Jesus Christ, was he sent for all mankind?

[anatolian]

Did you know His arabic name is not "Isa"? Though what are your thoughts that His second coming is marked in Christianity before Islam came to be?

Yes the christian arabs say Yesu or Yasouh as you said.But in Quran some names are modified. I dont know the significance of this.For example Abraham's father name is Terah in Torah but he is called Azer in Quran, a completely different name.

The second coming of Isa aleyhissalam is just one of the several common teachings between Christianity and Islam.It''s not very surprising.

 

[anatolian]

"he who has ears let him hear" good enough for me...

Salam.For example?

 

[elwill]

We have the TRUTH you want to distinguish from your error. Your reference is bogus. You look at the source not the reference.

accoding to us ( muslims ) we believe that our source (quran) is from God , what about yours ? is it some of greek sources ! ? but jesus was talking hebrew , am i wrong ?

 

[peaceful soul]

accoding to us ( muslims ) we believe that our source (quran) is from God , what about yours ? is it some of greek sources ! ? but jesus was talking hebrew , am i wrong ?

Jesus would not have only spoken Hebrew. The people surrounding Him were of multi cultures and nationalities. The people in the area that He lived were not monolithic. The governmental language was Latin. Greek was the dominant language. Hebrew was spoken amongst the Jews, especially in Jewish affairs such as Temple events. Aramaic was spoken by Jews as well as Samaritans who lived near them. So depending upon where Jesus went and whom He spoke, His language changed.

it is the Islamic world that tries to make a case that He spoke a certain language (Aramaic) and that a presumably lost book of Jesus (Injeel) was used by Him to teach. If anyone is making errors, it is Muslims who do not want to accept what history shows us. You are simply trying to protect your beliefs without using what I feel is a lack of using common sense and understanding certain aspects of Christian and Jewish history. Just because your Qu'ran says something, it doesn't mean that you can simply disregard what prehistorical evidence indicates that differs with your POV.

 

[Carey]

accoding to us ( muslims ) we believe that our source (quran) is from God , what about yours ? is it some of greek sources ! ? but jesus was talking hebrew , am i wrong ?

archaelogoical digs all over Jerusalem prove the Bible right.

 

[KCDAD]

archaelogoical digs all over Jerusalem prove the Bible right.

About what?

 

[elwill]

Jesus would not have only spoken Hebrew. The people surrounding Him were of multi cultures and nationalities. The people in the area that He lived were not monolithic. The governmental language was Latin. Greek was the dominant language. Hebrew was spoken amongst the Jews, especially in Jewish affairs such as Temple events. Aramaic was spoken by Jews as well as Samaritans who lived near them. So depending upon where Jesus went and whom He spoke, His language changed.

okey let me repeat what i mean by another word

None of the copies you have are originals. None of the manuscripts you have are copies of copies of the original. Not even copies of copies of copies of the originals. None of the copies that you do have, except for the earliest fragments, is identical to any of the others. There are more differences among the copies than there are words in the New Testament.

for more details vist this site and tell me how i can depend on the bible as a source or references of truth .
http://members.aol.com/drswiney/corrupt.html

 

[KCDAD]

okey let me repeat what i mean by another word

None of the copies you have are originals. None of the manuscripts you have are copies of copies of the original. Not even copies of copies of copies of the originals. None of the copies that you do have, except for the earliest fragments, is identical to any of the others. There are more differences among the copies than there are words in the New Testament.

for more details vist this site and tell me how i can depend on the bible as a source or references of truth .
http://members.aol.com/drswiney/corrupt.html

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html
If you want to see how ancient texts are reconciled... this is an excellent tutorial.

 

[Secundulus]

okey let me repeat what i mean by another word

None of the copies you have are originals. None of the manuscripts you have are copies of copies of the original. Not even copies of copies of copies of the originals. None of the copies that you do have, except for the earliest fragments, is identical to any of the others. There are more differences among the copies than there are words in the New Testament.

for more details vist this site and tell me how i can depend on the bible as a source or references of truth .
http://members.aol.com/drswiney/corrupt.html

If you think it is so corrupt why are you quoting from it in another thread to try and make us accept Muhammed? Try and be consistent with your arguments.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Jesus would not have only spoken Hebrew. The people surrounding Him were of multi cultures and nationalities. The people in the area that He lived were not monolithic. The governmental language was Latin. Greek was the dominant language. Hebrew was spoken amongst the Jews, especially in Jewish affairs such as Temple events. Aramaic was spoken by Jews as well as Samaritans who lived near them. So depending upon where Jesus went and whom He spoke, His language changed.

it is the Islamic world that tries to make a case that He spoke a certain language (Aramaic) and that a presumably lost book of Jesus (Injeel) was used by Him to teach. If anyone is making errors, it is Muslims who do not want to accept what history shows us. You are simply trying to protect your beliefs without using what I feel is a lack of using common sense and understanding certain aspects of Christian and Jewish history. Just because your Qu'ran says something, it doesn't mean that you can simply disregard what prehistorical evidence indicates that differs with your POV.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to peaceful soul again.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

None of the copies you have are originals.

Really? You think the copies Quran you have are the originals? Where are the verses that were written on leaves, leather pieces, rocks? Where are they?

None of the manuscripts you have are copies of copies of the original. Not even copies of copies of copies of the originals.

The Bible is the verbal plenary inspired word of God in the original manuscripts. None of the original manuscripts exist today, except tens of thousands of copies (a great deal are verifiable as being in use very near to the time of the originals - quite often within a decade or two - based on entirely secular historical evidences both archeological and otherwise). The indisputable fact of the matter is that none of the copies depart in an any significant manner from each other. There is a very good reason that the originals do not exist any more, in that it was God's way of dealing with man's propensity for idol worship. Veneration of the original manuscripts would preempt the glory of God contained in His Word, and therefore He allowed them to be lost.
Consider the following URL concerning preservation of God's word and transmission over the centuries:

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/bible_preservation.php

It must be noted that with but two exceptions, there is not another English version available today which is based upon the text of Stephanus and Beza, commonly called the Received Text. All others, except the New King James Version and the Modern King James Version, are based on the critical text of Westcott and Hort which omits and changes thousands of words. For instance, in all other versions you will find the following passages either omitted or questioned: 1) the descent of the angel into the pool of Bethesda (John 5:3b-4), 2) the conclusion of the Lord's prayer (Matt. 6:13b), 3) the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), 4) the last 12 verses of Mark 16, 5) the appearance of the angel to Christ and the sweating of the great drops of blood (Luke 22:43-44), and many more. The critical text used by modern versions departs from the Received Text in over 5000 places. But the text of the King James Version is the text used by Martin Luther, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and the fathers of the Synod of Dort.

It is not true either that these Reformers did not know of the existence of this rival text. We are told that they used the Received Text because it was all that they had. That is not true. While they did not have the thousands of manuscripts which we have today, they did know of this corrupt text as it was represented in some of the manuscripts that were available to them. They, however, rejected that text for the Received Text-the text which is supported by 80 to 90 percent of all the manuscripts we have today. That is the text of the King James Version. This gives us strong incentive to use the King James Version rather than the modern versions. Modern versions are not reliable with regard to the true text of the New Testament. They are based on a text which is the result of man's manipulations. The King James Version, on the other hand, is based on a faithful and reliable Greek text.

The following is a very in depth discussion about the King James Bible and its origins:

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/full.asp?ID=216

None of the copies that you do have, except for the earliest fragments, is identical to any of the others.

So you admit earliest fragments? Because we have TONS of them even to almost reconstruct the entire Scripture. Read above...

There are more differences among the copies than there are words in the New Testament.

Really... How many words are there in the NKJV and GNT? Because in order for you to back your claim you need to give me an exact word count, and then provide the list of differences that exceed this number, otherwise you are just blowing SMOKE!!!

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

If you think it is so corrupt why are you quoting from it in another thread to try and make us accept Muhammed? Try and be consistent with your arguments.

He doesn't know how these arguments work yet. In time he will learn and quietly disappear to islamic forums, happened before and will happen again...

 

[elwill]

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html
If you want to see how ancient texts are reconciled... this is an excellent tutorial.

thank you , it helps me alot

'... in spite of the very real possibilities for corruption of the text in the course of its transmission, and the actual existence of many differences among the various manuscripts of the NT, the work of the copyists of the NT was, on the whole, done with great care and fidelity. It has, in fact, been seriously estimated that there are substantial variations in hardly more than a thousandth part of the entire text (an estimate by Fenton J. A. Hort, quoted with approval by Caspar Rene Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament '[New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907], p. 528).


"They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own." (Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5, Ad Lucinum concerning scribes copying his own works.).


The basic principle which underlies the process of constructing a stemma, or family tree, of manuscripts is that, apart from accident, identity of reading implies identity of origin. Often, however, difficulties hinder the construction of a stemma of manuscripts. A disturbing element enters when mixture has occurred, that is, when a copyist has had two or more manuscripts before him and has followed sometimes one, sometimes the other; or, as sometimes happened, when a scribe copied a manuscript from one exemplar and corrected it against another. To the extent that manuscripts have a "mixed" ancestry, the genealogical relations among them become progressively more complex and obscure to the investigator. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 156-159.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

"They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own." (Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5, Ad Lucinum concerning scribes copying his own works.)

Since you quoted this, do you know what St. Jerome means with it?

 

[elwill]

Really... How many words are there in the NKJV and GNT? Because in order for you to back your claim you need to give me an exact word count, and then provide the list of differences that exceed this number, otherwise you are just blowing SMOKE!!!

i don't know the accurate number of errors , i didn't count it , it's too much

here you will find just 400 contradictions , may be i search for you more if you like .
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

[FONT=Times
 New Roman]Every one is aware that there are contradictions in the Bible, except for the fundamentalist idiots. “They hold that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and literally true word of God” (Hoffmann, in Burr, p. 7).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times
 New Roman]http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id19.html [/FONT]

 

[elwill]

"They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own." (Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5, Ad Lucinum concerning scribes copying his own works.)

Since you quoted this, do you know what St. Jerome means with it?

guide me

 

[elwill]

Really? You think the copies Quran you have are the originals? Where are the verses that were written on leaves, leather pieces, rocks? Where are they?

are you have any claues that i'm wrong ?

'Two of the copies of the Qur'an which were originally prepared in the time of Caliph Uthman, are still available to us today and their text and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to do, with any other copy of the Quran, be it in print or handwritten, from any place or period of time. it will be found identical'

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

i don't know the accurate number of errors , i didn't count it , it's too much

That is not an evidence, that is not an argument, that is ASSUMPTION and PREJUDICE.

here you will find just 400 contradictions , may be i search for you more if you like .
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB) is a website providing skeptical analysis of the Bible, edited by Steve Wells. Christians have pointed out that Wells has no education in the fields of apologetics, theology, ancient civilizations, or the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages and insist that these are required to do Bible exegesis. Christians also highlighted the fact that he does not cite scholarly or secondary works...

Here are responses; if you care to dig...

http://www.gotquestions.org/skeptics-annotated-Bible.html
http://danofisrael.com/id80.html
http://skepticsannotatedbiblerespons.blogspot.com/
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/answering.htm
http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/index.html
http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/sab.html
http://reannotated.blogspot.com/


Would you be interested in this? Here, you tackle them now;

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

guide me

If you ask my guidance, have no understanding, then why did you post it?

are you have any claues that i'm wrong ?

'Two of the copies of the Qur'an which were originally prepared in the time of Caliph Uthman, are still available to us today and their text and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to do, with any other copy of the Quran, be it in print or handwritten, from any place or period of time. it will be found identical'

What is "claues"? You are wrong to begin with by assuming that Bible was collected in the same manner with the Quran, you are wrong in this matter because canonized New Testament and Old Testament have not changed either. Translations differ, so are Quran's translations. There is a considerable amount of time between Osman's copy and the first copy... I don't know and I can't know if Osman's copy is the correct copy.

 

[KCDAD]

OK... other than this stupid quote: "the Bible was written to reform our souls, not our societies" from the first site you listed... these apologies are not well written or thought out. They begin with the assumption that The Bible IS perfect and inhuman and then go on to justify this baseless assumption.

Jesus came to initiate the Kingdom of God, to bring the kingdom of God to the us. It IS about changing society, and the people trying to convince you otherwise are the elite and powerful people in society that have everything o lose.

 

[elwill]

Posted by elwill
"They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own." (Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5, Ad Lucinum concerning scribes copying his own works.)

Posted by Bushmaster
Since you quoted this, do you know what St. Jerome means with it?


posted by elwill
guide me

Posted by Bushmaster
If you ask my guidance, have no understanding, then why did you post it?


thank you Bushmaster
your respond made me feeling great ,
you have nothing atall to say