Sons of God

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.

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.

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 Shakyamunison
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.

Exactly.

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.

Muslim scholars acknowledge that there was no written Qur'an for a long time. They, themselves claim that the Qur'an, before being written down, was written on bones, cloths and leaves and such. Even in the Hadiths, wife of Muhammad speaks of verses being written on cloths (and as I already stated, having a goat eat one).

Even if we accept that first Qur'an was compiled in the time of Uthman, we therefore must accept the fact that Uthman burned the numerous versions of Qur'an that popped up left right and centre, choosing one (I'm guessing he would have chosen one that he liked the best or something.) as the real Qur'an. This is the view held by early Muslim sources (Hadiths). Muslim scholars consider Uthman as 'rightly guided' and thus the Qur'ans he burned were the false ones.

Islamic fun fact:

Did you know that Muhammad himself wasn't spoken about for almost 150 years after his death? (his Sunnah, biography, phrophethood and such.)

Neither the Arab conquerors of the 7th century nor the people they conquered made any mention of Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islam for the full six decades.

His biography wasn't even written for 150 years after his death and neither was the Qur'an.

*twilight zone music*

EDIT: Make that *x-files music*.

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?

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?

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?

😄 😆

YouTube video

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.