Bible, Quran and your guiding book, are also "man-made."
Rasta said:Maybe not blowing themselves up. Many people have claimed to kill for Jesus however.
Like Charles Manson... Very credible. But you don't know the difference, so what?
he divinity and/or humanity of Jesus had become a major point of contention by the end of the 1st century CE.
Gnostic sects tended to deny that Jesus was a human being....
Judaic sects, on the other hand, denied Jesus's divinity, considering him a messiah in the classical sense of the word: an anointed, inspired leader rather than an avatar.
The sect that was to become the Church we're familiar with today chose a third option: Jesus was BOTH fully God AND fully human.
If you want to see different bible scripture go here: BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.
Well, but each of the Abrahamaic religions asserts that their definition of the God of Abraham is the only true one, with the others following a "false" God.It still means the God of Abraham, which was my point!
Kione GreekYeah, I've used BibleGateway before. Reason why I asked which is the original Greek is I want to know which one of these I should pay closer attention to. There are a bunch.
Thanks anyways
Kione Greek
oops...misread.That would be the form of the language, Koine Greek! He was asking about text.
Few contemporary readers understand what this is actually about. What's so important about this business that it must be emphasized? Clearly, the original audience would have known what this was about, or else it would not have made too much sense to point it out. And here it is:
See, in the ancient world, people believed that there was no blood in the veins of deities, but merely water/ichor. In Jesus's veins, however, there was supposedly BOTH, for he was both fully man and fully God. So, the whole "testimony" is a refutation of both the Judaizers and the Gnostics. Plus, it emphasizes that Jesus was really dead, as the wound is described in a fashion that ascertains its fatality, thus tackling another point of contention between the competing Christian sects.
In the milliennia that passed inbetween, the Church has pretty much forgotten about this original context, too, and many commentaries regard this passage as somewhat of a mystery - yet it's not. Not in the light of what we know about late antiquity and the heretical sects.
That doesn't imply Muslims agree with all the additional characteristics Christians have tacked on in addition, but that's fine: some Christians don't agree with those, either, nor do we.
Which totally overlooks the fact, of course, that not only do major Christian groups REJECT it as any such sort of "definition," but that its creation was directly responsible for a huge split in the Christian Church that has now continued for nearly 1,800 years!
Just the facts.
but which DOES explain why many (if not most!) Christian groups now reject the end of Mark as a spurious later addition, either relegating it to a footnote or deleting it entirely!
(And if you replied to my point about Arab Christians' worshipping Allah, I didn't see it. But we needn't repeat that as the point holds in any case.)
Yeah, I am familiar with that one, too. The thing is, though: an ancient audience wouldn't have been aware of such specifics, especially if we assume that most of the readers/listeners were ordinary people rather than physicians. And in that light, it wouldn't make much sense to put so much emphasis on the testimony - after all, the passage spends more time asserting that the Roman soldier testified to it than on the description of the wound itself.I have not heard about the blood and water in deities veins argument before, but I thought I read that it was possible to explain it in physiological and medical terms,
You didn't exist 2000 years ago; Christianity did.
Eminently irrelevant.
If you have any accusation towards my Scriptures, that is a different issue.
We recognize and respect your scriptures, too, though they're not what we directly follow. We (like many Christians) do stipulate that the Bible is no longer 100% intact and some portions are indeed spurious later additions. I'm sure you know (or can easily find out) who the Christian groups are who hold this view.
And the huge split was between what are now the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths, a divide which (as I said) continues to this day.
Peace,
Bruce
You mean the Catholic Epistles?We (like many Christians) do stipulate that the Bible is no longer 100% intact and some portions are indeed spurious later additions.
Eminently irrelevant.
We recognize and respect your scriptures, too, though they're not what we directly follow.
We (like many Christians) do stipulate that the Bible is no longer 100% intact and some portions are indeed spurious later additions.
I'm sure you know (or can easily find out) who the Christian groups are who hold this view.
And the huge split was between what are now the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths, a divide which (as I said) continues to this day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?