₦airaland Forum

AlMuflihah:
You see why we keep saying your bible isn't preserved. I really enjoyed your essay of how you proved it was there all along but you know the problem is I have read and also enjoyed several other christian scholars that argued it's a fabrication.
If a religion with about 2 billion followers can't even have a concensus on its most holy scripture I wonder if it's doctrines are even divine or just authored and edited as per whims.

Actually, the fact remains that the devil that tried to submerge the truth after Christ's resurrection, that tried to truncate the spread of the Truth by persecuting and killing Christ's followers, that tried to hide the Truth by creating counterfeit gospels eg Barnabas etc has also set up his own set of 'christian scholars'.
In any case history cannot be changed! You may want to check out the link of the book written by Tertullian around the 2nd and 3rd century that refer to that verse! How then could it have been added in the 17th century?

facheux:
What scholars are subverted. Who is subverting them. Is there an acid test so we know who has been subverted

The subversion is done by the enemies of the truth they were there in Acts 15:1-3, they were there in the early centuries, they are there today.

This passage is very clear.

It's best understood this way:

1. When God told Abraham that :
and in

thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Genesis 22:18

We would have thought that this would verily be Isaac! However, a number of Centuries passed before the Seed-Jesus Christ- came.


2. When God said to Adam and Eve:

and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Genesis 3:15

You would have thought it had to be Cain or at most Abel. But milleniums passed and Lo, it was Christ!!!

3. So when God said to the House of David[b](Ahaz was not mentioned in verse13 as the reference because he obviously would not be there when this will be fulfilled but the House of David would be there)[/b] that a virgin shall conceive etc, the reference as always is Christ.

However, just like it happened above, a child was born and Isaiah had this to say:
Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.
Isaiah 8:17

At this time, the child on ground was a son and the prophecy in the op was also applicable to him:

3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

Isaiah 8:3,4

Now was this fulfilled then? YES

. 9 And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.

facheux:
What do the Christian scholars say is there a consensus

The consensus I know is that it IS part of the Bible! That is why you still find it in the KJV.

promisechuks:
The problem with this people is that they see sin in act only.

What Jesus saved us is from NATURE.

As we continue in the grace of christ, our mind is being transform.

The problem with these people is that when they are not concern about their nature before God, they are TOO concern to their actions.


I have said it before that; ROM 6:1 is talking about NATURE.

The bible is always clear!

In Romans 6:1;"what shall we say then? Shall we continue IN sin, that grace may abound?"

The problem with believers and this chapter is
that they combine sin, as in, nature and act as act.


Sin are in two aspect BY NATURE AND BY ACTION.


Of which every single soul in this life is sinful by
nature, even if a new born baby, but in the case of
a new born baby he will go to heaven(if I should
say) because the baby has not reached an age of
accountability and of course, didn't reject accepting Jesus.

So, when you see or hear "IN" it is talking about
nature and when you see "TO" it is talking about
action.


The word "IN" in that verse means NATURE and not action.

See the difference; "shall we continue IN(nature)
sin" and "shall we continue TO(action) sin".


That's why he went to the next 2 verses to say;"2.
GOD FORBID, how shall we that are dead to sin,
live any longer thereIN(nature of sin). 3. Know ye
not, that so many of us as baptized INto(nature of
christ) Jesus christ were baptized into his death"

There is more to Romans 6 than verse 1 bro!!!

19 I am speaking in familiar human terms because of your natural limitations. For as you yielded your bodily members [and [c]faculties] as servants to[b] impurity and ever increasing lawlessness,[/b] so now yield your bodily members [and [d]faculties] once for all as servants to righteousness (right being and doing) [which leads] to sanctification.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21 But then what benefit (return) did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? [None] for the end of those things is death.
22 But now since you have been set free from sin and have become the slaves of God, you have your present reward in holiness and its end is eternal life.
23 For the wages which sin pays is death, but the [bountiful] free gift of God is eternal life through (in union with) Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:19-23

Meaning we cannot continue in those shameful acts that leads to death (not only fornication) after we believe on Christ!

facheux:
What is the consensus of Christian scholars on this verse.

The testimony of History is all we need here! In recent years we know that a good number of 'christian' scholars and 'seminaries' are actually subverted! You may not know this.

At least Tertullian mentioned in the Op lived between 160AD-220AD and the book he wrote (quoted above) can be found here:
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/bible_books/?view=book_chapter&chapter=2599

facheux:
Are all Bibles the same ? I noticed the Catholic one seems thicker.

They hold on to the apocrypha, that's why.

facheux:
Were any other verses removed

No, the custodians guarded the Bible (and every word therein) with their lives!

facheux:
If the Bible was persevered we wouldn't be having this conversation now ?

Rather it was preserved well enough else we wouldnt be having this discourse! (we'll simply acquiesce to your claims of forgery/corruption)!

facheux:
In your OP it states it was removed because of problems it seems to cause. Is there any other corruptions in the Bible ?

Not a problem In the Bible but with a movement. Of course the action was wrong! The real heroes were the ones who rather died than remove any part:

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives


They were the ones that preserved the Bible and its message.

facheux:
Does this imply the Bible wasn't preserved

Sure it was! The passages under consideration were not added in the 17th century as it has been erroneously claimed; IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE!

Demmzy15:
A man throughout his life debated and destroyed falsehood, he died at the age of 87. So Jesus didn't do him anything until when he was 87years?! Does that make any sense to you?! Why didn't Jesus just take his life in 1975 or 1981,why 2005?!

If your Jesus wanted to show his power, why are his books still used by Muslims today?! There's a point in his book I used and no Christian, I mean no one christian could refute and you open your silly dirty mouth that Jesus dealt with him! Coward jesus that allowed a man to expose him for over 60years!

Can you post the link of the thread here?

lexiconkabir:
again, spirit was used in that verse because, it is still inside the body of man, if the man dies his body goes back to the dust, and the spirit that was in him goes to God, but remember when the spirit is out of the body, it becomes a ghost, and that verse was not talking of the spirit outside the body.

We are saying the same thing here! The Holy Ghost came on the disciples and see what was said:

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 2:4

Thus settling the fact that the Spirit that was to dwell in them was indeed the Holy Ghost spoken by Jesus in John's Gospel!

lexiconkabir:
It has always been the culture of the christians to follow what suits their whims, it implies that the bible was not preserved as you claimed on some thread, when this verse was alledgely removed, for people that didnt read it, did they read the complete word of God?

The point is God preserved the Original and it was always there! It's a miracle that inspite of the prevalence of the mutilated one, the One that was translated was the Complete Bible!

its simple the bible was not preserved well enough, if not, we wouldnt be having this discourse!

Rather it was preserved well enough else we wouldnt be having this discourse! (we'll simply acquiesce to your claims of forgery)!

you are entitled to your opinion, just answer that question "who knows how many of such verses were removed just because of the problem it caused"

The burden of proof verses of such lies at your doorstep! Did you read this:

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.


And that these people preserved the complete text at a great cost:

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people [size=14pt]would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria[/size]. And they paid for this with their lives

OLAADEGBU:
But the devil never gives up. he didn't give up on Jesus from birth to ascension and is still waiting for His coming back hence the third world war.

That's true!

lexiconkabir:
@scholar2800, actually, after you lifted that verse that you claimed to have used spirit and ghost interchangeably, i said this and you didnt say anything afterwards.

Point is both were used interchangeably! Now the grammatical analysis is not necessary:
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Ecclesiastes 12:7

Joagbaje:
A christian can lose his salvation. The bible is clear on that . It's a christian who can commit sins. The world cannot commit sins. The world has only one sin. Which is unbelief in Christ.

Thanks a lot pastor!

lexiconkabir:
@Scholar8200, I can see that you are trying hard to refute the issue of a well known fraud of the bible 1john5:7, in the process you copied and pasted from the internet a mistake that has shot your leg so bad! please whats the meaning of this statement "But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

The problem is with those who wrongly removed it! A case of cutting off the head to cure headache! Point is,it had been there all along!

1)why was the passage removed in the first place? do they know more than God Almighty?. I think you and everyone here on this forum can now see that we muslims are right when we say the bible has been mutilated,

Rather the real mutilators are those removing it; meaning it is not a 16th Century addition! It was there from the start! Hence the Bibles that have 1 John 5:7 are NOT mutilated!

2)who knows how many of such verses were removed "because of the problem they caused"? pathetic! you must be feeling happy saying "eureka!" when you stumbled on this article online, but not so fast! answer those two questions.

You appear to have read the article with an understandable but pathetic bias!

ari3l:
The man wan use em plenty nonsense gimme belle for here. Which kain one be free mason be christians again. The guy need check em sef o

There is need to separate Roman Catholicism from the nonconformist Christians.I guess that is where the mistake is coming from.

olarwhumy6:
in my opinion, at every good things one desire in life be it promotion, marital bliss, d fruit of d womb etc are bn stored one's heaven with a gate. A strongman is an evil power hindering one from passing into ones gate of breakthrough. D strongman could b evil powers from ones parents house, spirit husband or wife etc. The Bible says we wrestling nt against flesh but again power, principalities(I cnt remember d Bible verse) wickedness in high places, d strongman needs to b paralyse, destroy, removed from ones gate of breakthrough. It's only God dat has d power to bind him, one needs God's intervention in dealing wiv d strongman.

Do you have an experience in this area? Mind sharing it?

OLAADEGBU:
If you ask me I will prefer he be bound for at least a thousand years.

That is for the Millenial reign.But now, perhaps until the purpose for which he is to be bound has been accomplished! That's why follow up and teaching must follow evangelism.

Joagbaje:
There is a difference between sin and sins. Sin is not conduct it's a nature. The sin of the world which will take them to hell is unbelief in Christ. That's the sin. And that's what jesus was talking about .

John 16:8
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

What is the sin of the world ? Unbelief in Christ .

John 16:9
Of sin, because they believe not on me;

You can see that the statement here is not made for Christians but for the world . Who don't believe in Christ. It's the conviction of their sin nature that lead to salvation.

The singular word for sin refers to nature

Now pastor, remember that Jesus said this will be said to people on the last day:

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matthew 7:22-23
You will agree with me that all those works can only be done by those who believe (not the world that do not believe) just like Mark 16 recorded it!
Meaning we as believers still have to watch and pray and depend on God's grace realising that we are called to:

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord
Hebrews 12:14

lexiconkabir:
But thats not the point here, is it? we are talking about the fraud of 1john5:7, dont try to change topic .

This is to specially invite you to a Moment of Discovery
https://www.nairaland.com/2937501/1-john-5-7-real

Empiree:
Listen, let me do a little breakdown. When it comes to specific tasks, Quran either mentions specific name of the Angel or prophet. It also uses general term like messenger for Angel Gabriel. It depends on the wordings. For instance,

"....then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. — Quran, sura 19 (Maryam), ayat 17

If we want further research, we look into tafsir(explanation) to see which Angel God is talking about. And that is Gabriel talking about in this verse



Similarly, angels also came to ʾIbrāhīm (Abraham) in human form, and he was not aware that they were angels until they told him so. Lūṭ (Lot) also had angels come to him to warn him of the impending doom of his people. All angels praise and glorify God and they never become tired of doing this.

They celebrate His praises night and day, nor do they ever flag or intermit. — Quran, sura 21 (Al-Anbiya), ayah 20


Also mentioned them by general terms in this verse.

"O ye who believe! save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones, over which are (appointed) angels stern (and) severe, who flinch not (from executing) the Commands they receive from Allah, but do (precisely) what they are commanded.

— Quran, sura 66 (At-Tahrim), ayah


Here they are called messangers. The Quran also mentions that angels have qualities that may be typified by the word wings:


"Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who [b]made the angels, messengers with wings[/b],- two, or three, or four (pairs):...

— Quran, sura 35 (Fatir) ayah

The preceding sentence does not imply that all angels have two to four wings. Most notably, archangels (namely Gabriel and Michael) are described as having thousands of wings.


According to hadith collected by Muhammad al-Bukhari, Muhammad said that Gabriel possessed 600 wings;

Narrated Abu Ishaq-Ash-Shaibani:

I asked Zir bin Hubaish regarding the Statement of Allah: "And was at a distance Of but two bow-lengths Or (even) nearer; So did (Allah) convey The Inspiration to His slave (Gabriel) and then he (Gabriel) Conveyed (that to Muhammad). (53.9-10)[13] On that, Zir said, "Ibn Mas'ud informed us that the Prophet had seen Gabriel having 600 wings."


Does this sound like "angel" that dwells in you as Christians believe?. What I am trying to tell you is that Allah mentions Angel directly and indirectly in the Quran. For instance,

Gabriel (Jibreel) and Michael (Meekaal) are mentioned early on the Quran in sura Al-Baqarah:


"Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe,- Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith. — Quran, sura 2 (Al-Baqara) ayat 97-98


Another angel, Maalik is defined in the Quran as a being who is the warden of Hell. However Maalik is not an evil angel, nor a fallen one, a notion Islam rejects, rather Maalik is merely doing what he is commanded to do by God.


"They will cry: "O Malik! would that thy Lord put an end to us!" He will say, "Nay, but ye shall abide!" — Quran, sura 43 (Az-Zukhruf ) ayah 77

Now why is it that when Gabriel was sent to Mary he was called,"... our angel, and [color=#990000]he appeared before her as a man in all respects"

But why the change in nomenclature such that he was called the Holy Spirit?

Is it that:
1. He was so called when he appeared to Mary because he was in the form of a man; and
2. He was so called when he appeared to Muhammed because he came as a spirit?

Now ,since Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit in John 14 & 15 and Holy Spirit is called in the Aramaic Bible (Aramaic being the language Jesus spoke)

Holy Spirit or Ghost in Syriac Aramaic is [b]Rukha d'qudsha. Rukha is spirit ,d'qudsha is holy. {You will agree with me that this is very similar to the arabic Ruh al-Qudus)

1. Why do muslims claim the Holy Spirit is Muhammed if the Quran says it's Gabriel?
2. Why would Jesus promise to send an angel who already heralded His birth?

.

Empiree:
Well, from Islamic perceptive, they were not forbidden certain food until they started to disobey God.

Sura 3:93

"All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel Made unlawful for itself, before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say: "Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth."

They used to be believers until after God saved them from pharaoh. Then they defiled Moses and God's command. It was then certain things are forbidden and they are cursed not only by God but also by Jesus and David (peace be upon them)



This is when they used to believe and covenant was intact.

But the covenant of the OT was officially courted after they left Egypt as seen in Exodus 24:7,8

7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.

They could not have kept the Covenant in egypt since all these took place after they had left Egypt!

"And We made from among them (Children of Israel), leaders, giving guidance under Our Command, when they were patient and used to believe with certainty in Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)." - 32:24



And, indeed We gave Musa (Moses) the guidance, and We caused the Children of Israel to inherit the Scripture [i.e. the Taurat (Torah)], - 40:53


O Children of Israel! call to mind the special favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message). - 2:122


And after their persistence disbelieve and disobedience, they were cursed.


"Those of the Children of Israel who went astray were cursed by the tongue of David, and of Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they rebelled and used to transgress." - 5:78

Empiree:
Malaikat

Then why the change when it got to Gabriel?

Empiree:
Everything you said up there really has nothing to do with covenant at all. And @underlined, that's laughable, I am not denying having good heart but your Bible clearly said pork meat is unclean and you should not eat it. How is that correlate with covenant?. How is someone's heart be sound if he eat forbidden and unclean meats. We already talked about that in the link given earlier. Covenant is about:

Regarding the highlighted, the writings of the prophets are there for all to see! We cannot edit that now and give terms based on our opinions!

*******Worshiping God i:e correct religion - Islam

*******Righteous conduct

These are the covenant made with Abraham and his progeny. I providede the verse of the Quran earlier and here it is again.


And (remember) when the Lord of Ibrahim (Abraham) [i.e., Allah] tried him with (certain) Commands, which he fulfilled. He (Allah) said (to him), "Verily, I am going to make you a leader (Prophet) of mankind." [Ibrahim (Abraham)] said, "And of my offspring (to make leaders)." (Allah) said, "My Covenant (Prophethood, etc.) includes not Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers)."

The promise I have in mind is this that was passed from Abraham to Isaac:
18 and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. 19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose
Genesis 22:18

4 and I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
Genesis 26:4

This Seed that was to be a Blessing to the Whole World Is Jesus Christ! He is The Messenger of the Covenant and that is why He said:

28 for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matthew 26;28

The OT was a covenant but it also had to be sealed by blood:
Exodus 24:7
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.

Meaning we cant talk of a Covenant without the Blood!

I hope you ponder over the verse carefully. After Abraham(p) was tried (tested), he passed. And God said he would make him a leader. Read Abraham's statement. He asked Allah if He would make leaders from his offspring?. Allah replied that His (God) covenant is ONLY restricted to believers i:e those who obey and submit. This covenant is reiterated again in sura Israil (chpater 17 of the Quran). Children of Israel rejected God's commands to worship Him alone and to not eat certain food and obey God. But they always defiled God. The same thing you you here. You defiled God after Bible verse clearly said not to eat pork.

Jesus said these defile:

19 Since it does not reach and enter his heart but [only his] digestive tract, and so passes on [into the place designed to receive waste]? Thus He was making and declaring all foods [ceremonially] clean [that is, [h]abolishing the ceremonial distinctions of the Levitical Law].
20 And He said, What comes out of a man is what makes a man unclean and renders [him] unhallowed.
21 For from within, [that is] out of the hearts of men, come base and wicked thoughts, sexual immorality, stealing, murder, adultery,
22 Coveting (a greedy desire to have more wealth), dangerous and destructive wickedness, deceit; [i]unrestrained (indecent) conduct; an evil eye (envy), slander (evil speaking, malicious misrepresentation, abusiveness), pride ([j]the sin of an uplifted heart against God and man), foolishness (folly, lack of sense, recklessness, thoughtlessness).
23 All these evil [purposes and desires] come from within, and they make the man unclean and render him unhallowed.
Mark 7:19-23 (AMPLIFIED)

The Amplified expresses the shades and nuances not covered by the limitations of the English language: Now let's see the KJV of vs 19

19 because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

As followers of Christ, this is where we stand!!! (And at least you can see that Paul was not contradicting Christ)!

Now was that part in the original? Let's see:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/7-19.htm

3754 [e]
19 hoti
19 ὅτι
19 because
19 Conj
3756 [e]
ouk
οὐκ
not
Adv
1531 [e]
eisporeuetai
εἰσπορεύεται
it enters
V-PIM/P-3S
846 [e]
autou
αὐτοῦ
of him
PPro-GM3S
1519 [e]
eis
εἰς
into
Prep
3588 [e]
tēn
τὴν
the
Art-AFS
2588 [e]
kardian
καρδίαν ,
heart
N-AFS
235 [e]
all’
ἀλλ’
but
Conj
1519 [e]
eis
εἰς
into
Prep
3588 [e]
tēn
τὴν
the
Art-AFS
2836 [e]
koilian
κοιλίαν ,
belly
N-AFS
2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and
Conj
1519 [e]
eis
εἰς
into
Prep
3588 [e]
ton
τὸν
the
Art-AMS
856 [e]
aphedrōna
ἀφεδρῶνα
draught
N-AMS
1607 [e]
ekporeuetai
ἐκπορεύεται .
goes out
V-PIM/P-3S
2511 [e]
katharizōn
καθαρίζων
purifying
V-PPA-NMS
3956 [e]
panta
πάντα
all
Adj-ANP
3588 [e]
ta
τὰ
the
Art-ANP
1033 [e]
brōmata
βρώματα .
food
N-ANP

At your own pace, go and study sura 17 of the Quran where covenant was made with children of Israel. They violated God's Commands by worshiping golden calf, consuming riba (usury), killing prophets, eating forbidden meats. Because of these, they violated covenants and therefore they are not entitled to the Holy Land. That's the covenant. Only those who keep the covenants(muslims) are entailed the Deed of the only Land. This subject is a little complex.

The OT was not to be the final covenant. The key aspect of the framework - The Messiah - was left out and was still being expected! Every thing depended on God's timing .

Meaning that the Covenant is more than possession of a holy Land or other material externals if we would be true to the framework viz: God's oath to Abraham![/quote]

Empiree:
Angels have various task. Jubril(Gabriel) alaiy salaam is what I termed "human affairs". That's his task. Other Angels have their various tasks as well.

Angel Mikail(Michael), -in charge of rain, food etc

Israfil - Trumpeter

Asrail - Angel of death etc

Jubril being the popular one and brought down the Quran is usually described as Holy Spirit or ruh. And sometimes, Quran specifically mentioned his name, Jubril. He was the same Angel who appeared to Mary(mother of Jesus) pace be upon her. He was the same Angel who appeared to Muhammad(peace be upon him) and other prophets and messangers. This is different from Angels dwelling inside of us as Christians opined. That is called nafs i:e soul.

What are Angels generally called in the Quran?

Now Mr Lexicon, even the Quran realises that the Holy Spirit is not Muhammed! What then?
A bro of yours(Empiree) said , according to the Quran, Holy Spirit = Angel Gabriel. I want to know if that name is reserved only for Gabriel in the Quran or all angels therein. (i guess he will answer that when he is less busy)

If it be so, how then do you claim when Jesus spoke about sending the Holy Spirit, He was referring to a man when the Quran does not recognize the Personality to be a man? Besides, we have copious examples of the activities of the Holy Spirit (though temporary) in the OT. Do you have evidences for:
1. Activities of Gabriel as the Holy Spirit prior to Mohammed's time among the Arabs? If yes pls give samples

2. You may also want to consider helping out on the question posed to your bro.

ONLY THE TRUTH GETS SUCH ATTACKS BUT GOD IS FAITHFUL TO PRESERVE HIS WORD!

IT'S NOT A SKILL HE RECENTLY MANAGED TO LEARN!

Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

Authors David W. Daniels and Jack McElroy answer questions critics ask about the King James Bible.
Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
[/size[size=8pt]]1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.
So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written.

The Greek and Roman Institutions

During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.

A Trail of Evidence

[b]But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.
The Vaudois
[/b]
Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).

And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words.


http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

Very nice piece! Problem with the Prosperity Gospel is that it ignores the Lordship of Christ. This brand of christianity suggests that Paul must have made a mistake or not heard well when rather than being healed, he was given grace to endure!