The court has already set a date, and at that date, what is "written" in the book of life, a recall of one's deeds, is the witness used. One should test spirits, to see if they are from the devil, the father of lies, or from God, who has left the "narrow" Way written in the Law and the prophets, which Paul has supposedly nailed to a cross. I think you are strolling down a wide path to "destruction" (Mt 7:12-15). But this is America, and one has the free chose to choose either life or death.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?
- Thread starter vulcanlogician
- Start date
Apparently, the NT you use didn't have enough "credibility" until the year 367 A.D. to have been compiled and canonized, by the bishop of Alexandria, who was not the best of characters. Character matters, and following Roman emperors has a consequence.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe God is comfortable with my path so I am also.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe lack of compilation does not eliminate credibility. All the books would still have been credible if they remained separate books.
I recommend a crystal ball, Flying Witch Ouija board, or seance with your local lady at the carnaval.
,
Or I could bow down to your high caliber of insight. I am not sure which would be the best route. Maybe I should wait and see, as we are now at the "end of the age" (Mt 13:30), and the outcomes will become evident as time goes on.
Says you. Constantine in 325 A.D., had Eusebius compile a bible, for which the only remaining evidence is a single reference to one of the books, which does not exist in the present canon. Probably because Eusebius was a leader of the Arians, and his anti-Trinity bias, would have reflected in that bible, and Constantine had all the writings of Arian burned by fire, and anyone holding those writings was subject to execution.
Regiomontanus
Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
Well, "destruction", as in death, is the end of every path (Jeremiah 31:30), whether narrow or broad, despite what the false prophet Paul may say, but the "destruction" of Matthew 7:12, is aimed at the "great tribulation" of Matthew 24, whereas even the "elect" will barely escape (Joel 2:31-32) (Mt 24:21-22) unless the time was "cut short". That time is when the "house"(church) of those who do not heed the message of the son of man, will "fall" (Mt 7:24-27), and those who cling to its leadership of such church will be "cut off" (Isaiah 22:25). Those who are among the walking living dead, don't always sense their position, and are not able to react to the coming worse condition. Tares do not recognize that they are tares, as tares look just like wheat, but produce no good fruit. Tares think they do not require production of anything, because they are fine just as they are.
Insight in this case is best described as self justified circular belief.
"Wait and see" is about all you have as an option. Believers have been waiting to see for thousands of years and nothing has happened.
Last edited:
The Bible evolved in the early 300 to 400 years by burning the alternatives, and their followers so that the only thing left was the Hellenist Roman New Testament we have today.
You ask a good question. Many people are in this cycle of circular reasoning.
Somethings Muslims do: "I believe in hell because the Quran says so", yet, "I believe in Quran because it's amazing + rational + a miracle". Well the rational part is dependent on hell being a rational belief.
Now it's true that Mohammad (s) is sent to warn about the day of judgment and hell. But then if this is true, they have be double implications.
The day of judgment must imply God will send Messengers (to prove it). And God's sent ones will prove the day of judgment. But this means also they have to be independently proven. And we have to at least see one of the proofs to be true.
I realized that hell especially since how much of the Quran has devoted to explaining and justifying it from many angles, and repeated it, cannot be taken on blind faith. Other things like did Dul-Qarnain (a) exist, are things you cannot know outside of trust of Quran. The heart repeated warnings however, cannot be, something to blindly say, well Quran says so. Because they are at the heart of the structure of the Quran. So if it fails, the Quran fails, and it's contingent on it's truth.
As you know from another forum, I was a Deist/New Age type person who didn't believe in hell and had left Islam for 5 years.
Also, the heart of the paradigm of the Quran is to believe in the unseen nature of God's signs. This ranges from signs in our souls to signs in the horizon to the nature of God's book and is descending and ascending nature.
Since somethings are the heart and focus and basis of the structure of the Quran, you have to prove it to be rational and proven by how Quran proves it and discusses it or otherwise, you cannot accept the Quran.
However, then there is specific things, that you cannot know without knowing Quran is true. It can't prove it in philosophical matter, but rather you accept it when you know Quran is proven to be true.
The bible keeps changing to reflect the view of the "many" on their way to "destruction". The bible (NASB) given to me in the 1970s has changed to reflect the current traditions of men. A sentence here and a sentence there produces a different result. Even the KJB has been revised to a different standard, and it wasn't holy/good to start with. The differing canon of the Eastern church held out the longest, but there are different canons in the weeds. Even the Aramaic/Pe****ta bible has been fiddled with in recent history from the copy given to me in the 70s.
The question remains that only those that believe the Torah, New Testament, and Quran is true, believe the Torah, New Testament and the Quran can be proven true,
In these arguments there is no independent assessment as to what could possibly be true, therefore they are circular arguments dependent on belief.
What would be proof the Quran is true any different than the Jews belief in the Torah and the Christian belief in the NT?
The history of the Tanakh, New Testament and the Quran is that they have been edited, redacted and "fiddled" with for millennia to justify what people want them to read and believe. ALL these texts lack historical provenance as to text and authorship. They simply represent the beliefs and culture at the time they were written.
What makes you 'beliefs' any more true than the many diverse and conflicting beliefs of the others?
Well, I don't know. The Jews have been waiting for Joel 3:1-2, whereas Judah and Jerusalem would be "revived" (1948), and that their neighbors would be lit up like brush (1967)(Zechariah 12), and that the nations/Gentiles would be judged (Joel 3:2), as the nations (UN) would be summoned to surround Jerusalem (Zechariah 14), and that the stars would fall from the sky (Mt 24:29 & Isaiah 13:20), something like 1200 rockets in one day in Israel, with Russia having something like 5000 nuclear warhead ready to be launched, along with their high altitude EMP bomb, fitting the description of the Zechariah 14:12 plague, is ready and waiting for deployment, from either themselves or their ally Iran. I don't know, according to Hosea 6:2, Israel and Judah would not be healed until after two days (2000 years). I sometimes get my math wrong, but I think it has been about two thousand years since the message of the son of man was introduced. Describe me as running around in circles, but if you don't learn from history, you run around in circles, and repeat your mistakes.
Well, the Koran says that the "book" of the "people"/Jews is from God and is true. The Koran also states that Isa son of Mariam (Jesus) is a prophet of God. The Koran does not specify the name of any other prophet. It only gives a descriptive, in the form of Mohhamad, which means praised one, and is not exclusive to any person, but just as likely to being a descriptive of Yeshua, as the Koran appropriated text from the Old and New Testament. There is no independent evidence of a Mohammad in Mecca, which was not the "center of the world" where Solomon, Abraham, and Eve had a vacation home with fruit trees and canals. At that time Mecca had a single small well in a wilderness, with no trade. The term Islam was not used until approximately the Muslim year 100, and its core ideology was appropriated from the Jews and the Roman religion, of having a book, and a man, to gather the Arabs together under one god, rather than their having a god for every area. Its founder was apparently a Anti Trinity Arab Christian leader in Jerusalem, who built the original dome of the rock, and who also had a coin minted with his image, with that of a cross. Both false prophets, the illusionary Mohammed, and the hypocrite Paul, appropriated the Jewish religion to build their own church, in the image that worked for them.
The Jews do not accept the New Testament and Christian claims, nor the Quran, From the perspective of the JEw Jesus and Mohammod are false prophets.
The Muslims do not accept the New Testament, nor what the Jews believe.
The Christians to not accept the Jewish beliefs concerning the Tanakh, nor the Quran.
You do not accept what Paul beliefs.
The problem remains there is no proof nor supporting evidence for any of the above beliefs. All the texts lack provenance of the text nor authorship. The result you are one of many diverse conflicting beliefs, each calling the other false. and worse
It is simply a claim based on faith that one is true and the others are false,
Last edited:
Well, the Koran says the NT and the OT are the word of Allah and are true, but only misinterpreted by the Christians and the Jews. If you want to see a Muslim squirm, quote the OT in opposition to the Koran, and enjoy his discomfort. There are many Jews that have accepted Yeshua. According to news reports, even Muslims have "come to Jesus". Recently, even the head rabbi of Jerusalem. after having a vision of Yeshua, before he died, as was prophesized in Joel 2:28. As for Paul, I believe he existed, and his message was prophesized in Matthew 13. Most "Christians" believe the Tanakh, but simply accept Paul's doctrine that it has been nailed to a cross, and no longer applies to Gentiles, but they accept that it applies to Jews. The Quran view of the Jews started good but progressed into bad the later in the book. As for the Jews, in many cases, they don't even accept other Jews. One has to seek the truth other than through religions and their traditions of men. As for the truth of Israel, during the time of Mark Twain's (Samuel Clemens) journey to Jerusalem in the 1860s, he called it a desert that the cactus and olive trees had rejected, with only a couple of Berber tents. It is now a land of milk and honey as prophesized in the bible and is now the home of Judah (Joel 3:1). The wars to come concerning Jerusalem, are at the gate (Zechariah 12 & 14).
Careful on "what the Quran says,.The New Testament, and the OT is only true as believed in the context of the Islamic Revelation. The Muslims do dominattely consider Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history.
You Just also accept that Jews consider Jesus a false prophet and do not accept any of the NT. The opposition of the Jews is based on the plain reading of ALL the prophecies referring to the Messianic Kings to restore the Nation of Israel.
Now many? need references for the above claims? Nonetheless not the question involved here. Messianic Jews are Christians and not all from Jewish backgrounds, and then reject the Jewish understanding of the Tanakh.
None of the addresses the issue except it is understood you selectively reject Paul,
The following question has not been answered.
The question remains that only those that believe the Torah, New Testament, and Quran is true, believe the Torah, New Testament and the Quran can be proven true,
In these arguments there is no independent assessment as to what could possibly be true, therefore they are circular arguments dependent on belief.
What would be proof the Quran is true any different than the Jews belief in the Torah as true and the Christian belief in the NT as true?
Last edited: