Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
From	Message
saintinsanity 02-Dec-06, 20:49	But I've been through it too, several times. If Jesus claimed to be God, then why were the pharisees mad at him?
proginoskes 02-Dec-06, 22:03	pawn ***If Jesus claimed to be God, then why were the pharisees mad at him?*** The pharisees were mad *because* He claimed to be God. That was a blasphemous statement to them.
saintinsanity 02-Dec-06, 23:16	Oh nevermind I've always been of a mind to think John embellished his story a bit too much compared to the other 3 books.
proginoskes 03-Dec-06, 05:59	pawn the idea that Jesus Christ is *ALSO* God is found all over the Bible - not just te gospel of John. I wrote a paper years ago that addressed this in response to some Jehova's Witnesses that were stopping by. Most people slam the door in their faces - I invite them in. PM me your email and I'll send it to you. (anyone else interested can PM me as well)
proginoskes 03-Dec-06, 06:00	pawn BTW, what basis do *YOU* have to make an accusation of embellishment on the part of John?
oldguard 03-Dec-06, 15:58	It's all made up I came across a statement in the socratic club which said that Christianity was "invented" by St. Paul who blended jewish ideas of a messiah with Greek thought. Paul's ideas became the Christian religion and yet James, who took over after jesus died accused Paul of preaching false doctrine. That must mean it's contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Apparantly the false doctrine statement is in the Acts of the Apostles. As for the Gospel of John. This is almost pure Plato and so differerent to the synoptic gospels that both cannot be a true reflection of the teachings of Jesus. Another thing whilst I am on my soap box. If Jesus was truly man and truly God when was he which, if you follow my drift. When he accused God of deserting him when he was on the cross I suppose it will be argued that he was truly man but when he "rose from the dead" truly God. Too illogical for me.
soulcrates 03-Dec-06, 18:58	The Qur'an states that "Jesus, son of Mary said ... 'I am indeed the Messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah that is before me and giving good tidings of a messenger who shall come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.'" (Sura 61:6). Do we find any record thereof in the Bible? Ahmed is a form of the name Mohammed, both meaning "the praised one". In the Greek tongue, we are told, this would be "periklytos". Now we find in John's Gospel, Chapter 14:16: "I will pray the Father and He will give you another "parakletos", (Counsellor or comforter) to be with you for ever." Not sure what this means, but the passion of the Christ has Jesus saying something similar to this while being crucified on the cross, and it struck me as interesting.
proginoskes 03-Dec-06, 20:11	oldguard ***Christianity was "invented" by St. Paul who blended jewish ideas of a messiah with Greek thought. Paul's ideas became the Christian religion and yet James, who took over after jesus died accused Paul of preaching false doctrine. That must mean it's contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Apparantly the false doctrine statement is in the Acts of the Apostles.*** Ummmm . . . yeah . . . wow . . . there is no blending wen it comes to Christian thought. Christianity is completely unique in its approach to God. James never accused Paul of preaching false doctrine. Paul was an Apostle and the rest of the Apostles recognized him as such. ***As for the Gospel of John. This is almost pure Plato and so differerent to the synoptic gospels that both cannot be a true reflection of the teachings of Jesus.*** Pure Plato? No. Different from the synoptics in the themes and ideas? Hardly. ***If Jesus was truly man and truly God when was he which, if you follow my drift. When he accused God of deserting him when he was on the cross I suppose it will be argued that he was truly man but when he "rose from the dead" truly God*** When was he which? You misunderstand to ask such a question; there was never a time whe he was not BOTH at the same time.
proginoskes 03-Dec-06, 20:15	soul ***Do we find any record thereof in the Bible?*** Record of what specifically? ***Not sure what this means, but the passion of the Christ has Jesus saying something similar to this while being crucified on the cross, and it struck me as interesting.*** "parakletos" = the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. Jesus was telling His disciples that even though He would be gone, He would send the Holy Spirit to be with them; which was actually better because this Holy spirit could live and dwell within at all times.
soulcrates 03-Dec-06, 22:21	parakletos = the holy spirit? or "the praised one"? Here is where Islam differs from Christianity. Islam was written in arabic, and still read in it's original context. The Bible was written in Greek, although Jesus spoke Aramaic, and then translated to Latin, and then translated into Greek. Martin Luther skipped the Latin, but still had to only use text that was not only written in a different languag, but then translated into a 3rd language (German). If you're protestant, then you have a 4th translation of English, but if you grew up in the Roman Catholic church, King James Bible, you'd be reading the 5th translation. The Qur'an remaining in it's original context, spoken and read the exact same way for 1400 years, is in itself a miracle in the age of monotheism.
soulcrates 03-Dec-06, 22:22	*Edits* Greek==>Latin==>German(not Greek again)==>English
proginoskes 04-Dec-06, 06:33	soul the English of todys Bible's says the same thing as the oldest mauscripts existant today. the number of translations is irrelevent.
proginoskes 04-Dec-06, 06:34	soul there were no "edits" - nothing needed editing. the text was faithfully copied *as is* from one laguage to another.
soulcrates 04-Dec-06, 09:51	Copied from one language to another. Do you see how impossible that statement is? You say the word means 'holy spirit' others say it meant 'praised one'. How is that copying, when there is obviously 2 different translations, in only 1 of the translations. Let alone 4 of them. It's great faith that you would think anyone translating a religious document wouldn't mistranslate for personal benefit, or for any other stupid reason. Even if they didn't mistranslate on purpose, the possibility of mistranslations exists to such a high degree, that the entire document is structurally flawed.
proginoskes 04-Dec-06, 10:12	soul The reason "parakletos" is talking about the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, in this passage has everything to do, not only with the context, but also what happened to Apostles after the ascenscion of Jesus Christ at Pentacost. Jesus Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit: "26But the Comforter [parakletos], which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" John 14:26 - and the Holy Spirit came to the Apsotles 50 days later. This can all be found in Acts. I will say this again *because I do not think you were hearing*, all modern translations agree with the earliest known manuscripts - there have been no mistranslations - no structural flaws. Thi brings up an interesting question. There is more than Koran. Even if the language is kept in Arabic, how can you be sure that a direct copy is made? How do you know that your Holy Book has not been manipulated the way you accuse mine? Before you answer remember, the same arguments you are using against the Bible and the same arguments I will send back at you against the Koran.
proginoskes 04-Dec-06, 10:19	above should have read, "there is more than one Koran" - someone copied it
zorroloco 04-Dec-06, 11:00	jd i have to agree with soul on this one. the qu'ran was written in an arabic that is still used by millions of people today. in fact, a translated qu'ran is not actually considered a qu'ran...by islamic law, it must be called 'the meaning of the qu'ran.' the bible, on the other hand, has been translated and mis-translated multiple times. here is a webpage (www.propadeutic.com" target="_blank">-> www.propadeutic.com ) that actually compares the different translations, giving pros and cons of each one. how is this possible if <all modern translations agree with the earliest known manuscripts - there have been no mistranslations - no structural flaws?>
proginoskes 04-Dec-06, 13:09	jeff and yet - todays modern translations say the same things as the oldest existing manuscripts and papyri . . . it's a red herring - seems intuitive, a very child-like assumption, but the evidence just does not show the kind of manipulation and textual damage that critics charge. sorry
zorroloco 04-Dec-06, 13:29	jd and yet, there are millions of people still using bibles such as: There are a few translations that get a failing grade. The Living Bible (LB) and the Message (MSG) stand out as examples of how not to do a paraphrase: textual decisions are all over the place, and some verses are rewritten to fit the translators' presuppositions. While these versions are conservative in origin, the translators seemed not to realize the theological implications of many of their renderings, and had little regard for meaning when exchanging old idioms for new ones. (I've heard it said that the Message should have been called the NEC, for "Not Even Close.") All the other truly bad translations suffer from serious theological bias. Lamsa, though unorthodox, would have scored higher if not for the inconsistencies and idiosyncracies that hamper most one-man translation projects. The most extreme examples are the New World Translation (NWT) and the Inclusive New Testament (INC). Without its doctrinal adjustments, the NWT would be one of the best translations available; as it is, the NWT is deliberately misleading and should be avoided. The New English Bible (NEB) went out on too many limbs with regard to text, translation, and style. The Revised English Bible (REB) is only slightly better. Phillips' New Testament in Modern English (PME) is the non-evangelical counterpart to the LB, and is far too free, though highly quotable. Moffatt goes so far as to rearrange whole passages and accepts higher-critical scholarship as a matter of course; his version is also too academic to be accessible for his intended readers. The most surprising entries (for me, anyway) were the Good News Translation (GNT), which has recently had a revival of popularity among evangelicals, and its brother the Contemporary English Version (CEV), both updates of the TEV. In their freedom they pass over the meaning of the text nearly as much as the NLT, are more liberal than the RSV, are fully gender-neutral, and take extraordinary liberties in restructuring and explaining the text. when millions are using these texts as their 'word of god,' how can you say it is a red herring? you may disagree with the versions of the bible they are using...which exactly proves the point.
proginoskes 04-Dec-06, 13:39	jeff Proves what point? First paraphrase versions of the Bible are *NOT* translations. The author gives you his won impressio of the verse. Second people who can read and write the laguages and translate the oldest manuscripts and papyri and have done so in large committees of varying denominations and even faiths (or lack thereof) to bring together today's common English translations. The fact that some folks have made crackpock translations is irrelevent. Look, learn greek, read the Bible in greek. Then read the Bible is English from a common translation and you will see they are the same. I have done this. Have you?
soulcrates 04-Dec-06, 13:49	jd the oldest copy of the Qur'an is in 653 in arabic, still in existence to ensure the solidarity of it's intentions. The oldest copy of the Bible in English is 1400. That is almost 1000 years later, and Jesus lived before Mohammad. Why is there such a difference between valid copies in the original language, and the Bible being transformed many times through many centuries? Jeff, that's alot of translations. Which one would all christians agree is the best? I don't think they would agree, and if forced to choose, I think there would be a large war.
proginoskes 04-Dec-06, 18:18	soul The oldest English Bible is 1200's the Wycliff Bible. There is not a big difference between valid copies in the original language - no transformation - same Bible - this is what I've been telling you, but you seem to ignore and parrot some crap you know nothing about, obviously. I learned and have read the greek. I have compared English translations and it says the same thing. The Best translation is the one that tell the story of the Gospel
soulcrates 04-Dec-06, 21:04	Jdh, perhaps I know more than you think. I have read the new testament, but not in some time. I grew up Catholic, so we had to learn about it, and get tested on it during CCD, some catechism classes, so don't pretend like I'm ignorant. I'm merely stating that the language barrier is there, and if you learned Greek then you can see it. I'm impressed that you learned Greek, since many simply learn Latin, and read the Catholic translation, but you went to the original writing, well some of it anyway. Aramaic is still the language spoken, and without an uncorruptable document, like the Qur'an has been proven to be, it's taking a chance that others didn't misinterpret the original documents. It seems to me that your blind faith that people are inherently honest is just that, blind. There have been many efforts to maintain wealth by the Catholic church, and in so there have been many opportunities to adjust the Bible as we know it. My point is that the Qur'an can be proven mathematically to be non-changeable. In that video, a man named Rashad Khalifa M.D. American biophysicist from Egypt, discovered this mathematical pattern throughout the Qur'an. It was inserted into the document to ensure that if corrupted it could return to it's original context through mathematical patterns throughout the book. video.google.com" target="_blank">-> video.google.com
qiwi 04-Dec-06, 21:09	For me the most powerful evidence that the original sayings/teachings of Christ have been radically altered is the New Testament itself...... It is simply inconceivable that the judgemental and hate-filled anti semitic drivel contained in the New Testament could have been originally inspired by an enlightened teacher of the calibre of Jesus Christ.....
proginoskes 05-Dec-06, 06:12	soul if you grew up Roman Catholic that does mean you are ignorant of the Bible. The Roman Catholic church did not change the Bible - in fact the RCC did it's best to keep the Bible form the people. The reason for the protestant formation was because Luther saw what was actually said in the Bible which the RCC suppressed. You would think that if the Bible had been manipulated as you accuse, that the RCC would have bee going out of its way for the people to know what it said for propaganda reasons. If you are going to insist on accusing the Bible of having been altered through translation, I am going to hav to give you a formal lesson that will have you leaving the conversation with yoru tail between your legs. Here is the thing: I think that the Qur'an copies exist true to the original, for the same reasons I believe the Bible exists as is from the original. Think about it.
proginoskes 05-Dec-06, 06:13	qiwi ***It is simply inconceivable that the judgemental and hate-filled anti semitic drivel contained in the New Testament could have been originally inspired by an enlightened teacher of the calibre of Jesus Christ.....*** You are definitely even more igorant than soul on this subject. impressive. there is nothing hatefilled for antisemitic in the NT.
bobbynox 05-Dec-06, 06:30	Deleted by bobbynox on 23-Jan-07, 09:55.
saintinsanity 05-Dec-06, 07:36	Jd I liked your second to last post. Except for a couple of things. First of all, if the Roman Catholics were so far off that Luther had to start a new religion, how come both of the religions are so much the same? While I will admit the Church had tried to keep the bible out of the hands of the common people, I disagree that the current accepted Catholic translation is so far different from any other accepted translation. Although, no matter what your argument, I think you will find that any translation lacks the perfect original intent. As far as the Quran goes, it is no different from the bible. You can argue translation all day long. In fact, you should open a new thread and do so. As far as religion goes, you are looking at several different species that all stem from the same source. In fact, there are more than a few. Nevertheless, not everyone can agree, but what everyone can do, is try to find something that makes sense for them. So be a christian. Be a muslim. God bless you. Let us not forget what is important.
proginoskes 05-Dec-06, 08:06	pawn Have I ever told you how much I appreciate your mind and heart? Seriously. (now that the semiemotional bulls**t is out of the way . . . we should probably pretend it never happened, like men, maybe punch each other or something . . .) ***First of all, if the Roman Catholics were so far off that Luther had to start a new religion, how come both of the religions are so much the same?*** Good question. Similarities occur only at face value. Romanism is Christianized paganism. It took the popular paganism of the day - which really is the original Mystery Religion, and the reason for the common thread through te religions of the non-Jew and non-Christian - and placed a Christian theme on top. The religion was not based on Biblical teachings, but rather the traditions of men. If you would like some examples, I can give you some ***While I will admit the Church had tried to keep the bible out of the hands of the common people, I disagree that the current accepted Catholic translation is so far different from any other accepted translation.*** You are right. Like I have been saying, not even the Roman Catholics changed the translation. ***Although, no matter what your argument, I think you will find that any translation lacks the perfect original intent.*** Nope. The "intent" is clearly found - the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all over the place. You will not find a translation that destroys this message. The intent is sound. ***As far as religion goes, you are looking at several different species that all stem from the same source. In fact, there are more than a few. Nevertheless, not everyone can agree, but what everyone can do, is try to find something that makes sense for them. So be a christian. Be a muslim. God bless you. Let us not forget what is important.*** Partly correct. There have always only been two religions that of the God of Heaven and that of the Adversary - known as the mystery religions. All mystery religions are similar in nature at the bottom and become increasingly the same as one becomes more and more "adept" and "initiated" into knowledge of the mystery. Here's the important piece - while people are free to follow whatever path they chose - there is ony one path that leads to the Father and salvation. That path can only come through Jesus Christ.
saintinsanity 05-Dec-06, 08:25	Thank you Jdh71, that means a lot to me, actually. Ya big lug. Ahem. I think the similarities are deeper than face value. In fact, when you focus too much on the details of the differences, you may become divided too easily from your brother. As far as intent, I feel like you are changing MY translation. I said "perfect" intent. Ok, I give up. I don't even want to argue that with a true blood. Your last statement, I find much too divisive. If you appreciate my heart and mind, then please appreciate this. What I am telling you right now is not your christian doctrine. Neither is this the work of the enemy. This is just me, sitting here thinking real thoughts. You might group me with the mystery religions. But to say there is only 'us and them' is not quite true to the nature of Jesus' message. At least, I hope not. It isn't us and them. It's just you and me, man. Please don't send me down there.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, free online chess games database, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles and more.