Jesus Christ, was he sent for all mankind?

[HumbleSiPilot77]

OK... other than this stupid quote: "the Bible was written to reform our souls, not our societies" from the first site you listed...

Wait a sec, keep your personal opinions at a level. I didn't ask what you think is "stupid" Did you care to read the rest? The author concludes that through reforming our souls, societies would follow... Why do you jump the gun and look like "what you called the quote"?

these apologies are not well written or thought out.

So are the supposed contradictions. They are full of context and textual criticism errors, at least the atheist author lets the solutions published on his website, doesn't seem to be interested in answering them either.

They begin with the assumption that The Bible IS perfect and inhuman and then go on to justify this baseless assumption.

Where does that even assumed or insinuated? We know the message is perfect and these books even though they are millenias apart and written by inspired men, not through mechanical revelation such as Quran, are in harmony.

Jesus came to initiate the Kingdom of God, to bring the kingdom of God to the us. It IS about changing society,

it is the elite and powerful in society that keep telling us religion isn't about changing the world, it is only about heaven.

Sounds like Gospel of Thomas to me.

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

Don't insult people's intelligence. Feel all great but I haven't said I have nothing at all. You, for some reason, brought up St. Jerome's quote, hoping it made your point, not knowing what he actually was talking about. When called upon, you turned around and cried, guide me... If you don't know what you are posting, then why are you posting? My problem is your foul motivation to start arguments. So what did you think St. Jerome was saying?

 

[KCDAD]

Bushmaster;45705733
Where does that even assumed or insinuated? We know the message is perfect and these books even though they are millenias apart and written by inspired men, not through mechanical revelation such as Quran, are in harmony.

The message is perfect? Which message? The one from Mark or the one from Paul? John's reformed gnostic gospel or St John the Divine's metaphor driven anti-Roman morality play? The message of peace or the message of the sword. The message of life or the message of death?

A Tale of Two Cities is inspired, too.. so ? Da Vinci's Last Supper was inspired, but it isn't accurate or factual. Inspiration doesn't say anything about accuracy, only intent.

Sounds like Gospel of Thomas to me.

Great. I should read it sometime. (Thomas was definitely the most faithful and disciplined disciple.)

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

The message is perfect? Which message? The one from Mark or the one from Paul?

God's message through those... prove it is not...

John's reformed gnostic gospel or St John the Divine's metaphor driven anti-Roman morality play?

Commentary excluding the testimony of early Christianity by KCDAD. Though not commonly understood as Gnostic, St. John has elements in common with Gnosticism, and? Gnostics must have read St. John because it is found with Gnostic texts. The root of Gnosticism is that salvation comes from gnosis, secret knowledge. The nearly five chapters of the "farewell discourses" (St. John 13, 18) Jesus shares only with the Twelve Apostles. Jesus pre-exists birth as the Word (Logos). This origin and action resemble a gnostic aeon (emanation from God) being sent from the pleroma (region of light) to give humans the knowledge they need to ascend to the pleroma themselves. St. John's denigration of the flesh, as opposed to the spirit, is a classic Gnostic theme. It has been suggested that similarities between St. John's Gospel and Gnosticism may spring from common roots in Jewish Apocalyptic literature. Early heresiologists (defenders of Christianity against heresy) such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius were our principal sources of information concerning the Gnostics. These heresiologists were scathing in their denunciations of the Gnostics, who were perceived as leading Christians astray by the manipulation of words and the twisting of scriptural meanings. Of particular interest to Gnostic interpreters were the stories of Genesis, the Gospel of St. John, and the epistles of St. Paul. They used the biblical texts for their own purposes. Indeed, Gnostics such as Heracleon and Ptolemaeus were the first commentators on the Fourth Gospel. But Irenaeus likens such interpretations to someone who takes apart a beautiful picture of a king and reassembles it into a picture of a fox (Adversus Haereses 1.8.1).

Gnosticism was not an advance, it was a retrogression. It was born amidst the last throes of expiring cults and civilizations in Western Asia and Egypt. Though hellenized, these countries remained Oriental and Semitic to the core. This Oriental spirit -- Attis of Asia Minor, Istar of Babylonia, Isis of Egypt, with the astrological and cosmogonic lore of the Asiatic world -- first sore beset by Ahuramazda in the East, and then overwhelmed by the Divine greatness of Jesus Christ in the West, called a truce by the fusion of both Parseeism and Christianity with itself. It tried to do for the East what Neo-Platonism tried to do for the West. During at least two centuries it was a real danger to Christianity, though not so great as some modern writers would make us believe, as if the merest breath might have changed the fortunes of Gnostic, as against orthodox, Christianity.

The message of peace or the message of the sword. The message of life or the message of death?

BOTH...

Inspiration doesn't say anything about accuracy, only intent.

Define accuracy...Some people teach that the Bible writers never claimed to be inspired or directly guided by God. They say that neither the writers nor God viewed Scripture as a revelation of the mind of God which we should follow as a pattern for our lives. As such, they deny the infallible, inerrant, verbal inspiration of Scripture. Other people say the Bible is inspired in that the writers did put down some of God's ideas, but maybe men still put some of their own uninspired ideas in it. For example, maybe God just taught the men right ideas, but left them to express those ideas as they see best.
Others say the Bible writers speak the truth in matters of religious faith and morals, but when they speak about history or science they are writing as humans and may be wrong. Therefore, we cannot accept the Bible accounts of miracles and the lives of Bible characters as necessarily valid.
The results of these views of inspiration are that maybe there is some error in the words written by "inspired" men: maybe we can, even should, reject parts of it as not being true. Such views I call "liberalism." Yet those who hold these views may still claim to be Christians who believe in God, Christ, and the Bible.



Revelation 19:9 - "These are true words of God."
Isaiah 1:2 - The Lord has spoken.
Jeremiah 10:1,2 - Hear the word which the Lord speaks. Thus says the Lord...
Ezekiel 1:3 - The word of the Lord came expressly.
Hosea 1:1,2 - The word of the Lord that came ... the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said...
Jonah 1:1 - The word of the Lord came to Jonah.
Micah 1:1 - The word of the Lord that came to Micah.
Zech. 1:1 - The word of the Lord came to Zechariah.
1 Corinthians 14:37 - The things I write are commands of Lord.
Ephesians 3:3-5 - The things Paul wrote were made known to him by revelation. Formerly these things were not known but have now been revealed by the Spirit to apostles & prophets.
1 Thessalonians 4:15 - We say by the word of the Lord.
1 Timothy 4:1 - The Spirit expressly says.
[2 Thessalonians 3:12; John 12:48-50; Acts 16:32; Romans 1:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:5]

2 Peter 1:20,21 - No Scripture is of private interpretation; for prophecy never came by will of man, but men spoke as moved by the Holy Spirit. Consider the significance of "interpretation" here. The context shows the reference is to the prophets who wrote the Scriptures, not to the readers of the Scriptures.

Great. I should read it sometime. (Thomas was definitely the most faithful and disciplined disciple.)

Is that why he is the one who called Christ God? Or that account is not "inspired"? Do what you gotta do...

 

[KCDAD]

God's message through those... prove it is not...



Commentary excluding the testimony of early Christianity by KCDAD. Though not commonly understood as Gnostic, St. John has elements in common with Gnosticism, and? Gnostics must have read St. John because it is found with Gnostic texts. The root of Gnosticism is that salvation comes from gnosis, secret knowledge. The nearly five chapters of the "farewell discourses" (St. John 13, 18) Jesus shares only with the Twelve Apostles. Jesus pre-exists birth as the Word (Logos). This origin and action resemble a gnostic aeon (emanation from God) being sent from the pleroma (region of light) to give humans the knowledge they need to ascend to the pleroma themselves. St. John's denigration of the flesh, as opposed to the spirit, is a classic Gnostic theme. It has been suggested that similarities between St. John's Gospel and Gnosticism may spring from common roots in Jewish Apocalyptic literature. Early heresiologists (defenders of Christianity against heresy) such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius were our principal sources of information concerning the Gnostics. These heresiologists were scathing in their denunciations of the Gnostics, who were perceived as leading Christians astray by the manipulation of words and the twisting of scriptural meanings. Of particular interest to Gnostic interpreters were the stories of Genesis, the Gospel of St. John, and the epistles of St. Paul. They used the biblical texts for their own purposes. Indeed, Gnostics such as Heracleon and Ptolemaeus were the first commentators on the Fourth Gospel. But Irenaeus likens such interpretations to someone who takes apart a beautiful picture of a king and reassembles it into a picture of a fox (Adversus Haereses 1.8.1).

Gnosticism was not an advance, it was a retrogression. It was born amidst the last throes of expiring cults and civilizations in Western Asia and Egypt. Though hellenized, these countries remained Oriental and Semitic to the core. This Oriental spirit -- Attis of Asia Minor, Istar of Babylonia, Isis of Egypt, with the astrological and cosmogonic lore of the Asiatic world -- first sore beset by Ahuramazda in the East, and then overwhelmed by the Divine greatness of Jesus Christ in the West, called a truce by the fusion of both Parseeism and Christianity with itself. It tried to do for the East what Neo-Platonism tried to do for the West. During at least two centuries it was a real danger to Christianity, though not so great as some modern writers would make us believe, as if the merest breath might have changed the fortunes of Gnostic, as against orthodox, Christianity.


BOTH...



Define accuracy...Some people teach that the Bible writers never claimed to be inspired or directly guided by God. They say that neither the writers nor God viewed Scripture as a revelation of the mind of God which we should follow as a pattern for our lives. As such, they deny the infallible, inerrant, verbal inspiration of Scripture. Other people say the Bible is inspired in that the writers did put down some of God's ideas, but maybe men still put some of their own uninspired ideas in it. For example, maybe God just taught the men right ideas, but left them to express those ideas as they see best.
Others say the Bible writers speak the truth in matters of religious faith and morals, but when they speak about history or science they are writing as humans and may be wrong. Therefore, we cannot accept the Bible accounts of miracles and the lives of Bible characters as necessarily valid.
The results of these views of inspiration are that maybe there is some error in the words written by "inspired" men: maybe we can, even should, reject parts of it as not being true. Such views I call "liberalism." Yet those who hold these views may still claim to be Christians who believe in God, Christ, and the Bible.



Revelation 19:9 - "These are true words of God."
Isaiah 1:2 - The Lord has spoken.
Jeremiah 10:1,2 - Hear the word which the Lord speaks. Thus says the Lord...
Ezekiel 1:3 - The word of the Lord came expressly.
Hosea 1:1,2 - The word of the Lord that came ... the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said...
Jonah 1:1 - The word of the Lord came to Jonah.
Micah 1:1 - The word of the Lord that came to Micah.
Zech. 1:1 - The word of the Lord came to Zechariah.
1 Corinthians 14:37 - The things I write are commands of Lord.
Ephesians 3:3-5 - The things Paul wrote were made known to him by revelation. Formerly these things were not known but have now been revealed by the Spirit to apostles & prophets.
1 Thessalonians 4:15 - We say by the word of the Lord.
1 Timothy 4:1 - The Spirit expressly says.
[2 Thessalonians 3:12; John 12:48-50; Acts 16:32; Romans 1:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:5]

2 Peter 1:20,21 - No Scripture is of private interpretation; for prophecy never came by will of man, but men spoke as moved by the Holy Spirit. Consider the significance of "interpretation" here. The context shows the reference is to the prophets who wrote the Scriptures, not to the readers of the Scriptures.




Is that why he is the one who called Christ God? Or that account is not "inspired"? Do what you gotta do...

This is a lovely post, and I will read it in more depth later (I have to hit the road for the day... heading to Iowa City) but I will respond later when I have more time.
In the meantime... I made a distinction between the author of the Gospel and the author of Revelation. (The author of Revelation is who I referred to as St. John the Divine)

Eph 3:3 Paul claimed in his letter to Ephesus that he was revealing secrets he had been enlightened to... or by revelation, if you will. He had received "secret knowledge".

When the Bible refers to the "words of God" given to the Prophets.... what do you think that means? They were actually hearing voices? Having weird dreams? Getting scrolls sent to them in the mail? Or like Paul, do you think maybe it was the formulation of ideas that were shaped around the Christ-mind they were nurturing and growing within. How many times does Paul offer the caveat that this may just be his own ideas and not from God? Couldn't he tell the difference?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Eph 3:3 Paul claimed in his letter to Ephesus that he was revealing secrets he had been enlightened to... or by revelation, if you will. He had received "secret knowledge".

This doesn't necessarily hint on Gnosticism in the Gospels, or St. Paul was a gnostic.

Church tradition confirms that all the John's, Theologian, Divine, Evangelist are the same disciple of Christ.

Take your time...

 

[elwill]

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.

so tell me , can you refute his analysis ?!!!!

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

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

well , i see , it's the contradictions in quran
so , are you wanna to go through this ?
i can refute each one of it . are you ready for that .

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

so tell me , can you refute his analysis ?!!!!

Do you read ENGLISH? I can see you can't speak it well, but did you NOT see the links I posted towards explanations? Also the author of SAB didn't do an analysis,, in this case it is called exegesis, some allegations, he took the verses at a face value which assumes there is a discrepancy. There is so much historical luggage that comes with Scriptures that it is easy to understand his misconceptions.

well , i see , it's the contradictions in quran
so , are you wanna to go through this ?
i can refute each one of it . are you ready for that .

DO I WANT TO go through with it? I care less, just showed you, that you operate on double standards as many muslims on this forum.

 

[KCDAD]

This doesn't necessarily hint on Gnosticism in the Gospels, or St. Paul was a gnostic.

Church tradition confirms that all the John's, Theologian, Divine, Evangelist are the same disciple of Christ.

Take your time...

You are TOTALLY wrong .
There is NOT ONE serious academic theologian (I am excluding televangelists and mail order preachers intentionally) who can attribute the authorship of The Gospel According to John, The Epistles of John and Revelation to less than 3 authors. One the three Epistles is completely different from the others and was not written by the same author. Revelation is unlike The Gospel in MANY theological, and literary ways.
NO WAY.
http://www.sonofman.org/reveal.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
Here's one on the horrible grammar of Revelation
http://www.andreascenter.org/Articles/Scribes and Revelation 1.htm
Here's one on general Bible authorship
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html
The Revelation is often called the Revelation of Saint John. Tradition says this is the same as the author of the fourth gospel, but that seems implausible. The style of the Greek is different, and while the gospel author avoids mentioning his own name in order to focus attention on Jesus, the author of Revelation mentions his own name repeatedly. He doesn't call himself an apostle, as would be his right, but merely a prophet. Exactly who the author was is open to conjecture. There is no real consensus, except that he was apparently a Jewish writer, writing in Greek to the Jewish believers after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Most critics put the date at about 95 - 100 AD.

Don't talk about something you haven't studied...

 

[elwill]

Do you read ENGLISH? I can see you can't speak it well, but did you NOT see the links I posted towards explanations? Also the author of SAB didn't do an analysis,, in this case it is called exegesis, some allegations, he took the verses at a face value which assumes there is a discrepancy. There is so much historical luggage that comes with Scriptures that it is easy to understand his misconceptions.

okey , i will make another thread for it
i hope to see you there to declare for me how this contradictions are misunderstood

DO I WANT TO go through with it? I care less, just showed you, that you operate on double standards as many muslims on this forum.

[/quote]
so when i challenge you , you say i care less !!!
so why are you gave me this links if you don't care ?
seems to me that you have fears , come on you are ex_muslim , you must have a big conviced matter .

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

You are TOTALLY wrong .

No, I am not.

There is NOT ONE serious academic theologian (I am excluding televangelists and mail order preachers intentionally) who can attribute the authorship of The Gospel According to John, The Epistles of John and Revelation to less than 3 authors.

Get yourself an Orthodox Study Bible which features NKJV. You will meet the committe of theologians you missed out. I am not seriously interested what Jesus Seminar makes out of the grammatical connections.

One the three Epistles is completely different from the others and was not written by the same author.

First Epistle is the closest to the Gospel. By style, grammar, language and theological content, the connection is undeniable.The doubt over the Second Epistle did not exist until the 4th century, that is quite a long time and the early witnesses of the Church express no alternative but the Elder is the Apostle. Third is his, because of the connection to the Second and both are closely related to First. John was known by the name Elder and while probably it was not a Church term, it was one of endearment.

Revelation is unlike The Gospel in MANY theological, and literary ways.

Because Revelations is not a gospel. The author identifies himself by location.

NO WAY.

Sorry, I am not sure of your denominational affiliation with but you may choose to believe what you want to believe.

www.orthodoxinfo.com

The Revelation is often called the Revelation of Saint John. Tradition says this is the same as the author of the fourth gospel, but that seems implausible.

Why? Tradition makes up the most of our faith, even the Scriptures are part of this Tradition, tradition is not confirmed stories or bunch of superstitions, it is the life and the testimony of the Church.

The style of the Greek is different, and while the gospel author avoids mentioning his own name in order to focus attention on Jesus, the author of Revelation mentions his own name repeatedly. He doesn't call himself an apostle, as would be his right, but merely a prophet. Exactly who the author was is open to conjecture. There is no real consensus, except that he was apparently a Jewish writer, writing in Greek to the Jewish believers after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Most critics put the date at about 95 - 100 AD.

St. John is believed to have lived almost a hundred years old so date is not an issue. What you call implausable here and lean your arguments upon are pure speculation. None of this means that it was not St.John who wrote the Revelations.

Don't talk about something you haven't studied...

No need to be inserting snotty remarks, it shows how much you know about Church history.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

okey , i will make another thread for it
i hope to see you there to declare for me how this contradictions are misunderstood

so when i challenge you , you say i care less !!!

Yes, your challenge doesn't mean much, nor it has to.

so why are you gave me this links if you don't care ?

To show you your futile point.

seems to me that you have fears , come on you are ex_muslim , you must have a big conviced matter .

I choose not to engage in debate with you because your English doesn't seem to be sufficient. When there is a language barrier, either I don't understand people, or they don't understand me. I have no fear but also have no time to ponder what you might have meant in a particular thread. Yes I am an apostate of Islam, I left my birth religion, the religion I was indoctrinated with.

 

[Carey]

Who in ALL Mankind will be refused if they truly accept Jesus in their heart??

Matthew 7 : 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Romans 2 : 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hello.We muslims believe he was sent to the sons of Israel not for all mankind.This doesnt mean the one who follows Him in real does a wrong job but this is God's plan for He sent Muhammed-aleyhissalam-to all mankind.Which proofs do christians have to claim that Jesus was sent to entire humanity and not only to the israelites?

What kind of proof do you want?

 

[anatolian]

Oh LLoJ, you're so good on digging in the old threads

You may give us all biblical verses about Jesus as being sent to all humanity, for a starter..

 

[marlowe007]

What do muslims make of Christ's command to the Apostles to make disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:15, Luke 24:47)?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Oh LLoJ, you're so good on digging in the old threads

You may give us all biblical verses about Jesus as being sent to all humanity, for a starter..

Sometimes the spirit just compels me

Ezekiel 8:3 And He putteth forth a form of a hand and is taking me by a lock of my head, and a spirit she is lifting me between the Land and the Heavens, and is bringing me Jerusalem-ward in appearance of Elohiym to portal of gate, the inner the one facing north-ward which there a seat of a figure/image of the jealously, the provoking jealously. [Revelation 17:3]

Reve 17:3 And he carries me away into a wilderness in spirit, and I saw a Woman sitting on a beast, scarlet, being replete of names of blasphemy having heads, seven, and horns, ten. [Ezekiel 8:3]

 

[KCDAD]

What do muslims make of Christ's command to the Apostles to make disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:15, Luke 24:47)?

A misinterpretation by the disciples or their redactors, or "all of the nations of Israel". (the different tribes)
It easy to find any meaning you want in there...

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

A misinterpretation by the disciples

Blah! It is good to know biblical history that Scriptures came AFTER disciples, they were not already there for the disciples. They did what they were told and then wrote about it.

 

[anatolian]

Ezekiel 8:3 And He putteth forth a form of a hand and is taking me by a lock of my head, and a spirit she is lifting me between the Land and the Heavens, and is bringing me Jerusalem-ward in appearance of Elohiym to portal of gate, the inner the one facing north-ward which there a seat of a figure/image of the jealously, the provoking jealously. [Revelation 17:3]

Reve 17:3 And he carries me away into a wilderness in spirit, and I saw a Woman sitting on a beast, scarlet, being replete of names of blasphemy having heads, seven, and horns, ten. [Ezekiel 8:3]

My interpretation for this verse is the woman sitting on a beast is America with the statue of liberty and the seven heads are the other seven countries of G-8 and the ten horns are the ten elected non-permanent members of the UN security concil.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

My interpretation for this verse is the woman sitting on a beast is America with the statue of liberty and the seven heads are the other seven countries of G-8 and the ten horns are the ten elected non-permanent members of the UN security concil.

Thks bro.

There are some Christians who are of that view [link below].

I myself view it as OC Jerusalem and Temple and as all fulfilled [as is Matthew 24 which I view as the same event]. Thoughts?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7341239/
Could America be the Babylon of Revelation?