₦airaland Forum

DrRasheed:
The long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20), for instance, is absent in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Despite the fact I corrected this false statement in my earlier post, u still brought it up. Anyway I will produce evidence to show u longer ending of Mark 16 existed even before codex sinaticus or vaticanus were written.

[i]Because of patristic evidence from the late 100s for the existence of copies of Mark with 16:9–20, scholars widely date the composition of the longer ending to the early 2nd century.
May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977.[/i]

The earliest clear evidence for Mark 16:9-20 as part of the Gospel of Mark is in Chapter XLV First Apology of Justin Martyr (155–157). In a passage in which Justin treats Psalm 110 as a Messianic prophecy, he states that Psalm 110:2 was fulfilled when Jesus' disciples, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere. His wording is remarkably similar to the wording of Mk. 16:20 and is consistent with Justin's use of a Synoptics-Harmony in which Mark 16:20 was blended with Lk. 24:53.

The Epistula Apostolorum (mid-late 2nd c.) likely incorporates all four Gospels, including the longer ending of Mark in sections 9-10, per the strong thematic, literary, and narrative sequence resemblance between the texts[59]

Justin's student Tatian incorporated almost all of Mark 16:9-20 into his Diatessaron (160–175), a blended narrative consisting of material from all four canonical Gospels.
Lunn, Nicholas. The Original Ending of Mark. Pickwick Publications, 2014, 74-75.

Besides, the Latin Vulgate written in 380 AD close to the time of Codes Synaticus and vaticanus has the longer ending of Mark chapter 16. So the idea that longer ending of chapter 16 is a later interpolation makes no sense.

DrRasheed:
The pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) is similarly absent in all early manuscripts before the 5th century and appears in varying locations, indicating it was a later insertion.

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7), which reads "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," does not appear in any Greek manuscript before the 14th century and only entered the Latin Vulgate in the 6th century. This fabricated verse then shaped Trinitarian theology in Europe for centuries despite having no basis in early manuscripts.

Once again, stop looking at the bible with a eurocentric lens, whatever Europe did with their bible version should not rub on others. We know how western Christians justified transatlantic slave trade with the use of the bible for over 300 years. As I already said, the western europe bible version of Latin and byzantine texts may have been corrupted BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE BIBLE IS CORRUPTED.
EVERYBODY SHOULD CARRY THEIR OWN SIN- that's what u guys preach in your religion. Let's it application be uniform.

DrRasheed:
Regarding non-European Biblical traditions, such as the Coptic, Syriac (Peshitta), and Ge'ez texts, it is true that they preserve certain readings not found in Western manuscripts. However, they also contain their own variants and were all translated from Greek originals that were themselves in flux. No ancient Christian tradition—Eastern or Western—possesses a manuscript lineage that traces directly and unaltered to the original writings of the apostles.

Unfortunately u are not a bible scholar so your big words mean nothing. Let's ask what the scholars have to say about preservation of the non- european bible texts.

[i]Over the centuries, the Peshitta textual integrity has been preserved through critical scholarship, manuscript discoveries, and modern translations.
Critical Editions of the Peshitta New Testament

Bruce M. Metzger, a renowned textual critic, describes the Peshitta as:
"Careful, faithful, and literal," sometimes referred to as the "Queen of the versions."
— The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations, Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 50.


"If modern scholarship shows that the Peshitta is historically reliable as an ancient version of the New Testament that predates the Greek manuscripts, we would not be able to say that the Greek version is corrupted. What we would be able to say is that the Greek-based translations are so extremely similar to the Aramaic Peshitta... that the two texts are virtually identical."
— Was the Bible Corrupted? Part 2: Peshitta, Historical Bible Society.

DrRasheed:
For example, the oldest Syriac manuscript of the Gospels (Curetonian Gospels) dates to the 5th century, long after the canonical texts were written. These versions reflect theological and textual decisions made long after the original teachings of Jesus.

This is a serious accusation that demands hardcore evidence.
anyway read here about transmission of the syriac text from the 2nd century...https://uasvbible.org/2024/12/30/in-depth-how-have-the-ancient-syriac-versions-preserved-the-new-testament/

DrRasheed:
In contrast, the Bible lacks any centralized, contemporaneous compilation effort. The four canonical Gospels were written between 65 and 100 CE—decades after Jesus—and none of the original autographs exist.

point of correction, the 3 synoptic gospel were written prior to the fall of the Jerusalem in 70 AD. The gospel of Luke was definitely written before 62 AD.

DrRasheed:
The earliest nearly complete New Testament manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date to the 4th century (around 325–360 CE). Between the 2nd and 4th centuries, numerous manuscripts show wide variation. According to Dr. Bart Ehrman, there are over 400,000 textual variants among the existing Greek manuscripts—more variants than there are words in the New Testament. Many of these are minor, but some involve entire passages.

The highlighted is not true.
The widest variation in our manuscripts lies btw extant of 5th to 10th century.
extant manuscripts btw 2nd to 4th are very much preserved with insignificant theological variant if any. There's a reason bible scholars now say the gospel was corrupted in the 1st century AD.
They found out that copy of the gospels dated 2nd to 4th do not have those theological interpolation or corruptions they desperately want to see.

DrRasheed:
You are mistaken qiraats as translations which is very much laughable, but I will excuse you being non Muslim. Let's dissect this together please. Take your time to verify everything here.

ok as usual for muslims and atheist apologists, their epistles is filled with bunch of opinion laced with conjectures and fabrications without any factual evidence to back any claim made
Now see how I will reply with evidence, I don't make claim without producing evidence. So I expect u to do the same otherwise we can both call it a day.

DrRasheed:
The Quran’s preservation is anchored in both oral and written transmission. During the Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime (570–632 CE), the Quran was memorized in full by companions such as Zayd ibn Thabit and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, and it was also written down on parchments, bones, and other materials. After the Prophet’s death, the first compilation was initiated by Abu Bakr around 633 CE following the Battle of Yamama.

This project, led by Zayd ibn Thabit, was supervised by senior companions and was later inherited by Caliph Umar and then Hafsa, the Prophet’s widow. Around 650 CE, Uthman standardized the Quran to prevent dialectal disputes and distributed the standardized copies to major cities. This process was not arbitrary—it was done by a committee that included those who had memorized and written the Quran during the Prophet’s lifetime.

As usual you conveniently ignored the biggest elephant in the room when it comes to codification of the Uthman Quran- Ibn Masood, one of your greatest reciters of the Quran rejected it calling the work 'deceit'

Muhammed regarded Ibn Masood one of the greatest reciters ever and advised people to learn Quran from him.

Narrated Masruq: [...] I heard the Prophet saying, "Take (learn) the Qur'an from four (men): `Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b." (Sahih al-Bukhari 4999; vol 6, bk 61, no 521)

Yet the one Your Prophet trusted with the transmission, teaching and preservation of the Quran called the one u are holding a corrupt version. Ibn Mosood compiled his own Quran, it had 111 chapters, the one u have has 114 chapters!!!

Abdullah Ibn Masud said, “I recited from the Messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had perfected before Zaid Ibn Thabit had embraced Islam.” (The Codices of Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b, – Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif, p. 17)

“I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah?” (Ibid., p. 15)

When Uthman's agents came to Kufa to burn all the variants, Abd Allah Ibn Masud hid his copy of Quran from them and told his followers to do the same. He justified his own version of the recitation by reminding people: "I recited before Allah's Messenger more than seventy suras of the Qur'an. His Companions know that I have a better understanding of Allah's Book than they do; and if I were to know that someone had a better understanding than I have, I would have gone to him." It was said that nobody could find fault with Abd Allah's version
(Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 6022)

Except u telling me Ibn Masud a great reciter recommended by Muhammed had poor knowledge of qarat or whatever dialectical argument u making, sorry your case is weak.
The Quran wasn't preserved from the original source. QED.

DrRasheed:
The burning of variant texts was not a suppression of theological differences, but a unification of dialectal variations.

Yes it is. Uthman suppressed versions of Quran he didn't like and had them burnt, when he had no authority to do so.

The Prophet Muhammad said: “The Koran was revealed in seven dialects, all of them are right and perfect.” When Uthman banned whichever he banned from the Koran, and burned whichever he burned, he banned passages Allah has revealed and burned parts of the Koran which were given to the Muslims by the Messenger of Allah. He appointed a small group of Sahaba (close friends of Muhammad) to rewrite the Koran and left out those who heard the Prophet and memorized what he said. When Ibn Massoud objected to the burning of the other codices of the Koran, Uthman had him taken out of the mosque with violence, and struck him to the ground, and broke one of his ribs. (Hussein, A-Fitnato Al-Kobra [The Great Sedition], pp. 160-161, 181-182)


It's pertinent to note that it wasn't only Ibn Masud that rejected the Uthman codex. Another great reciter, someone Muhammed called the best of all reciters Ibn Ubay also denounced Uthman codex.

Narrated Ibn Abbas: Umar said, "Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave (out) some of what he recites". Ubayy says, "I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever". (Sahih al-Bukhari 5005; vol 6, bk 61, no 527)
Ubay actually compiled his own Quran which had 116 chapters-2 more than the Uthman Quran and rejected that compiled by Zaid, he continued using his own Quran for instruction and teaching in Syria where he lived.

Other prominent companions of Muhammed complained important verses and chapters were reportedly declared missing in the Uthman Quranic codex. These were not qarats, but words of Allah removed from the Quran.

According to Ibn Umar and Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, one chapter, Surah al-Ahzab had 200 verses in Muhammad’s time. Yet, once Uthman was finished only 73 verses remained, eliminating nearly 140 verses. This tradition is also confirmed by Ubay b. Kabb. (Al-Suyuti’s al-Itqan fii ulum al-Qur'an on nasikh wa mansukh and Darwaza’s al-Qur'an Al-Majid)

It's so obvious the Uthman codex that Muslims used today is a corrupted work of Uthman and can't be traced to the mouth of their Prophet. The preservation of the modern day Quran terminates with Caliphate Uthman. He knew it and that's why he used heavy suppression and intimidation to ensure its survival.

What Uthman did can be compared to early Christians destroying the Gospel according to Mark, Luke, and John, and just keeping Matthew. This may have made things simpler, but Christianity is richer for having preserved all these different testimonies, and Islam is poorer for having destroyed these other testimonies to the Qur’an. The result is that today we have only one testimony to what Muhammad recited. The testimony of the other collections is almost totally lost.

DrRasheed:
Unlike the Bible, no variant Quranic manuscript has ever been discovered containing extra chapters or contradicting the theological core of the text. Manuscripts like the Sanaa palimpsest (dated between 650–705 CE by radiocarbon testing) match the Uthmanic text with only minor orthographic and non-theological differences.

The sana manuscript did not match your modern Quran in anyway. Just don't say it, bring evidence from non Muslims Quranic scholars
that says Sana manuscript is almost the same as your Quran. If anything, what scholars are saying is that the lower text of the manuscript is very similar to the Ibn Masud codex.

DrRasheed:
You accuse me of dabbling into textual criticism, but that’s precisely where the core issue lies. If we're evaluating whether the Bible has been preserved or altered, then we must look at the actual manuscripts—where we find undeniable inconsistencies, additions, and omissions that go far beyond simple “textual variation.”

You argue that because no single passage is altered uniformly across all ancient versions, we can't call the Bible corrupt. But that logic is flawed. Corruption doesn't require universal uniformity.

Then same standard should be applied to the Quran. The perfect preservation of the Quran cannot be traced to the original source- Muhammed, but only to the Uthman caliphate. Prior to that there were different Quranic versions flying around and they don't always agree.

DrRasheed:
A single corrupted tradition—especially if it influences major translations and theology, like the Latin Vulgate or KJV—introduces error into the religious understanding of millions. The Johannine Comma, for instance, may not exist in early Eastern manuscripts, but it did make its way into Western canon and was used for centuries to justify the doctrine of the Trinity. That alone demonstrates how serious the impact of a single textual addition can be.

claiming Johannine comma bears any weight to trinity is laughable. The eastern churches were the vanguard and champions of Trinity, yet their bible versions don't have the Johannine comma. 90% of the bishops who voted for Trinity in the nicene council came from the eastern churches. In fact, there was no Johannine comma in any 4th century bible when the Trinity concept was established. Johannine comma appeared in the Latin biblical versions around the 6th century.

DrRasheed:
You also try to deflect by pointing to the Qur'an and the Sana'a manuscript. However, unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has a clearly documented and centralized process of canonization under Uthman, with variant readings (qira’at) preserved and classified—not hidden or quietly inserted over centuries like many biblical interpolations.

Preservation of the Quran up to Uthman is inconsequential and irrelevant, the Quran didn't originate from Uthman; whatever was achieved during his time means nothing. what matters is preservation of the Quran prior to Uthman. And we know the Quran wasn't preserved perfectly in anyway b4 Uthman codex was standardized.
Ibn masud and Ibn Ubay both had their own codex, where are they? Both disagreed with the Uthman codex and Ibn Masud deemed it a corrupted text. Ironically, these 2 were considered the best of reciters by Muhammed himself yet they rejected the Quran compiled under Uthman authority.
To make matters worse, Uthman ordered all textual variants of the Quran to be burnt except his own. That action alone is very disturbing because he had no authority to do so.

DrRasheed:
The fact that different Bible versions disagree on whether certain passages are scripture (like Mark 16:9–20 or John 7:53–8:11) is not a minor issue—it’s a glaring sign that we are not dealing with a perfectly preserved revelation.

Bible compilation has always been decentralised right from the inception and there was never an attempt centralize its compilation at any point in history. variation will always arise due to human nature. That's a fact.
But the early church fathers were honest and transparent enough to acknowledge these variants even in the 2nd century and they talked about it. What they didn't do is burn or destroy any copy of the bible they didn't agree with. They let them be. That's intellectual honesty.
Imagine if King James had ordered all prior manuscript to be burnt after production of KJV or Father Jerome destroyed all copies of the bible after compiling the Latin vulgate, no one will know of any shorter ending of Mark or 1 John 5.7. Of course, it would have been easy for them to lie that the bible is preserved all the way to the apostles, but that would have been a very disingenuous act....exactly what Uthman did by burning previous Quranic text.

For example both the longer and shorter ending of Mark 16 was well known to early church Fathers in the 2nd century. The oldest copy of Mark 16 Epistula Apostolorum dated 120 AD has the longer ending. Both Justyn Martyr and Irenaeus quoted from the longer ending of Mark 16 in 150 and 180 AD respectivley.
Eusebius of Caesarea admitted both versions of Mark 16 were read in early churches , and advised the congregation to use the shorter version for preaching, he never told them to destroy the longer version.

DrRasheed:
So no, this isn’t just “textual variation.” It is textual instability that undermines the claim of divine preservation. If God's word was meant to guide all people, shouldn’t it have been protected from such confusion?

U are simply a victim of eurocentric world without even knowing.
Now some Christian sect in other regions of the world preserved their text and avoided interpolation, but u are telling me their own version of the bible is corrupt because the European churches allowed interpolation into their own version of the bible!!!!
Mr Man, the bible wasn't compiled by europeans neither do they have monopoly over it. WHAT YOU SHOULD SAY IS THE EUROPEAN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE SOURCED FROM LATIN AND BYZANTINE TEXTS ARE FLAWED OR IS CORRUPT- ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IS A BIZZARE STATEMENT LACKING IN ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

EVEN BIBLE SCHOLARS ADMIT THE COPTIC, PESHITTA AND GE'EZ ARE WELL PRESERVED BIBLE VERSIONS.

When bible scholars in the 16-18th century in Europe decided to use ancient manuscript for translation, they noticed the discrepancy in the contemporary Latin and Byzantine biblical texts sourced from the LV and ancient greek texts; without any regard for bible versions in other regions, these european scholars came to the conclusion the bible is corrupt.
However by the 20th century, when thousands of non european bible manuscripts were discovered, it was obvious these interpolations wasn't uniform and the appropriate terminology is textual variance NOT corruption.

Finally I noticed u mentioned adulteress pericope as a corruption. No it's not. The passage in John 7-8 is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Early church fathers confirmed the adulteress pericope was part of the oral gospel and a historical tradition taught and passed down by the apostles to the church.
so kindly remove it as a corruption, its not.

Antichristian2:
Which verse of Matthew or Acts mentions the authorities?

(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Acts 1:18 Judas or the authorities?



But i read somewhere that the landed area is now a church now!

Mathew 27.
5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

I'm referring to ancient Jewish custom not modern ones.

DrRasheed:
Early versions of the Bible, including the Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Coptic Bible, the Armenian Bible, and the Gothic Bible, do not align perfectly. In fact, some verses appear in certain versions but are entirely absent in others, while many others are worded differently or contain additions and omissions that affect their meaning. For instance, the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20) and the story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53–8:11) are among the most notable examples of such textual discrepancies. These variations indicate not just simple copying mistakes but point to a deeper issue of alteration over time.

U did not answer my question. Instead U dabbled into textual criticism and I'm not sure how knowledgeable U are in that regards.

If there's no uniform alteration of a passage in all our ancient bible versions, then U can't say the bible is corrupt.
It only means there's textual variation in our ancient extant manuscripts. Which means some bible versions still held onto the preserved transmission of prior scriptures.

For example the Johannine comma 1 John 5.7 is not seen in any coptic, Syriac, Ge'ez, Armenian, Georgian bible- ancient or modern. It's not seen in the Ethiopian Garima gospel as well.
Thus, claiming the bible is corrupt because of presence of Johannine comma makes no sense because majority of our independent ancient bible versions don't have it.
Rather it's a textual variance seen in Latin Vulgate and subsequent translations that used LV as their source.

Textual variant is not a problem of the bible alone. Quran also has same issue. The discovery of Sana manuscript found in Yemen, the codex of Ibn Masud shows there were definitely textual variance in ancient Quranic versions and these versions don't always agree.

I was initially against this Troare guy because I felt he was doing too much showmanship on social media and pushing propaganda.

But recent narratives shows he's working. He has set up processing plants for cashew, cotton and gold. He announced they will no longer be exported raw.

That's what Africa needs, a thinking leader. A leader that knows how to develop the land and exploit the economic opportunities to improve the standard of living of his people.

Burkina Faso is by all indices a poor country so eradicating poverty is not going to be a magic wand.
But what we want to see is a leader doing something about it.

And western nations should learn to mind their business. They have created enough chaos in the world to last a century, they should give it a rest.

Besides they now have too many embarrassing problems in their home country to keep their govt very busy.
Homelessness, stagnant wages, rising cost of living, dilapidated infrastructure, poor social mobility, rising poverty among the working class, safety issue, high level of depression and hopelessness.
Any country that has these number of problems shouldn't be telling other countries how to run their nation

TimeManager:
Every indices are getting worse both human development index, security index and human right index. It's all about media window dressing for him just like a certain candidate in Nigeria who loves moving around with cameras.


-Kiss the truth!

U should be ashamed of yourself.
The best performing economy nations right now are not democratic nations
UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, China.

Travel to Dubai and see the mounting number of westerners making it home working common jobs like teachers and customer care.
There are over 250 thousand British living in Dubai as at this year.
Yet Dubai is non democratic.

Democracy had his day but what people need now is economic opportunities. If it's a authoritarian that can deliver, then let him be.

I was thinking U will highlight his economic failure only for U to dabble into anti democratic tendency

Who democracy help. We have seen democracy govt all over the world and we now know it's not a panacea to development.

Antichristian2:
Was it same Judas that threw the 💰 on the ground and went to hang himself picked the money again to buy the land?

The authorities bought the field with Judas' money. It was blood money and couldn't put the money in the treasury.
They used the money to buy the land where Judas hanged himself.

Death by suicide hanging is abominable in Jewish custom, it was going to be difficult to sell the land to someone.
The practical thing was to buy it and use it as a graveyard for strangers and foreigners.

Dogalmighty17:
You'd need to know that none of the gospels were actually written by the apostles they were named after. And the earliest of them was written 70 years after the death of Jesus. It is hard remembering in detail incidents that happened decades ago. Even more so when the author didn't witness it but is writing based on narratives that were passed down.

The Bible is filled with such contradictions.

If I ask U to produce evidence for your bogus claim now, wahala go start.
U will begin to write long essay devoid of any evidence.
Na the issue I'm facing with one of U here called Lucyfre.

I wrote earlier that Kemi is fighting too many battles at once, unfortunately she didnt't listen. she was determined to be the next Margaret Tatcher of uk.
The truth is Kemi just doesnt have it in her as a leader. she lacked the charisma and focus. maybe she's better off as a technocrat or something.
Too much unnecessary energy dissipation, fought imaginary enemies and didn't get it right being an ethnic minority in that position.
I think being married to a white man got too much into her head and was carried away thinking she's somehow white.

There are things Donald Trump as a white man can say and get away it, Barack Obama dare not utter it, he will be impeached the next day.
Another person that will bite the dust if he continues with his delusion is Vivek Ramaswamy- america no dey too waste time reminding you who u be.

besides being the saviour of western civilisation is useless. western civilisation is declining and uk in particular dont want to be saved. it's too late or should I say the system is too broken to be repaired. Everybody is simply waiting for western civilisation to implode.
I doubt much can be done about it anyway

DrRasheed:
honestly speaking it does meet the requirements, sometimes even outweighs the requirements cuz I apply for lower positions too

I don't have access to the email anymore.
Look for any of my religious post and drop your response.

creativejagaban:
The feature will not be effective because if raccoon blocks me and mrvitalis quotes my post, raccoon may then see my post via the mrvitalis' quote

I.rhink it's targeted if U don't some people quoting U.

DrRasheed:
Examples:
- 1 John 5:7 (the "Trinity verse" appears in the King James Version but is absent in many modern translations because it was found to be a later addition and not in the earliest Greek manuscripts.
- Mark 16:9-20 (the "Long Ending of Mark" is also missing or footnoted in modern translations because the earliest and most reliable manuscripts end at Mark 16:8.

These are not just about English understanding — they are about real textual differences that scholars, including Christian scholars, openly acknowledge.

In contrast, the Quran has one text in Arabic globally, unchanged for over 1400 years — and every translation is called just a "translation," not a "version."
So it's not fear that's the reason Muslims do not convert; it's faith, reason, and textual consistency that give many Muslims confidence in Islam.

are those textual variant u mentioned seen in all ancient bible versions at that time?

what I mean is if I open the peshitta, latin vulgate, greek manuscript, armenian bible, coptic new testament, Garima gospel, gothic bible, all written the 5th century; will I find these so called corrupted verses in all these bible versions?

Truthseeker10:
So if Jesus disciples are one-meaning that they are united with other believers as Christ body, what does Jesus and his father are one mean? Does it mean that Jesus and his father have one body or that they are united in what they do?

John 17:22.KJV.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one


One existence as what, one person?

Believers including Jesus disciples are one as a church.

Father and Jesus are one in divinity. The head of the church.

U don't extrapolate things of the physical world unto the spirit realm. That the Church is the body of Christ and he's the heas doesn't mean we referring to a physical body.
It's a metaphorical way to explain the relationship between the church and God.

Existence as a being. A being is an existence.
God is ONE BEING, HE'S ONE EXISTENCE.

PERSON IS MANIFESTATION/FUNCTIONALITY OF A BEING.

MAN IS A BEING- ONE EXISTENCE WHO MANIFEST (normally) AS ONE PERSON.

GOD IS A BEING- ONE EXISTENCE, WHO MANIFEST AS THREE PERSON.

Truthseeker10:
What exactly is the church, The people or the building?

When you say God is one, are you saying God is one person?

Bible defines the church- the body of Christ. When U follow Jesus Christ, U are united with other believers in Christ's body which is the church and Christ is the head of the church.

Buildings cannot be church, and do not confuse denominations with church.

God is one existence.

Truthseeker10:
What does it mean for Jesus disciples to be inseparable as the church and what part of divinity was Jesus and God inseparable?

The church is the spiritual unity of all Christians. The church makes all Christians ONE which is the body of Christ.

The divinity is what makes the Father and Jesus God. The divinity has no part, it's one.
God is One.

Abraham couldn't have been a Muslim, he saw God entered his creation and had a physical encounter with him here on earth.

Moses couldn't have been a Muslim, God told Moses to call him Father.

David couldn't have been a Muslim, he sang and DANCED unto the Lord.

Elijah couldn't have been a Muslim, his name means My God is YHWH

Jesus couldn't have been a Muslim, he called God Father.

Truthseeker10:
John 17:21 below. Was Jesus praying for his disciples to be equal with the father?

King James Bible
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Who and who is one?
Is English comprehension that difficult for U?

When did 'in us' mean 'with us'

The verse said Jesus prayed for the disciples to be ONE- inseparable as the church, just as him and Father are one- inseparable in divinity.
Then the church to be inside God.

So how does above translate to disciples being one with God? 🤷🤷🤷

Now let's understand what it means to live in God.

1 John 4
12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
13 This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit.

15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them


As we can see, John 17.21 NEVER SAID DISCIPLE ARE ONE WITH GOD INSTEAD IT AFFIRMS ONE OF OUR CORE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE- WE ARE IN GOD JUST AS GOD IS IN US.
THAT WE ARE IN GOD DOESN'T MEAN WE SHARE HIS DIVINITY.

Westerhoffe:
Question 1.
Let Kobojunkie, MaxInDHouse, or who is this third guy… I've forgotten his moniker, they can answer that question.

Question 2.
Let me ask you, do you think a soul, has no body in its realm?

Man is a spirit that dwells in a body with a soul.

Now are U saying that's the same for God?

Are U saying God is a spirit with a body?

I relate U with Jehovah witness because they are ones that claim God has a body in order to deny the deity of Christ.

Truthseeker10:
Kindly show me where Jesus said he was equal with the Father since you are claiming that The jews were correct in their deduction.

If the Jews were wrong, the scripture will say so.
That statement is too powerful to slip by without correction if it was a wrong deduction.
The writer of the gospel of John had the holy spirit in him when he wrote the book!!!

If you reject it, that's on you.

Anyway Jesus said elsewhere
John 10
30'I and the Father are One'
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him,

[quote author=Westerhoffe post=135089323][/quote]Let me ask u 2 questions.

1. are u Jehovah witness?

2. Does God have a body?

Lucifyre:
😅 The narrow minded view portrayed by the bolded immediately spelt out this is an epistle of dross sprinkled with typical indoctrinated nonsense that i have no interest in reading through. Just the typical frothing at the mouth by the delusional once their baseless beliefs are held under a microscope. I couldn't care less about you accepting whatever 'opinion', as that's a fool's errand i have no intention of running.

Luckily facts are facts and objective despite subjective opinions or beliefs. Your accepting or not accepting them is of no value. Just like there are simpletons who say the earth is flat, it doesn't change the fact it's spherical despite their baseless opinion and beliefs. The irony here being that even those who believe in non-eyewitness testimony over empirical evidence can't even agree and come to a single objective conclusion.

They can neither agree on the actual collection of the contradictory baseless pseudepigraphic texts, neither can they come to a conclusion on the interpretation of said texts as no 2 christains agree on interpretation of the texts from cover to cover. Instead, split up in 45,000 ways of differing opinions, raising noses at each other and even outrightly killing each other with a god whose not an author of confusion at the centre of the circus and clown show.

And somehow this subjective baseless undemonstrable and inconsistent clownshow with zero evidence of the mythological claims, has weight over factual objective empirical evidence. An unfunny joke if I've ever heard one. Maybe instead of frothing at the mouth as if rabid, you guys put that energy into getting the circus of clowns together to form an objective stance with an objective canon and noncontradictory texts with eyewitness testimony at least.

Maybe just maybe when the circus gets its act together, then unverifiable contradictory non-eyewitness testimonies would outweigh objective empirical evidence. Have a nice life ✌🏾

None early church Fathers contradicted each other when it comes to the authorship of the gospel. None.

These were men with independent mind and highly opinionated who were never afraid to call out whatever they think it's wrong or false
Yes they didn't always agree on so many things pertaining to their beliefs.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE 4 GOSPELS, THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT AMONGST ALL EARLY CHURCH FATHERS IRRESPECTIVE OF SECTS THAT THE GOSPELS HAD THE CORRECT AUTHOR PINNED TO IT.

NONE CHALLENGED THE CLAIM OR DOUBTED IT OR MADE A CONTRARY THE CLAIM.

NONE EVER ASCRIBED A CONTRARY NAME TO ANY OF THE GOSPEL.

NONE EVER CALLED THE 4 GOSPELS PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, NONE EVER SAID 'WE DONT KNOW WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS.'

NO WONDER THE EARLY CHURCH CALLED THEM MEMOIRS.
A BOOK WRITTEN BY AN EYEWITNESS.

You can continue to deluded yourself with bias, subjective, non-substantiated, non factual evidence thrown around by historians calling themselves bible scholars.

I CHALLENGE U TO BRING ONE FACTUAL EVIDENCE...JUST ONE, THAT PROVES THE BIBLE AUTHORS IS ANONYMOUS.

Here is another factual evidence from one of the church fathers stating who wrote the gospel of Mark.

Lucifyre:
😅 The narrow minded view portrayed by the bolded immediately spelt out this is an epistle of dross sprinkled with typical indoctrinated nonsense that i have no interest in reading through. Just the typical frothing at the mouth by the delusional once their baseless beliefs are held under a microscope. I couldn't care less about you accepting whatever 'opinion', as that's a fool's errand i have no intention of running.

Luckily facts are facts and objective despite subjective opinions or beliefs. Your accepting or not accepting them is of no value. Just like there are simpletons who say the earth is flat, it doesn't change the fact it's spherical despite their baseless opinion and beliefs. The irony here being that even those who believe in non-eyewitness testimony over empirical evidence can't even agree and come to a single objective conclusion.

They can neither agree on the actual collection of the contradictory baseless pseudepigraphic texts, neither can they come to a conclusion on the interpretation of said texts as no 2 christains agree on interpretation of the texts from cover to cover. Instead, split up in 45,000 ways of differing opinions, raising noses at each other and even outrightly killing each other with a god whose not an author of confusion at the centre of the circus and clown show.

And somehow this subjective baseless undemonstrable and inconsistent clownshow with zero evidence of the mythological claims, has weight over factual objective empirical evidence. An unfunny joke if I've ever heard one. Maybe instead of frothing at the mouth as if rabid, you guys put that energy into getting the circus of clowns together to form an objective stance with an objective canon and noncontradictory texts with eyewitness testimony at least.

Maybe just maybe when the circus gets its act together, then unverifiable contradictory non-eyewitness testimonies would outweigh objective empirical evidence. Have a nice life ✌🏾

Joker.

Your whole ranting is based on subjective and non factual evidence
No bible scholar can produce any FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM OF ANONYMITY OF THE GOSPEL AUTHORSHIP OR DATING OF THE GOSPEL.

I REPEAT.

THERE IS NO FACTUAL OR OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT WHATEVER ANALYSIS THESE BIBLE SCHOLARS HAVE TO BACK THEIR CLAIM. NONE.

THAT IS WHY THERE IS ALWAYS A PROGRESSIVE SHIFT IN THEIR TRAIN OF THOUGHTS WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR Analysis OF THE BIBLE CRITICISM.

There was a time bible scholars claim the gospel of John isn't reliable. This was the case until the 1920s when archeological findings corroborated contents in the gospel of John; Now bible scholars have shifted to the topography and historical documentations in John's gospel are true but not the words attributed to Jesus.

If these are the people you want to gamble your life upon, then your case is hopeless.

This is what Father Clement has to say about the gospel of Mark. This is what we call factual evidence.

No bible scholar can bring anything close to back their claim of gospel authorship anonymity or dating.
I repeat None.

I challenge U to prove me wrong if U can.

Truthseeker10:
So how does all of that mean that he said he was equal to the Father?

Did U read that passage or U just want to argue.

The Jews said his statement connotes equality with the Father and wanted to kill him for saying such.

Westerhoffe:
So, to you, what John saw does not exist? Or is it just a dream?
Oh! I should have known you understand nothing of what I am saying even. So it's absolutely pointless discussing or explaining mysteries to someone like you.

When talking about GOD, don't you ever bring in anthropomorphism again.
You limit the capability of GOD in your words.
GOD is a Spirit, and He is not limited to space and matter because He created it, and He is outside of it.

What I saw is not my truth, but the truth of the personality of GOD in the form He manifested Himself to me. I don't need you to believe or not.

Then if God is a spirit, how can he have a face?

If God is a spirit, how can he be seen by John sitting on a physical throne?

If God is outside time and space, how can he sit on a throne. U need space to sit down my friend.

See as U are contradicting yourself up and down.

John himself said he was taken to heaven in the spirit, he didn't go to heaven physically.

Revelation 1
On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,


His vision was presented to him as anthropomorphism.

This is what Paul has to say about status of God in heaven.


1 Timothy 6.16
He alone is immortality, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him. No human eye has ever seen him, nor ever will. All honor and power to him forever! Amen.

So if U are telling me God visited U and saw his face physically in your revelation, I don't know what to say but it seems U are calling the scripture false.

This is what John himself u claim went to heaven physically has to say about visibility status of God.


John 1
18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.


A lot of U need lesson on bible theology, serious bible lesson.

I repeat Your personal testament is your own truth. Nothing more than that.

Westerhoffe:
What do you even call GOD?
Do you think GOD is limited by space and matter?

When the LORD JESUS CHRIST said what He said there, do you think He's saying, "I and my FATHER will constrain ourselves to one seat because we are limited by space and matter."

GOD IS A SPIRIT!

There was a time GOD showed Himself to me. He was full of majesty and glory, and right as He was standing about 30 feet away from me, as a single person standing, I could see three personalities manifesting in Him. All three personalities looked exactly the same, yet you could see the difference that still could not be differentiated. All three personalities were in a single person standing.

What about what sounds like the welcoming song and musicals that rang before He manifested?
My friend, walk with GOD in the Spirit, and you will know deep things that have not been written in any books you have ever read.

Walk with GOD to know the Mysteries of the Personality of GOD.

My friend, your testimony is a subjective evidence. It's your own truth.

We want objective evidence here which is what's written in the scripture.

U were the one who brought the issue of people sitting on a throne in the first place. And I asked U, how many people are sitting on the throne since we both agreed there's only one throne.

It's funny U making reference to space and matter to nullify why 2 people can't sit on a throne.
What U are ignorant of is that for any person to sit on the throne in the first place, U need space and matter.

Without space and matter, U can't sit on a throne or anything at all. Space is what enables U to sit down.

That's why I told U to go and read anthropomorphism.

John was taking to heaven in the spirit. What he wrote down was a vision, it was not a direct sight seeing.
Nobody is sitting on a physical throne in heaven.

Throne in heaven simply means highest level of majesty while face of God means his glory.

Lucifyre:
Unfortunately i don't do unverifiable conspiracy theories, it's above my expertise. I only deal on what's objectively factual regardless of opinion or belief. And the academic consensus through years of solid textual critical analysis, historical critical methods and archaeology leads to an objective consensus of the dates that state he is right, 80CE for Matthew with Luke and John much l8r.

A consensus likely older than you, unanimously present in all study bibles, papers and journals of which the excerpt I shared is taken from one(Oxford Annotated Bible With Apocrypha), with top and virtually all institutions like Havard and Stanford still teaching it with their top academics like Dale Martin and Christain Hayes or even othes like Bart, Mcclellan and Allison. There's a reason for a consenus and its cause it's factually right regardless of belief or conspiracy theory based on the available data and evidence.

Might want to get busy writing your paper and journal, getting it published to prove they were all written before 70 CE cause merely saying it doesn't make it factual. The only books of the new testament earlier than 70CE are Paul's letters of which he wrote just 8 of the 13.

Objective analysis based on some empirical evidence and academic historical criteria cannot negate or be superior to statements of early church Fathers who lived very much in the 1st and ealry 2nd century. Apostolic and early church Fathers told us who wrote the gospels and when it was written.

Telling me to accept opinions of some academicians whose statements fluctuates based on new extant manuscripts or some newly discovered historical piece of evidence over early church Fathers some of whom actually met the disciples of our Lord makes absolutely no sense.

And when U consider the reason why academic bible scholars pin the dating of the gospel to after 70 AD is due to the impossibility of Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem, it makes their whole academic argument ridiculous.

Yet we have the didache an eucharist used by Jewish Christians in the first century. It's theological similarity with the community rule of the dead sea scrolls proves it usage by early Christians Jews b4 the fall of Jerusalem.
This book is a carbon copy of the gospel of Mathew with many verses of the gospel quoted verbatim in the didache. This shows the gospel of Mathew was very much around before the fall of Jerusalem.

U and your likes will do well to study the writings of the early church Fathers b4 making obtuse conclusion based on emperical non factual academic argument.

For example, Father Clement of Alexandra and Father Pappais both confirmed Mark penned down the gospel of our Lord via the mouth of Peter while the later was preaching in Rome.

Father Justyn Mathias quoted from the gospel of mark and said the book was based on the gospel narrative from Peter.

These were all 1st and 2nd century church Fathers. Moreover, Pappais was known to have met Philip and John.

Furthermore, when U realise the gospels were initially called memoir of the apostles by the church in the 1st and 2nd century; the anonymous authorship claim to the gospels is baseless except U don't know the meaning of memoir.

Memoir means an historical account written by an eyewitness. This means the early church believed the gospels were written by people who actually witnessed the events they wrote down in the gospel books.

Now ignoring all these for some invented academic historical criteria such disbelieve in prophecy or predictions is the hallmark of FOOLISHNESS. This is the reason I abandoned atheism because it's so obvious it makes no sense.

Truthseeker10:
So if you call God your father, you are making yourself equal to God?

John 5.18 is about Jesus, the Son of God

The Jews accused him of breaking the sabbath and he replied that he's not bound by the sabbath law just like his Father isn't bound by it. thata's the context of the verse.

Westerhoffe:
The Bible said there that we shall see His face.
Seeing the FATHER through the Son?
The Bible mentioned one throne indeed, not two thrones; what does that tell you?
Our LORD JESUS CHRIST said:

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”
— Revelation 3:21 (KJV)

What is this verse telling you?

so u mean both Jesus and his Father will sit on one throne?
are u saying the 2 of them will share one throne

The face of God is his glory- learn about anthropomorphism.

Truthseeker10:
Are you insinuating that Jesus is equal to his Father?

John 5.18 is your answer.

For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.