Bluntguy:
You wanna know the truth? Study the Bible.

The Bible was written by men like u.

Ok

Many are skeptical because they have been so brain washed for centuries. In the present time, when one listens to some of the TV Evangelists and reads the New Testament one gets completely different sides of Jesus. Those Evangelists are experts in presenting half the truth about both Jesus and Muhammad. They stress only one side in the most forceful and persuasive way. They raise the slogan "believe in Jesus." But one should have the right to ask, which Jesus?

♦ The one who said "love your enemies", Luke 6:27 or the one that said "But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them"bring them here and slaughter them in my presence", Luke 19:27.

♦ The one who said "Be merciful just as your father is merciful", Luke 6:36, or the one who said "he did not come to give peace on earth, but rather division", Luke 12:51.

♦ The one who said "honor your father and mother", Matthew 15:4, or the one who called his mother "Woman", John 2:4?

♦ The one who said "if someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him", Matthew 5:39, or the one who went to the temple and drove people out and overturned the tables, Matthew 21:12?

♦ The one who said have "peace with one another", Mark 9:50 or the one who said he "did not come to bring peace but a sword", Matthew 10:34?

♦ The one who said "forgive, and you will be forgiven", Luke 6:37, or the one who said "if your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you", Matthew 18:8?

♦ The one who said "bless them that curse you", Matthew 5:44, or the one who said "he who curses father or mother, let him be put to death", Matthew 15:4?

As a Muslim, I understand both sides, because Jesus, like Muhammad, was both merciful when mercy was required and powerful when power was required. God himself has both heavens and hellfire. Yet half the truth Evangelists never failed to present only the merciful side of Jesus and only the powerful side of Muhammad.

[quote author=Gospelpreacher1 post=106359785]

Believe this crap post at your own peril. Lies like these are meant to keep you in the blindness of darkness. God never gave Moses any commandments anywhere at any time.

In science and life in general; evidence and facts leads to conclusion.
In most religions; conclude first and look for evidence and if none is available? Manufacture one.

Op. Thanks. A nice topic for Sunday morning. God is indeed powerful.

Ibkhaleel01:
Christianity is dead and burried! A false man made cult!


THE NAME:

(a) The name 'Christianity'- Is it really a valid name? If so, where is it recorded? In other words, where is its identity certificate?

(b) Who has given the name? Or, who is the certifying authority?

The name 'Christian' was used for the first time in Antioch, as we read in the Bible: Acts (11:25-26):

�Then departed Barnabas to seek Saul: and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And It came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.�

Who had given this name? Neither God nor Jesus.

We can mention the following points concerning the name 'Christianity':

1. The name does not bear the authority from God or from Jesus.

2. It was given by Jews and Pagans in Antioch (a city in the then Roman Empire), i.e., by foes rather than by friends.

3. The name was given after Jesus had left this world.

4. The name was used derogatorily, as determined by historians.

One may contend, What is there in a name? The name does not matter. This may not be a valid argument, but still for the sake of argument, let us then proceed to look for its meaning.

you don de kolo

ReacherSaidNoth:
This silly thread is like saying the presence of the pyramids proves that the Egyptian pantheon is true. Or maybe we should also say that Zeus is real because mount Olympus exists.

Yahweh worshippers, is it not pitiful that your imported god depends on your ridiculous efforts to prove himself?

Look at yourself in the mirror and there is all the evidence of God you need.

ExAngel007:

You guys still believe all these craps?

DAUGHTER OF PERDITION

Ibkhaleel01:
When somebody says that the Bible is inerrant, a good reply is to ask "Which Bible?" The first task of translators of the Bible into English is to decide which verses they want to put into each of the 27 New Testament books.

There are more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, but not one has the same collection of verses as any popular English Bible. Indeed, there is no Greek manuscript before A. D. 800 which has 27 books in its New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus, from about A. D. 350, comes closest, but it also contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

How did this textual variety come about, and what significance does it have?

The King James Version was produced on the basis of relatively few late manuscripts. Since then, many early manuscripts have been found. The impression is often given that these early manuscripts help us get back to what the authors originally wrote. Instead, they reveal that we can only guess what was originally written and that what was written was changed within decades, often for purely doctrinal reasons.

Let me give just a few examples, from many which could have been chosen. Take Luke 22:43-44, "And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground." This is not present in the very earliest Greek manuscripts p66 and p75 from the third century. (P66 stands for papyrus number 66, p75 for papyrus number 75). Will they be dropped from future printings of the King James Version because they are not in the earliest manuscripts we have? Somehow, I doubt it.

These verses are also omitted by Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Washingtonensis (5th century), etc., but are in Sinaiticus (4th century) and the great majority of later manuscripts. They are cited by the early church father Justin (c. A. D. 130). Whenever these verses were added or dropped, it must have been very early.

We know that these verses were quoted, not always exactly, in the second century by the early church fathers to counter the heretical view that Jesus was not a real human being and only quoted for that doctrinal purpose.

For example, Justin said, "(I)t is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying... in order that we may perceive that the Father wished His Son really to undergo such sufferings for our sakes, and may not say that He, being the Son of God, did not feel what was happening to Him and inflicted on Him" (Dialogue with Trypho, 103).

Irenaeus (c. A. D. 170) wrote, "(N)or would He have wept over Lazarus, nor have sweated great drops of blood; nor have declared, `My soul is exceeding sorrowful'; nor, when His side was pierced, would there have come forth blood and water. For all these are tokens of the flesh which had been derived from the earth, which He had recapitulated in Himself, bearing salvation to His own handiwork" (Against Heresy, 3, 22, 2).

Hippolytus (c. A. D 190) said, "Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow. And He who for this end came into the world, begs off from the cup of suffering. And in an agony He sweats blood, and is strengthened by an angel..." (Against Noetus, 18).

These verses were cited only for doctrinal purposes and are missing from the earliest manuscripts of Luke's Gospel. What more proof is needed that Luke's Gospel was altered no more than decades after being written and that this was done for doctrinal reasons?

The biggest doctrinal issue in Christianity is whether Jesus is God and what the Trinity means. The earliest Christians held all kinds of views about the status of Jesus. Even as late as A. D. 200, the majority of Christians did not believe in the Trinity, as Tertullian freely conceded: "The simple, indeed, who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own `economy'" (Against Praxeas, Chapter 3).

These sorts of disputes led to many alterations of the New Testament. At the time Tertullian wrote, many Christians believed that Jesus was God the Father. Noetus based this belief on John 14:9, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." The orthodox Christian Hippolytus had to go through contortions to show that this does not mean that Jesus was the Father. Is it any surprise that just a few years later, one of the very earliest manuscripts of John's Gospel we have was altered to read, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father also"? A very useful change for doctrinal reasons.

People like you latter become radicals in christ.

damosade:


People like you latter become radicals in christ.

I am not blind to the truth....The Bible does not contain self-reference, that is, the word 'Bible' is not in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible talk about itself

Evangelical archeologists

ExAngel007:


You guys still believe all these craps?

Seems you’re wiser than who wrote the Bible.. most of y’all don’t know the universe is bigger , dynamic and mysterious than ordinary man’s knowledge and wisdom.

rottable:
How come nobody discovered it until now.

Even until tomorrow, it doesn’t exist. There’s no correlation between what they posted and the Ten Commandments

Gospelpreacher1:


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16300240/bible-archaeologists-mount-sinai-god-moses-commandments/amp/

God bless you � ❤

Religious people are very choosy when it comes to science. If this was some scientific finding that says that certain species predate man, or that the earth is xyz years old, you will hear them speaking against it, but now that it supports and validates their beliefs, it is a wankfest here

ExAngel007:

You guys still believe all these craps?

I dey tell you... I weak sef.

Now I know it pastor righteous that always look or search internet for a news of this type that will interest him to take the front page for comment.

Gospelpreacher1:
More

One Question I always want to ask, why is it that all Bible history emerging from Middle East and North Africa! A place that’s populated by Muslim and Arabic people, why not in the US, Canada Australia China or even in Europe

Ibkhaleel01:
[s]Christianity is dead and burried! A false man made cult!


THE NAME:

(a) The name 'Christianity'- Is it really a valid name? If so, where is it recorded? In other words, where is its identity certificate?

(b) Who has given the name? Or, who is the certifying authority?

The name 'Christian' was used for the first time in Antioch, as we read in the Bible: Acts (11:25-26):

�Then departed Barnabas to seek Saul: and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And It came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.�

Who had given this name? Neither God nor Jesus.

We can mention the following points concerning the name 'Christianity':

1. The name does not bear the authority from God or from Jesus.

2. It was given by Jews and Pagans in Antioch (a city in the then Roman Empire), i.e., by foes rather than by friends.

3. The name was given after Jesus had left this world.

4. The name was used derogatorily, as determined by historians.

One may contend, What is there in a name? The name does not matter. This may not be a valid argument, but still for the sake of argument, let us then proceed to look for its meaning.[/s]

The only cult here is Islam. Stop making noise. Mumu

Only a Fool says in his heart there is no God.

gimakon2:


The only cult here is Islam. Stop making noise. Mumu

The Bible consists of 66 small books. About 18 of them begin by saying: This is the revelation God gave to so and so… The rest make no claim as to their origin. You have for example the beginning of the book of Jonah which begins by saying: The word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Elmitaeh saying… quote and then it continues for two or three pages.

If you compare that to one of the four accounts of the life of Jesus, Luke begins by saying: “many people have written about this man, it seems fitting for me to do so too”. That is all… no claim of saying “ these words were given to me by God here they are for you it is a revelation”, there is no mention of this.

The Bible does not contain self-reference, that is, the word 'Bible' is not in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible talk about itself. Some scriptures are sometimes pointed to in the Bible, say: Here where it talks about itself, but we have to look closely. 2nd Timothy 3:16 is the favourite which reads: “All scripture is inspired of God” and there are those who would say, here is where the Bible it talks about itself, it says it is inspired of God, all of it. But if you read the whole sentence, you read that this was a letter wrote by Paul to Timothy and the entire sentence says to Timothy: “Since you were a young man you have studied the holy scriptures, all scriptures inspired by God” and so on… When Timothy was a young man the New Testament did not exist, the only thing that stems he was talking about are scriptures – which are only a portion of the Bible - from before that time. It could not have meant the whole Bible.

There is at the end of the Bible a verse which says: “Let anyone who takes away from this book or adds to this book be cursed”. This to is sometimes pointed to me saying: Here is where it sums itself as a whole. But look again and you will see that when it says: Let no one change this book, it is talking about that last book, number 66, the Book of Revelation. It has too, because any reference will tell you that the Book of Revelation was written before certain other parts of the Bible were written. It happens today to be stacked at the end, but there are other parts that came after, so it can not be referring to the entire book.

It is an extreme position held only by some Christian groups that the Bible – in its entirety - cover to cover is the revealed word of God in every word, but they do a clever thing when they mention this, or make this claim. They will say that the Bible in its entirety is the word of God; inerrant (no mistakes) in the original writings. So if you go to the Bible and point out some mistakes that are in it you are going to be told: Those mistakes were not there in the original manuscript, they have crept in so that we see them there today. They are going on problem in that position. There is a verse in the Bible Isaiah 40:8 which in fact is so well known that some Bibles printed it on the inside front cover as an introduction and it says : “ The grass weathers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever”. Here is a claim in the Bible that the word of God will stand forever, it will not be corrupted, it won't be lost. So if today you find a mistake in the Bible you have two choices. Either that promise was false that when God said my word wont fade away, he was mistaken, or the portion which has the mistake in it was not a part of the word of God in the first place, because the promise was that it would be safeguarded, it would not be corrupted.

I have suggested many times that there are mistakes in the Bible and the accusation comes back very quickly: Show me one. Well there are hundreds. If you want to be specific I can mention few. You have for example at 2nd Samuel 10:18 a description of a war fought by David saying that he killed 7000 men and that he also killed 40000 men on horsebacks. In 1st Chronicles 19 it mentions the same episode saying that he killed 70000 men and the 40000 men were not on horsebacks, they were on foot. The point be what is the difference between the pedestrian and not is very fundamental.

Matthew 27:5 says that Judas Iscariot when he died he hung himself. Acts 1 says that no he jumped off a cliff head first. If you study Logic very soon you will come in your course to what they call an “undecidable propositions” or “meaningless sentences” or statements that can not be decided because there is no contextual false. One of the classic examples sited is something called the Effeminites paradox. This man was Cretan and he said “Cretans always lie”, now was that statement true or false? If he was a Cretan and he says that they always lie is he lying? If he is not lying then he is telling the truth then the Cretans don’t always lie ! You see it can not be true and it can not be false, the statement turns back on itself. It is like saying “What I am telling you right now is a lie” would you believe that or not? You see the statement has no true content. It can not be true and it can not be false. If it is true it is always false. If it is false it is also true.

Well in the Bible at Titus 1:12 the writer is Paul and he is talking about the Cretans. He says that one of their own men – a prophet - said “Cretans always lie” and he says that what this man says is true. It is a small mistake, but the point is that it is a human mistake, you don’t find that if you carefully examine the true content of that statement. It can not be a true statement.

Sheunma:
Everything that's been said, written or discovered about God has been purely human efforts. No more.

God spoke to individuals, talked from the skies to multitude of people, used people to perform incredible miracles like: splitting of the moon, parting of the red sea, making animals talk,killing first born of Egyptians, flooding the entire earth etc etc. All these were written down by people when there was no other means of keeping records.

Today, we got video cameras. We got powerful audio recorders and photo cameras many times sensitive and powerful than the human eyes.

Question: Why is it that everything written in religious books about God and his prophets suddenly stopped after humanity developed audio- visual means of record keeping?

Miracles are every where
You just choose to be blind

mochat:
Only a Fool says in his heart there is no God.

Only a fool says in his heart that there’s no Flying Spaghetti Monster

Wow! What a pool of history!!! Thanks for this piece

Ibkhaleel01:
When somebody says that the Bible is inerrant, a good reply is to ask "Which Bible?" The first task of translators of the Bible into English is to decide which verses they want to put into each of the 27 New Testament books.

There are more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, but not one has the same collection of verses as any popular English Bible. Indeed, there is no Greek manuscript before A. D. 800 which has 27 books in its New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus, from about A. D. 350, comes closest, but it also contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

How did this textual variety come about, and what significance does it have?

The King James Version was produced on the basis of relatively few late manuscripts. Since then, many early manuscripts have been found. The impression is often given that these early manuscripts help us get back to what the authors originally wrote. Instead, they reveal that we can only guess what was originally written and that what was written was changed within decades, often for purely doctrinal reasons.

Let me give just a few examples, from many which could have been chosen. Take Luke 22:43-44, "And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground." This is not present in the very earliest Greek manuscripts p66 and p75 from the third century. (P66 stands for papyrus number 66, p75 for papyrus number 75). Will they be dropped from future printings of the King James Version because they are not in the earliest manuscripts we have? Somehow, I doubt it.

These verses are also omitted by Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Washingtonensis (5th century), etc., but are in Sinaiticus (4th century) and the great majority of later manuscripts. They are cited by the early church father Justin (c. A. D. 130). Whenever these verses were added or dropped, it must have been very early.

We know that these verses were quoted, not always exactly, in the second century by the early church fathers to counter the heretical view that Jesus was not a real human being and only quoted for that doctrinal purpose.

For example, Justin said, "(I)t is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying... in order that we may perceive that the Father wished His Son really to undergo such sufferings for our sakes, and may not say that He, being the Son of God, did not feel what was happening to Him and inflicted on Him" (Dialogue with Trypho, 103).

Irenaeus (c. A. D. 170) wrote, "(N)or would He have wept over Lazarus, nor have sweated great drops of blood; nor have declared, `My soul is exceeding sorrowful'; nor, when His side was pierced, would there have come forth blood and water. For all these are tokens of the flesh which had been derived from the earth, which He had recapitulated in Himself, bearing salvation to His own handiwork" (Against Heresy, 3, 22, 2).

Hippolytus (c. A. D 190) said, "Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow. And He who for this end came into the world, begs off from the cup of suffering. And in an agony He sweats blood, and is strengthened by an angel..." (Against Noetus, 18).

These verses were cited only for doctrinal purposes and are missing from the earliest manuscripts of Luke's Gospel. What more proof is needed that Luke's Gospel was altered no more than decades after being written and that this was done for doctrinal reasons?

The biggest doctrinal issue in Christianity is whether Jesus is God and what the Trinity means. The earliest Christians held all kinds of views about the status of Jesus. Even as late as A. D. 200, the majority of Christians did not believe in the Trinity, as Tertullian freely conceded: "The simple, indeed, who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own `economy'" (Against Praxeas, Chapter 3).

These sorts of disputes led to many alterations of the New Testament. At the time Tertullian wrote, many Christians believed that Jesus was God the Father. Noetus based this belief on John 14:9, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." The orthodox Christian Hippolytus had to go through contortions to show that this does not mean that Jesus was the Father. Is it any surprise that just a few years later, one of the very earliest manuscripts of John's Gospel we have was altered to read, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father also"? A very useful change for doctrinal reasons.

ReacherSaidNoth:
This silly thread is like saying the presence of the pyramids proves that the Egyptian pantheon is true. Or maybe we should also say that Zeus is real because mount Olympus exists.

Yahweh worshippers, is it not pitiful that your imported god depends on your ridiculous efforts to prove himself?

At least it's better than the religion of piss and and a moon god that doesn't have archaeological evidence.

Bigchristo:
One Question I always want to ask, why is it that all Bible history emerging from Middle East and North Africa! A place that’s populated by Muslim and Arabic people, why not in the US, Canada Australia China or even in Europe

Co Ask

Ibkhaleel01:
Christianity is dead and burried! A false man made cult!


THE NAME:

(a) The name 'Christianity'- Is it really a valid name? If so, where is it recorded? In other words, where is its identity certificate?

(b) Who has given the name? Or, who is the certifying authority?

The name 'Christian' was used for the first time in Antioch, as we read in the Bible: Acts (11:25-26):

�Then departed Barnabas to seek Saul: and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And It came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.�

Who had given this name? Neither God nor Jesus.

We can mention the following points concerning the name 'Christianity':

1. The name does not bear the authority from God or from Jesus.

2. It was given by Jews and Pagans in Antioch (a city in the then Roman Empire), i.e., by foes rather than by friends.

3. The name was given after Jesus had left this world.

4. The name was used derogatorily, as determined by historians.

One may contend, What is there in a name? The name does not matter. This may not be a valid argument, but still for the sake of argument, let us then proceed to look for its meaning.

Doesn't matter
But i have the belief that religion was conceived by the devil in other to cause confusion

Think about it
Before Christianity any other form of worship was called idolatry
But with Christianity other forms of worship were formed and they all claimed to worship the one true God.

He's wiser than us.

Jolomenas:

Co Ask

I am just wondering

Praise God Hallelujah!

ExAngel007:


You guys still believe all these craps?