Paul?. I highly suggest you watch some debates on the subject, with a conservative scholar there to defend the bible. As the quote I wrote before said, if these were secular documents, no one would question the authority of them, but because they talk of a man, who did miracles,claimed to be god, rose from dead, they must be imaginative written after events, not a eye witness account. If you watch my link with james white, this is why he asked Bart Ehrman [who attacks bible translation more than any] in the debate, does the bible misquote jesus, what has more evidence in all history to its authenticity than the NT, he replied nothing does.


historians have no trouble accepting :
There are two generally reliable accounts of Hannibal (247–183 BC ) crossing the Alps in 218 BC to attack Rome. Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek historian, chronicled Hannibal’s invasion at least 50 years after the actual event.7 Livy (c. 59 BC – AD 17), a Roman historian, wrote of Hannibal’s invasion about 190 years after the actual event


Another famous event in history was Julius Caesar (100–44 BC) crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC without disbanding his army.9 Suetonius (c. 69/75 – after 130), a Roman historian, wrote his historical account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon at least 110 years after the event,10 and it is considered to be generally reliable. In addition, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, written by Arrian and Plutarch, were written over 400 years after his death.11 And these biographies are considered to be generally trustworthy.


F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.”

He also states, “And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt” (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).