[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually within context it cannot. I mean you can BELIEVE it says that. But it does not.

It's also within context a possible interpretation and in my humble opinion the only one possible without contradiction.

Remember I'm talking always with the synoptic gospels in mind and not John's gospel. John's gospel goes straightly and deliberately for the literal son of God-interpretation, in some parts even Jesus=God-interpretation, with the intent of breaking with Judaism.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

It's also within context a possible interpretation

Taliesin no, no it's not. I and other people have tried to show you it's simply not there. NOW you can go this other guy's route and try to say that "It's there, but someone added it later!11" But to deny what that passage means, is sticking your proverbial head in the dirt.

and in my humble opinion the only one possible without contradiction.

Without contradicting YOUR belief. Which is what the problem is here. It doesn't go along with YOUR beliefs, so you are DESPERATELY trying to find an out where there is none.

Though you'll keep telling yourself there is an out. Even though you've been showed many many many times in this forum there is not.

Remember I'm talking always with the synoptic gospels in mind and not John's gospel. John's gospel goes straightly and deliberately for the literal son of God-interpretation, in some parts even Jesus=God-interpretation

The others don't disagree with him Tali. They take those parts as obvious. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible you agree with and parts you think are rubbage and only fit your narrow view of things. You either take te Bible as a whole, or you dump it as a whole. And the other passages don't contridict Johns. As you have been told many times in here before. Heck, you probably STILL think Moses was calling himself "I AM "

with the intent of breaking with Judaism.

Christianity as a whole was breaking with Judaism. You are doing what is called "projection"

Taking ideas or desires you have and projecting them onto someone that didn't mean such a thing in that way.

You WANT to believe that. But have no facts. But you treat it as if it were. Thus projection.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What I don't understand is, It doesn't bother me what is said in the Islamic book. Nor would I try to distort things that was said in it to make it closely match my Bible like Tali is doing.

I have no need to do such a thing.

I always wonder why other religious people DO feel the need to project their own religious ideals into the Bible, making it say things it did not.

Maybe if you feel BOTH books are legit, that they MUST not contridict each other.

But they do.

Yes, it is curious and I often wonder why Tali is at such pains to reconcile the two. Clearly they are in places contradictory.

Personally I do not see this as a problem, nor do I see it as evidence that one of them is 'false'.

You see, God is not - and cannot be - static. He is not bound by anything. I am not meaning here an Islamic God or a Christian God but the reality of God - God as a being cannot be subservient to anything or else He would not be God.

If He wanted to send a new religion tomorrow He could. I am not saying He will but the point is He is free to do whatever He wishes.

Imho, He has sent various revelations each fitted for the time. As time progresses then new ones are needed. Updated versions. If you needed a guidebook to the city of Florence for example, you would not say that one written a hundred years ago was the same as last week's. Yet both are 'genuine'.

Because man has free-will the situation changes - God reacts to these changes imo. He is not some static monolithic entity stuck in the era of x-thousand years ago.

Btw, Islamic tradition recognizes this - in fact there is an Islamic tradition that a new revelation (book) will come in the last days and that the followers of the Qu'ran will find it a very hard test on many levels.

God is the only reality. Everything is subordinate to Him - every revelation, every Prophet and every scripture.

[Kevin]

Yes, it is curious and I often wonder why Tali is at such pains to reconcile the two. Clearly they are in places contradictory.

I think Tali maybe a bit insecure in his beliefs. Otherwise he wouldn't feel the need to interject ideas in places they don't belong.

Maybe if he beliefs what he does, he feels more secure? Who knows.

segovius, God is the same God as today, yesterday, and forever. And yes, if he wanted to change religion RIGHT NOW he could. There are a BILLION things God could do. But there aer truths. There are falsehoods as well. There are things out there waiting to trick people.

God is the only reality. Everything is subordinate to Him - every revelation, every Prophet and every scripture.

I would say the trinity was the only reality. But that is just MHO.

Take it like this. We need water to live. Water also comes in three different forms.

But it's still water.

Funny how things in our secular life, reflect the spiritual life.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Take it like this. We need water to live. Water also comes in three different forms.

But it's still water.

Funny how things in our secular life, reflect the spiritual life.

Yes, I have often thought along these lines. I don't personally believe in the Trinity in the sense you mean it but I'm pretty sure there is a universal spiritual 'law of three' (for want of a better term).

Electricity with it's positive, negative and neutral would be another example as would the union of marriage producing a third element - the child.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I always wonder why other religious people DO feel the need to project their own religious ideals into the Bible, making it say things it did not.

Maybe if you feel BOTH books are legit, that they MUST not contridict each other.

But they do.

No, they don't at all.

See, before I started to read the old testament and the gospels years ago, I had the prejudice and opinion that these holy books of judaism and christianity must have been altered, changed, tampered with... considering all the talk about being the only chosen people, about Jesus being the son of God or even God himself...

ideas that obviously contradict the quranic message.

Then I started to read the old testament, always in more than three languages and more than two translation-styles per language, in order to minimise the effect of wrong translations, and what I found was the quranic message. Sure the first parts of Genesis incorporated some strange allegories, and some stories were even completely invented and bogus, like the story of Samson or other few books and chapters, but all in all it was correct and consistent with the Quran.

It portrayed the story of a people that God blessed and interacted with because of a promise to Abraham. It was a harsh story of survival, warfare, obedience, seductions, rewards and punishments. Israel got rewarded and blessed and blossomed whenever it was the servant (son) of God, and was punished, persecuted and destroyed whenever it served other gods.

That concept of servant (son) of God was the main-message of the old testament and which ended when Israel was no more and when the jewish leaders declared the end of the revelations and started to kill even legitimate prophets afterwards.

So I started to read the gospels, and what I saw was the revival of the "servant (son) of God"-concept, but no more in the form of an Israel as a state, but in the form of an individual interaction between a single man/woman and God through the faith-concept.

Everyone could individually become Israel, ie. servant (son) of God, through an act of faith, by praying, doing good, practicing charity and mercy... without awaiting a reward in the here and now, but instead in the hereafter.

Jesus' mission in the gospel was also completely consistent with the Quran.

That's why I'm really astonished if not to say shocked how in the world one can read the old testament and the gospels and come out of it with the idea of Jesus being God.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

No, they don't at all.

They do Taliesin. They don't to you because you don't WANT them to. So you have deluded yourself into believing they do not.

Many people have shown you where. Only for you to close your eyes and scream "NO NO NO !!!"

See, before I started to read the old testament and the gospels years ago, I had the prejudice and opinion that these holy books of judaism and christianity must have been altered, changed, tampered with... considering all the talk about being the only chosen people, about Jesus being the son of God or even God himself...

ideas that obviously contradict the quranic message.

So you went into reading the Bible with prejudice from the start. That was your FIRST error.

Then I started to read the old testament, always in more than three languages and more than two translation-styles per language, in order to minimise the effect of wrong translations, and what I found was the quranic message. Sure the first parts of Genesis incorporated some strange allegories, and some stories were even completely invented and bogus, like the story of Samson or other few books and chapters, but all in all it was correct and consistent with the Quran.

Wait, you are again taking what you BELIEVE and treating it as a fact. Prove to me said stories were made up and bogus. (Before you even try, don't. You cannot)

There lies your problem Tali. You take your inner ideas or beliefs that are baseless, and you post them as fact.

THIS is the problem most people have with you on here. And when people show you otherwise, you are still in denial. It's one of the worst cases of self deluding I have seen in here. Other than von.

It portrayed the story of a people that God blessed and interacted with because of a promise to Abraham. It was a harsh story of survival, warfare, obedience, seductions, rewards and punishments. Israel got rewarded and blessed and blossomed whenever it was the servant (son) of God, and was punished, persecuted and destroyed whenever it served other gods.

Correct. Other Gods. But if they are one in the same..

That concept of servant (son) of God was the main-message of the old testament and which ended when Israel was no more and when the jewish leaders declared the end of the revelations and started to kill even legitimate prophets afterwards.

So I started to read the gospels, and what I saw was the revival of the "servant (son) of God"-concept, but no more in the form of an Israel as a state, but in the form of an individual interaction between a single man/woman and God through the faith-concept.

Everyone could individually become Israel, ie. servant (son) of God, through an act of faith, by praying, doing good, practicing charity and mercy... without awaiting a reward in the here and now, but instead in the hereafter.

Jesus' mission in the gospel was also completely consistent with the Quran.

That's why I'm really astonished if not to say shocked how in the world one can read the old testament and the gospels and come out of it with the idea of Jesus being God.

Taliesin

Talieisin, Worshipping Jesus IS worshipping God. They are one in the same. So your logic doesn't pan out here. There is no "Worshipping other Gods"


The reason why things don't "Pan out" for you is because you simply don't understand how the trinity works. And from the looks of this thread, aren't willing to.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Talieisin, Worshipping Jesus IS worshipping God. They are one in the same. So your logic doesn't pan out here. There is no "Worshipping other Gods"

I haven't said that christians are worshipping other gods! You are reading quite strange things into my postings.

Actually because christians are not worshipping other gods is why God promises in the Quran that christians also have equal opportunity to paradise, depending on their own faith and deeds.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think Tali maybe a bit insecure in his beliefs. Otherwise he wouldn't feel the need to interject ideas in places they don't belong.

Maybe if he beliefs what he does, he feels more secure? Who knows.

See, my motivation is not because of me. I could easily be content with my faith and religion and let God decide our differences in the hereafter.

But I feel the need to interact with christians because it's so obvious that centuries ago christians have interpreted things wrongly and now the people are sticking to them out of tradition.

It's not much different in Islam, there are also things that were interpreted wrongly centuries ago, and now it's stuck in tradition, but here in this forum I'm sticking for obvious reasons to christianity and in other places I'm doing similar regarding Islam.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I haven't said that christians are worshipping other gods! You are reading quite strange things into my postings.

I am talking about things you have said before. That the Jews denied Jesus was God because of the whole "worshipping other gods" thing. Which makes NO SENSE if you understand that trinity. Worshipping Jesus and God is not worshipping two seperate beings.

Actually because christians are not worshipping other gods is why God promises in the Quran that christians also have equal opportunity to paradise, depending on their own faith and deeds.

Right, but this thread isn't really about the Quran, as in the Quran God doesn't choose the Jews.

Another difference.


Actually the Quran seems to take certain Bible beliefs and teachings, while going the TOTAL opposite on others.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

But I feel the need to interact with christians because it's so obvious that centuries ago christians have interpreted things wrongly and now the people are sticking to them out of tradition.

Oh so you, because of your ideas, or beliefs, think you are going to "Show us"
Which is pretentious. We like you have been down the same road.

And no, it's not "obvious" If it was obvious it wouldn't be up for question. You making such definite statements shows how insecure you are. You had to put "obvious" there to give you more confidence. That was nothing for us, but everything for you. And it has NOTHING to do with Tradition.

What you mean is you BELIEVE this even though you have no proof. You have FAITH that this is wrong.

It BOTHERS you in a insecure way when anyone says otherwise, Or you wouldn't be arguing said thing.

It's not much different in Islam, there are also things that were interpreted wrongly centuries ago, and now it's stuck in tradition, but here in this forum I'm sticking for obvious reasons to christianity and in other places I'm doing similar regarding Islam.

But that is just it. You aren't doing a thing but attempting to convince yourself Tali. So why do you keep doing it?

Even when PROVEN WRONG with actual FACST you still deny it Tali. Take the whole "Moses" and the "I AM" thing. You have STILL yet to say "I was wrong, I apologize" and you were indeed wrong!

So how do you expect anyone to take your seriously, when you.

1. Don't even understand the basic stories in the Bible.
2. When shown you are wrong. Wont admit it?

What you have done is, take different stories in the Bible, and ADAPTED them into what you know about Islam to suite your beliefs.

The Bible talks about this as well. That the people who do these things WONT ever get it.

And I have a feeling that is the problem. You've been blocked from understanding because of your intentions.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

They do Taliesin. They don't to you because you don't WANT them to. So you have deluded yourself into believing they do not.

Many people have shown you where. Only for you to close your eyes and scream "NO NO NO !!!"

Before I read the old testament and the gospels, I myself believed there would be contradictions, even huge contradictions, and I was ready to discard them as tampered books, but much to my surprise it was not so. I found out that not the holy books themselves were at fault for the differences in the religions, but human interpretation and doctrines developed in judaism, christianity and islam.

We could all day and night scream "Yay there are contradictions" and "Nay, there are none", but it's pointless, I have already looked at it thoroughly.

Originally Posted by Kevin

So you went into reading the Bible with prejudice from the start. That was your FIRST error.

Off course, it was an error, but I found no basis for my prejudice that there are contradictions.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wait, you are again taking what you BELIEVE and treating it as a fact. Prove to me said stories were made up and bogus.

No, it's not about faith, these chapters contradict internally within the context and message of the old testament.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am talking about things you have said before. That the Jews denied Jesus was God because of the whole "worshipping other gods" thing. Which makes NO SENSE if you understand that trinity. Worshipping Jesus and God is not worshipping two seperate beings.

Again, I have not claimed such things. Are you even reading my postings, or are you simply scanning for keywords, hitting the reply-button and going on a rant?

In my posting I wrote about Israel's interaction with God. When Jesus came up Israel was no more, do you understand that?

The worshipping of other gods was way before Jesus came up and one of the reasons for God's wrath on Israel.

Have you even read the old testament?

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Before I read the old testament and the gospels, I myself believed there would be contradictions, even huge contradictions, and I was ready to discard them as tampered books, but much to my surprise it was not so. I found out that not the holy books themselves were at fault for the differences in the religions, but human interpretation and doctrines developed in judaism, christianity and islam.

No, you mean YOU BELIEVE. You didn't find out anything. That would require FACTS. Something you do not have.

We could all day and night scream "Yay there are contradictions" and "Nay, there are none", but it's pointless, I have already looked at it thoroughly.

So Have I. I am speaking about a certain thing. You are now taking that and generalizing it. Why?

No, it's not about faith, these chapters contradict internally within the context and message of the old testament.

Taliesin

Just like Moses said "I AM" ? I am not saying there isn't Tali. I just question your interpretations because you have shown us in this thread, You don't do so very well.

Why is it, even to this post, you STILL cannot admit that you were wrong there Taliesin?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Even when PROVEN WRONG with actual FACST you still deny it Tali. Take the whole "Moses" and the "I AM" thing. You have STILL yet to say "I was wrong, I apologize" and you were indeed wrong!

You surely are funny. I would easily say I was wrong, if I were, but in the whole Moses "I AM"-thing, I was right and you wrong, but that is impossible for you to admit, because you have made up your mind already. For you saying "I AM" means being God. No argument whatever will change your mind on that matter as it tangles the fundamental misinterpretation in christianity.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Again, I have not claimed such things. Are you even reading my postings, or are you simply scanning for keywords, hitting the reply-button and going on a rant?

Taliesin You believe worshipping other Gods is wrong correct? So you believe someone worshipping Jesus as a God would be wrong correct?

In my posting I wrote about Israel's interaction with God. When Jesus came up Israel was no more, do you understand that?

Yes I understand you wrote that.

The worshipping of other gods was way before Jesus came up and one of the reasons for God's wrath on Israel.

One of the reasons. But it didn't effect everyone. Not that it has anything to do with my point.

Have you even read the old testament?

Taliesin

You are being silly again.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

You surely are funny. I would easily say I was wrong, if I were, but in the whole Moses "I AM"-thing, I was right and you wrong, but that is impossible for you to admit, since it would mean that Jesus indeed used the I AM-thing as signifying being sent by God, instead of being God himself.

Taliesin

Taliesin no, as many many other people in here pointed out. You are not. GO BACK AND READ IT AGAIN.

Moses was telling them WHO sent him. Not WHO he was.

Jesus was telling them WHO he was.

WITHIN CONTEXT TALIESIN.

You cannot take things out of context and HOPE it means what you want it to.

THIS IS WHY NO ONE TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY IN HERE.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

We could all day and night scream "Yay there are contradictions" and "Nay, there are none", but it's pointless, I have already looked at it thoroughly.

It cannot be pointless - if you feel you have a duty to point out there is no contradiction then you must prove this.

If there is none and you can show that I'm sure most reasonable people would thank you for the lesson.

I have a really hard time understanding how you can say there are none - for example, does the Qur'an agree that Jesus was crucified? That he rose again?

Does the Qu'ran deny God is capable of offspring? Does the Bible claim God has a son?

And what of minor contradictions such as the Qur'an saying Noah's son drowned in the flood and the Bible saying he survived?

Personally I believe the Qur'an but I really don't understand how you can say there are no contradictions.

Is it because the Qur'an states God's words can never be corrupted and you put the Bible in that category so you have to equate the two?

[Kevin]

With every truth, there is 10 falsehoods.

With Christ, there will be an anti-Christ.

They will mimmick each other well. But there will be subtle but obvious differences.

Not every way will be the right way.

For every good decision there is a bad one.

That is all I will say about that.

The main difference between Islam and Christianity is the belief about Jesus.

The VERY belief that Christians belief is required for salvation, is "unholy" in the eyes of Islam.

So to say they don't contridict each other is a long shot.

I think the problem Tali is running into is, He sees them both as equal and legit. So he changes the "words" and beleifs in Christianity to suite his Islamic ones.

Not very honest no.

But it seems to be his personal defense mechanism.

Having said that, I am not saying one is right or wrong. That isn't up to me to decided or judge.

Each "group" may very well have it's own "pact" with God.

The Jews and Arabs have their through Abraham. It's just in question what that "pact" entials in detail.

Us gentiles will stick with the Big J.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Taliesin no, as many many other people in here pointed out. You are not. GO BACK AND READ IT AGAIN.

Moses was telling them WHO sent him. Not WHO he was.

Jesus was telling them WHO he was.

WITHIN CONTEXT TALIESIN.

You cannot take things out of context and HOPE it means what you want it to.

THIS IS WHY NO ONE TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY IN HERE.

See, that's the difference in our understanding. You think the context that Jesus spoke the words "Before Abraham was, I am", meant that Jesus were God, but I see a whole other context and which is identical to Moses' use of I AM, and that reads like that:

"Before Abraham was, God was (=I AM)".

I'm absolutely sure that John's gospel uses that quote to further support the author's idea that Jesus is God, by playing with the idea, that saying "I AM" is equivalent to "I am (what) I AM".

But it surely is not the case within the context of the synoptic gospels.

Somehow I have the feeling that you try to psychologise this discussion when you are running out of sound arguments, maybe even try a character-assassination, in order to feel secure about the own found truth.

But I forgive you, sincerly, since I understand what strong emotions my ideas, arguments and analyses might invoke in someone who is adhering to a certain religion and doctrine.

I myself was sometimes emotionally upworked when someone came with new ideas, analyses and arguments regarding core-doctrines of Islam.

But that was before I read the Quran thoroughly and found out myself that doctrines of Islam can be false.

The point is, even if christianity is wrong about Jesus' status and nature, and they are for sure, it's not something that endangers the well-being in the hereafter, because christianity merely believes that God paid a visit to earth in the form of Jesus, and even if it's wrong, it's still monotheism.

Taliesin

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

See, that's the difference in our understanding. You think the context that Jesus spoke the words "Before Abraham was, I am", meant that Jesus were God, but I see a whole other context and which is identical to Moses' use of I AM, and that reads like that:

Moses did not say "I am".

I have a feeling you are really overcooking all this and re-inventing the wheel - as Muslim you have access to a tradition of critical thinking and rigorous philosophical analysis that long ago penetrated into all of this and much more than we could ever approach with our intellects.

For example - the "I am" issue was long ago resolved. The Sufi Mansur al Hallaj (whose life has been seen as a parallel to Jesus's) was crucified and executed for stating "I am the truth".

Much later it was established to the satisfaction of the ulama by such orthodox thinkers as Al-Ghazzali, that states of mystical ecstasy can result in a perception of union with God (a phenomena which also exists in the Christian tradition: St John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Thomas a Kempis etc) where such statements may be made as an expression of the mystic state - ie a feeling of divine union.

This was undoubtedly the case with Hallaj (and other Sufis such as Bayazid Bistami) and so could equally be the case with Jesus - even the phrase is the same: "I am the truth..."

There is no need to be a literalist - it is one step from a fundamentalist.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by segovius

It cannot be pointless - if you feel you have a duty to point out there is no contradiction then you must prove this.

If there is none and you can show that I'm sure most reasonable people would thank you for the lesson.

I have a really hard time understanding how you can say there are none - for example, does the Qur'an agree that Jesus was crucified? That he rose again?

Yes, it does. Sure there is the one passage where God says that the jews didn't kill nor crucify Jesus, but that they merely thought so, without secure knowledge. But what it meant was merely that God killed Jesus and brought him to life again and rised him to Himself as part of His fate and plan.

Originally Posted by segovius

Does the Qu'ran deny God is capable of offspring? Does the Bible claim God has a son?

That's the point really, the Bible minus John's gospel, sees Jesus as the son of God, in the way Israel was the son of God, ie. as the servant of God, as one with whom God's word is, and who follows God's commandments.

In the Quran God replies to polytheistic arabs that thought about the angels of God as being God's children and against the christians who viewed Jesus as God's literal son and worshipped him as an idol besides God.

God, in the Quran, made the argument that everything is His, because He created everything.

Originally Posted by segovius

And what of minor contradictions such as the Qur'an saying Noah's son drowned in the flood and the Bible saying he survived?

It's not only that small contradiction, in the old testament it reads like the whole world was drowned in the big flood, but in the Quran it's only localised to the people that Noah preached to and that rejected him and his message/warning/call for return.

There are other small differences, for example the old testament seems to place the story of Abraham trying to sacrifice his only son, after Isaac was born, while in the Quran it's placed before Isaac is born, which makes sacrificing the only son much more consistent.

I think these small differences happened through mistakes in editing, translation...

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

See, that's the difference in our understanding.

Yes indeed. I understand. You do not.

You think the context that Jesus spoke the words "Before Abraham was, I am", meant that Jesus were God, but I see a whole other context and which is identical to Moses' use of I AM, and that reads like that:

"Before Abraham was, God was (=I AM)".

No, Taliesin because in order for that to be true, you have to ADD things to what Jesus said (LIke you just did) In Moses's case, Nothing is needed to add to it for him to be saying it.

I'm absolutely sure that John's gospel uses that quote to further support the author's idea that Jesus is God, by playing with the idea, that saying "I AM" is equivalent to "I am (what) I AM".

No, you believe this because it goes along with what you want it to say. Regardless of what it says. The people who stoned him ALSO believed him to be saying he was God.

But it surely is not the case within the context of the synoptic gospels.

Surely it is. They take it for granted because it was said before. It doesn't CONTRADICT John.
As you have been told many times.

Somehow I have the feeling that you try to psychologise this discussion when you are running out of sound arguments, maybe even try a character-assassination, in order to feel secure about the own found truth.

Not at all. I haven't ran out of sound arguments. Not even trying to argue with you. There is nothing TO argue about. Me and seg were just trying to figure out WHY you believe this. Maybe in doing so, we can understand the motives.

But I forgive you, sincerly,

There is no need to forgive me Tali. I did nothing wrong.

since I understand what strong emotions my ideas, arguments and analyses might invoke in someone who is adhering to a certain religion and doctrine.

Actually you are the one that is getting all emotional because of the like. Not I.

I myself was sometimes emotionally upworked when someone came with new ideas, analyses and arguments regarding core-doctrines of Islam.

You mean like now? When you are being wrong about what Moses and Jesus said?

But that was before I read the Quran thoroughly and found out myself that doctrines of Islam can be false.

Couldn't tell you about the Quran. Like you don't know the Bible very well, I don't know it. So I choose not to comment on it.

The point is, even if christianity is wrong about Jesus' status and nature, and they are for sure,

There you go again. You THINK they are wrong. You have no proof. So it could not be FOR SURE. That is just you trying to convince your insecure nature again. I wouldn't even say I knew FOR SURE. I have an IDEA though. I have FAITH.

it's not something that endangers the well-being in the hereafter, because christianity merely believes that God paid a visit to earth in the form of Jesus, and even if it's wrong, it's still monotheism.

Again, you THINK it's wrong.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by segovius

There is no need to be a literalist - it is one step from a fundamentalist.

I think fundamentalism can be defeated with its own weapons.

Taliesin

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I think fundamentalism can be defeated with its own weapons.

Taliesin

Yes, the Bush administration think that too.

It isn't going too well.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

That's the point really, the Bible minus John's gospel, sees Jesus as the son of God, in the way Israel was the son of God, ie. as the servant of God, as one with whom God's word is, and who follows God's commandments.

No, no it does not Taliesin. That may be YOUR belief. But the Bible in a whole does not.

Go read Revelations as well.

There are other small differences, for example the old testament seems to place the story of Abraham trying to sacrifice his only son, after Isaac was born,

Actually it was a forshadowing of what was about to happen.

God was wanting to see if Abraham was willing to do for him, What God himself was going to do for mankind.




And as far as fundimentalists in the post above. I don't see that as a bad word. Those who take the word as a whole. Like it's supposed to be taken.

I don't see the terrorists as fundis say, if their religious doesn't teach murder. They aren't fundis, but liars.

Originally Posted by segovius

Yes, the Bush administration think that too.

It isn't going too well.

It's a bit far too close to the beginning of that "game" to be making such statements don't you think?

The fat lady hasn't even warmed up.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes indeed. I understand. You do not.

Hmm, ok...

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, Taliesin because in order for that to be true, you have to ADD things to what Jesus said (LIke you just did) In Moses's case, Nothing is needed to add to it for him to be saying it.

Yes, that's a good argument, but then the sentence "before Abraham was, God" is still making sense, and besides your interpretation needs then also added things:
"before Abraham was, (I am) God(=I AM)".

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, you believe this because it goes along with what you want it to say. Regardless of what it says. The people who stoned him ALSO believed him to be saying he was God.

Yes, in John's gospel that is. But strangely enough in the synoptic gospels, Jesus never ran into risk of being stoned. Quite to the contrary, the jewish leaders thought of ways to get hold of Jesus, but couldn't because the jewish masses stood behind him, thinking him to be a true messenger of God.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Surely it is. They take it for granted because it was said before. It doesn't CONTRADICT John.
As you have been told many times.

To quote your own famous saying, the Jesus in the synoptic gospels and the Jesus in John's gospel are secularly the same but not spiritually.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not at all. I haven't ran out of sound arguments. Not even trying to argue with you. There is nothing TO argue about. Me and seg were just trying to figure out WHY you believe this. Maybe in doing so, we can understand the motives.
There is no need to forgive me Tali. I did nothing wrong.

Ok, if there is nothing to argue about, then we could call it a day, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually you are the one that is getting all emotional because of the like. Not I.

Projection.

Originally Posted by Kevin

You mean like now? When you are being wrong about what Moses and Jesus said?

No, sorry, but you are wrong on that one. I AM means God, that's all. To mean what you want it to mean, you have to add words.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Couldn't tell you about the Quran. Like you don't know the Bible very well, I don't know it. So I choose not to comment on it.

Not everyone is of the same mind as you, you are again projecting.

Originally Posted by Kevin

There you go again. You THINK they are wrong. You have no proof. So it could not be FOR SURE. That is just you trying to convince your insecure nature again. I wouldn't even say I knew FOR SURE. I have an IDEA though. I have FAITH.

Good for you, stick to it, it's nothing that will endanger your wellbeing in the hereafter, as long as you keep true to the commandments and do good deeds and repent for your sins, if God wills.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, no it does not Taliesin. That may be YOUR belief. But the Bible in a whole does not.

Go read Revelations as well.

Don't get me started on Revelations, and the numerous other added letters and essays. Some are great, others are ok, and others again are not so ok, but all of them are of human origin. Ok, the revelation claims to be from an angel, eventhough John's gospel warns of exactly that.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually it was a forshadowing of what was about to happen. God was wanting to see if Abraham was willing to do for him, What God himself was going to do for mankind.

Yes, I know about the christian reinterpretations, but strangely Abraham had two sons when the passage came up about Abraham sacrificing his only son.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, that's a good argument, but then the sentence "before Abraham was, God" is still making sense,

That sentence makes sense on it's own of course. It's grammatically correct. But it doesn't make sense within context. They asked him how HE knew Abraham.

So saying "Before Abraham was God" Unless he was calling HIMSELF GOD. They didn't ask him how GOD knew Abraham. Understand?

and besides your interpretation needs then also added things:
"before Abraham was, (I am) God(=I AM)".

No, not at all. He was saying before Abraham existed, he did. But by also saying "I AM" the Jews recognized FURTHER what he was saying. He didn't just want to say "I was around before the guy" He wanted to say "I was not ONLY around before him, but I'm also God"

Yes, in John's gospel that is.

The others do not negate what John said.

But strangely enough in the synoptic gospels, Jesus never ran into risk of being stoned. Quite to the contrary, the jewish leaders thought of ways to get hold of Jesus, but couldn't because the jewish masses stood behind him, thinking him to be a true messenger of God.

Um that is how it was. It wasn't the MASSES that stoned him. It was a GROUP of Jews. AKA leaders. John never says all the Jews stoned him.

To quote your own famous saying, the Jesus in the synoptic gospels and the Jesus in John's gospel are secularly the same but not spiritually.

No, that isn't quoting me. Because I never said that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, I know about the christian reinterpretations, but strangely Abraham had two sons when the passage came up about Abraham sacrificing his only son.

Taliesin

Through Sarah.The Only one he had possesion of.

You have a hard time dealing with CONTEXT.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That sentence makes sense on it's own of course. It's grammatically correct. But it doesn't make sense within context. They asked him how HE knew Abraham.

So saying "Before Abraham was God" Unless he was calling HIMSELF GOD. They didn't ask him how GOD knew Abraham. Understand?

No, not at all. He was saying before Abraham existed, he did. But by also saying "I AM" the Jews recognized FURTHER what he was saying. He didn't just want to say "I was around before the guy" He wanted to say "I was not ONLY around before him, but I'm also God"

Now we begin to make progress. See, it's not the context in John's gospel that I'm analysing. As I have already said I think the context of all of John's gospel is pure bogus. It's the words I concentrate on in John's gospel because there might be and there are actually quotes of Jesus that are compatible with he spirit of Jesus in the synoptic gospels.

The context in John's gosple is taking that quote of Jesus as meaning Jesus is God. I agree with that, but I call that special context bogus.

Originally Posted by Kevin

The others do not negate what John said.

Off course not, because the author of John's gospel wrote it with the knowledge of the other gospels and interjecting new ideas and concepts where the other stayed moot. But exactly that interjection brings about a whole other spirit of Jesus.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Um that is how it was. It wasn't the MASSES that stoned him. It was a GROUP of Jews. AKA leaders. John never says all the Jews stoned him.

That is another one of these seemingly slight differences, but in actuality a big shift to the synoptic gospels.
While in the synoptic gospels Jesus is preaching towards the jews and denouncing their leaders and having them as his enemies, in John's gospel he is shifting his attention towards the gentiles and seeing jews in general as his enemies and not just the leaders anymore.

It's these seemingly small differences that bring about a new-spirited Jesus.

The catholic church explained that rather conveniently when it said that the gospels showed just different aspects of Jesus nature, but I don't buy it.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Through Sarah.The Only one he had possesion of.

You have a hard time dealing with CONTEXT.

The only one he had possession of? What are you talking about, Sara was according to the old testament free, Abraham didn't possess her.

If you want to bring the argument that Ismaeel was according to the old testament, the son of a maid/slave, and therefore not to be regarded as a real son, then I must correct you. The old testament is pretty clear about it, the right of the first-born sons can't be negated, even if the mother were not free.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Now we begin to make progress. See, it's not the context in John's gospel that I'm analysing. As I have already said I think the context of all of John's gospel is pure bogus.

No, again. You FEEL the context is bogus. It is not, factually bogus. Do you not understand the difference between belief and fact?

It's the words I concentrate on in John's gospel because there might be and there are actually quotes of Jesus that are compatible with he spirit of Jesus in the synoptic gospels.

The context in John's gosple is taking that quote of Jesus as meaning Jesus is God. I agree with that, but I call that special context bogus.

You can believe it is bogus. Correct. No one will argue with that BELIEF.

Off course not, because the author of John's gospel wrote it with the knowledge of the other gospels and interjecting new ideas and concepts where the other stayed moot. But exactly that interjection brings about a whole other spirit of Jesus

No, he did not interject anything. He just was more descriptive, where the others took things for granted.

That is another one of these seemingly slight differences, but in actuality a big shift to the synoptic gospels.
While in the synoptic gospels Jesus is preaching towards the jews and denouncing their leaders and having them as his enemies, in John's gospel he is shifting his attention towards the gentiles and seeing jews in general as his enemies and not just the leaders anymore.

It's these seemingly small differences that bring about a new-spirited Jesus.

Actually I think the diffrerences is one you are just perceiving.

The catholic church explained that rather conveniently when it said that the gospels showed just different aspects of Jesus nature, but I don't buy it.

Or different viewpoints as the author saw it.

he only one he had possession of? What are you talking about, Sara was according to the old testament free, Abraham didn't possess her.

I am speaking about the son. Isaac was the only son Abraham had at the time. Meaning was living with him.

If you want to bring the argument that Ismaeel was according to the old testament, the son of a maid/slave, and therefore not to be regarded as a real son, then I must correct you.

No, Ismaeel was his son as well. But he was not with Abraham. He was also blessed BTW. But not in the same way.

The old testament is pretty clear about it, the right of the first-born sons can't be negated, even if the mother were not free.

Through God, all things are possible. Even negating first borns.

Abraham disobeyed God and was punished. God still carried out his original "Sarah <> Abraham" plan.

[ebuddy]

Apologies for taking so long to reply and for potentially walking on someone else's toes if this has already been addressed. The thread has moved considerably forward since my last read. I simply don't have time for all the catch-up work right now. So much for my goal of not attaining clinically insane status by 2007.

Originally Posted by segovius

Ok. I'll show you both that the Synoptic Gospels are not eyewitness accounts and that they have been altered. Perhaps in a subsequent post - first let's outline the framework:

Interesting that you should use the word "altered". Do yuo undersatnd that alterations and typos are two diffrent thngs? If you were able to read the aforementioned sentence, you don't have an "alteration", but a typo. One would expect a great many typos when haste becomes more important than accuracy. There were also dictational errors easily spotted and corrected. The good news is there are several manuscripts with which to compare. However, in the spirit of honesty, we will address variants other than simple orthographic ones. As noted by France; "The student of the history of Jesus is, from the point of view of textual criticism, on vastly safer ground than the student of the life of Julius Caesar or indeed of any other figure of ancient history.". Another "leading expert" (assuming we're allowed to use this term as liberally as I see it used below), Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum, said that...

"in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament."

Now, we have a more firm starting point for discourse.

As I said above, my point in claiming the Bible has been altered is an academic one and not a religious one.

I'm glad to hear this. In this purely academic endeavor, being one of which you claim is not a religious pursuit; you must consider the variants of Shakespeare also for example, or that of any other secular piece. What you find is most interesting. per McGn. TCLI; ""There is now general agreement that the textual problems in Shakespeare are of such complexity that no text can be established that will commend the general assent that constitutes 'definitiveness.' "

According to Moreland; "Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament."

Therefore I will first cite the findings of experts who know what they are talking about and who in many cases have devoted their lives to the study of the Bible, archaeological research and the pursuit of truth.

So many experts, so little time. Nestle for example, criticised no other work for which his methodology could be scrutinized.

Allow me first to cite perhaps the most influential of all the below in your critique; Wescott and Hort who assert that the parts of the NT; "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part"

You weren't the one who said; "Truth is relative" were you? Kurt and Barbara Aland for example, provide an encyclopedia entry for the number of agreed "variances" and "non-variances" and which provides I believe, a healthier foundation for discourse and understanding. The entry cites statistics on these non/variances from the seven major editions of the Greek NT. (i.e. a compilation of all 7 criticisms over several hundred years) I won't bother with all of the details, suffice it to say of all the books in the NT, there are 7,947 verses and among all seven, they agree on 4,999 verses. This is 2/3rds agreement. Now, you might know any central theme of Scripture was designed with "hostile jamming" in mind. Hostile jamming is the convolution of codec or any other form of communique by adding in extraneous, or misleading codes, units, bits, or in this case text. It is important to understand that any important Scriptural message is literally littered throughout the books. In this sense, you could entirely eliminate books of the NT (and OT by the way) and still have the structural foundation for faith. This was a concept unheard of in it's day.

One of the most respected Biblical translators is Eberhard Nestle. He even has a specific Bible text named after him - the Nestle text - and this text is approved and favoured by many Christians even today as the standard definitive version. ( (The Nestle Text ( (Here is what he has to say on the issue of corrupt Biblical texts: (Another leading expert Prof. Bart D. Ehrman reaches the same conclusions independently (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture):

Interesting you would consider Prof. Bart D. Ehrman a "leading expert", but for expediency sake I concede the point. It is interesting to note that Ehrman's work revealed a few dozen corruptions, only made available to him through original readings still preserved! Ehrman himself asserted confidently; "I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct any book of the ancient world.

Am I to understand from this that you are wholly willing to (on an academic basis alone mind you) accept without hesitation the fact that Jesus was crucified and was resurrected from the dead? If your answer is "no", then I must assume your endeavor is a religious one (as your religion stands in refutation of mine) and not purely an academic one.

All leading experts, all accepted as authorative by the Church and leading Theologians.
The following is from the preface of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and speaks of the King James Version which had been regarded as the previous standard:
Differing texts....selective use of manuscripts. But there's more....
Celsus was not a Christian but a Epicurean philosopher living in the 2nd century CE. He stated the following:
This is important in itself as it shows that at an early stage there was already some suspicion of the Christians trustworthiness with their text BUT it is the counter-reaction and reply of Origen (a 3rd Century Church father) that is more instructional:
That is to say: he does not deny the charge - in fact he admits it - but rather absolves the Church as a whole from involvement.
This is a Church father speaking and one of the people involved in the compiling and promotion of the Biblical texts.
Here is another Church Father, Rufinus, accusing Origen himself of alterations in the Vulgate version of Jerome:
And while we're on the subject of Jerome's version, here is what the New Unger's Bible Dictionary has to say:
Removal of interpolations......or perhaps insertion. It matters not. That is solid evidence one way or the other. AD 383.

The variations and "corruptions" of text are not important for two comprehensible reasons;

A. the book was "designed" with hostile jamming anticipated. The facets argued above are covered in other books not under suspicion of variance.
B. the allegations of "corruptions" are only known because of the readings of preserved texts. While it is important to know that Erhman himself was very cautious regarding the notion of "hostile" intent; "there is scarce need to posit any kind of ulterior motive for this kind of scribal activity."

While it is true there were aspects of Institutional Catholicism that suppressed "enlightenment" The Protestant movement did wonders for rekindling the fervor of studying the original languages and in so doing-transliterating more accurately.

It is 1938. The scene, the British Museum. Renowned scholar T C Skeat is minutely examining the Museum's latest acquisition: the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus.
Skeat was in the right place at the right time and he had a brainwave - what would the manuscript look like under ultra-violet light ? Would new vistas in Biblical research be opened ? With trembling hand like Columbus at the gates of the New World he shone the light carefully on the aged parchment - and Lo ! There was light !
For what Skeat saw in his ultra-violet vision was the Sermon on the Mount. But unfortunately for some, not as we know it. Beneath the opening verse that we all take as Gospel and know so well, Skeat found another, older opening verse - one that had been carefully erased from the manuscript and replaced with a later interpolation - the one we now know as 'the unerring divine revelation from God'.
The established text that we take as 'divine' runs as follows"
However, what Skeat found was that these words above replace older words. quite different words, words in a different hand, words in a different hand that were added much later, words in a different hand that were added much later and replaced earlier words which had been erased - unfortunately for the eraser, modern technology revealed the crime (a is so often the case) and the wonders of ultra-violet light restored the altered text to it's original state.
What Skeat read was this:
That's it - no toiling, lilies or Solomon. All interpolation.

I found it interesting that you would copy-paste an argument you made with another poster in Apple-Insider over a year ago.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...0&pagenumber=2
In the same manner of expedience, read DMZ's reply to your post. The reply, while perhaps less eloquent than I, remained unaddressed and at one point the two of you agreed to disagree. An event I suspect will be unavoidable in this as you know.

That said, I can't see where anything other than nuance was altered here. The message remains.

Another example of alteration of sacred text is to be found at John 8:1-11. This is, of course, the famous 'casting the first stone' scene of the woman taken in adultery so amusingly portrayed by John Cleese in Brian.
Unfortunately, the episode may well be as fictitious as Brian in Scriptural terms. It is nowhere to be found in ANY surviving 4th Century Codex - the same sources that the rest of the NT derives from. It's just not there.
Nor is it known in any early papyrus or even in any early quotation by anyone. It first appears in 5th Century Latin and Greek MS.

While this fact may only serve to ease the misplaced ethical conundrum experienced by those holding to the strictest of pro-death penalty view, it is interesting to note that most Christians have gotten the context of this piece wrong in the first place. It was not to say that the adulteress should not have been stoned (as technically she should have by law), but that the law included the male involved in the act. Which male? Whichever of the Pharisees that brought forth the woman having "caught her in the act", they surely would've caught some man in the act as well. Could it have been one of them? It's possible as after Jesus wrote something (using his finger) in the ground, the eldest bailed first, followed by the youngest. They knew the gig was up. Fun story.

Inclusion to canonical text usually included two basic criteria, internal evidence and external evidence. While there may not have been sufficient external evidence to suffice a naysayer, there was enough to satisfy the faithful. AHA! You say. Unfortunately, there is no religious doctrine above scrutiny and criticism. It is likely (though I won't project what you believe, only that I deem you a believer) that your very doctrine comes into question. These doctrines are for the faithful. Those who are incapable of faith will not see the Divinity in the text, but then even if you presented many with the glowing face of God Himself, many would swear they've just lost their minds. If only we had as much doctrinal support for the Illiad.

It may interest you to know that these issues are considered seriously by many Christians including myself and debates rage between NIV, KJV, and NKJV etc... to the same degree I suspect, the importance of the Hadiths between Muslims. If anyone has bastardized the text for which I believe, I am not the guilty one. I will only be judged for having an exhaustive concordance on hand, and studying as much as possible.

My faith in these texts is stronger today, than it was the day before. These forums are not entirely fruitless afterall.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, again. You FEEL the context is bogus. It is not, factually bogus. Do you not understand the difference between belief and fact?

You can believe it is bogus. Correct. No one will argue with that BELIEF.

No, he did not interject anything. He just was more descriptive, where the others took things for granted.

Actually I think the diffrerences is one you are just perceiving.

Or different viewpoints as the author saw it.

I am speaking about the son. Isaac was the only son Abraham had at the time. Meaning was living with him.

No, Ismaeel was his son as well. But he was not with Abraham. He was also blessed BTW. But not in the same way.

Through God, all things are possible. Even negating first borns.

Abraham disobeyed God and was punished. God still carried out his original "Sarah <> Abraham" plan.

Regarding John's gospel and Jesus' "I AM"-use: I hope we see now eye-to-eye on this one. I fully know that John's gospel put Jesus saying into the context of meaning himself being "I AM", and since you regard John's gospel to be at least as valid as the synoptic gospels, then for you Jesus is indeed=God.

But I view John's gospel as taking Jesus' quotes out of its original context and creating/inventing new contextes to prove a new idea.

Regarding Abraham, Ismaeel, Isaac and their mothers, we will probably never get to a satisfying solution. That topic is much too overladen with doctrines.

But your argument about Isaac being the only son with him, is actually a good one. But while it would make sense with Abraham, it wouldn't make any sense with God and Jesus, because then there would be another son of God who is not with God. Would that be the devil according to that line of doctrine?

But my opinion, read opinion, not fact, is that the story of Abraham sacrificing his only son was about Ismaeel and simply transferred by biased editors early on for a few chapters, in order to link that story with Isaac instead.

As to your last idea of Abraham being punished for disobedience and God carrying out his original plan: That is naive, biased and outrightly cute, but it's a wrong interpretation in every way.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Am I to understand from this that you are wholly willing to (on an academic basis alone mind you) accept without hesitation the fact that Jesus was crucified and was resurrected from the dead? If your answer is "no", then I must assume your endeavor is a religious one (as your religion stands in refutation of mine) and not purely an academic one.

Why shouldn't he, the Quran merely corrects arabic jews that claimed they were the ones who crucified and killed Jesus without acknowledging that it was God's plan and fate for Jesus and without acknowledging that God ressurrected Jesus and let him ascend to Himself.

Taliesin

[segovius]

ebuddy: thanks for the reply and the serious thought pit into it. This is exactly the sort of thing that I think is the point of all this: discussion and debate.

I don't want to 'win' or prove a point, as I suspect, you don't either, but to engage in discussion - almost for the sake of it. That's how I arrived at my present beliefs and I will amend them through the same method if necessary.

Nothing should be carved ins tone and we should always be learning. How can we do that f we don't discuss?

That's especially true nowadays when positions ar eso polarized - your post is a breath of fresh air, even though I don't agree with you!

Glad to see you spotted my c&p from the other place - in truth I really couldn't be bothered to re-type it all (after all I have nothing new to add!) and for the same result.

I hope that concordance is not a Dake's.

[segovius]

Meant to answer this too:

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Am I to understand from this that you are wholly willing to (on an academic basis alone mind you) accept without hesitation the fact that Jesus was crucified and was resurrected from the dead? If your answer is "no", then I must assume your endeavor is a religious one (as your religion stands in refutation of mine) and not purely an academic one.

Sure, as an academic argument, no probs. There is no proof and no precedent so it cannot really be based on rigorous principles but still.....

In a religious sense though I would disagree - as I disagree with Taliesin's interpretation, imo the Qur'an (and especially Islamic tradition) is unambiguous on this issue - not from a faith pov but from a theological one.

Imho, it is just bad theology. Can explain if necessary but I'm sure you've heard it all before.

One more thing: imo religion/spirituality is something that makes someone better than they were before they encountered it. That which makes someone worse is not (again imo) true religion.

Setting aside various articles of faith and dogma, we ALL can agree on what better actually is.

Sure there are those who justify killing and murder but imo this is no part of true religion whether it is in a Christian or Islamic context.

This is the reason why I am interested in these arguments - before we can say what is or isn't religion X we need to know for sure what it says. Not what we think it says or would like it to say. That can lead to justification of things which are not from God.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by segovius

In a religious sense though I would disagree - as I disagree with Taliesin's interpretation, imo the Qur'an (and especially Islamic tradition) is unambiguous on this issue - not from a faith pov but from a theological one.

Imho, it is just bad theology. Can explain if necessary but I'm sure you've heard it all before.

The Quran is not unambiguous on the issue, as there is only one passage that talks about the crucification of Jesus, and that one is open to interpretation in both ways.

But you are right islamic tradition has taken the one interpretation over the other and ran with it.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by segovius

ebuddy: thanks for the reply and the serious thought pit into it. This is exactly the sort of thing that I think is the point of all this: discussion and debate.

I don't want to 'win' or prove a point, as I suspect, you don't either, but to engage in discussion - almost for the sake of it. That's how I arrived at my present beliefs and I will amend them through the same method if necessary.

Nothing should be carved ins tone and we should always be learning. How can we do that f we don't discuss?

That's especially true nowadays when positions ar eso polarized - your post is a breath of fresh air, even though I don't agree with you!

Glad to see you spotted my c&p from the other place - in truth I really couldn't be bothered to re-type it all (after all I have nothing new to add!) and for the same result.

No problem at all Segovius. I think we've come to the same conclusion in that all we can do is discuss our differences. It doesn't make sense to "bash" ideals as I'm not aware of any "computer conversions".

I hope that concordance is not a Dake's.

I was tickled by this. No, it's usually a Strong's or Goodrick/Kohlenberger for NIV, but you know whichever one floats the proper boat.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Regarding John's gospel and Jesus' "I AM"-use: I hope we see now eye-to-eye on this one. I fully know that John's gospel put Jesus saying into the context of meaning himself being "I AM",

Well good.

and since you regard John's gospel to be at least as valid as the synoptic gospels, then for you Jesus is indeed=God.

Not "at least as valid" they are as valid. They don't negate each other.

But I view John's gospel as taking Jesus' quotes out of its original context and creating/inventing new contextes to prove a new idea.

Well you can VIEW it as that. But there is no basis to base such views on.

But your argument about Isaac being the only son with him, is actually a good one. But while it would make sense with Abraham, it wouldn't make any sense with God and Jesus, because then there would be another son of God who is not with God. Would that be the devil according to that line of doctrine?

No, but comparisons don't have to be exact Tali. Nor have they ever been.

But my opinion, read opinion, not fact, is that the story of Abraham sacrificing his only son was about Ismaeel and simply transferred by biased editors early on for a few chapters, in order to link that story with Isaac instead.

And I cannot argue OPINION. You are free to think that.

As to your last idea of Abraham being punished for disobedience and God carrying out his original plan: That is naive, biased and outrightly cute, but it's a wrong interpretation in every way.

Taliesin

God said since Abraham disobeyed him (Had sex with the slave woman instead of trusting God that Sarah would bare a child), the two sides "Isaac and Ismaeel" will be at war with each other till the end of time. God went ahead and blessed BOTH sons and their offspring, but Isaac would still be the bloodline that was choosen. Of course this caused jealousy from Ismaeel and they started their "own" thing.

Not surprising the belittling of Jesus's accomplishments are made.

Guess what two sides are still "waring" ?

AGAIN, you can say it's "naive, biased, and cute" and even "wrong" but that is STILL your OPINION. One you cannot prove.

Understand?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Guess what two sides are still "waring" ?

If that is indeed the case, then would you agree that there is no basis for opposing such 'warring' and no blame or condemnation to be laid at either side's door no matter what actions they take as all is in fact part of divine ordinance and has to be?

In this view, any outrages are merely the consequences of past action - ie not free will - and moreover, occur as part of God's plan.

Surely it is therefore verging on opposition to God to express opposition to this 'warring' and moreover, to actually attempt to end it is explicitly trying to circumvent God's plan?

[Kevin]

One could say BECAUSE of Abraham's actions, it gave reason for two sides to choose to war.

But them choosing to do so is purely on their own free will.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Kevin

One could say BECAUSE of Abraham's actions, it gave reason for two sides to choose to war.

But them choosing to do so is purely on their own free will.

One could say that....but you said this:

God said since Abraham disobeyed him (Had sex with the slave woman instead of trusting God that Sarah would bare a child), the two sides "Isaac and Ismaeel" will be at war with each other till the end of time.

Not so important but it seems like a contradiction and you know how I get.

I hope your posts haven't succumbed to all this 'alteration' too.......

[segovius]

Ok, edit quadruple post - it wasn't funny the first time

[segovius]

And again....

[segovius]

Another one bites the dust....ggrrrrr

[segovius]

sigh

[Monique]

Nice fairytale isn't it?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Monique

Nice fairytale isn't it?

Nothing better to do than troll, eh?