Is Jesus the only way to God?

reply to post by studythem1


Your simply not correct here. In the context of the chapter it still is what it is....Jesus when pointing to the Father named the Father because this was a new teaching. Jesus said "before Abraham was, I am". Proper biblical exgesis sees no reason to allorgorize this statement. It is spoken plain and simple and supports the Christian doctrine of the Deity of Christ which is clear in other scripture. For example:

Did you know that when Jesus is referred to in the New Testament as the "Son of God".....in Greek which the New Testament was written in, the term is inter-changable. That means it is correct either as "Son of God" or "God the Son". The Jews understtood this because the religious leaders accused Jesus of trying to be the "Son of God" which they also knew means "God the Son".

reply to post by stupid girl

so what makes you right and me wrong? I mean, really?

No, not at all.

reply to post by studythem1


why do you feel qualified to speak for "the creator"?????

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by stupid girl

 

That account alone, is the biggest one used besides the story of Christ.

Meaning, in peoples daily lives, they equate themselves to Job when something goes wrong. They don't blame it on the devil, they think that God is showing them or teaching them something in their trials. This is a collective of all.

You stated that the account of Job is just a story.

You stated that the Job account is the biggest story used besides the story of Christ.

You are stating that they are both stories.

I am either to assume that you consider them both stories used to teach mankind a lesson, or one is a story and the other actually happened and you are simply referring to it as a story.

You see, when you make open ended statements and when you don't say what you mean, people have no choice but to assume your intent.

You pat yourself on the back because you feel like you need to be "vague" with your words, yet you are only shooting yourself in the foot and blaming everyone else for pulling the trigger.

reply to post by stupid girl

I am either to assume that you consider them both stories used to teach mankind a lesson, or one is a story and the other actually happened and you are simply referring to it as a story.

Job is lesson.
Christ's account is true and accurate, less the details. Like him being in the wilderness 40 days, it was actually longer than that.

reply to post by studythem1


Oh and by the way...when Jesus appears before the religious leaders the night before the cross, the High Priest says are "you the Christ, the Son of God ( or God the Son in Greek)?"

Jesus said: " I am"

The High Priest tore his robe and reminded Israel that the Lord is One. The shema. This was because Jesus claimed Deity again which to the Jews was pagan

reply to post by stupid girl

You pat yourself on the back because you feel like you need to be "vague" with your words, yet you are only shooting yourself in the foot and blaming everyone else for pulling the trigger.

No, I do not take pride in being vague. I have come to realize that I need to explain in detail more.

Originally posted by Elsha
reply to post by NihilistSanta

 

Fact is your post is correct. Not only do we have excellent historical backing to and for the New Testament, but Christianity has the very best historical evidence which is a little known secret. How acient writings can be considered trustworthy is a very complicated subject but to make a long subject short: The New Testament is the best. As if thats not enough, the Dead Sea Scrolls further revealed that today's Old Testament has been amazingly preserved. Those are the HISTORICAL FACTS to this case.

The Muslim teaching that the bible has become corrupted is simply not historical the case, just as teaching that Islam is a peaceful religion is also not historically true as the Koran (and history) teach

wrong, the Jewish Pentateuch is the most sloppy of all versions of it...the Samaritan Pentateuch is not only better grammar, but more precise and accurate...it was preserved intact from the earliest times, but the Jewish version was written from recitations of old men returning from the exile in Babylon...

and lets not ignore the fact that genesis was a book completely plaigiarized from ancient sumerian tablets...and a bad version of that too, since it left out so much detail it is ridiculous...it was a paraphrase or a summary of what the original stories were...and then they tacked on their own Abrahamic stories etc, to make it their own...

there are places in every one of the books of the bible that have errors, and not just lies, but grammatical errors, there are passages added to the end of some books...dishonest scholars had their hands all over the books of the bible...even more recently some translations mislead people by changing words to "simplify things"...the bible is a hot steaming pile of mess...

and thats not all the council of Nicaea was formed to edit the bible the way those corrupt church officials thought would gain them more power under the rule of Constantine...they knew what they were getting into when they began to change Christianity into a religion...it was about power, never about being holy...the same way the counselors of the British kings and queens manipulated the royalty, or the church manipulated the governments of Europe during the dark ages...

seems like there are a few here who like to call the kettle black...and forget that the ancient world was not some golden age, but just as messed up and corrupt as it is today...

but still lets ignore the fact that so much injustice has been done to people, souls, and assume that somehow the creator would hand carry a document written by man and make sure it remains the same as the day it is born?!?!?!

the creator cares not about books...the creators concern is creation

Originally posted by studythem1

Originally posted by Elsha
reply to post by NihilistSanta

 

Fact is your post is correct. Not only do we have excellent historical backing to and for the New Testament, but Christianity has the very best historical evidence which is a little known secret. How acient writings can be considered trustworthy is a very complicated subject but to make a long subject short: The New Testament is the best. As if thats not enough, the Dead Sea Scrolls further revealed that today's Old Testament has been amazingly preserved. Those are the HISTORICAL FACTS to this case.

The Muslim teaching that the bible has become corrupted is simply not historical the case, just as teaching that Islam is a peaceful religion is also not historically true as the Koran (and history) teach

wrong, the Jewish Pentateuch is the most sloppy of all versions of it...the Samaritan Pentateuch is not only better grammar, but more precise and accurate...it was preserved intact from the earliest times, but the Jewish version was written from recitations of old men returning from the exile in Babylon...

there are places in every one of the books of the bible that have errors, and not just lies, but grammatical errors, there are passages added to the end of some books...dishonest scholars had their hands all over the books of the bible...even more recently some translations mislead people by changing words to "simplify things"...the bible is a hot steaming pile of mess...

and thats not all the council of Nicaea was formed to edit the bible the way those corrupt church officials thought would gain them more power under the rule of Constantine...they knew what they were getting into when they began to change Christianity into a religion...it was about power, never about being holy...the same way the counselors of the British kings and queens manipulated the royalty, or the church manipulated the governments of Europe during the dark ages...

seems like there are a few here who like to call the kettle black...and forget that the ancient world was not some golden age, but just as messed up and corrupt as it is today...

but still lets ignore the fact that so much injustice has been done to people, souls, and assume that somehow the creator would hand carry a document written by man and make sure it remains the same as the day it is born?!?!?!

the creator cares not about books...the creators concern is creation

You should go back some pages to the 2 videos I posted. You are making claims about the bible that you can not back up. Just more conjecture.

Originally posted by jhill76

Job is lesson.
Christ's account is true and accurate, less the details. Like him being in the wilderness 40 days, it was actually longer than that.

So, what aspects of the lesson of Job are accurate?

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by jhill76

Job is lesson.
Christ's account is true and accurate, less the details. Like him being in the wilderness 40 days, it was actually longer than that.

So, what aspects of the lesson of Job are accurate?

All.

Originally posted by Elsha
reply to post by studythem1

 

Oh and by the way...when Jesus appears before the religious leaders the night before the cross, the High Priest says are "you the Christ, the Son of God ( or God the Son in Greek)?"

Jesus said: " I am"

The High Priest tore his robe and reminded Israel that the Lord is One. The shema. This was because Jesus claimed Deity again which to the Jews was pagan

again you are stringing passages together like beads on a necklace...

im sure Jesus said that so many times it is ridiculous...like Jesus and his disciples at a restaurant...or their equivalent of it... the waiter asks "who's having the sauteed lamb with dates and the flat-bread?" Jesus said "i am"...or what about the time peter knocked on the door of the outhouse and asked "who's in there?" and Jesus said "i am"

ever been to court? ever have the judge ask you if you were so and so? whats the proper response?

"yes", or "I am..". or even "yes, I am"...

reply to post by studythem1


your embarrassing yourself here. I have studied all this through a system of study called apologetics and no it does not mean to apologize.

Your wasting your time with me. I know for a FACT you do not know what you are talking about. I'm sorry but it's not a simple topic so....no offense.

Originally posted by NihilistSanta

Originally posted by studythem1

Originally posted by Elsha
reply to post by NihilistSanta

 

Fact is your post is correct. Not only do we have excellent historical backing to and for the New Testament, but Christianity has the very best historical evidence which is a little known secret. How acient writings can be considered trustworthy is a very complicated subject but to make a long subject short: The New Testament is the best. As if thats not enough, the Dead Sea Scrolls further revealed that today's Old Testament has been amazingly preserved. Those are the HISTORICAL FACTS to this case.

The Muslim teaching that the bible has become corrupted is simply not historical the case, just as teaching that Islam is a peaceful religion is also not historically true as the Koran (and history) teach

wrong, the Jewish Pentateuch is the most sloppy of all versions of it...the Samaritan Pentateuch is not only better grammar, but more precise and accurate...it was preserved intact from the earliest times, but the Jewish version was written from recitations of old men returning from the exile in Babylon...

there are places in every one of the books of the bible that have errors, and not just lies, but grammatical errors, there are passages added to the end of some books...dishonest scholars had their hands all over the books of the bible...even more recently some translations mislead people by changing words to "simplify things"...the bible is a hot steaming pile of mess...

and thats not all the council of Nicaea was formed to edit the bible the way those corrupt church officials thought would gain them more power under the rule of Constantine...they knew what they were getting into when they began to change Christianity into a religion...it was about power, never about being holy...the same way the counselors of the British kings and queens manipulated the royalty, or the church manipulated the governments of Europe during the dark ages...

seems like there are a few here who like to call the kettle black...and forget that the ancient world was not some golden age, but just as messed up and corrupt as it is today...

but still lets ignore the fact that so much injustice has been done to people, souls, and assume that somehow the creator would hand carry a document written by man and make sure it remains the same as the day it is born?!?!?!

the creator cares not about books...the creators concern is creation

You should go back some pages to the 2 videos I posted. You are making claims about the bible that you can not back up. Just more conjecture.

conjecture? how about you read the Sumerian tablets or even the translations of them and get back to me? how about read the Jewish and Samaritan comparative torah (both versions of the Pentateuch side by side) and get back to me? how about read some of the books that survived the purge after the Nicaean creed? How about see the oldest copies of the gospels, and actually see the add ins and editing im talking about? how about read some history or see some of the things people left behind in the old world? ever been out of the US? i could prove all day to you, post links, etc, but you would still say it is conjecture...i however, have done these things and can prove it...im not just talking out of my hat...

but if you want to disprove it...then use Google to find even a couple of things i just mentioned, instead of just cutting and pasting scripture to back your weak arguments...

Originally posted by studythem1

Originally posted by NihilistSanta

Originally posted by studythem1

Originally posted by Elsha
reply to post by NihilistSanta

 

Fact is your post is correct. Not only do we have excellent historical backing to and for the New Testament, but Christianity has the very best historical evidence which is a little known secret. How acient writings can be considered trustworthy is a very complicated subject but to make a long subject short: The New Testament is the best. As if thats not enough, the Dead Sea Scrolls further revealed that today's Old Testament has been amazingly preserved. Those are the HISTORICAL FACTS to this case.

The Muslim teaching that the bible has become corrupted is simply not historical the case, just as teaching that Islam is a peaceful religion is also not historically true as the Koran (and history) teach

wrong, the Jewish Pentateuch is the most sloppy of all versions of it...the Samaritan Pentateuch is not only better grammar, but more precise and accurate...it was preserved intact from the earliest times, but the Jewish version was written from recitations of old men returning from the exile in Babylon...

there are places in every one of the books of the bible that have errors, and not just lies, but grammatical errors, there are passages added to the end of some books...dishonest scholars had their hands all over the books of the bible...even more recently some translations mislead people by changing words to "simplify things"...the bible is a hot steaming pile of mess...

and thats not all the council of Nicaea was formed to edit the bible the way those corrupt church officials thought would gain them more power under the rule of Constantine...they knew what they were getting into when they began to change Christianity into a religion...it was about power, never about being holy...the same way the counselors of the British kings and queens manipulated the royalty, or the church manipulated the governments of Europe during the dark ages...

seems like there are a few here who like to call the kettle black...and forget that the ancient world was not some golden age, but just as messed up and corrupt as it is today...

but still lets ignore the fact that so much injustice has been done to people, souls, and assume that somehow the creator would hand carry a document written by man and make sure it remains the same as the day it is born?!?!?!

the creator cares not about books...the creators concern is creation

You should go back some pages to the 2 videos I posted. You are making claims about the bible that you can not back up. Just more conjecture.

conjecture? how about you read the Sumerian tablets or even the translations of them and get back to me? how about read the Jewish and Samaritan comparative torah (both versions of the Pentateuch side by side) and get back to me? how about read some of the books that survived the purge after the Nicaean creed? How about see the oldest copies of the gospels, and actually see the add ins and editing im talking about? how about read some history or see some of the things people left behind in the old world? ever been out of the US? i could prove all day to you, post links, etc, but you would still say it is conjecture...i however, have done these things and can prove it...im not just talking out of my hat...

but if you want to disprove it...then use Google to find even a couple of things i just mentioned, instead of just cutting and pasting scripture to back your weak arguments...

Refusing to submit evidence does not help your claim......

Originally posted by Elsha
reply to post by studythem1

 

your embarrassing yourself here. I have studied all this through a system of study called apologetics and no it does not mean to apologize.

Your wasting your time with me. I know for a FACT you do not know what you are talking about. I'm sorry but it's not a simple topic so....no offense.

i said that for humor, but apparently you have none...and i know what apologetics is too, i took it in junior year of college 20 years ago...and grew disgusted over the circular reasoning i was subjected to and yet just because it was christian it was ok, but let a Buddhist use circular reasoning and its wrong...bottom line...hypocrisy...funny how Jesus didn't get along with them either, hypocrites i mean...

like you said a waste of time...

and i may sound foolish to you, but you dont know me either...

reply to post by studythem1


studythem....apologetics is not a philosophy so it can't have circular reasoning. Apologetics is a study of the combination of archeological proofs of the claims of the bible. Apologetics also studies textual authenticity based on secular accepted modes of analysis. Apologetics also examines biblical prophecy using mathematical probabilities. Apolgetics further examines issues such as the trial of Christ, the resurrection, and the historicity of the Roman's in the case of Jesus of Nazareth.

Apologetics is based on historicity so its not circular.

reply to post by NihilistSanta


ok heres a couple of links...

you asked for it...

web.meson.org...

etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...

Mark is the shortest of the canonical gospels. Manuscripts, both scrolls and codices, tend to lose text at the beginning and the end, not unlike a coverless paperback in a backpack.[26] These losses are characteristically unconnected with excisions. For instance, Mark 1:1 has been found in two different forms. Most manuscripts of Mark, including the 4th-century Codex Vaticanus, have the text "son of God",[27] but three important manuscripts do not. Those three are: Codex Sinaiticus (01, א; dated 4th century), Codex Koridethi (038, Θ; 9th century), and the text called Minuscule 28 (11th century).[28] Textual support for the term "Son of God" is strong, but the phrase may not have been original.[29] Interpolations may not be editorial, either. It is a common experience that glosses written in the margins of manuscripts get incorporated into the text as copies are made. Any particular example is open to dispute, of course, but one may take note of Mark 7:16, "Let anyone with ears to hear, listen," which is not found in early manuscripts. Revision and editorial error may also contribute. Most differences are trivial but Mark 1:41, where the leper approached Jesus begging to be healed, is significant. Early (Western) manuscripts say that Jesus became angry with the leper while later (Byzantine) versions indicate that Jesus showed compassion. This is possibly a confusion between the Aramaic words ethraham (he had pity) and ethra'em (he was enraged).[30] Since it is easier to understand why a scribe would change "rage" to "pity" than "pity" to "rage," the earlier version is probably original.[31]

thats just three things...i could continue, but i must get some rest tonight...

Originally posted by Elsha
reply to post by studythem1

 

studythem....apologetics is not a philosophy so it can't have circular reasoning. Apologetics is a study of the combination of archeological proofs of the claims of the bible. Apologetics also studies textual authenticity based on secular accepted modes of analysis. Apologetics also examines biblical prophecy using mathematical probabilities. Apolgetics further examines issues such as the trial of Christ, the resurrection, and the historicity of the Roman's in the case of Jesus of Nazareth.

Apologetics is based on historicity so its not circular.

the reasoning behind the doctrines is circular, or baseless...just because i can prove Jesus lived in the time of the Romans or the book he was featured in was from then, does not mean he was equal with the creator...so apologetics cannot even logically tackle this...grammar and linguistics cannot always prove the context of what was written, it is also a guess at best...

reply to post by studythem1


yes....lol....the first link basically states that the Jews well preserved their text called the Masoretic Text and that the Samaritians had style differences. Of course they did, they didnt even worship in the Jerusalem Temple!?!

The other link of Sumeria.....what they have a flood account? They also have an account of the Annunaki etc etc. There ARE differences....