shahydbinaliyu:




see my brother, if Jesus is the real son of God like you said, what about the other son of God In Bible and the other beggoten son of God (David)

David never said he was! Psalm 2 was referring to Jesus. Compare Psalm 2:9 to Revelations 12:5. also see Psalm 110:1 "The Lord said to my Lord,Sit Thou at My Right Hand" fulfilled in Mark 16:19, alluded to by Jesus Himself in Revelations 3:21.

Scholar8200:
David never said he was! Psalm 2 was referring to Jesus. Compare Psalm 2:9 to Revelations 12:5. also see Psalm 110:1 "The Lord said to my Lord,Sit Thou at My Right Hand" fulfilled in Mark 16:19, alluded to by Jesus Himself in Revelations 3:21.

quote the verse and prove it's not David... the verse is 2nd Solomon 7:14

shahydbinaliyu:



quote the verse and prove it's not David... the verse is 2nd Solomon 7:14

But there is no book in the Bible by that name? David prophesied also of Jesus Christ and that's why after his resurrection, He spoke of ,"all things which were written in the law of Moses, an in the prophets and in the psalms, concerning Me"Luke 24:44. Perhaps you meant 2 Samuel 7:14? Then carefully read it in its context and note that there is no correlation between 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2:7(read this also in context).

Scholar8200:
But there is no book in the Bible by that name? David prophesied also of Jesus Christ and that's why after his resurrection, He spoke of ,"all things which were written in the law of Moses, an in the prophets and in the psalms, concerning Me"Luke 24:44

let me quote it for you in original Bible... .. 2nd Samuel.. 7:14

shahydbinaliyu:




let me quote it for you in original Bible... .. 2nd Samuel.. 7:14

Alright then do link it with the Psalm 2:7. Note that in 2 Samuel God was speaking to David while Psalm 2:7 David was prophesying.

Scholar8200:
Alright then do link it with the Psalm 2:7. Note that in 2 Samuel God was speaking to David while Psalm 2:7 David was prophesying.

bro.. it's so glaring that Jesus is not biological son of God nor anybody is..

shahydbinaliyu:



bro.. it's so glaring that Jesus is not biological son of God nor anybody is..

I believe the challenge lies in the academical/intellectual mind with which you are trying to understand this. But I will rather believe what God says of Himself.

The earth is such that we may research, apply biological/scientific principles/procedures over decades to make discoveries but the Creator cannot be discovered or understood with the same procedures!

Just like when Jesus told Nicodemus (a ruler of the Jews in John 3:1-12) ,"ye must be born again" nicodemus asked a similar question based on his understanding of the natural process of life," how can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" but thankfully, Nicodemus sought the answer from the right Source (John 1:18) and he got the revelation Therefrom thus he believed & became a disciple! John 7:45 - 52;John 19:39,40 . If he had left reasoning and mocking, it will have been a different case but the real joke will be on him because it will be strange judging all things with something so limited as a dimly lit intellect.

We cant expect heavenly things (John 3:12) to follow the same order of discovery and understanding as earthly things!

Scholar8200:

I believe the challenge lies in the academical/intellectual mind with which you are trying to understand this. But I will rather believe what God says of Himself.

The earth is such that we may research, apply biological/scientific principles/procedures over decades to make discoveries but the Creator cannot be discovered or understood with the same procedures!

Just like when Jesus told Nicodemus (a ruler of the Jews in John 3:1-12) ,"ye must be born again" nicodemus asked a similar question based on his understanding of the natural process of life," how can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" but thankfully, Nicodemus sought the answer from the right Source (John 1:18) and he got the revelation Therefrom thus he believed & became a disciple! John 7:45 - 52;John 19:39,40 . If he had left reasoning and mocking, it will have been a different case but the real joke will be on him because it will be strange judging all things with something so limited as a dimly lit intellect.

We cant expect heavenly things (John 3:12) to follow the same order of discovery and understanding as earthly things!

wo.. am done trying to correct u.. stay on what you believe

Scholar8200:
Alright then do link it with the Psalm 2:7. Note that in 2 Samuel God was speaking to David while Psalm 2:7 David was prophesying.

no worry

shahydbinaliyu:

Stephen Sarpong

The Aramaic Bible original with no changes

Aramaic Bible

John 3:16

For Allaha loved the world in this
way: so much that he would give up a Son, The One, so that
everyone who trusts in him shall not be lost, but he shall have
eternal life.

P.S. (where do you see is only begotten son in
this)

Your heart is desperately seeking the truth. I see your posts. One day you will come to the full realisation of the Truth.
Forget about what some christians are practicing, or what some churches are doing, different people with their own interpretation.
Everyone has their own path, their own life's Journey
God guides everyone to the truth in his own time.

Going to church is not the most important for Christians. Coming to knowledge of the Light and Love God brings through Jesus is what matters.

I pray for you, that you will find the Truth. All I know is that, God Loves you soo much, whether you offend him, No matter how much you sin, He has forgiven and forgotten about your sins.

His Love is unconditional. He doesn't Love the way men Love. It is something we cannot explain

No sin you commit will stop him from Loving you.The only thing he wants you to do is just to accept this Love. (John 3:16).
The only sin is unbelief. God has gone past our sins. Jesus handled it. and he has reunited the whole world with the FATHER. just believe.

when you believe, he then gives you the power to become a Son of God.

Sibe007:


Your heart is desperately seeking the truth. I see your posts. One day you will come to the full realisation of the Truth.
Forget about what some christians are practicing, or what some churches are doing, different people with their own interpretation.
Everyone has their own path, their own life's Journey
God guides everyone to the truth in his own time.

Going to church is not the most important for Christians. Coming to knowledge of the Light and Love God brings through Jesus is what matters.

I pray for you, that you will find the Truth. All I know is that, God Loves you soo much, whether you offend him, No matter how much you sin, He has forgiven and forgotten about your sins.

His Love is unconditional. He doesn't Love the way men Love. It is something we cannot explain

No sin you commit will stop him from Loving you.The only thing he wants you to do is just to accept this Love. (John 3:16).
The only sin is unbelief. God has gone past our sins. Jesus handled it. and he has reunited the whole world with the FATHER. just believe.

when you believe, he then gives you the power to become a Son of God.

so Jesus died for our sins? and going to church is not important For Christians? church have different doctrines? everyone and their path and everyone and their interpretation?

isn't the same bible? oh sorry.. different bible and different contexts.... just listen to yourself .. why should church have different doctrines? why not follow Jesus doctrine? oh i forgot, Jesus never go church...

concerning Jesus dieing for sins... Bible said everybody will account for their sins..

and concerning no sin that God can't forgive, if you die in sin, God can't forgive you, if you die believing Jesus is son of God or he is God, God can't forgive you.. because God has already sent Prophet Muhammad and Quran and Bible to clear the air of this mess...

Scholar8200:

they include the deutero-canonical writings- not inspired.

This is quite a claim here.How do you know the deutero-canonicals are not inspired?In a similar vein,how do you know any of the NT books is inspired?

btoks:
This is quite a claim here.How do you know the deutero-canonicals are not inspired?In a similar vein,how do you know any of the NT books is inspired?

First regarding your last question, 2 Timothy 3:16," All scripture is given by Inspiration of God" Also, 2 Peter 1:21," for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"

The apocrypha was written at a time when there was a halt in Divine revelation for 4 centuries implying no prophets, visions etc (inter - testament period). The books thus written were more of the product of literary activity. You will notice that neither Christ nor any of His apostles referred to them.
After resurrection, Christ spoke about the things written concerning Him in , "the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms" luke 24:44. Conspicuously skipping the apocrypha!

Scholar8200:


First regarding your last question, 2 Timothy 3:16," All scripture is given by Inspiration of God" Also, 2 Peter 1:21," for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"

The apocrypha was written at a time when there was a halt in Divine revelation for 4 centuries implying no prophets, visions etc (inter - testament period). The books thus written were more of the product of literary activity. You will notice that neither Christ nor any of His apostles referred to them.
After resurrection, Christ spoke about the things written concerning Him in , "the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms" luke 24:44. Conspicuously skipping the apocrypha!

Re. 2 tim 3:16,this does not prove the NT is inspired. The NT was not in existence at the time.he was referring to the OT which wasn't even canonised at the time.
How can you tell from 2peter1.21 what books he was referring to?
Going by your logic of deutero-canonicals not been quoted from (although not entirely true), how about songs of Solomon, Esther, Ecclesiastes.These were not quoted from either. Why isn't Enoch part of the bible?
Jesus did not list the OT books in Luke 24.
Deutero-canonical means 2nd canon as opposed to the apocryphal books.
Your conclusions are based on protestant tradition and does not prove that the deutero-canonicals are not inspired.

btoks:
Re. 2 tim 3:16,this does not prove the NT is inspired. The NT was not in existence at the time.he was referring to the OT

What matters is that the books were inspired..

how can you tell from 2peter1.21 what books he was referring to?

Do read the entire epistle. Chapter 1 shows that the statement not only applied to the Old testament but to the Gospels, Chapter 3:15,16 further shows the extension to the epistles. 2 Peter 1:21 shows a criteria that the apostles did not come short of. Indeed, after them, God has raised up countless apostles and church leaders but since they were the first set, the inspired message giving to them remains the same for the Church for all time. Hence Jude 3 speaks of the faith once delivered to the saints. God is not the author of confusion. Inspite of the anointing on Joshua and the 70 elders, none of them attempted producing their own set of laws!

Going by your logic of deutero-canonicals not been quoted from (although not entirely true), how about songs of Solomon, Esther, Ecclesiastes.These were not quoted from either.

None of the books you just listed was written in the period when Divine revelations were halted.

Jesus did not list the OT books in Luke 24.[/quote
] Yes but the categories used would not leave His hearers in doubt! [quote]Deutero-canonical means 2nd canon as opposed to the apocryphal books.
Your conclusions are based on protestant tradition and does not prove that the deutero-canonicals are not inspired.

Rather the hebrews, who were the first reference and who have these occurrences as part of their history, were among the first that raised the issue of those books not being inspired.

Scholar8200:
What matters is that the books were inspired..
Do read the entire epistle. Chapter 1 shows that the statement not only applied to the Old testament but to the Gospels, Chapter 3:15,16 further shows the extension to the epistles. 2 Peter 1:21 shows a criteria that the apostles did not come short of. Indeed, after them, God has raised up countless apostles and church leaders but since they were the first set, the inspired message giving to them remains the same for the Church for all time. Hence Jude 3 speaks of the faith once delivered to the saints. God is not the author of confusion. Inspite of the anointing on Joshua and the 70 elders, none of them attempted producing their own set of laws!
None of the books you just listed was written in the period when Divine revelations were halted.

Yes, the books are inspired but your basis for knowing this is weak.
Chapter 1 talks about the gospel but this was very likely referring to the oral rather than written gospel. (No books were mentioned)
Please go back to the history of the bible complilation. The only time anyone definitely removed books from the bible was in the 16th century by Martin Luther. In the early days of christianity there were obviously debates as to the canonicity of scriptures,which books were inspired or not etc. but no council defined the canon until the late 4th Century and difinitively by the council of Trent in the 16th Century. In all cases, the DT books were included.
If by the hebrews you mean the supposed council around 100 AD, these people also rejected the entire NT.
There is no Christian council that ever confirmed that the 7 DT books were not inspired. In fact the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and oriental churches (All linked to the early church) all have the DTs in the canon.

All I'm trying to point out is that your conclusion of certain books not be inspired is not based on historical fact.

btoks:

Yes, the books are inspired but your basis for knowing this is weak.
Chapter 1 talks about the gospel but this was very likely referring to the oral rather than written gospel. (No books were mentioned)
Please go back to the history of the bible complilation. The only time anyone definitely removed books from the bible was in the 16th century by Martin Luther. In the early days of christianity there were obviously debates as to the canonicity of scriptures,which books were inspired or not etc. but no council defined the canon until the late 4th Century and difinitively by the council of Trent in the 16th Century. In all cases, the DT books were included.
If by the hebrews you mean the supposed council around 100 AD, these people also rejected the entire NT.
There is no Christian council that ever confirmed that the 7 DT books were not inspired. In fact the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and oriental churches (All linked to the early church) all have the DTs in the canon.

All I'm trying to point out is that your conclusion of certain books not be inspired is not based on historical fact.

It's okay. I would see it this way- there are Bibles that include the DT, there are Bibles sans the DT, there are Bibles with commentary, archaeologicals & concordance included, there are also Bibles with just a scant dictionary. As long as none tampers with the original message of the Bible, no problem.

Scholar8200:
It's okay. I would see it this way- there are Bibles that include the DT, there are Bibles sans the DT, there are Bibles with commentary, archaeologicals & concordance included, there are also Bibles with just a scant dictionary. As long as none tampers with the original message of the Bible, no problem.

those apocryphals are not inspired. The Jews who produced the bible Jesus used in the first century never used them. It was never part of there canon.

don't allow him to push u to accept.

JMAN05:


those apocryphals are not inspired. The Jews who produced the bible Jesus used in the first century never used them. It was never part of there canon.

don't allow him to push u to accept.

Definitely (rgds the bolded)! I gave that reply because I dont want to press issues too far hence I just assumed that the DT's inclusion could be likened to the concordance etc that comes with some Bibles today. I guess no one ever takes a message text from either (I've not seen one). Actually I'd expected that the initial reply I gave regarding the inter - testament period and the halt in Divine revelations, evidences from Christ & Peter etc should be enough proof. Thanks.

Scholar8200:
Definitely (rgds the bolded)! I gave that reply because I dont want to press issues too far hence I just assumed that the DT's inclusion could be likened to the concordance etc that comes with some Bibles today. I guess no one ever takes a message text from either (I've not seen one). Actually I'd expected that the initial reply I gave regarding the inter - testament period and the halt in Divine revelations, evidences from Christ & Peter etc should be enough proof. Thanks.

ok

JMAN05:


those apocryphals are not inspired. The Jews who produced the bible Jesus used in the first century never used them. It was never part of there canon.

don't allow him to push u to accept.

Yes,the apocryphal books are not inspired but the deutero-canonicals are inspired.two different things.
I'm sure that you're aware that the apostles mainly quoted from the septuagint,which had the DT books.
I also mentioned before that the same Jews who rejected the DTs are the ones who also rejected the NT.
You might reject the DTs as inspired but the early church says otherwise. Who do we believe?

btoks:

Yes,the apocryphal books are not inspired but the deutero-canonicals are inspired.two different things.
I'm sure that you're aware that the apostles mainly quoted from the septuagint,which had the DT books.
I also mentioned before that the same Jews who rejected the DTs are the ones who also rejected the NT.
You might reject the DTs as inspired but the early church says otherwise. Who do we believe?

They mean the same thing. it is catholic that chose to call them deuterocanonical books. Both apocrypha and DT refer to the same books.

the DT/Apo were not part of the original translation by Jewish translators in Egypt, since most of the books were written after the translation work began.

We accept jews' accent on the canonicity of the OT because Jesus and the disciples used those scriptures provided by the Jews in his day. The bible said that they are entrusted with the sacred pronouncement of God.

The Jews do not joke with there sacred books. Since Jesus did not accuse them of such, we shouldn't overlook what they view as canonical. And not once did Jesus nor his apostles ever quoted these DT/Apo books.

The Jews who do not accept the NT were not Christians. they thus do not even believe the christians had the truth. so there rejecting the NT should not be viewed as prove of not appreciating sacred books, the rejection starts with the religion, xtianity, not just their books.

The Great Synagogue never had the DT in there catalogue.

From Aramaic to Greek manuscript. From Greek manuscript to English translation of thousand version.

No wonder back in 1950s the Bible was found to have 50,000 ERRORS! And recent studies have the ERRORS grown EXPONENTIALLY to 400,000 "textual variation" which is in simple term "ERRORS". But Christians are ashamed to call them Errors. Ask Dr Bart Ehrman..

The CORRUPTED bible has gone through DELETION, ADDITION, OMISSION, FABRICATION, CONCOCTION, INTERPOLATION and ENDLESS REVISION.

Just wonder how malfunction their brains are... not accepting the truth Allah revealed in the Qur'an that the Bible is a CORRUPTED Scripture!!

bagal:
From Aramaic to Greek manuscript. From Greek manuscript to English translation of thousand version.

No wonder back in 1950s the Bible was found to have 50,000 ERRORS! And recent studies have the ERRORS grown EXPONENTIALLY to 400,000 "textual variation" which is in simple term "ERRORS". But Christians are ashamed to call them Errors. Ask Dr Bart Ehrman..

The CORRUPTED bible has gone through DELETION, ADDITION, OMISSION, FABRICATION, CONCOCTION, INTERPOLATION and ENDLESS REVISION.

Just wonder how malfunction their brains are... not accepting the truth Allah revealed in the Qur'an that the Bible is a CORRUPTED Scripture!!

Variations is no big deal. the question is, what were those variations, how significant are they and in what manuscripts do they occur?

When people from different cultures, ages and civilisation copy a particular message and transmit them, there must be variations and errors. O wonder if quoran doesn't have errors in its versions.

bagal:
From Aramaic to Greek manuscript. From Greek manuscript to English translation of thousand version.

No wonder back in 1950s the Bible was found to have 50,000 ERRORS! And recent studies have the ERRORS grown EXPONENTIALLY to 400,000 "textual variation" which is in simple term "ERRORS". But Christians are ashamed to call them Errors. Ask Dr Bart Ehrman..

The CORRUPTED bible has gone through DELETION, ADDITION, OMISSION, FABRICATION, CONCOCTION, INTERPOLATION and ENDLESS REVISION.

Just wonder how malfunction their brains are... not accepting the truth Allah revealed in the Qur'an that the Bible is a CORRUPTED Scripture!!

Variations is no big deal. the question is, what were those variations, how significant are they and in what manuscripts do they occur?

When people from different cultures, ages and civilisation copy a particular message and transmit them, there must be variations and errors. O wonder if quoran doesn't have errors/emendations in its versions.