Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Yeshua never claimed nor confirmed that he was the Son of God. Refusal to answer by omission does not mean he must be Son of God or God made flesh.

You will never find him making the claim in the bible. In fact you will find quite the opposite of him not being the only begotten Son of God by his own words.

John 10:34-35 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

and

Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.


In various scriptural text in and out of the bible canon you will find that God had many Sons, his angels were referred to as the Son's of God.

Adding this the Celestial Host and Council of Gods along with acknowledgment of foreign gods, it is clear that the Judeo Religion cannot really be viewed as a Monotheistic Religion in the strictest sense of the word.

Discuss.

If we take the metaphorical approach than it should be applied evenly across the board which would mean that Yeshua is not really the Son of God either and is simply referring to his innate goodness and kindness. <_<

Originally posted by Nietzschean
Adding this the Celestial Host and Council of Gods along with acknowledgment of foreign gods, it is clear that the Judeo Religion cannot really be viewed as a Monotheistic Religion in the strictest sense of the word.

Ancient Judaism was monolatrist, like most of their neighbors. That changed as time went on to the point of foreign gods not having any power. By the time Christianity rolled around Judaism had become monotheistic, denying that foreign gods who got shown up in the Torah existed at all. Remember, the Torah doesn't claim to be the word of god, it claims to be historical, so that explanation is perfectly valid "we thought there were other gods back then, obviously we were wrong".

Originally posted by Nietzschean
Yeshua never claimed nor confirmed that he was the Son of God. Refusal to answer by omission does not mean he must be Son of God or God made flesh.

You will never find him making the claim in the bible. In fact you will find quite the opposite of him not being the only begotten Son of God by his own words.

John 10:34-35 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

and

Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.


In various scriptural text in and out of the bible canon you will find that God had many Sons, his angels were referred to as the Son's of God.

Adding this the Celestial Host and Council of Gods along with acknowledgment of foreign gods, it is clear that the Judeo Religion cannot really be viewed as a Monotheistic Religion in the strictest sense of the word.

Discuss.

If we take the metaphorical approach than it should be applied evenly across the board which would mean that Yeshua is not really the Son of God either and is simply referring to his innate goodness and kindness. <_<


Don't you think it's a bit absurd to see a reference to "humans" as being "gods" and then strangely say it applies to "angels"?

Why do Christians do that? Is it REALLY hard to believe that in the eternities, God's spiritual offspring will ascend to Godhood?


Stop beating around the bush and just come out and admit it: humans have, quite literally, the God given potential to become gods.





Even if you're atheist, this still holds true: one day, we will ascend to what our ancestors would consider "god-like" status.






Anyway, that's just something that irritates me.


Back on topic.

I actually did a Exegetical research assignment on Psalms 82.

There are a lot of different interpretations about the 'I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.' angle, one of which is that they're calling the people in question 'gods' because as religious and political authorities they have power like gods to the people. Another is that its actually referring to Melchizedek, or something like that, I'll have to look over what I found out

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is it REALLY hard to believe that in the eternities, God's spiritual offspring will ascend to Godhood?

Stop beating around the bush and just come out and admit it: humans have, quite literally, the God given potential to become gods.
That humans have the potential to become "godlike" -- or perhaps better phrased: humans are that aspect of "God" which can awaken to their true nature -- is basically what the meditative traditions are all about.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the term "sons of God," it was my understanding that this was, in ancient times, a regard given to those who studied religious text / the written Word of God.

Originally posted by Mindship
That humans have the potential to become "godlike" -- or perhaps better phrased: humans are that aspect of "God" which can awaken to their true nature -- is basically what the meditative traditions are all about.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the term "sons of God," it was my understanding that this was, in ancient times, a regard given to those who studied religious text / the written Word of God.
Yup. And there's also an important distinction between lowercase god and 'God'

Not to mention that Elohim were also called 'gods' and Melchizedek was once the right hand of God, filling Archangel Michael's place.

But yeah, for a long time Judaism wasn't the strict monotheist religion it is today.

"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life."

"I and the Father are one."

Both from the New World Translation.

Side question: Why is Jesus also called "The Son of Man"? is this a translation issue of what?

Well, he is, isn't he?

I mean, he's human.

Originally posted by Mindset
Well, he is, isn't he?

I mean, he's human.

But it seem like a weird title.

All men could call themselves the "Son of Man".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But it seem like a weird title.

All men could call themselves the "Son of Man". We are.

What scripture are you talking about?

Kind of hard to know what you're taking about w/o any context.

Originally posted by Mindset
We are.

What scripture are you talking about?

Kind of hard to know what you're taking about w/o any context.

Wiki actually has a list of them for some reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man#New_Testament

It does seem to suggest there's a lot of translation ambiguity.

My 2 cents...

"Son of Man" is how Jesus most often referred to himself (or so it is written), humbling himself before his fellow man, establishing his connection to humanity rather than separation by proclaiming divine status (such divinity, I believe, was decreed by the Nicene Council).

On the other hand, "I and the Father are one," is entirely consistent with how an enlightened being might express his relationship with the Absolute.

IMO, Jesus had "awakened" and sought to awaken others of his faith; that while born men, we can still know God most profoundly. He believed in The Law, recognizing its importance as a map, not the territory, to aid in achieving enlightenment.

I think you misunderstood the whole Sons of God thing. It means that all man are sons to God and all woman are daughters to God.

It's another interpretation, and one I would not disagree with.

As I recall from my research, there was a school of thought that at one point in the context of the Torah God had given man eternal life but after seeing man behaving corruptly revoked it. A second fall from grace after expulsion from Eden. That's one of the interpretations of Psalm 82, that men were at one point gods by being free of death and capable of reason and given dominion over the world, that by being given the Word of God they were in effect gods. This is backed up by Genesis, where God states that Adam and Eve (Man) has "become one of us" (possessing wisdom) and that they cannot be allowed to eat from the tree of Life lest they become true divinity.

Jesus granting eternal life to man (Heaven) would thus be seen in this way to be bringing it full circle.

As for the Son of Man thing, it should be noted that Jesus hasn't always been considered the true Son of God by Christian scholars or church officials.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Son of Man thing

I'd buy it

Originally posted by Mindset
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life."

"I and the Father are one."

Both from the New World Translation.


New World Translations is garbage, not respected by Hebrew or Greek scholars of the Bible.


John 3:16-18 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear Oh Israel your LORD (YHWH) thy God (Elohim), is one LORD(YHWH).


One in Greek heis/hice and Hebrew echuad means that they share the same nature,function, power and majesty of God.

El means Mighty God and "im" is plural it's compound unity.

KJV is garbage as well. To the early christians, every church had its own holy canon and yet these books so important to the true christians, are cast out as "apocrypha". Paul thought the book of jubilees was holy writ and yet christians ignore it. Muslims had the right idea and wrote the Koran as fast as they could, any religion that waits 200 years to codify has lost its claim to inspiration in my eye. And the only version of christianity that makes a whits worth of sense to me is gnostic christianity, with its own gnostic books.

Originally posted by King Kandy
KJV is garbage as well. To the early christians, every church had its own holy canon and yet these books so important to the true christians, are cast out as "apocrypha". Paul thought the book of jubilees was holy writ and yet christians ignore it. Muslims had the right idea and wrote the Koran as fast as they could, any religion that waits 200 years to codify has lost its claim to inspiration in my eye. And the only version of christianity that makes a whits worth of sense to me is gnostic christianity, with its own gnostic books.
Yeah Jesus meant to set things straight, but that pesky Crucifixion got in the way.

The Current Bible that is close to the original scrolls is the KJV, for it scrolls Majority Text or Receive Text and Textus Repcetus came from the heart bed of Christianity which was Rome, Antioch, Asia Minor, Jerusalem etc where the Apostles roamed during their ministry, any scrolls that came out Alexandra Egypt are corrupt and are gnostic in nature like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, these two are from the pits of Hell . The first Book of New Testament was written 50 Ad which was Matthew 20 yrs after Jesus Christ ascension into Heaven and to the last book book of Revelation which was written between 90-95 AD.

During the time of Book of Matthew was written up to the book of Jude all the witnesses were still alive, 500 people plus 12(includes paul) witnesses Jesus Christ risen and walking around among the people for 40 days with his disciples, the Bible is more credible than the Book of Koran.

The Koran was written 200 yrs after Mohammad death, gnostic Christianity books are garbage for they weren't by other people not from the books were name after, the Book of James, Mary, Judas, Peter are fake and contradicts the word of God.

Originally posted by the Darkone
The Current Bible that is close to the original scrolls is the KJV, for it scrolls Majority Text or Receive Text and Textus Repcetus came from the heart bed of Christianity which was Rome, Antioch, Asia Minor, Jerusalem etc where the Apostles roamed during their ministry, any scrolls that came out Alexandra Egypt are corrupt and are gnostic in nature like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, these two are from the pits of Hell . The first Book of New Testament was written 50 Ad which was Matthew 20 yrs after Jesus Christ ascension into Heaven and to the last book book of Revelation which was written between 90-95 AD.
So what is your excuse for Jubilees which is even older and held as canon by early christians? It is a gaping omission in the KJ bible.

Originally posted by the Darkone
The Koran was written 200 yrs after Mohammad death,
Completely wrong, it was completed within twenty.

Originally posted by the Darkone
gnostic Christianity books are garbage for they weren't by other people not from the books were name after, the Book of James, Mary, Judas, Peter are fake and contradicts the word of God.
And you believe matthew, luke, john and mark are actually by those four apostles respectively? The gnostic apocrypha make a lot more sense than the convoluted logic of the orthodox gospels. Of course they are both rubbish.

Originally posted by the Darkone
The Current Bible that is close to the original scrolls is the KJV, for it scrolls Majority Text or Receive Text and Textus Repcetus came from the heart bed of Christianity which was Rome, Antioch, Asia Minor, Jerusalem etc where the Apostles roamed during their ministry, any scrolls that came out Alexandra Egypt are corrupt and are gnostic in nature like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, these two are from the pits of Hell . The first Book of New Testament was written 50 Ad which was Matthew 20 yrs after Jesus Christ ascension into Heaven and to the last book book of Revelation which was written between 90-95 AD.

During the time of Book of Matthew was written up to the book of Jude all the witnesses were still alive, 500 people plus 12(includes paul) witnesses Jesus Christ risen and walking around among the people for 40 days with his disciples, the Bible is more credible than the Book of Koran.

The Koran was written 200 yrs after Mohammad death, gnostic Christianity books are garbage for they weren't by other people not from the books were name after, the Book of James, Mary, Judas, Peter are fake and contradicts the word of God.
Lol. There are surviving Korans from within a decade or so of his lifetime.

Sidenote:

Elohim was also a plural ancient word for gods and not singular. Only time it appears in all of history where Elohim is considered singular is in the old testament. In ancient religions of the Canaanites and various desert religions Elohim is the name of pantheon of gods..

the name El would be singular for the father of the Elohim. >_>

Watch at 34:40

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-820380763887160689#docid=-3048879793791495094

according to BIble the Son mean the follower according to it every one who worship God almighty or follow HIS Sayings he is Son of GOd, it does not mean that he has taken birth to God but he was born by GOd.
Almighty God is only ONE He has no Son as we consider in general language.
______
Tie Downs

Originally posted by Methew586
according to BIble the Son mean the follower according to it every one who worship God almighty or follow HIS Sayings he is Son of GOd, it does not mean that he has taken birth to God but he was born by GOd.
Almighty God is only ONE He has no Son as we consider in general language.
______
Tie Downs

this is completely irrelevant and non supportive. Do you have any passages verses by God, Yeshua or his Elohim to make such a statement.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
Yeshua never claimed nor confirmed that he was the Son of God. Refusal to answer by omission does not mean he must be Son of God or God made flesh.

You will never find him making the claim in the bible. In fact you will find quite the opposite of him not being the only begotten Son of God by his own words.

John 10:34-35 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

and

Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.


In various scriptural text in and out of the bible canon you will find that God had many Sons, his angels were referred to as the Son's of God.

Adding this the Celestial Host and Council of Gods along with acknowledgment of foreign gods, it is clear that the Judeo Religion cannot really be viewed as a Monotheistic Religion in the strictest sense of the word.

Discuss.

If we take the metaphorical approach than it should be applied evenly across the board which would mean that Yeshua is not really the Son of God either and is simply referring to his innate goodness and kindness. <_<

Jesus was a Bodhisattva, back then.

Where does this nonsense about the Apocrypha being canon start?

The Apocrypha is held in high esteem by the Roman Catholic Church, which was established during the reign of Emperor Constantine. Hardly "early" Christianity. And anyway, Catholics believe that Mary is some sort of goddess, and venerate her above the Lord Jesus Christ. Hardly "Christian".

And where are you getting the notion that Paul considered the Apocrypha "holy" in any way? The Apocrypha contradicts Scripture in several places, such as here:

"Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin" (Sirach 3:30)

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." (Hebrews 9:22)

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

That's just one in a multitude of contradictions. The Apocrypha is a group of Catholic manuscripts that promote Catholic doctrine, but completely contradict Scripture (much like everything else they do)

Originally posted by Bat Dude
And anyway, Catholics believe that Mary is some sort of goddess, and venerate her above the Lord Jesus Christ. Hardly "Christian".

Lmfao no they don't.

The whole reason they revere Mary is her connection to Jesus, the other way around makes no sense to a patriarchal establishment like the Church.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lmfao no they don't.

The whole reason they revere Mary is her connection to Jesus, the other way around makes no sense to a patriarchal establishment like the Church.

Uh, yes, they do:

http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/our_lady_of_all_nations.jpg
As if SHE died on the cross.

http://www.lovethetruth.com/jis_images/the_great_whore.jpg
It says Co-Redemtrix, and Mediatrix. As if you reach God through Jesus AND Mary.

The Bible says JESUS is the Mediator between God and men. (1 Timothy 2:5) It also says that Jesus is the only name by which one can be saved. (Acts 4:12)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic-virgin-mary-mother-of-god.jpg

They claim she never sinned. The Bible says that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) Only Jesus was without sin. (1 Peter 1:19)

You are both right.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Uh, yes, they do:

http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/our_lady_of_all_nations.jpg
As if SHE died on the cross.

http://www.lovethetruth.com/jis_images/the_great_whore.jpg
It says Co-Redemtrix, and Mediatrix. As if you reach God through Jesus AND Mary.

The Bible says JESUS is the Mediator between God and men. (1 Timothy 2:5) It also says that Jesus is the only name by which one can be saved. (Acts 4:12)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic-virgin-mary-mother-of-god.jpg

They claim she never sinned. The Bible says that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) Only Jesus was without sin. (1 Peter 1:19)
Are any of these from the Roman Catholic Church or do any of them reflect the beliefs of most Catholics? Oh yeah...no.

Lulz.

Seriously man, you can't make sweeping generalizations about more than a billion people based on the whacked out beliefs of a few select strawmen.

In either case I don't care, Catholics (and Christians in general) have enough stupid beliefs without you inventing more.

Wow.

Venerating can be far from worship.
sure u can find groups of ppl who worship Mary and u can probably find even more ppl who worship Jesus.

but, the Catholic Doctrine does not teach the worship of Mary or that she is above Jesus or God.

if your whole arguments are some religious painting that u consider to be worshiping u dont have much of an argument especially if u are using it to generalize an entire religious group like Catholicism

So? Catholics also officially hold that the Pope is infallible. Doesn't mean they think the Pope is equal to or greater than Jesus. Besides, "spotless of sin" could just be another way of saying she was a virgin.

My understanding of Catholic dogma is that Mary is first among equals among the Saints and Apostles with Jesus being above all of them.

Do you believe in interpreting the Bible literally?

Mary is/was no doubt an awesome mom. She's not perfect, however.

She was not perfect because she got nervous about a wedding she was the patron over (or something) and had Jesus turn some water to wine.



On a side note, Jesus is the best person to bring to a party: all water becomes the drinks.....

and if anyone gets hurt doing stupid crap....

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol. There are surviving Korans from within a decade or so of his lifetime.
Originally posted by King Kandy

Completely wrong, it was completed within twenty.

Sorry, wrong. First canonised Qur'an was written in around 8th or 9th century...about 100 or 200 years after the death of Muhammad.

In fact, the oldest Qur'an we have today is from 150-160 years after Muhammad's death and there are no evidence that any other Qur'an existed before then.

Even then, the verses about stoning, according to Muhammad's wife Aisha, were eaten by a goat when she left her chamber for a bit, so part of the Qur'an revelation ended up inside a goat.
And this is just the admitted part.

Originally posted by the Darkone
The Current Bible that is close to the original scrolls is the KJV, for it scrolls Majority Text or Receive Text and Textus Repcetus came from the heart bed of Christianity which was Rome, Antioch, Asia Minor, Jerusalem etc where the Apostles roamed during their ministry, any scrolls that came out Alexandra Egypt are corrupt and are gnostic in nature like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, these two are from the pits of Hell . The first Book of New Testament was written 50 Ad which was Matthew 20 yrs after Jesus Christ ascension into Heaven and to the last book book of Revelation which was written between 90-95 AD.

During the time of Book of Matthew was written up to the book of Jude all the witnesses were still alive, 500 people plus 12(includes paul) witnesses Jesus Christ risen and walking around among the people for 40 days with his disciples, the Bible is more credible than the Book of Koran.

The Koran was written 200 yrs after Mohammad death, gnostic Christianity books are garbage for they weren't by other people not from the books were name after, the Book of James, Mary, Judas, Peter are fake and contradicts the word of God.

Oh right, gnostic books are from pits of Hell. Makes perfect sense.

You do release that all which was considered too difficult to explain to the population or too abstract in the teachings of Jesus and his followers was scrapped from the Bible. Bible isn't perfect in it's 'preservation' (whatever that means) beginning from the Old Testament all the way to the New Testament.

Jesus would be closer to gnostic than he is to baptist or protestant teachings.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh right, gnostic books are from pits of Hell. Makes perfect sense.

You do release that all which was considered too difficult to explain to the population or too abstract in the teachings of Jesus and his followers was scrapped from the Bible. Bible isn't perfect in it's 'preservation' (whatever that means) beginning from the Old Testament all the way to the New Testament.

Jesus would be closer to gnostic than he is to baptist or protestant teachings.

Gnostic are non-authoritarian, therefor it makes sense that the leaders of the early church would reject them.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Sorry, wrong. First canonised Qur'an was written in around 8th or 9th century...about 100 or 200 years after the death of Muhammad.

In fact, the oldest Qur'an we have today is from 150-160 years after Muhammad's death and there are no evidence that any other Qur'an existed before then.

Even then, the verses about stoning, according to Muhammad's wife Aisha, were eaten by a goat when she left her chamber for a bit, so part of the Qur'an revelation ended up inside a goat.
And this is just the admitted part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Quran

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Quran

Dude, read the entire thing, please.

Although Wikipedia isn't super reliable, it still manages to get the facts straight.

Middle of the page it tells you

''The only other surviving copy is said to be held in Topkapı Palace, in Turkey''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topkapi_manuscript Here it is.

There are no evidence of any other Qur'an before it existing, apart from Qur'an talking about itself existing and Muslim scholars wishing it existed.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Dude, read the entire thing, please.

Although Wikipedia isn't super reliable, it still manages to get the facts straight.

Middle of the page it tells you

''The only other surviving copy is said to be held in Topkapı Palace, in Turkey''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topkapi_manuscript Here it is.

There are no evidence of any other Qur'an before it existing, apart from Qur'an talking about itself existing and Muslim scholars wishing it existed.
How exactly does that contradict what I said?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
How exactly does that contradict what I said?

Well it kind of does.

I challenged your view of ''first Qur'an was written 20 years after Muhammad's death'' with ''no, first canonised Qur'an was written more than 100 years after Muhammad's death''.

You posted a link as a response to me about Uthman, speaking of the first compilation of the Qur'an being done 20 years after Muhammad. (this is the traditional Muslim belief - theologically, not historically speaking).

My point is, that there are no physical evidence of any Qur'an existing before the 8th century as the oldest copy of the actual Qur'an is dated to the 8th century.

...unless we're both speaking about something totally different.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well it kind of does.

I challenged your view of ''first Qur'an was written 20 years after Muhammad's death'' with ''no, first canonised Qur'an was written more than 100 years after Muhammad's death''.

You posted a link as a response to me about Uthman, speaking of the first compilation of the Qur'an being done 20 years after Muhammad. (this is the traditional Muslim belief - theologically, not historically speaking).

My point is, that there are no physical evidence of any Qur'an existing before the 8th century as the oldest copy of the actual Qur'an is dated to the 8th century.

...unless we're both speaking about something totally different.

I guess there are none around b/c iirc they are destroyed once they are damaged in an attempt to keep the message from being corrupted. I am sure u are correct in a historical evidence context but I am pretty sure scholars accept the claim of the Quran being written down within 20 yrs of Muhammad's death.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
I guess there are none around b/c iirc they are destroyed once they are damaged in an attempt to keep the message from being corrupted. I am sure u are correct in a historical evidence context but I am pretty sure scholars accept the claim of the Quran being written down within 20 yrs of Muhammad's death.

Why would they wait 20 years? No one is going to remember anything right after 20 year. It is all going to be hear-say.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So? Catholics also officially hold that the Pope is infallible. Doesn't mean they think the Pope is equal to or greater than Jesus. Besides, "spotless of sin" could just be another way of saying she was a virgin.

My understanding of Catholic dogma is that Mary is first among equals among the Saints and Apostles with Jesus being above all of them.

Do you believe in interpreting the Bible literally?

Actually, they do. The Pope's title is Vicar of Christ. The world vicar means "replacement". They essentially believe he is the replacement for Jesus on earth.

And no, "spotless of sin" doesn't just mean she was a virgin. I was a Catholic for 15 years of my life. I know what they teach. They teach that Mary was literally born without sin. That completely contradicts the Bible, which says we're born into sin (Psalm 51:5). Only Jesus Christ lived without sin.

The Bible even says several times that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph had other children, so she wasn't even a virgin her entire life, anyway. (Luke 8:20, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, Galatians 1:19, 1 Corinthians 9:5, Acts 1:14, John 7:3-6)

And yes, I do believe the Bible is literal. Obviously, a literal horned beast isn't gonna climb out from the sea like in Revelation, that's a metaphorical statement, but Jesus was born of a virgin, He died on the cross, He rose again, etc. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, Adam was the first human being, etc.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
...And yes, I do believe the Bible is literal. Obviously, a literal horned beast isn't gonna climb out from the sea like in Revelation, that's a metaphorical statement, but Jesus was born of a virgin, He died on the cross, He rose again, etc. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, Adam was the first human being, etc.

In other words, you believe in selective literalism. Therefore, who makes the selection has the real power.

Deuteronomy 32:8
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

I always find this verse very intriguing b/c the Sons of God is reinterpreted to mean the Children of Israel in modern translations even though secular scholars acknowledge that it is not referring to the Israelites but God's fellow Gods.

This verse is actually mirrored and believed to have bn taken from a cannanite pantheon religion which makes it clear god is referring to his pantheon giving each of his godly sons their own nations to be worshiped by.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
Deuteronomy 32:8
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

I always find this verse very intriguing b/c the Sons of God is reinterpreted to mean the Children of Israel in modern translations even though secular scholars acknowledge that it is not referring to the Israelites but God's fellow Gods.

This verse is actually mirrored and believed to have bn taken from a cannanite pantheon religion which makes it clear god is referring to his pantheon giving each of his godly sons their own nations to be worshiped by.

Deuteronomy 32:8
When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

We read just a few verses later:

Deuteronomy 32:12
So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.

Kinda shoots your interpretation in the foot, doesn't it? And lest we forget this verse:

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

There is no "pantheon" of gods. God is the only God. He won't share His glory with anyone, and why should He?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
And yes, I do believe the Bible is literal. Obviously, a literal horned beast isn't gonna climb out from the sea like in Revelation, that's a metaphorical statement

So then you don't believe the Bible is literal.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Deuteronomy 32:8
When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

We read just a few verses later:

Deuteronomy 32:12
So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.

Kinda shoots your interpretation in the foot, doesn't it? And lest we forget this verse:

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

There is no "pantheon" of gods. God is the only God. He won't share His glory with anyone, and why should He? actually it doesnt. u failed to notice the part where I said secular scholar and mirrored verse of cannanites. it isnt a theory its a fact. I am not arguing Theological reinterpretation.

I tend to throw aside "modern" bible verses and go straight to the translation closes to the original intent.

I am the last person you want to argue about the Judeo Christian religion it was my meat and butter in school...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion

dont come at me with modern re interpreted verses of your bible. u want to argue keep theology aside and look at it as is with literal honest translations of ancient sources. that secular scholars agree with.

I have a question -

Why has God stopped speaking to people and sending messengers?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I have a question -

Why has God stopped speaking to people and sending messengers? that is a theological question. u might as well ask how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I have a question -

Why has God stopped speaking to people and sending messengers?

Has he?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Has he?



Q_1old1orj0

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I have a question -

Why has God stopped speaking to people and sending messengers?

Why would God need to speak? This sounds like personification to me. Maybe you should try and ask the question without personification.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why would God need to speak? This sounds like personification to me. Maybe you should try and ask the question without personification.

I'm not speaking about my belief, as I don't believe God ever spoke to a single person only, but to many people all the time.

My question was to those who believe he has.

I kind of had the impression that was obvious...but clearly not.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
I simply stated the many secular scholars accept the claims made of when it was written down with 20 yrs of Muhammad's death. I dont deny anything u said, I am fully aware of how the verses were gathered and about other books having bn burned.

Of course there is no evidence in any meaningful manner other than secular acceptance and high probability. it is the same way secular Scholars would say that Yeshua almost certainly existed although there is no physical evidence. there is just a high probability and scholars accepting a portion of a biblical character who may have existed.

Secular scholars, like who? This is not a challenge, I would like to read a secular scholar's take on this subject who is supportive of this hypothesis.

But I'm wondering - Why should we accept such a bold claim that Qur'an was compiled within 20 years after Muhammad's death, if we have no reason to?

Like I said, had the Qur'an been compiled 20 years after Muhammad's death, we would have at least had someone mention something about either Muhammad or Qur'an or Islam within first 20 years.

But, again, as I said, neither the conquered nations, nor the Arabs who conquered them ever mentioned Qur'an, Muhammad or the Islam for full 60 years.

From that, unless you're a Muslims scholar, you'd have no reason to believe that Qur'an existed or was compiled before then, especially since the oldest existing Qur'an dates from the 8th century.

You're right, though, people disagree on this. Usually secular scholars vs religious one, but I'm sure there's also friction within the two.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
But, again, as I said, neither the conquered nations, nor the Arabs who conquered them ever mentioned Qur'an, Muhammad or the Islam for full 60 years.

No mention of the Koran I can believe but I find it really hard to believe the caliphates never once mentioned Islam.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Secular scholars, like who? This is not a challenge, I would like to read a secular scholar's take on this subject who is supportive of this hypothesis.

But I'm wondering - Why should we accept such a bold claim that Qur'an was compiled within 20 years after Muhammad's death, if we have no reason to?

Like I said, had the Qur'an been compiled 20 years after Muhammad's death, we would have at least had someone mention something about either Muhammad or Qur'an or Islam within first 20 years.

But, again, as I said, neither the conquered nations, nor the Arabs who conquered them ever mentioned Qur'an, Muhammad or the Islam for full 60 years.

From that, unless you're a Muslims scholar, you'd have no reason to believe that Qur'an existed or was compiled before then, especially since the oldest existing Qur'an dates from the 8th century.

You're right, though, people disagree on this. Usually secular scholars vs religious one, but I'm sure there's also friction within the two. I guess my only evidence of a secular view on the claims being accepted is my old religions of the world textbook, world history and cultural awareness and my professor the same guy for all my classes.

http://images.betterworldbooks.com/088/World-Religions-9780884897255.jpg


I am saying that the claim is generally accepted. I dont know if that has changed since my courses were like 6 or 7 years ago.


but, I just shrug it off as the best current explanation on a subject we know lil about. they teach the claim being made it is up to the person to acknowledge it or not. Its exactly the same thing with Jesus Christ, scholar accept his possible existence without any evidence. historian scholars deal with different type of evidence that other disciplines would not accept. its the price they pay for studying the past. they cannot give u an absolute explanation but the most reasonable and likely one that can at times be supported by outside sources and sometimes not at all.


The Quran's are destroyed when warn out or found to be imperfect this is well known and explains why u cannot find many ancient sources other than the few that are found. It doesnt bother me if ppl think that the oldest Quran found was a 100 or 200 yrs after Muhammad's death and he may not have existed at all.


Only certain things are taken at face value and generally accepted one being Muhammad most likely did exist in the same context as Jesus most likely did exist. if u dont accept it that is fine if new evidence can show the man never existed at all it wouldnt bother me although I cant see how u can prove the non existence of a person in the ancient past.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No mention of the Koran I can believe but I find it really hard to believe the caliphates never once mentioned Islam.

If you find it hard to believe, devote some time into research.

It's almost 9 years since I picked up the Qur'an first time and started reading the Hadiths and history and Sirat and sources of all kinds, asking Imams, Muslims, non-Muslims, ex-Muslims...everyone.

Around 80% of Muslims had never read the Qur'an as around 80% of all Muslims do not speak Arabic.

Finding information about Islam, surprisingly took more than a first google page...

Originally posted by Nietzschean
I guess my only evidence of a secular view on the claims being accepted is my old religions of the world textbook, world history and cultural awareness and my professor the same guy for all my classes.

http://images.betterworldbooks.com/088/World-Religions-9780884897255.jpg


I am saying that the claim is generally accepted. I dont know if that has changed since my courses were like 6 or 7 years ago.


but, I just shrug it off as the best current explanation on a subject we know lil about. they teach the claim being made it is up to the person to acknowledge it or not. Its exactly the same thing with Jesus Christ, scholar accept his possible existence without any evidence. historian scholars deal with different type of evidence that other disciplines would not accept. its the price they pay for studying the past. they cannot give u an absolute explanation but the most reasonable and likely one that can at times be supported by outside sources and sometimes not at all.


The Quran's are destroyed when warn out or found to be imperfect this is well known and explains why u cannot find many ancient sources other than the few that are found. It doesnt bother me if ppl think that the oldest Quran found was a 100 or 200 yrs after Muhammad's death and he may not have existed at all.


Only certain things are taken at face value and generally accepted one being Muhammad most likely did exist in the same context as Jesus most likely did exist. if u dont accept it that is fine if new evidence can show the man never existed at all it wouldnt bother me although I cant see how u can prove the non existence of a person in the ancient past.

That must be the same book which would say that Islam means peace or that Muhammad was a merchant. (He travelled to Syria on behalf of Khadija once and that was the first and last working day of his life).

A book about archaeology or history would be more appropriate in determining Qur'an's origins and age than a public school book on world religions, which, I can bet all I own, would not have mentioned anything remotely against or bad sounding about Islam.

I also had a professor who is an ex-Muslim who devoted 30 years of his life into researching Islam, the history of Islam, sources etc... Should I just accept what he says? No, I should not, so I read for myself.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
actually it doesnt. u failed to notice the part where I said secular scholar and mirrored verse of cannanites. it isnt a theory its a fact. I am not arguing Theological reinterpretation.

I tend to throw aside "modern" bible verses and go straight to the translation closes to the original intent.

I am the last person you want to argue about the Judeo Christian religion it was my meat and butter in school...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion

dont come at me with modern re interpreted verses of your bible. u want to argue keep theology aside and look at it as is with literal honest translations of ancient sources. that secular scholars agree with.

1) Why would I EVER go to a secular scholar for their OPINION on Bible texts?

2) The King James Bible is hardly "modern", my friend. It was originally translated in 1611, and remains to this day the most honest, pure iteration of the Word of God in the English language. It uses the Majority text, rather than the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

3) What are your "ancient sources" exactly? Just because something is older doesn't make it more accurate. A lot of old texts say the world is flat. Is it? No.

Be very weary of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which many people prefer because they're "older". One was found in the Vatican City (obviously not a Christian text) and the other was literally FOUND IN A TRASHCAN AT THE BASE OF MOUNT SINAI. That's actually where all of the other Bible translations come from (NIV, ASV, NKJV, NWT, etc.)

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If you find it hard to believe, devote some time into research.

It's almost 9 years since I picked up the Qur'an first time and started reading the Hadiths and history and Sirat and sources of all kinds, asking Imams, Muslims, non-Muslims, ex-Muslims...everyone.

Around 80% of Muslims had never read the Qur'an as around 80% of all Muslims do not speak Arabic.

Finding information about Islam, surprisingly took more than a first google page...

Convincing me that the first Muslim Caliphates didn't know about the existence of Islam will take more than sarcasm.

Hey, she used condescension too, Mister Man! estahuh

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Convincing me that the first Muslim Caliphates didn't know about the existence of Islam will take more than sarcasm.

I'm not here to convince you. In fact, I don't care if you believe it or not. If you're too lazy to do research for yourself, then remain wondering... or ignorant on this matter.
Whichever suits you better. Makes no difference to me.

EDIT: Perhaps you should also re-read what I wrote - I said they did not mention him not that they did not know him. What they knew or didn't know can hardly be determined without any documented evidence. It's how history works.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'm not here to convince you. In fact, I don't care if you believe it or not. If you're too lazy to do research for yourself, then remain wondering... or ignorant on this matter.
Whichever suits you better. Makes no difference to me.

Weren't you the one who snapped earlier about people backing up their claims or staying quiet?

Edit: Though I suppose this is one of those things that drifts close to the negative proof zone.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
1) Why would I EVER go to a secular scholar for their OPINION on Bible texts?

2) The King James Bible is hardly "modern", my friend. It was originally translated in 1611, and remains to this day the most honest, pure iteration of the Word of God in the English language. It uses the Majority text, rather than the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

3) What are your "ancient sources" exactly? Just because something is older doesn't make it more accurate. A lot of old texts say the world is flat. Is it? No.

Be very weary of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which many people prefer because they're "older". One was found in the Vatican City (obviously not a Christian text) and the other was literally FOUND IN A TRASHCAN AT THE BASE OF MOUNT SINAI. That's actually where all of the other Bible translations come from (NIV, ASV, NKJV, NWT, etc.)

I get my translations from the dead sea scrolls translated by secular scholars who have no stake in its theology hence less likely to spin or lie. I tend to trust scholars like Bart Erhman who reads various languages including greek and hebrew rather than someone who gets all his quotes and religious beliefs from KJV rather than look up specific words translations on his own which I also do myself.


an example are the words used in 32:8

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.


El Elyon = Most High God
Ha Elohim= Sons of God/Council of Gods

these words should set off alarms and red flags b/c these names and specific stories are a close match to a Ugaritic Pantheon that was already established before the ppl u would come to know as the Israelites entered the land of the Cannanites.

and for your information the Judeo Christian Religion was not Monotheistic in the sense that God acknowledged other gods as repeatedly in ancient text including the old testament and Torah. The Concept that God is the only god only came about 500 yrs or so before Jesus birth when they finally stamped out the vestiges of its polytheistic/monolatrist roots.

U know how they did this? by changing the meaning of words which scholars today would be disgusted by its obvious and purposely mistranslated words that makes no grammatical sense in the context being used even in its original language.

It be like a modern person turning the word car into a person running. O_O"


only in the bible do u find the words like: El Elyon, Elohim given multiple meanings outside of its original intent which is power, god, gods, council of gods, celestial host ..

not one has it ever meant human or children of god the isrealites. it makes no sense whatsoever and religious theologians should be ashamed of this b/c they try to cover the judeo religion's monolatrist pantheon roots by changing the meaning of the word for the sake of their religion.

by the way my argument of the specific translation is with how the words were used in the Torah in its original language .


The New testament is another argument since it was written in Greek with a completely new religious view.

lmao @ KJV wanking.

Edit: Reading the NT and then reading the works of Plato can bring interesting results...almost as interesting as reading the OT and reading the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
lmao @ KJV wanking.

Edit: Reading the NT and then reading the works of Plato can bring interesting results...almost as interesting as reading the OT and reading the Epic of Gilgamesh. how so?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'm not here to convince you. In fact, I don't care if you believe it or not. If you're too lazy to do research for yourself, then remain wondering... or ignorant on this matter.
Whichever suits you better. Makes no difference to me.

This really isn't a matter that calls for hostility as far as I'm concerned.

I wouldn't even know where to go looking for a source that says "there are no records of Islam from the time of the Muslim Conquests". You're the one who's set herself up as an expert on this subject, not me, and I assume you have some kind of source.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
how so?
The God of the New Testament has more in common with Plato's The One than He does with God of the Old Testament.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Weren't you the one who snapped earlier about people backing up their claims or staying quiet?

Edit: Though I suppose this is one of those things that drifts close to the negative proof zone.

You accused me of misreading. If I did missread, then point out where.

I have already stated that there are NO records of anyone talking or writing about Muhammad or Qur'an or Islam for full 6 decades.
What do you want me to produce? A blank document?

In order for you to debunk this, you must find a writing or a primary source that speaks about Muhammad or Islam or Qur'an that has been missed or overlooked in research. So what evidence shall I produce? A source about something that doesn't appear to exist?

In history no record usually means we have no reason to believe it was there - in theology...well, that's up for debate.

If we turn this to a 'theological' discussion and accept only the Qur'an...it might work.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This really isn't a matter that calls for hostility as far as I'm concerned.

I wouldn't even know where to go looking for a source that says "there are no records of Islam from the time of the Muslim Conquests". You're the one who's set herself up as an expert on this subject, not me, and I assume you have some kind of source.

It works by looking at the writings of the times of Muslims conquest, key dates, of the caliphates as well as the people they conquered. They'd be the first to talk about it, I would imagine.

Same way one can conclude that that Mecca did not exist for a very long time before Muhammad. Any traveller that visited Arabia along the coast had written about many merchant cities, or cities in general, but hasn't mentioned Mecca.
Since there are no records of Mecca in the BC time by anyone who visited (give me time to pull out the names of Persians, Romans and Greeks who visited and spoke about their ventures in Arabia), we have no reason to assume that anything was there at that time.

(And it was supposed to be, as Abraham supposedly built The Kaaba).

Since Saudi Arabia forbade archaeological investigations, this makes the quest for proving Mecca existed since Qur'an and Muhammad claim it did, impossible.

EDIT: Also, I am sorry about my tone. It was uncalled for.