It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jewish Messiah will Be the Anti-Christ

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSonOfMan
reply to post by helen670
 



How about you read the book of maryam from the qur'an. It will explain the true story of jesus son of mary,NOT SON OF GOD.




Hi/
Why would I read the Qur'an on the Son Of God?
Islam came in the year 622,23 AD?
And Further more, I dont speak Arabic!
The Qur'an is suppose to be read in Arabic the Original language it was written in?
True?

The Old Testament and the New Testament Prophets have spoken of the Son Of God.
The Prophets in the Old Testament Books prophesy of the coming of a Saviour...



Prophecies in order of Place in Scripture

Book of Genesis

3:15 The Family of the Spouse shall crush the serpent’s head

22:18 Blessing the descendents of Abraham

49:10 Conciliator from the line of Judah

Numbers

24:17 The Star of Jacob

Deuteronomy

18:18-19 A prophet similar to Moses

Job 19:25-27 Of the Redeemer who shall be resurrected

2 Samuel 7:13 and 1 Chron. 17:12-13 Everlasting Messianic Kingdom

Psalms

2nd Messiah — Son of God

16th His flesh shall not see decay

22nd Messiah’s suffering on the cross

40th The Messiah came to fulfill the will of God

45th Messiah — God

72nd Description of Messiah’s glory

95th On unbelief

110th High Priest according to the order of

Melchizedek

118th He — is the stone rejected by builders

Prophet Isaiah

2:2-3 Messianic Kingdom is similar to a mountain

6:9-10 Unbelief of the Hebrews

7:14 Birth from a Virgin

9:1-2 Sermon in Galilee

9:6-7 Messiah — a strong God, Father of eternity

11:1-10 On Him — the Spirit of God, about the Church

12:3 About joy and blessings

25-27ch Songs of praise for the Messiah

28:16 He — is the cornerstone

35:5-7 He shall heal all possible maladies

42:1-4 On the meekness of God’s Branch

43:16-28 Calling of the heathens

44:3 Pouring of blessings by the Holy Spirit

49:6 Messiah — a light to mankind

50:4-11 On the insults to Messiah

53rd ch. On the suffering and resurrection of the

Messiah

54:1-5 On summoning the heathens into the

Kingdom

55:3 On the everlasting Testament

60:1-5 His Kingdom — the New Jerusalem

61:1-2 Messiah’s deeds of compassion

Prophet Joel

2:28-32 On the Gifts of the Holy Spirit

Prophet Osee

1:9 & 2:23 Summoning the heathens

6:1-2 Resurrection on the third day

13:14 The annihilation of death

Prophet Amos

8:9 On the darkening of the sun

9:11 On the restoration of David’s Tabernacle

Prophet Micah

5:2 On the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem

Prophet Jeremiah

23:5 Messiah — a righteous King

31:15 The slaughter of infants in Bethlehem

31:31-34 Establishment of the New Testament

Baruch

3:36-38 On the coming of God on earth

Prophet Ezekiel

34:23-24 Messiah — Shepherd

36:24-27 Law of God written on hearts

37:23 Messiah — King and Good Shepherd

Prophet Daniel

2:34-44 Messianic Kingdom likened to a mountain

7:13-14 Vision of the Son of Man

9:24-27 Prophecy of the seventy weeks

Prophet Aggeus

2:6-7 On Messiah’s visitation of the Temple

Prophet Habakkuk

3:11 On faith

Prophet Zacharias

3:8-9 Sins of mankind are erased in oneday

6:12 Messiah — Priest

9:9-11 Entry of the Messiah into Jeriusalem

11:12 On the thirty pieces of silver

12:10 & 13:1 On the crucifixion of the Messiah,

On the Holy Spirit

14:5-9 Darkness during the crucifixion, and on blessings

Prophet Malachias

3:1 The Angel of the Testament will arrive soon.

The Old Testament Regardingthe Messiah

If A prophecy that is in the Holy Bible does not come out, then it surely is not The WORD of God.
The prophecies have all come out....
Revelation 'The APOCALYPSE' awaits.

IX
helen




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
So if something in the bible didn't come true you'd throw it to the side?




I don't understand why imply they'd do that.

There's a lot of things in it that contradicts whether or not people want to admit it's true.

I mean Judas died 2 different ways in it.

People don't understand what God's saying. Oh well...twaa




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawn B.
So if something in the bible didn't come true you'd throw it to the side?




I don't understand why imply they'd do that.

There's a lot of things in it that contradicts whether or not people want to admit it's true.

I mean Judas died 2 different ways in it.

People don't understand what God's saying. Oh well...twaa



Hi/
What do you mean by 'Judas died two different ways in it'?

Yes all prophecy and all the people who prophesy for the Word of God is taken into account.
A prophecy that is not from God through Prayer and fasting and humbleness is not a true prophecy.
The Bible does not contradict itself.....only people who refuse to look at the true meaning are the ones finding as such.
Translation of the Scriptures must be done with Prayer and fasting and humbleness..this is how the New Testament was done....not alone, but with all the Fathers present .

How many so called prophets are out and have there been, that claim to know the truth, only to be ridiculed later?
True Prophecy only comes From God.
It is known that even Satan and his demons can prophesy, but again, not 100% truth...but truth mixed with falsehood.

helen



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by helen670
What do you mean by 'Judas died two different ways in it'?


Don't worry about this one, Helen. He's thinking there is a contradiction in the way Judas died because Matthew says Judas hung himself but Acts says Judas fell and his body burst open. Skeptics get confused because they think both passages describe the act of suicide but don't realize Matthew talks about what Judas did (an act of suicide) and Acts talks about what eventually happened to Judas' body. They aren't aware of the Jewish customs regarding handling a dead body and erroneously assume they are contradicting suicide accounts.

[edit on 1/17/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
No I know what the custom is....


No actually it specifically says Judas hung himself then nothing after.

Acts says he burst open in a field.

On top of that it contradics what Judas did with the money.


Oh, and people weren't even taught that in the beginng because the offical reading list and bible wasn't created till long after.

Also, these books were recorded being writen well after so they should have both either discribed what happen and atleast roughly been the same account, but they're different.

Thats funny you implyed I was a skeptic.





[edit on 17-1-2008 by Shawn B.]

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Shawn B.]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Hi AshleyD/
Thank you!


I understand !

helen



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Shawn B.
 


Oh, and people weren't even taught that in the beginning because the official reading list and bible wasn't created till long after.


As you may know, I assert Emperor Constantine was the FOUNDER of the Christian Church we know today. It was Constantine and not a bishop or elder who called the Council that met at Nicea. Later, it was Constantine again who ordered some of the bishops or leaders around the Mediterranean basin to sort out the various books and writing and make them into a canon, or an accepted bible. We have erroneously labeled those fellows as Church Fathers. thereby giving them credibility they neither sought nor deserved.

The story goes that the bishops settled on 26 books. Some thought the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John ought to be included. Many thought it should not be. Finally, after the conference had adjourned, some of those who lingered to take the waters decided to add it and we have the 27 books of the New Testament. Thank you Emperor Constantine.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Hi donwhite/

Very well said!


IX
helen



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite


As you may know, I assert Emperor Constantine was the FOUNDER of the Christian Church we know today. It was Constantine and not a bishop or elder who called the Council that met at Nicea. Later, it was Constantine again who ordered some of the bishops or leaders around the Mediterranean basin to sort out the various books and writing and make them into a canon, or an accepted bible. We have erroneously labeled those fellows as Church Fathers. thereby giving them credibility they neither sought nor deserved.

The story goes that the bishops settled on 26 books. Some thought the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John ought to be included. Many thought it should not be. Finally, after the conference had adjourned, some of those who lingered to take the waters decided to add it and we have the 27 books of the New Testament. Thank you Emperor Constantine.



Yeah, but even though that happend,I'm glade it did, because I love the bible the way it is with what people would call "errors".

I mean people are kinding themselves if they don't think there's errors in it, I don't see them as errors though, I see them as more important message thats being said. More important then the entire book itself.

It's perfect in it's imperfectness, which makes me know it's what God would want.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   


Hi/
Jesus Christ is the LOGOS of God....what is LOGOS?
If we go to the Old Testament....We read,
"By the Word(LOGOS) of the Lord the Heavens were established, and all the might of them by the Spirit of His mouth" (Ps. 32:6).
Here "Word" means the Son of God,
"Lord" means God the Father and "the Spirit (breath) of His mouth" means God the Holy Spirit.
The Son of God, Jesus Christ, is plainly called "Word" in the Gospel:
... the beginning of the Gospel.....St. John the Theologian begins his Gospel with the revelation of the divine nature of Jesus Christ:

"In the beginning was the Word(LOGOS),

and the Word(LOGOS) was with God,

and the Word(LOGOS) was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by Him,

and without Him was not anything made that was made…

And the Word(LOGOS) was made flesh,

and dwelt amongst us;

and we beheld His glory,

the glory as of the only Begotten of the Father,

full of grace and truth…

No man hath seen God at any time;

the only begotten Son,

who is in the bosom of the Father,

He hath declared Him"
(John 1:1-18).



The same question was once asked by a principle of theological college. Here’s a response in a short clip:

www.youtube.com...

Detailed response



yea nobody can know the HOUR or DAY...but nothing is said about MONTHS or YEARS...so 2012 doesnt contradict the bible or the quran.


Below are some references about the doomsday. You decide yourself whether to heed them or the Mayans.

"They ask thee about the (final) Hour - when will be its appointed time? Say: 'The knowledge thereof is with my Lord (alone): None but He can reveal as to when it will occur. Heavy were its burden through the heavens and the earth. Only, all of a sudden will it come to you.' They ask thee as if thou Wert eager in search thereof: Say: 'The knowledge thereof is with God (alone), but most men know not.' (The Noble Quran, 7:187)"

"Verily the Hour is coming - My design is to keep it hidden - for every soul to receive its reward by the measure of its Endeavour. (The Noble Quran, 20:15)"

"They say: 'When will this promise come to pass, if ye are telling the truth?' If only the Unbelievers knew (the time) when they will not be able to ward off the fire from their faces, nor yet from their backs, and (when) no help can reach them! Nay, it may come to them all of a sudden and confound them: no power will they have then to avert it, nor will they (then) get respite. (The Noble Quran, 21:38-40)"

"Verily the knowledge of the Hour is with God (alone). It is He Who sends down rain, and He Who knows what is in the wombs. Nor does any one know what it is that he will earn on the morrow: Nor does any one know in what land he is to die. Verily with God is full knowledge and He is acquainted (with all things). (The Noble Quran, 31:34)"
"Men ask thee concerning the Hour: Say, 'The knowledge thereof is with God (alone)': and what will make thee understand?- perchance the Hour is nigh! (The Noble Quran, 33:63)"

"The Unbelievers say, 'Never to us will come the Hour': Say, 'Nay! but most surely, by my Lord, it will come upon you;- by Him Who knows the unseen,- from Whom is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the Record Perspicuous:' (The Noble Quran, 34:3)"
"And blessed is He to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all between them: with Him is the Knowledge of the Hour (of Judgment): and to Him shall ye be brought back. (The Noble Quran, 43:85)"

"Say: 'I know not whether the (Punishment) which ye are promised is near, or whether my Lord will appoint for it a distant term. (The Noble Quran, 72:25)"

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 24:36)"



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
As you may know, I assert Emperor Constantine was the FOUNDER of the Christian Church we know today. It was Constantine and not a bishop or elder who called the Council that met at Nicea. Later, it was Constantine again who ordered some of the bishops or leaders around the Mediterranean basin to sort out the various books and writing and make them into a canon, or an accepted bible. We have erroneously labeled those fellows as Church Fathers. thereby giving them credibility they neither sought nor deserved.

The story goes that the bishops settled on 26 books. Some thought the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John ought to be included. Many thought it should not be. Finally, after the conference had adjourned, some of those who lingered to take the waters decided to add it and we have the 27 books of the New Testament. Thank you Emperor Constantine.

Despite what you might have read in The Da Vinci Code there was nothing in the council of Nicaea that set the cannon of bible. The Da Vinci Code is a fictional story that is mainly based on Gnostic beliefs. The biggest problem that seems to come from that book/movie is that we now have this rumor running around that that Constantine and the Council of Nicaea wrote the bible. While this rumor may be useful to Gnostics who wish to assert that their beliefs are in someway more accurate then true Christianity, the problem is that it just not true, as I will show here.

The first Council of Nicaea was in 325 AD, and there was a very specific agenda for that council as seen below:

The First Council of Nicaea
The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day Iznik in Turkey), convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325
The agenda of the synod were:
The Arian question;
The celebration of Passover;
The Meletian schism;
The Father and Son one in purpose or in person;
The baptism of heretics;
The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.
Finally, the council promulgated twenty new church laws, called canons, (though the exact number is subject to debate), that is, unchanging rules of discipline. The twenty as listed in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are as follows:
1. prohibition of self-castration; (see Origen)
2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumen;
3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion;
4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the metropolitan;
5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually;
6. exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome, for their respective regions;
7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem;
8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists;
9–14. provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius;
15–16. prohibition of the removal of priests;
17. prohibition of usury among the clergy;
18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving Holy Communion, the Eucharist;
19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics;
20. prohibition of kneeling during the liturgy, on Sundays and in the fifty days of Eastertide ("the pentecost"). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics. (In time, Western Christianity adopted the term Pentecost to refer to the last Sunday of Eastertide, the fiftieth day.)

The letter form Constantine to other Bishops who missed the council still exits and may be read here:
The Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, concerning the matters transacted at the Council, addressed to those Bishops who were not present.

The Cannon itself already was somewhat set and in use by the Church well before 300 AD, the oldest know list of the cannon is the Muratorian fragment, dated to around 170AD.

The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment is a seventh-century Latin manuscript, that contains internal cues which suggest that it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170.

Saint Irenaeus, student of Polycarp, who was a Student of the Apostile John, confirmed the main books of the Gospel in his still existing work “Against Heresis” also around 170AD:

Irenaeus was an important figure defending the four main Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John in the New Testament in 170 AD, stating in his Against Heresies:

This is a book that the Gnostics detest as it shows that even as early as 170AD, men who were second generation after the Apostiles themselves were already weeding Gnosticism out of Christianity. As a matter of fact “Against Heresies” is actually titled:

On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis commonly called Against Heresies (Latin: Adversus haereses), is a five-volume work written by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century. Due to his assertion that Eleutherus was the current bishop of Rome, the work is usually dated ca. 180 CE

Irenaeus cites from most of the New Testament canon, as well as the noncanonical works 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas; however, he makes no references to Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John or Jude - four of the shortest epistles.

Just for completeness I will include this bit about the man who taught Irenaeus, Polycarp:

Saint Polycarp of Smyrna
Saint Polycarp of Smyrna (ca. 69- ca. 155) was a Christian bishop of Smyrna (now İzmir in Turkey) in the second century. He died a martyr when he was stabbed after an attempt to burn him at the stake failed. Polycarp is recognized as a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. It is recorded that "He had been a disciple of John."

Polycarp was a great transmitter and authenticator of Christian Revelation in a period when the gospels and epistles were just beginning to achieve acceptance. Although his visit to Rome to meet the Bishop was significant and has long been used by the Roman Catholic Church to buttress papal claim.

So here we have the Gospels already being set by a man who was trained by a follower of John the Apostle himself. The New Testament itself though the books had already been long accepted as Canonical did not actually become Canonized by Rome until the Council of Trent in 1545-1563:

Council of TrentThe doctrinal acts are as follows: after reaffirming the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (third session), the decree was passed (fourth session) confirming that the deuterocanonical books were on a par with the other books of the canon (against Luther's placement of these books in the Apocrypha of his edition.) and coordinating church tradition with the Scriptures as a rule of faith. The Vulgate translation was affirmed to be authoritative for the text of Scripture.

To sum up , Constantine and the Council of Nicaea had nothing whatsoever to do with the canonization of the Bible as its known today.


[edit on 1/18/2008 by defcon5]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Unlettered
 


Hi Unlettered/
I tolerate alot of faiths...only in their goodness though.
I also believe all faiths hold some truth, but there can be only one Truth, as I also believe you know of this.
True?
If my faith teaches me do do good and be just, then I have no complaint.
It is my own deeds and Gods Mercy that will save me, not mans!


"They say: 'When will this promise come to pass, if ye are telling the truth?' If only the Unbelievers knew (the time) when they will not be able to ward off the fire from their faces, nor yet from their backs, and (when) no help can reach them! Nay, it may come to them all of a sudden and confound them: no power will they have then to avert it, nor will they (then) get respite. (The Noble Quran, 21:38-40)"


Here is where I don't find 'truth' in the above quote.....
''If only the Unbelievers knew when they will not be able to ward off the fire from their faces,nor yet from their backs, and no help can reach them''.......It is the 'unbelievers'(Infidels) that has me confused.
You see, God in the Old Testament promised to His Prophets that He will send a SAVIOUR to the world.
"God Himself shall give you a sign," explained the prophet Isaiah to the disbelieving descendants of king David,..... "the Virgin shall accept into her womb and bear a Son, and shall name Him Emmanuel, which means: God is with us" (Isaiah 7:14).
Many more fullfilled prophecy about Jesus Christ as Saviour for all mankind.

In the Bible the New Testament says......."Rejoice, O Blessed One! (literally, "filled with grace") The Lord is with Thee!
Blessed art Thou amongst women."
Mary was puzzled by the words of the Angel(Angel Gabriel to Zacharias (see Luke 1:8-25) and unsure what this greeting was supposed to mean. The Angel continued by saying to Her: "Fear not, Mary, for Thou hast found favor with God.
And therefore, Thou wilt bear a Son and shalt name Him Jesus.
He shall be great and shall be known as the Son of the Most-high, and to His Kingdom there shall be no end."...... for with God nothing shall be impossible." Then Mary humbly answered, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word" (Luke 1:26-38).




Fight in the way of Allah . . . and slay them [the unbelievers] wherever you find them and drive them out . . . and fight them until . . . religion is for Allah (Sura 2:190-193).

Now, tell me,Is the quote above true,
Or am I not getting the translation right?
Whilst in the New Testament......Jesus Christ said to Forgive those that do us injustice and Love all mankind and judge not, so you would not want to be judged.
Jesus Christ never taught violence as a way out.
“Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you”
(Matthew 5:44)
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (neighbour is all mankind)
(Matthew 22:39).

“This is my commandment that you love one another”
(John 15:12, 17).

“Do not judge, lest you be judged” (Matthew 7:1).


When I hear prophecy, I understand it from an Orthodox point of view...
Prophecy can only have truth in it if it comes solely of God.
If it partialy comes out, then it holds only part truth and part falseness(is that a word?)
What I'm saying is that we are given signs and end of time prophecies for our benefit.
God loves us all and wants us all to be in the know.
Because of many so called - "Let not your prophets that are in the midst of you, and your diviners, deceive you... For they prophesy falsely unto you in My name: I have not sent them, saith the Lord" (Jeremiah 29:8-9).



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   
A few selected verses from the Qur’an are often misquoted to perpetuate the myth that Islam promotes violence, and exhorts its followers to kill those outside the pale of Islam.

1. Verse from Surah Taubah
The following verse from Surah Taubah is very often quoted by critics of Islam, to show that Islam promotes violence, bloodshed and brutality:

"Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find them."
[Al-Qur’an 9:5]

2. Context of verse is during battlefield
Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. Verse 5 of Surah Taubah says:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 9:5]

This verse is quoted during a battle.

3. Example of war between America and Vietnam
We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war.

4. Verse 9:5 quoted to boost morale of Muslims during battle

Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur’an says, "Kill the Mushriqs where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.

5. Shourie jumps from verse 5 to verse 7
Arun Shourie is one of the staunchest critics of Islam in India. He quotes the same verse, Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 in his book ‘The World of Fatwahs’, on page 572. After quoting verse 5 he jumps to verse 7 of Surah Taubah. Any sensible person will realise that he has skipped verse 6.

6. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer
Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:

"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."
[Al-Qur’an 9:6]

The Qur’an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?

This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur’an to promote peace in the world.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


To sum up , Constantine and the Council of Nicaea had nothing whatsoever to do with the canonization of the Bible as its known today.


If you will re-read my posted remarks, you will see the following:
It was Constantine and not a bishop or elder who called the Council that met at Nicea. Later, it was Constantine again who ordered some of the bishops or leaders around the Mediterranean basin to sort out the various books and writing and make them into a canon, or an accepted bible.

I have not read the 'DiVinci Code.' I am a non-fiction reader and can't recall when I last read a book of fiction.

Most if not all of the sources you rely on have been discredited and are not considered reliable.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Most if not all of the sources you rely on have been discredited and are not considered reliable.


Ah, a favorite (not to mention lazy) tactic of skeptics. Anything that is remotely beneficial to Christianity is automatically deemed "unreliable." I assure you, these are very credible sources that Defcon offered. Just because a minority labels something unreliable does not make it so. The scholarly majority (secular and Christian) considers these sources very reliable and authentic.

But do you mind if I hold onto this argument? The next time someone quotes the early church fathers in an effort to question Christianity, may I use this line of thinking to say we really don't consider the sources reliable?

Can I also say the texts that refer to Constantine are unreliable? I mean, it really was so long ago and you cannot prove their authenticity or that this account is correct either.

Personally, it has also been my opinion for a very long time the historical documents recording the events of the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition are unreliable. The Crusades and Inquisition never really happened. It was just a bunch of ignorant historians who wanted to start a rumor.

Sure, I could claim this if I wanted to- if I don't mind being laughed at all the days of my life. The writings of the early church fathers and records are not considered inspired holy scripture and shouldn't be used for doctrine but they are historically valuable.

[edit on 1/18/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Most if not all of the sources you rely on have been discredited and are not considered reliable.

Please show me where a single thing I have posted has been discredited. What are you saying that Saint Polycarp, Saint Irenaeus, Against Heresies, The Apostle John, and the Muratorian fragment do not exist? I very much assure you they all exist and existed well before the Council of Nicaea or even Constantine ever existed.

Heck I guess that someone better let both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church know that two or three of their Saints have been discredited and are not considered reliable sources.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by donwhite
Most if not all of the sources you rely on have been discredited and are not considered reliable.

Please show me where a single thing I have posted has been discredited. What are you saying that Saint Polycarp, Saint Irenaeus, Against Heresies, The Apostle John, and the Muratorian fragment do not exist? I very much assure you they all exist and existed well before the Council of Nicaea or even Constantine ever existed.

Heck I guess that someone better let both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church know that two or three of their Saints have been discredited and are not considered reliable sources.


Saint Polycarp.........St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna ( 167).

St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John the Theologian and is commemorated as a martyr on February 23. The account of his martyrdom, the earliest detailed account of a martyr, gives an excellent picture of his character and the steadfastness of his Christian faith.

www.orthodoxyinamerica.org...


.Saint Irenaeus,St. Irenaeus of Lyons ( 202).

St. Irenaeus, who is commemorated on August 23, was a disciple of St. Polycarp, and, as a Westerner, he succeeded St. Photinus as Bishop of Lyons. His major doctrinal work is Against Heresies, which defends Orthodoxy against the Gnostics, borrowing heavily on both human reason and Holy Scripture and Tradition, serving as an important witness to Church traditions of his time.

I never heard of the '' Muratorian fragment '' was that in the Movie 'The Da vinci code?



As for "eighty gospels" that were supposedly "considered for the New Testament," that's simply not true.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the only ones ever considered, and their canonical status was clearly recognized by the second century AD.
The earliest Christian writings cite these Gospels as the only authoritative and authentic written words about Jesus: the epistle of Barnabas (c. 70-100 AD), the Didache (c. 70-130), St. Clement of Rome (c. 95), the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110), Papias (c. 120), the Shepherd of Hermas (c. 140), and the Muratorian fragment (or canon c. 170 AD), all quote or allude to all four canonical Gospels (Geisler / Nix, page 288-291). The rest of the New Testament (the 27-book canon) is quoted or alluded to by these same writers, plus the earliest orthodox Church Fathers: St. Ignatius (c. 110), St. Justin Martyr (c. 150), St. Irenaeus (c. 180), St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 200), Origen (c. 220), etc. There is a growing recognition of the extent of the New Testament canon, and this began early in the second century AD.

The Davinci Code FRAUD

helen



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by helen670
Saint Polycarp.........St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna ( 167).
Saint Irenaeus,St. Irenaeus of Lyons ( 202).

I am not sure if your agreeing with me or disagreeing, maybe I am too tired to tell the difference atm.


Originally posted by helen670
I never heard of the '' Muratorian fragment '' was that in the Movie 'The Da vinci code?

Nope, but the idea that Constantine Canonized to bible during the council of Nicaea (or later) is from the Da Vinci Code.
Here, from your link above:

The DaVinci Code Fraud
Fiction (False Claims) on Constantine:
The Bible as we know it today was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great (DVC 231)

Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike; the earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned (DVC 234)

Response (Truth):
Constantine did not "collate" the Bible, he had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture. The NT canon and four canonical Gospels (the earliest Christian documents we have) were generally recognized by the 2nd century AD, while the full and explicit 27-book NT canon wasn't established until the late 4th century (St. Athanasius, Festal Letter 39 of 367 AD, and the local Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, see below The Bible).

The Muratorian Fragment is a real thing, showing some of the canon and all four gospel already in common use by the Christian Church at least 100 years before Constantine:

Muratorian Fragment
Also called the Muratorian Fragment, after the name of the discoverer and first editor, L. A. Muratori (in the "Antiquitates italicae", III, Milan, 1740, 851 sq.), the oldest known canon or list of books of the New Testament. The manuscript containing the canon originally belonged to Bobbio and is now in the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana at Milan (Cod. J 101 sup.). Written in the eighth century, it plainly shows the uncultured Latin of that time. The fragment is of the highest importance for the history of the Biblical canon. It was written in Rome itself or in its environs about 180-200.
A few sentences of the Muratorian Canon are preserved in some other manuscripts, especially in codices of St. Paul's Epistles in Monte Cassino. The canon consists of no mere list of the Scriptures, but of a survey, which supplies at the same time historical and other information regarding each book. The beginning is missing; the preserved text begins with the last line concerning the second Gospel and the notices, preserved entire, concerning the third and fourth Gospels. Then there are mentioned: The Acts, St. Paul's Epistles (including those to Philemon, Titus and Timothy; the spurious ones to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians are rejected); furthermore, the Epistle of St. Jude and two Epistles of St. John; among the Scriptures which "in catholica habentur", are cited the "Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta", as well as the Apocalypses of St. John and St. Peter, but with the remark that some will not allow the latter to be read in the church.


Here are lots more for you: Muratorian Fragment



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by slymattb

How about you read the book of maryam from the qur'an. It will explain the true story of jesus son of mary,NOT SON OF GOD.


Jesus is the Son of God. The Quran is a different religion that does not accept Jesus as the Son of God there for there book would say Jesus is not. Sorry but if Jesus did all those healing and was preaching the Word of God. Jesus would be the son of God. Jesus was born from a virgin. Weather you want to believe or not.


and you know this how.....?



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join