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.
sk0rpi0n
People don't usually learn science from those opposed to science. So there's no reason for people to learn Islam from those opposed to it.
FlyersFan
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
Jesus, being God incarnate to most Christians, isn't lower on the totem pole then Angels.
LittleByLittle
Do you see angels and Jesus as brothers and sisters working together on the same level or Jesus as a leader of angels?.
FlyersFan
LittleByLittle
Do you see angels and Jesus as brothers and sisters working together on the same level or Jesus as a leader of angels?.
Most of Christianity sees Jesus as God Incarnate and therefore Jesus, being creator, would have the Angels working for Him. I've heard that 'Jesus is a brother of certain angels' thing before. I think the LDS believe that. But I"m not sure. I'd have to look it up.
bloodreviara
If you believe that you can read something into a book
that isn't clearly stated then you must therefore believe
that you have a special ability, IE spiritually reading the
bible where others cannot, hence this claim is based
upon pride in and of itself.
That is the problem with religion, it is all based in pride
and ego, the claim that you have the correct answer to
the so called after life.
sk0rpi0n
@ ServantOfTheLamb...... While the bible requires a sense of spirituality to be ubderstood, that doesn't mean we throw common sense and objectivity out of the window while reading the verses. Also, the meanings of certain words and phrases dont change for anybody. Claiming a ''spiritual eye'' does not mean distorting the meanings of words, or reading your own meanings into things.edit on 19-12-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)
sk0rpi0n
So a statement by a latecomer Paul on a subject, like say, forgiveness of sin, or the nature of God... does NOT take precedende over Jesus or Gods own words on the same subject. Paul wrote, at best a commentary....and no commentary takes precedence over the original body of work.
Pardon?
And then bare in mind it was devised and written (and re-written and re-written etc etc) by men so no spirituality actually applies.edit on 19/12/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)
Copyright © 2013 NormanGeisler.net - All rights reserved Due to more recent studies , the number has now swelled to 400,000 (Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jes u s , p p. 89 - 90 ). Wallace agrees with this number, citing several sources . However, this number is misleading for a couple reasons. First, a “variant” is not an error. It is simply a different reading from the standard text. Second, the vast majority of variants are grammatical variants in form and do not affect the content of the message . Even Bible critic Bart Ehrman admits that “It would be a mistake, however, to assume that the only changes being made were by copyist with a personal stake in the wording of the text. In fact , most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology . Far and away the most changes are results of mistakes, pure and simple — slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another” ( Misquoting Jesus , 55, emphasis added). Finally, as noted below, only a small fraction of the variants bear on the meaning of the text, and none affect any major doctrine of the Christian Faith. A correction to our previous publications should be noted here. Dan Wall ace pointed out in his article “ The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation ” that variant reading should not be counted by adding all the various readings in all the manuscripts. For example , a word spelled differently from the standard text i n 500 manuscripts is not counted as 500 variants. It is counted as one variant . The origin of this error was apparently Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got Our B ible . Baker, 1963) from whom we sourced it in GIB rev, 468 , and it has spread from there. The Percent of Accuracy of the New Testament Manuscripts There have been different ways to estimate the percent of accuracy of the NT by different scholars . Here are estimates of several note d Greek scholars : Westcott and Hort estimated that only about one - sixtieth rise above “trivialities” and can be called “substantial variations.” Th at would make the NT 98.33 percent pure of any substantial variation. Ezra Abbott said about 19/20 (95 pe rcent) of the readings are “various” rather than “rival” readings, and about 19/20 (95 percent) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. Thus the text would be 99.75 percent pure from rival readings that make a difference in the meaning of the text . A. T. Robertson said the real concern is with about a “thousandth pa rt of the entire text.” So, th e rec on structed text of the New Testament 99.9 percent free from real concern. Philip Schaff said that of the 150,000 variations known in his day , only 400 affected the sense; and of those only 50 were of real significance; and of these not one affected “an article of faith ....” ( Philip Schaff, Companion to the Greek NT and English Version, 177 , emphasis added ) . This means that the NT is 100% from any errors in essential doctrines of the Christian Faith. The words of Sir Frederic Kenyon still stand today : “The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligib le, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down substantially as they were written has Copyright © 2013 NormanGeisler.net - All rights reserved now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, Bible and Archaeology . NY: Harper, 1940 , p. 288
Woodcarver
You are admiting to reading into the story what you want to see. It may not say clearly that certain folks are going to hell but it does clearly state that you should kill them brutally and at your earliest convenience. If it is your position that the collection of stories which you call the "bible" ( i.e. Bibliography; collection of books) are the divine words of an all knowing deity, and you dont kill the people whom it clearly states you must. Then you are endangering your eternal soul. So get at it.edit on 19-12-2013 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)
rickymouse
I like to read the bible with an open mind. It is a good book. I see that homosexuals tried to take over societies in their writings and this caused problems. So they decided to ban homosexuals. When any group decides to seize power, it becomes a problem. This includes homosexuals.
It also appears that women may have tried to seize power before also, so they made a practice of suppressing women. Even the black people out of Africa seem to have tried to control things thousands of years BC I find. This may have spurred an uprising against them and contributed to our racial bias.
Religions have always been trying to take over and so have the power hungry people that would like to control everything. People have not changed yet. I can't see suppressing a whole race or class of people for the actions of a quarter of their members though. Herd practices do take effect though when enough crabby ones take control.
This policy of people taking over does not have to happen. We can live together peacefully and equally.
But people haven't changed in the last two thousand years, someone always wants to be controlling as many as they can. They will steer people to interpret something the way they interpret it and slam them if they interpret it differently.edit on 19-12-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)
sk0rpi0n
@flyersfan..... ''Christian 'hierarchy' (if you call it that) has God the Father and Jesus on the same level of importance.'' - According to Christian scriptures, Jesus said to direct prayers to God. He never once said to anybody ''pray to me''. But you reject large chunks of the Bible anyway, so these details don't matter to you. __________________________________________________ ''Your Muslim way of reading the bible doesn't work for Christians'' - Apparently Jesus' own teachings don't seem to be working for Christians who ignore Jesus' teaching ''worship only God'' and prefer to make a god out of Jesus.
These are the words of Jesus Himself and the controversy is over the Greek word translated “one”. Here’s the position of those who deny the deity of Jesus. “John 10:30 is quite a controversial verse however when you read it in the Greek you learn that the Greeks have different words for the word one. There is a word for one in the same and a word or one in purpose. The Greek word used here is the word for one in purpose not one in the same.” Every major English translation agrees that this verse says, “I and the Father are one”. The Greek word translated “one” in this verse was used to say the number one when counting in Greek. A plain sense reading of the verse indicates that Jesus was saying He and the Father are one. Most Bibles offer no further explanation or clarification, indicating the verse means what it says. Only those who deny the deity of Jesus have trouble accepting this. And remember, the Jews wanted Jesus put to death for claiming to be God, not for claiming to have the same goals or purpose as God.
ServantOfTheLamb
Woodcarver
You are admiting to reading into the story what you want to see. It may not say clearly that certain folks are going to hell but it does clearly state that you should kill them brutally and at your earliest convenience. If it is your position that the collection of stories which you call the "bible" ( i.e. Bibliography; collection of books) are the divine words of an all knowing deity, and you dont kill the people whom it clearly states you must. Then you are endangering your eternal soul. So get at it.edit on 19-12-2013 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)
Read some of my recent comments they explain what I meant, when I said a spiritual eye. The quoted statement shows a complete lack of understanding of what the Bible is about. Jesus said love your enemies, and to fight them with kindness.
40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Friend,
You are speaking about the ways of the old covenant, which were not abolished by Jesus, but fulfilled.
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
If you would take the advice man, and read the Bible without the intent of proving that it is bologna, and instead only looking for the truth whether it be with or against what your believe you wouldn't have missed such simple concepts such as that.
edit on 20-12-2013 by ServantOfTheLamb because: hit enter on accident
Woodcarver
Jesus was not the first one portrayed to have said most of these tenets anyways. These ideas of taking care o your brethren and be a good sheperd and most of his more popular tenets were being passed around by buddhists and dharmists along with many more. There were plenty of good folks walking about before jesus.edit on 20-12-2013 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)
Paul was not always consistent with the words of Jesus. In fact, he contradicted Jesus in many ways. A discussion on how and why calls for an entirely new thread. But much has been written about this, so I can only leave you with these links from these presumably Christian sources...
Paul is consistent with Jesus words as far as I am aware of. Jesus's words are Gods words, so saying Jesus or God was a bit redundant. Are you saying Jesus didn't preach about forgiveness of sin
All I mean is that people should truly attempt to connect with God before and as they're reading it, and see if He reveals anything to them personally. At what point have I distorted words, or read my own meanings into things?
I believe you are the one who is disagreeing with Jesus if you believe he was not God.
If you are Muslim sir I do not mean to offend, but please consider your statement made earlier
"So a statement by a latecomer Paul on a subject, like say, forgiveness of sin, or the nature of God... does NOT take precedende over Jesus or Gods own words on the same subject. Paul wrote, at best a commentary....and no commentary takes precedence over the original body of work. "
This statement also applies to Muhammad and the Qur'an.