Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Full story: Newsday

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Comments (Page 1,781)

Showing posts 35,601 - 35,620 of65,182
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38514
Jul 15, 2012
 
MAAT wrote:
Wow, how skittish!
I found that the husband should make a will to make sure his wife can live in the house for one more year and that she will have enough means to get during that time.
I suppose that after that time she will have to move out and remarry.

It is very intriguing with burial being the simplest thing.

Indeed MUQ putting someone i a few simple wraps and digging a hole are not going to make the costs. But in the meantime (immediate burial is preferred but is not always an option) family has to be received, costs for the funeral home or hospital, the zakat for the mosque.

And given how little literature is available on the more earthly aspects of janazah, i might have overlooked some costs...but i do know that in any culture entertaining the family-members and probably also the learned man to see that the arrangement are made, will incur costs for the widow(er). Typically in islamic nations women (with the kids) end up destitute having to renounce their rights.

Also baring in mind miri, iqta, related tapu, or rare raqaba.

So sooner of later they will have to borrow or depend on whatever peope are willing to give.
Several law-schools might also have different ideas or talfiq might occur.

quote:

Burial insurance is a very old type of life insurance which is paid out upon death to cover final expenses, such as the cost of a funeral. The Greeks and Romans introduced burial insurance circa 600 AD when they organized guilds called "benevolent societies" which cared for the surviving families and paid funeral expenses of members upon death. Guilds in the Middle Ages served a similar purpose, as did friendly societies during Victorian times.
end quote
Ans.

I do not know what is the purpose of your “aim less” post and what you are trying to convey.

Burial expenses being more or less has to be paid from the property of the deceased. What is your problem here? It could be less or it could be more?

What burial insurance has to do with it? What burial of poor and destitute has to do with it?

The widow is given a right to live in the house for one full year, and after end of that period, she should either remarry, or return back to her parents and brothers and sons, who should take care of her.

She receives her share from her husband’s property and her dower money and whatever her husband has given to her. Why she should “naturally become destitute”?

I am unable to understand what is your intention behind such posts?

Have you any clear cut idea, what you are going to prove?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38515
Jul 15, 2012
 
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
I do not know what is the purpose of your “aim less” post and what you are trying to convey.
Burial expenses being more or less has to be paid from the property of the deceased. What is your problem here? It could be less or it could be more?
What burial insurance has to do with it? What burial of poor and destitute has to do with it?
The widow is given a right to live in the house for one full year, and after end of that period, she should either remarry, or return back to her parents and brothers and sons, who should take care of her.
She receives her share from her husband’s property and her dower money and whatever her husband has given to her. Why she should “naturally become destitute”?
I am unable to understand what is your intention behind such posts?
Have you any clear cut idea, what you are going to prove?
The aim is to show the truth which is something that you avoid at all times

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38516
Jul 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MUQ wrote:
Debunking The Christ Myth?
Argument from, Glenn Kimball, against The Christ Conspiracy (which he hasn’t read),
Reply by D.M. Murdock, author of The Christ Conspiracy, Part- 1
Myth #1:
This thinking is a new fade [sic] whose time for debunking is at hand.
Reply # 1;
"This thinking," i.e, that Jesus Christ is a mythical character, is not at all a "new fad." It has been around since the very beginning, because the intelligentsia of the ancient world knew that what the early Church fathers were palming off was mummified mythology. As Rev. Robert Taylor says:
And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied.
Indeed, the first and second epistles of John were written principally to combat such deniers of the historical Christ.(1 Jn. 4:2-3; 2 Jn. 7) The denial of "Christ come in the flesh" is an early "heresy" called "Docetism," whose proponents not only abounded during the first centuries of the Christian era but were the original "Christians," i.e., Gnostics.
Myth # 2:
We have letters written in the hand of Jesus. A myth doesn’t write letters.
Reply # 2:
As concerns the "letters from Jesus’s own hand," no scholar of any worth, Christian or otherwise, has ever considered these "letters" to be "genuine." Like most Christian writings and artifacts, these "letters" are forgeries.
The Catholic Encyclopedia truthfully asserts that the legendary event purported in the most infamous of these "letters," i.e., that to "King Abgar," is an "imaginary occurrence," and states concerning the spurious letter from Christ:
The text is borrowed in two places from that of the Gospel, which of itself is sufficient to disprove
the authenticity of the letter. Moreover, the quotations are made not from the Gospels proper, but from the famous concordance of Tatian, compiled in the second century, and known as the "Diatessaron," thus fixing the date of the legend as approximately the middle of the third century.
The Catholic Encyclopedia also says of this "letter":
Its legendary environment and the fact that the Church at large did not hand down the pretended epistle from Our Lord as a sacred document is conclusive against it.
As Wells says in The Historical Evidence for Jesus:
About 1200, Constantinople was so crammed with relics that one may speak of a veritable industry with its own factories. Blinzler (a Catholic New Testament scholar) lists, as examples, letters in Jesus’ own hand, the gold brought to the baby Jesus by the wise men, the twelve baskets of bread collected after the miraculous feeding of the 5000, the throne of David, the trumpets of Jericho, the axe with which Noah made the Ark, and so on ...
And Wheless says in Forgery in Christianity:
[T]hat "very dishonest writer," Bishop Eusebius, in the fourth century...forged the Letters between Abgar and Jesus, falsely declaring that he had found the original documents in the official archives, whence he had copied and translated them into his Ecclesiastical History... If the Gospel tales were true, why should God need pious lies to give them credit?
Lies and forgeries are only needed to bolster up falsehood: "Nothing stands in need of lying but a lie." But Jesus Christ must needs be propagated by lies upon lies; and what better proof of his actuality than to exhibit letters written by him in his own handwriting?
The "Little Liars of the Lord" were equal to the forgery of the signature of their God – false letters in his name, as above cited from that exhaustive mine of clerical falsities, the Catholic Encyclopedia.
No, a myth doesn’t write letters. Forgers do.
(Contd.)
MUQ is a liar, one only needs to look at other forums he posts on to find the truth. He is a bigot and a racist

“"Beau-Se'ant”

Since: Jan 09

Manchester

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38518
Jul 15, 2012
 

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38520
Jul 15, 2012
 
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
Jewish presence more or less ended after 70 CE when the Roman general sacked Jerusalem and dispersed Jews to all parts of Europe.
After that there was no significant presence of Jews in the middle east.
They lived as small communities here and there but never had any central Govt. or organization.
Jews of Arabia were not even considered jews by the majority of European Jews that is why they find no mention in their records.
When our prophet started his mission, there were only scattered Jewish settlements in Arabia, their presence was in small towns of Madina, KHAIBAR and TEMA etc. These were not big cities and not very big population centres.
So Muslims during their conquest hardly faced a Jewish Army. That is why Muslims never fought any major battle against Jews for most of their 1400 years history.
Jews were “presented” as enemies to Muslims only after Britain allowed large scale migration of Jews to Palestine after end of WW-1.
So the present situation was “created by Britain and supported by USA”
You really need to expand your reading horizons. The present situation was created by your radical leaders, the same type that promotes the suicide road to paradise.

King Faisal Hussein in 1921.

"with the chiefs of your movement, especially Dr. Weizmann, we have ahd and continue to have the closest relations. He has been a great helper to our cause, and I hope the Arabs may soon be in a position to the make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are working together for a reformed and revived Middle East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialistic. Our movement is national and not imperialistic, and there is room in Syria (Ottoman Empire) for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be a real success without the other.

People LESS INFORMED and LESS RESPONSIBLE than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for cooperations of the Arabs and Zionists have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stages of our movements. Some of them have, I am afraid, misrepresented your aims to the Arab peasantry, and our aims to the Jewish peasantry, with the result that interested parties have been able to make capital out of what they call our differences.

I wish to give you my firm conviction that these differences are not questions of principle, but on matters of detail such as must inevitably occur in every contact of neighboring peoples, and as are easily adjusted by mutual goodwill. Indeed nearly all of them will disappear with fuller knowledge.

I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of civilised peoples of the world."

“We Arabs ... look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home…. I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of the civilised peoples of the world “
Tom

Staunton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38521
Jul 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WE SEE your WRONG again wrote:
<quoted text>
Jews are over there persecuting those Christians too.
Those "Christians" are aligned with the Palestinian terrorist Abass. The terrorist who helped plan the massacre of the Israeli athletes at Munich.
Ayreshire

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38522
Jul 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tom wrote:
<quoted text>Those "Christians" are aligned with the Palestinian terrorist Abass. The terrorist who helped plan the massacre of the Israeli athletes at Munich.
Don't just make it up!! Prove it!!
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38523
Jul 15, 2012
 
The Last Templar wrote:
So
you
want the Jews to vote for the socialist Republican instead of the socialist Democrat?
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38524
Jul 15, 2012
 
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
I do not know what is the purpose of your “aim less” post and what you are trying to convey.
Burial expenses being more or less has to be paid from the property of the deceased. What is your problem here? It could be less or it could be more?
What burial insurance has to do with it? What burial of poor and destitute has to do with it?
The widow is given a right to live in the house for one full year, and after end of that period, she should either remarry, or return back to her parents and brothers and sons, who should take care of her.
She receives her share from her husband’s property and her dower money and whatever her husband has given to her. Why she should “naturally become destitute”?
I am unable to understand what is your intention behind such posts?
Have you any clear cut idea, what you are going to prove?
rabbee: well you cannot understand, trying to suppress one delusion with another? or even more rare trying to rebuke one delusion, with the truth.
Tom

Staunton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38525
Jul 15, 2012
 
Ayreshire wrote:
<quoted text>Don't just make it up!! Prove it!!
Abass gave the terrorists financial support in the Munich attack. The Roman Catholic Church in Jerusalem is pro-Palestinian. The peace talks are phony. Abass gets millions of dollars from these western nations (so-called infidel nations) by the Moslems so why would he come to the peace table to end the cash flow?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38526
Jul 15, 2012
 
MUQ wrote:
Here are examples of your own scholars who do not accept that the Torah and the NT have been tampered with. Don't bother telling me about the mythology of Christ. Your own brothers believed in him and what was said about him in the scriptures.

Since the Bible existed before the Quran the burden of proof
is upon the Muslim to prove that the Bible is incorrect AND
that the Quran is correct.

a. The Bible was completed 500 years before the Quran was
revealed to Muhammad. If someone today wrote a book that
contradicts a historical document written at the time of
an event that took place in 1497 the person who wrote the
second book would have to be able to prove the older
document was false AND also prove its facts were true.

b. The document written at the time of the event would not
have to prove itself against a latter document. This is
neither logical, rational or true to the principles of
the science of history.

c. Merely proving that the older document was not accurate
also does not by default mean the newer document is true.
it must stand on its own and prove itself.

Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been
corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New
Testament texts.

a. Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts

b. Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) " " " "

c. BUKHARI (810-870) " " " "
(he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam
quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text
of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)

d. Al-Mas'udi (956) " " " "

e. Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)" " "

f. AL-GHAZZALI (1111) " " " "
(probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-
Khazem but did not accept his teachings)

g. Ibn-Khaldun (1406) " " " " " "
(he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his
teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic
teachers.)

h. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College
"In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that
corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."

i. Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew
of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were
suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil;
but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it
was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because
those Scriptures were generally known and widely
circulated, having been handed down from generation to
generation."

THESE PEOPLE DID NOT SAY THEY ONLY ACCEPTED PART OF THE TORAH OR PART OF THE GOSPELS BUT ALL OF THEM

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38527
Jul 15, 2012
 
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are examples of your own scholars who do not accept that the Torah and the NT have been tampered with. Don't bother telling me about the mythology of Christ. Your own brothers believed in him and what was said about him in the scriptures.
Since the Bible existed before the Quran the burden of proof
is upon the Muslim to prove that the Bible is incorrect AND
that the Quran is correct.
a. The Bible was completed 500 years before the Quran was
revealed to Muhammad. If someone today wrote a book that
contradicts a historical document written at the time of
an event that took place in 1497 the person who wrote the
second book would have to be able to prove the older
document was false AND also prove its facts were true.
b. The document written at the time of the event would not
have to prove itself against a latter document. This is
neither logical, rational or true to the principles of
the science of history.
c. Merely proving that the older document was not accurate
also does not by default mean the newer document is true.
it must stand on its own and prove itself.
Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been
corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New
Testament texts.
a. Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts
b. Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) " " " "
c. BUKHARI (810-870) " " " "
(he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam
quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text
of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)
d. Al-Mas'udi (956) " " " "
e. Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)" " "
f. AL-GHAZZALI (1111) " " " "
(probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-
Khazem but did not accept his teachings)
g. Ibn-Khaldun (1406) " " " " " "
(he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his
teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic
teachers.)
h. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College
"In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that
corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."
i. Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew
of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were
suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil;
but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it
was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because
those Scriptures were generally known and widely
circulated, having been handed down from generation to
generation."
THESE PEOPLE DID NOT SAY THEY ONLY ACCEPTED PART OF THE TORAH OR PART OF THE GOSPELS BUT ALL OF THEM
None of that proves the NT is true. So the burden of proof is on the Christians who altered the Hebrew scriptures. Since Christianity is based on a virgin-born mangod (much like several other pagan religions, Mithraism, Buddhism, etc.), it appears the tampering started with the Roman church who proclaimed Jesus as god in 325CE..

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38528
Jul 15, 2012
 
SeasideSoon wrote:
<quoted text>None of that proves the NT is true. So the burden of proof is on the Christians who altered the Hebrew scriptures. Since Christianity is based on a virgin-born mangod (much like several other pagan religions, Mithraism, Buddhism, etc.), it appears the tampering started with the Roman church who proclaimed Jesus as god in 325CE..
The burden of proof is on the people who are saying it has been altered not the other way round.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38529
Jul 15, 2012
 
SeasideSoon wrote:
<
Not all christians believe that Jesus is God, The same as there as differences between sunnis and shiites in relation to Islam

Adonai and Adoni (Psalm 110:1)

The Bible’s supreme proof text for telling the difference between the One God and the Messiah who is not God

This verse was referred to the Messiah by the Pharisees and by Jesus. It tells us that the relationship between God and Jesus is that of Deity and non-Deity. The Messiah is called adoni (my lord) and in every one of its 195 occurrences adoni (my lord) means a superior who is not God. Adonai on the other hand refers exclusively to the One God in all of its 449 occurrences. Adonai is the title of Deity and adoni never designates Deity.

If the Messiah were called Adonai this would introduce “two Gods” into the Bible and would be polytheism. Psalm 110:1 should guard us all against supposing that there are two who are God. In fact the Messiah is the supreme human being and agent of the One God. Psalm 110:1 is the Bible’s master text for defining the Son of God in relation to the One God, his Father.

Why is it that a number of commentaries misstate the facts about Psalm 110:1? They assert that the word for the Messiah in Psalm 110:1 is adonai. It is not. These commentaries seem to obscure a classic text defining God in relation to His Son. The Hebrew text assigns to the Messiah the title adoni which invariably distinguishes the one addressed from the Deity. The Messiah is the supreme human lord. He is not the Lord God (cp. I Tim. 2:5; I Cor. 8:4-6; Mark 12:28ff).

Why is the Messiah called adoni (my lord) and never adonai (my Lord God)?

“Adonai and Adoni are variations of Masoretic pointing to distinguish divine reference from human.”

Adonai is referred to God but Adoni to human superiors.

Adoni — ref. to men: my lord, my master [see Ps. 110:1]
Adonai — ref. to God…Lord (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, under adon [= lord]).

“The form ADONI (‘my lord’), a royal title (I Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title ADONAI (‘my Lord’) used of Yahweh.”“ADONAI — the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adonai [with short vowel]= my lords”(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,“Lord,” p. 157).

“Lord in the OT is used to translate ADONAI when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word…has a suffix [with special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction…between divine and human appellative”(Hastings Dictionary of the Bible,“Lord,” Vol. 3, p. 137).

“Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the OT…Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen. 44:7, Num. 32:25, II Kings 2:19 [etc.]). We have to assume that the word adonai received its special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e., adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as adonai,[with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [with short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords”(Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, p. 531).

“The lengthening of the &#257; on Adonai [the Lord God] may be traced to the concern of the Masoretes to mark the word as sacred by a small external sign”(Theological Dictionary of the OT,“Adon,” p. 63 and Theological Dictionary of the NT, III, 1060ff. n.109).

“The form ‘to my lord,’ l’adoni, is never used in the OT as a divine reference…the generally accepted fact that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine references (adonai) from human references (adoni)”(Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the OT, p. 22)(Herbert Bateman,“Psalm 110:1 and the NT,” Bibliothecra Sacra, Oct.-Dec., 1992, p. 438).

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38530
Jul 15, 2012
 
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
The burden of proof is on the people who are saying it has been altered not the other way round.
Huh??????? The proof is that the NT translations of the Hebrew scriptures have been proven wrong, by their own later Christian translations no less. So which Christian version is now deemed to be true and accurate? And where are their originals? That's why there are 40,000 denominations, plus another 40,000 that qualify as cults - because everybody has their favorite.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38531
Jul 15, 2012
 
SeasideSoon wrote:
<quoted text>Huh??????? The proof is that the NT translations of the Hebrew scriptures have been proven wrong, by their own later Christian translations no less. So which Christian version is now deemed to be true and accurate? And where are their originals? That's why there are 40,000 denominations, plus another 40,000 that qualify as cults - because everybody has their favorite.
Where is your proof? Looking at the scriptures from the 7th century to a bible of today there is no difference. The interpretation may by wrong, by that is a human mistake not a mistake by God. That is why there have been alterations to it e.g the JW's. There are over 40,000 manuscripts which support the authenticity of the bible. If you look at the differences between the catholic bible and the protestant bible you can see what books the catholics have added. People adding books that were not the divine inspiration of God will be judged by God. This is the reason there are so many cults around. They want to change what was originally stated and believed to suit themselves No other book is on par with the bible when it comes to the fulfillment of prophecies that were written a 1000 years before the prophecy was fulfilled. Only God could have known what was going to happen in the future.

The koran has no manuscripts to support it. The haddiths are not God inspired and for that matter neither is the Koran. It was written 200 years after the death of mohammad and who wrote it? They could have put anything down. I know what I put my money on.
What was written in the torah is still the same today as it was then. A lot of muslim scholars have also verified the accuracy of the scriptures. When the Jews rejected Mohammad that is when Mohammad changed the koran

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38532
Jul 15, 2012
 
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
Not all christians believe that Jesus is God,
That statement could've gotten you in some pretty hot water a few centuries ago. But I have to raise a point about Jesus being 'the Son of God.

It doesn't say 'the' son of God in Luke. There is no definite article preceding 'son of God'. Perhaps some of the other gospel writers got a little carried away.

All men are called 'sons of God' throughout scripture. The church raised up Jesus to God level in 325CE, and elevated Mary along with him.

http://biblos.com/luke/1-35.htm
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38533
Jul 15, 2012
 
And why "Son of God" should be taken in its literal sense, that too only for Jesus? What is the logic behind it?

Son of God was a "harmless" Jewish expression to denote some one closer to the God , a saintly person, a godly person.

Even now when some one is extremely good, people say he is an angel, does one really becomes angel because people say so?

God to have sons and daughters (in real sense) in a pagan idea....in Greek and Hindu mythology we find wives and sons and daughters of gods.

The Idea that Jesus is Son of God in its literal sense in the biggest blasphemy that one "religious person" can attribute to God Almighty.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38534
Jul 15, 2012
 
SeasideSoon wrote:
<quoted text>That statement could've gotten you in some pretty hot water a few centuries ago. But I have to raise a point about Jesus being 'the Son of God.
It doesn't say 'the' son of God in Luke. There is no definite article preceding 'son of God'. Perhaps some of the other gospel writers got a little carried away.
All men are called 'sons of God' throughout scripture. The church raised up Jesus to God level in 325CE, and elevated Mary along with him.
http://biblos.com/luke/1-35.htm
You are again talking about the catholic church. They venerate Mary. She was chosen by God to carry Jesus. She is not a saint but God honoured her for the reason that she was the mother of Jesus.

There is not one place in the bible where it is stated that Jesus was God I would ask anyone to prove that there is

In relation to the accuracy of the bible

The copies of the Bible in existence at the time of Muhammad, are exactly the same as ancient copies of the Bible dating back long before Muhammad. They are also the same as today’s copies of the Bible. The Bible was translated into various ancient languages before Muhammad, such as:

Greek Septuagint in the 2nd century B.C.

Latin Vulgate 382-390 A.D.
Armenian 400 A.D and
Syrian 500 A.D.

Ancient copies of these translations are still available and when we compare them with modern copies of the Bible, we find the message is unchanged.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38535
Jul 15, 2012
 
Sheilaa wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your proof? Looking at the scriptures from the 7th century to a bible of today there is no difference. The interpretation may by wrong, by that is a human mistake not a mistake by God. That is why there have been alterations to it e.g the JW's. There are over 40,000 manuscripts which support the authenticity of the bible. If you look at the differences between the catholic bible and the protestant bible you can see what books the catholics have added. People adding books that were not the divine inspiration of God will be judged by God. This is the reason there are so many cults around. They want to change what was originally stated and believed to suit themselves No other book is on par with the bible when it comes to the fulfillment of prophecies that were written a 1000 years before the prophecy was fulfilled. Only God could have known what was going to happen in the future.
The koran has no manuscripts to support it. The haddiths are not God inspired and for that matter neither is the Koran. It was written 200 years after the death of mohammad and who wrote it? They could have put anything down. I know what I put my money on.
What was written in the torah is still the same today as it was then. A lot of muslim scholars have also verified the accuracy of the scriptures. When the Jews rejected Mohammad that is when Mohammad changed the koran
Actually the Catholic church added the entire new testament to their bible, along with some additional Jewish writings. Then the Protestants started with the Catholic version and removed books.

Since the scriptures began with the Hebrews, I think they are the ones to determine what their bible consists of. If the Catholics decide to add some books, and the Protestants decide to take some away, keeping most of the Catholic ones, and relying on the Catholic translations, I'd say it's a family feud.

The Jews have their bible in their own language, and don't find it necessary to rely on Christian translations and interpretations.
translationshttp://www.myjewis hlearning.com/texts/Bible/Orig ins_of_the_Bible/Other_Ancient _Texts/Bible_as_Ancient_Litera ture/Canonization.shtml

So it's a big deal if the translations are wrong. Since Christianity claims to be based on the Hebrew scriptures, and the church used faulty translations and interpretations to develop Christianity, well that pretty much takes us back to finding out what the original language says. And the original language and interpretation leaves no room for accepting a messiah as anything other than a man who is supposed to accomplish certain specific tasks, and if he dies without doing so, next candidate is welcome to try. Some thought Simon BarKochba was the messiah until he died, and when he died, they realized he wasn't the one.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 35,601 - 35,620 of65,182
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••