Bushmaster: Corruption

[Islam_mulia]

Not a god, THE GOD! Christ is under oath, question: Are you the Messiah, Son of the Blessed One. Answer: I AM! And you shall see Son of Man, sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. He is directly relating to messianic prophecy in the book of Daniel. Further, tons of other references of Him in the Scriptures as being Christ, Son of God. Now you tell me, why I should ditch all those, and assume Numbers 23 addresses Christ as son of man, just a man? What is your exegetical reason?

But Jesus was the Messiah. We believe that too. The question posed to Jesus, as you put it:

Are you the Messiah, Son of the Blessed One. Answer: I AM! And you shall see Son of Man, sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

So, Jesus admitted he was the Messiah. Notice though, Jesus quickly mentioned the Son of Man (not the Son of God) coming down from the clouds.

Nothing here shows that Son of Man = God.

 

[Adeeb]

I can hit back with this so hard, you'd regret posting it. Think of Trinity now.

Apply your rule above. God's incarnation and entering our time is something YOU CAN NOT COMPREHEND! anthropomorphism is simply a definition you like to tag to it, explain how it happened.

The trinity doctrine says that

a. God has a son- Applying characteristics of the creation to the creator. God is way beyond having a son.

b. God became incarnate into Jesus- bounding God by time and place, which are both creations of God, which essentially is bounding God by his own creation.

Not being able to comprehend God means not bounding him by human terms, something that the trinity doctrine has done.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But Jesus was the Messiah. We believe that too. The question posed to Jesus, as you put it:

Are you the Messiah, Son of the Blessed One. Answer: I AM! And you shall see Son of Man, sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

So, Jesus admitted he was the Messiah. Notice though, Jesus quickly mentioned the Son of Man (not the Son of God) coming down from the clouds.

Nothing here shows that Son of Man = God.

Salam!!! I decided to look more closely at the greek and saw the article "the" used before Son of Man. But in Revelation is only says one LIKE AS a son of a man. Interesting.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Daniel 7:13I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like-as the Son of man/0606 'enash came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Matt 10:23 "Whenever yet they may be chasing/persecuting ye in the city, this, be fleeing into the other.
For Amen I am saying to ye, not no ye should be finishing the cities of the Israel till ever may be coming the Son of the Man".

Reve 14:14 And I saw and Behold! A white cloud, and on the cloud One sitting like a Son of Man, having upon of the head of him a golden wreath, and in the hand of him,a sharp sickle.

 

[français]

while we are on the subject of corruption...

John 7:53-8:11.. In my Bible, it is in parenthesis, and there is a footnote that says:
the story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A western-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Luke 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel. There are many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful reading within the passage. The style and motifs are similar to those of Luke, and it fits better with the general situation at the end of Lk 21, but it was probably inserted here because of the allusion to Jer 17,13(cf the note on 8, 6) and the statement "I do not judge anyone: in 8:15. The Catholic Church accepts this passage as canonical scripture.

My own Bible even attests to corruption! How can we trust such a book?

 

[Secundulus]

The trinity doctrine says that

a. God has a son- Applying characteristics of the creation to the creator. God is way beyond having a son.

Only by the false Islamic understanding of what we are talking about. The Son is the rational expression of God through which all things were created. It would help you to understand these concepts if you were to study some Greek philosophy since these were the terms through which the reality was described.

b. God became incarnate into Jesus- bounding God by time and place, which are both creations of God, which essentially is bounding God by his own creation.

This is a false understanding of the Trinity. God did not become incarnate into Jesus as a creation. Rather, Jesus is the incarnate God. There is a difference you know.

Not being able to comprehend God means not bounding him by human terms, something that the trinity doctrine has done.

No, you simply limit God into a Diestic sense of one who is seperated from his creation.

 

[Secundulus]

But Jesus was the Messiah. We believe that too. The question posed to Jesus, as you put it:

Are you the Messiah, Son of the Blessed One. Answer: I AM! And you shall see Son of Man, sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

So, Jesus admitted he was the Messiah. Notice though, Jesus quickly mentioned the Son of Man (not the Son of God) coming down from the clouds.

Nothing here shows that Son of Man = God.

Read Daniel 7:13-14. You do realize the Jesus was talking to the Jews using the words from their own scriptures.

" "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14, NASB95)

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

while we are on the subject of corruption...

My own Bible even attests to corruption! How can we trust such a book?

The Woman Taken In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)

The story of the woman taken in adultery (called the pericope de adultera) has been rather harshly treated by the modern English versions. The R.V. and the A.S.V. put it in brackets; the R.S.V. relegates it to the footnotes; the N.E.B. follows Westcott and Hort in removing it from its customary place altogether and printing it at the end of the Gospel of John as an independent fragment of unknown origin. The N.E.B. even gives this familiar narrative a new name, to wit, An Incident In the Temple. But as Burgon has reminded us long ago, this general rejection of these precious verses is unjustifiable.
(a) Ancient Testimony Concerning the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11)
The story of the woman taken in adultery was a problem also in ancient times. Early Christians had trouble with this passage. The forgiveness which Christ vouchsafed to the adulteress was contrary to their conviction that the punishment for adultery ought to be very severe. As late as the time of Ambrose (c. 374), bishop of Milan, there were still many Christians who felt such scruples against this portion of John's Gospel. This is clear from the remarks which Ambrose makes in a sermon on David's sin. "In the same way also the Gospel lesson which has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation . . . Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously? It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds etc." (32)
According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. "Certain persons of little faith," he wrote, "or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin." (33) Also, in the 10th century a Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of "casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus . . . saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things." (34)
That early Greek manuscripts contained this pericope de adultera is proved by the presence of it in the 5th-century Greek manuscript D. That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance in the Old Latin codices b and e. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that "in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord." (35) There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome's statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in W. And that Jerome personally accepted the pericope de adultera as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate.
Another evidence of the presence of the pericope de adultera in early Greek manuscripts of John is the citation of it in the Didascalia (Teaching) of the Apostles and in the Apostolic Constitutions, which are based on the Didascalia.

. . . to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands departed. But He, the Searcher of Hearts, asked her and said to her, 'Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter?" She saith to Him, 'Nay, Lord.' And He said unto her, 'Go thy way: Neither do I condemn thee.' (36)
​

In these two documents (from the 3rd and 4th centuries respectively) bishops are urged to extend forgiveness to penitent sinners. After many passages of Scripture have been cited to enforce this plea, the climax is reached in the supreme example of divine mercy, namely, the compassion which Christ showed to the woman taken in adultery. Tischendorf admitted that this citation was taken from the Gospel of John. "Although," he wrote, "the Apostolic Constitutions do not actually name John as the author of this story of the adulteress, in vain would anyone claim that they could have derived this story from any other source." (37) It is true that R. H. Connolly (1929) (38) and other more recent critics insist that the citation was not taken from the canonical Gospel of John but from the apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews, but this seems hardly credible. During the whole course of the argument only passages from the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are adduced. Can we suppose that when the authors of these two works reached the climax of their plea for clemency toward the penitent they would abandon the Scriptures at last and fall back on an apocryphal book?
Another important testimony concerning the pericope de adultera is that of Eusebius (c. 324). In his Ecclesiastical History Eusebius gives extracts from an ancient treatise written by Papias (d. 150), bishop of Hierapolis, entitled Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord. Eusebius concludes his discussion of Papias' writings with the following statement: "The same writer used quotations from the first Epistle of John, and likewise also from that of Peter, and has expounded another story about a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains." (39)
From this statement of Eusebius naturalistic critics have inferred that Eusebius knew the pericope de adultera only as a story occurring in the writings of Papias and in the Gospel according to the Hebrews and not as a part of the canonical Gospel of John. This conclusion, however, by no means follows necessarily. Eusebius may have been hostile to the story of the woman taken in adultery not only because of moralistic objections but also because it was related by Papias. For Eusebius had a low opinion of Papias and his writings. "He was a man of very little intelligence," Eusebius declared, "as is clear from his books." (40) It may very well be that the disdain which Eusebius felt for Papias made him reluctant to mention the fact that Papias' story occurred also in some of the manuscripts of the Gospel of John. At any rate, an argument against the genuineness of John 7:53-8:11 based on Eusebius is purely an argument from silence, and arguments from silence are always weak. Instead of stressing Eusebius' silence it is more reasonable to lay the emphasis upon his positive testimony, which is that the story of the woman taken in adultery is a very ancient one, reaching back to the days of the Apostles.
Also the Spanish Father Pacian (c. 370) appealed to the pericope de adultera when protesting against excessive severity in discipline. "Are you not willing," he asked, "to read in the Gospel that the Lord also spared the adulteress who confessed, whom no man had condemned?" (41)
(b) What the Facts of History Indicate
The facts of history indicate that during the early Christian centuries throughout the Church adultery was commonly regarded as such a serious sin that it could be forgiven, if at all, only after severe penance. For example, Cyprian (c. 250) says that certain bishops who preceded him in the province of North Africa "thought that reconciliation ought not to be given to adulterers and allowed to conjugal infidelity no place at all for repentance." (42) Hence offence was taken at the story of the adulterous woman brought to Christ, because she seemed to have received pardon too easily. Such being the case, it is surely more reasonable to believe that this story was deleted from John's Gospel by over-zealous disciplinarians than to suppose that a narrative so contrary to the ascetic outlook of the early Christian Church was added to John's Gospel from some extra-canonical source. There would be a strong motive for deleting it but no motive at all for adding it, and the prejudice against it would make its insertion into the Gospel text very difficult.
Not only conservatives but also clear thinking radical scholars have perceived that the historical evidence favors the belief that the pericope de adultera was deleted from the text of the fourth Gospel rather than added to it. "The bold presentation of the evangelist," Hilgenfeld (1875) observed, "must at an early date, especially in the Orient have seemed very offensive." (43) Hence Hilgenfeld regarded Augustine's statement that the passage had been deleted by overscrupulous scribes "as altogether not improbable." And Steck (1893) suggested that the story of the adulteress was incorporated in the Gospel of John before it was first published. "That it later," concluded Steck, "was set aside out of moral prudery is easily understandable." (44)
Rendel Harris (1891) was convinced that the Montanists, an ascetic Christian sect which flourished during the 2nd century, were acquainted with the pericope de adultera. "The Montanist Churches," he wrote, "either did not receive this addition to the text, or else they are responsible for its omission; but at the same time it can be shown that they knew of the passage perfectly well in the West; for the Latin glossator of the Acts has borrowed a few words from the section in Acts 5:18. (45) In Acts 5:18 we are told that the rulers laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison. To this verse the Latin portion of D adds, and they went away each one to his house. As Harris observes, this addition is obviously taken from the description of the breaking up of the council meeting in John 7:53. If the Montanists were the ones who added these words to Acts 5:18, then the pericope de adultera must have been part of John's Gospel at a very early date.
Naturalistic scholars who insist that John 7:53-8:11 is an addition to the Gospel text can maintain their position only by ignoring the facts, by disregarding what the ancient writers say about this pericope de adultera and emphasizing the silence of other ancient writers who say nothing about it at all. This is what Hort did in his Introduction (1881). Here the testimony of Ambrose and Augustine is barely mentioned, and the statement of Nikon concerning the Armenians is dismissed as mere abuse. (46) Contrary to the evidence Hort insisted that the pericope de adultera was not offensive to the early Church. "Few in ancient times, there is reason to think, would have found the section a stumbling block except Montanists and Novatians." (47) With the implications of this sweeping statement, however, Rendel Harris could not agree. "Evidently," he observed, "Dr. Hort did not think that the tampering of the Montanists with the text amounted to much; we, on the contrary, have reason to believe that it was a very far reaching influence." (48)
Today most naturalistic scholars feel so certain that John 7:53-8:11 is not genuine that they regard further discussion of the matter as unprofitable. When they do deal with the question (for the benefit of laymen who are still interested in it) they follow the line of Westcott and Hort. They dismiss the ancient testimony concerning this passage as absurd and rely on the "argument from silence." Thus Colwell (1952) ridicules the reason which Augustine gives for the deletion of the pericope de adultera. "The generality," he declares, "of the 'omission' in early Greek sources can hardly be explained this way. Some of those Greek scribes must have been unmarried! Nor is Augustine's argument supported by the evidence from Luke's Gospel, where even greater acts of compassion are left untouched by the scribes who lack this story in John." (49)
There is no validity, however, in this point which Colwell tries to score against Augustine. For there is a big difference between the story of the adulteress in John 8 and the story in Luke 7 of the sinful woman who anointed the feet of Jesus and was forgiven. In Luke the penitence and faith of the woman are stressed; in John these factors are not mentioned explicitly. In Luke the law of God is not called in question; in John it, seemingly, is set aside. And in Luke the sinful woman was a harlot; in John the woman was an adulteress. Thus there are good reasons why the objections raised against the story of the adulteress in John would not apply to the story of the harlot in Luke and why Tertullian, for example, refers to Luke's story but is silent about John's.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

(c) Misleading Notes in the Modem Versions
The notes printed in the modern versions regarding John 7:53 - 8:11 are completely misleading. For example, the R.S.V. states that most of the ancient authorities either omit 7:53-8:11 or insert it with variations of text after John 7:52 or at the end of John's Gospel or after Luke 21:38. And the N.E.B. says the same thing and adds that the pericope de adultera has no fixed place in the ancient New Testament manuscripts. These notes imply that originally the story of the adulteress circulated as an independent narrative in many forms and that later, when scribes began to add it to the New Testament, they couldn't agree on where to put it, some inserting it at one place and others at another.
Von Soden (1902) showed long ago that the view implied by these notes is entirely erroneous. Although this scholar denied the genuineness of John 7:53 - 8:11, nevertheless, in his monumental study of this passage he was eminently fair in his presentation of the facts. After mentioning that this section is sometimes found at the end of the Gospel of John and sometimes in the margin near John 7:52 and that in one group of manuscripts (the Ferrar group) the section is inserted after Luke 21:38, von Soden continues as follows: "But in the great majority of the manuscripts it stands in the text between 7:52 and 8:12 except that in at least half of these manuscripts it is provided with deletion marks in the margin." (50) Thus the usual location of the pericope de adultera is in John between 7:52 and 8:12. The manuscripts which have it in any other place are exceptions to the rule.
"The pericope," says Metzger (1964), "is obviously a piece of floating tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western Church. It was subsequently inserted into various manuscripts at various places." (51) But Metzger's interpretation of the facts is incorrect, as von Soden demonstrated long ago by his careful scholarship. Von Soden showed that the usual location of the pericope de adultera was also its original location in the New Testament text. The other positions which it sometimes occupies and the unusually large number of variant readings which it contains were later developments which took place after it became part of the New Testament. "In spite of the abundance of the variant readings," he declared, "it has been established with certainty that the pericope was not intruded into the Four Gospels, perhaps in various forms, in various places. This hypothesis is already contradicted by the fixed place which the section has, against which the well known, solitary exception of the common ancestor of the so-called Ferrar group can prove nothing. On the contrary, when the pericope, at a definite time and at a definite place was first incorporated into the Four Gospels, in order then to defend its place with varying success against all attacks, it had the following wording." (52) And then von Soden goes on to give his reconstruction of the original form of the pericope de adultera. This does not differ materially from the form printed in the Textus Receptus and the King James Version.
Also the opening verses (John 7:53-8:2) of the pericope de adultera indicate clearly that its original position in the New Testament was in John between 7:52 and 8:12, for this is the only location in which these introductory verses fit the context. The first of them (John 7:53) describes the breaking up of the stormy council meeting which immediately precedes. The next two verses (John 8:1-2) tell us what Jesus did in the meantime and thereafter. And thus a transition is made to the story of the woman taken in adultery. But in those other locations mentioned by N.E.B., which the pericope de adultera occupies in a relatively few manuscripts, these introductory verses make no sense and thus prove conclusively that the pericope has been misplaced.
Long ago Burgon pointed out how untrustworthy some of those manuscripts are which misplace the pericope de adultera. "The Critics eagerly remind us that in four cursive copies (the Ferrar group) the verses in question are found tacked on to the end of Luke 21. But have they forgotten that 'these four codexes are derived from a common archetype,' and therefore represent one and the same ancient and, I may add, corrupt copy? The same Critics are reminded that in the same four Codexes 'the agony and bloody sweat' (St. Luke 22:43-44) is found thrust into St. Matthew's Gospel between ch. 26:39 and 40. Such licentiousness on the part of a solitary exemplar of the Gospels no more affects the proper place of these or of those verses than the superfluous digits of a certain man of Gath avail to disturb the induction that to either hand of a human being appertain but five fingers and to either foot but five toes." (53)
(d) The Silence of the Greek Fathers Explained
The arguments of naturalistic critics against the genuineness of John 7:53-8:11 are largely arguments from silence, and the strongest of these silences is generally thought to be that of the Greek Church Fathers. Metzger (1964) speaks of it as follows: "Even more significant is the fact that no Greek Church Father for a thousand years after Christ refers to the pericope, including even those who, like Origen, Chrysostom, and Nonnus (in his metrical paraphrase) dealt with the entire Gospel verse by verse. Euthymius Zigabenus, who lived in the first part of the twelfth century, is the first Greek writer to comment on the passage, and even he declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it." (54)
This argument, however, is not nearly so strong as Metzger makes it seem. In the first place, as Burgon pointed out long ago, we must knock off at least three centuries from this thousand-year period of which Metzger speaks so ominously. For Tischendorf lists 9 manuscripts of the 9th century which contain the pericope de adultera in its usual place and also one which may be of the eighth century. And so the silence of the Greek Church Fathers during the last third of this thousand year period couldn't have been because they didn't know of manuscripts which contained John 7:53-8:11 in the position which it now occupies in the great majority of the New Testament manuscripts. The later Greek Fathers didn't comment on these verses mainly because the earlier Greek Fathers hadn't done so.
But neither does the silence of the earlier Greek Fathers, such as Origen (c. 230), Chrysostom (c. 400), and Nonnus (c. 400), necessarily imply that these ancient Bible scholars did not know of the pericope de adultera as part of the Gospel of John. For they may have been influenced against it by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken and also by the fact that some of the manuscripts known to them omitted it. And Burgon mentions another very good reason why these early Fathers failed to comment on this section. Their commenting was in connection with their preaching, and their preaching would be affected by the fact that the pericope de adultera was omitted from the ancient Pentecostal lesson of the Church.

"Now for the first time, it becomes abundantly plain, why Chrysostom and Cyril, in publicly commenting on St. John's Gospel, pass straight from ch. 7:52 to ch. 8:12. Of course they do. Why should they,—how could they,—comment on what was not publicly read before the congregation? The same thing is related (in a well-known 'scholium') to have been done by Apolinarius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Origen also, for aught I care, —though the adverse critics have no right to claim him, seeing that his commentary on all that part of St. John's Gospel is lost,—but Origen's name, as I was saying, for aught I care, may be added to those who did the same thing." (55)
​

At a very early date it had become customary throughout the Church to read John 7:37-8:12 on the day of Pentecost. This lesson began with John 7:37-39, verses very appropriate to the great Christian feast day in which the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is commemorated: In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink . . . But this spake He of the Spirit which they that believe on Him should receive. Then the lesson continued through John 7:52, omitted John 7:53-8:11, and concluded with John 8:12, Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. Thus the fact that the pericope de adultera was not publicly read at Pentecost was an additional reason why the early Greek Church Fathers did not comment on it.
Why was the story of the adulteress omitted from the Pentecostal lesson? Obviously because it was inappropriate to the central idea of Pentecost. But critics have another explanation. According to them, the passage was not part of the Gospel of John at the time that the Pentecostal lesson was selected. But, as Burgon pointed out, this makes it more difficult than ever to explain how this passage came to be placed after John 7:52. Why would a scribe introduce this story about an adulteress into the midst of the ancient lesson for Pentecost? How would it occur to anyone to do this?
Moreover, although the Greek Fathers were silent about the pericope de adultera, the Church was not silent. This is shown by the fact that John 8:3-11 was chosen as the lesson to be read publicly each year on St. Pelagia's day, October 8. Burgon points out the significance of this historical circumstance. "The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach, —and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence was felt to be embarrassing,—the Eastern Church has selected nine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8." (56)
(e) The Internal Evidence
Naturalistic critics have tried to argue against the genuineness of John 7:53-8:11 on the basis of the internal evidence. Colwell (1952), for example, claims that the story of the woman taken in adultery does not fit its context and that it differs in its vocabulary and general tone from the rest of John's Gospel. (57) But by these arguments the critics only create new difficulties for themselves. For if the pericope de adultera is an interpolation and if it is so markedly out of harmony with its context and with the rest of the Gospel of John, why was it ever placed in the position which it now occupies? This is the question which Steck (1893) (58) asked long ago, and it has never been answered.
Actually, however, there is little substance to these charges. Arguments from literary style are notoriously weak. They have been used to prove all sorts of things. And Burgon long ago pointed out expressions in this passage which are characteristic of John's Gospel. "We note how entirely in St. John's manner is the little explanatory clause in ver. 6, —'This they said, tempting Him that they might have to accuse Him.' We are struck besides by the prominence given in verses 6 and 8 to the act of writing, — allusions to which, are met with in every work of the last Evangelist." (59)
As for not fitting the context, Burgon shows that the actual situation is just the reverse. When the pericope de adultera is omitted, it leaves a hole, a gaping wound that cannot be healed.

"Note that in the oracular Codexes B and Aleph immediate transition is made from the words 'out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,' in ch. 7:52, to the words 'Again therefore JESUS spake unto them, saying,' in ch. 8:12. And we are invited by all the adverse Critics alike to believe that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist.
"But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch. 7:37 and 52, and note— (a) That two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (ver. 40-42); (b) That some were for laying violent hands on our LORD (ver. 44); (c) That the Sanhedrin, being assembled in debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Him prisoner, and disputing one against another (ver. 45-52). How can the Evangelist have proceeded,—'Again therefore JESUS spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world'? What is it supposed then that St. John meant when he wrote such words?" (60)
​

Surely the Dean's point is well taken. Who can deny that when John 7:53-8:11 is rejected, the want of connection between the seventh and eighth chapters is exceedingly strange? The reader is snatched from the midst of a dispute in the council chamber of the Sanhedrin back to Jesus in the Temple without a single word of explanation. Such impressionistic writing might possibly be looked for in some sophisticated modern book but not in a book of the sacred Scriptures.
(f) The Negative Evidence of the Manuscripts and Versions Explained
It is not surprising that the pericope de adultera is omitted in Papyri 66 and 75, Aleph B W and L. For all these manuscripts are connected with the Alexandrian tradition which habitually favored omissions. When once the Montanists or some other extreme group had begun to leave the story of the adulteress out of their copies of John's Gospel, the ascetic tendencies of the early Church were such that the practice would spread rapidly, especially in Egypt, and produce just the situation which we find among the Greek manuscripts. For the same reason many manuscripts of the Coptic (Egyptian) versions, including the recently discovered Bodmer Papyrus III, omit this passage, as do also the Syriac and Armenian versions. All these versions reflect the tendency to omit a passage which had become offensive. And the fact that the section had been so widely omitted encouraged later scribes to play the critic, and thus were produced the unusually large number of variant readings which appear in this passage in the extant manuscripts. And for the same cause many scribes placed deletion marks on the margin opposite this section.
None of these phenomena proves that the pericope de adultera is not genuine but merely that there was a widespread prejudice against it in the early Church. The existence of this prejudice makes it more reasonable to suppose that the story of the adulteress was omitted from the text of John than to insist that in the face of this prejudice it was added to the text of John. There would be a motive for omitting it but no motive for adding it.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

while we are on the subject of corruption...

I really don't have time for your nonsense blurring the picture, out of this thread you go...

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Only by the false Islamic understanding of what we are talking about. The Son is the rational expression of God through which all things were created. It would help you to understand these concepts if you were to study some Greek philosophy since these were the terms through which the reality was described.

This is a false understanding of the Trinity. God did not become incarnate into Jesus as a creation. Rather, Jesus is the incarnate God. There is a difference you know.

No, you simply limit God into a Diestic sense of one who is seperated from his creation.

Bi-la kayf (Arabic: بلا كي&#1601 is an Arabic phase roughly translated as "without asking how." It addresses the theological problem in Islam of how do deal with verses in the Qu'ran as that refer to Allah having human characteristics, i.e. the Hand of Allah or the Face of Allah. These verses are problematic because they give Allah human characteristics, something which is contrary to the Islamic concept of Allah as being transcendental. The term was first used by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari in his development of a theological system that would resolve some of the paradoxes in Mu'tazilah thought. Instead of explaining how Allah can have a face, which would anthropomorphize Allah, or explaining the verses as metaphorical, which would cast doubt on the literalness of the Qur'an, the verse are simply accepted as they are, without asking how or why.

Throne After the heavens were finished, the one who built it went up to his throne in heaven and from there continues to keep the heavens and the earth from disappearing (13:2, 57:4, 35:41). On the judgment day the sky will be torn apart and eight angels will be seen carrying the throne of Allah above their heads (69:15-17, 39:75). Those who hold up Allah’s throne and surround it constantly pray that those Muslims who deserve it would be forgiven (40:7-9).
Holds the Sky from Falling Allah holds up the sky. It will not fall unless he wants it to do so (22:65).
Face Every living thing on the earth will die, but his face is eternal (55:26-27).
Judge He (Allah) is the best of judges (95:8, 10:109).
Taking a Vow He (Allah) vows by the dawn and the ten nights, by the even and odd, and by the night when it departs or comes... this surely is a great oath for a reasonable man (92:1-5). He swears by the sun and the moon, by the day and the night (91:1,2).
Experiencing Emotions He (Allah) is pleased (98:8). He (Allah) abhors those who reject Islam (40:10). Allah does not love those who reject Islam (30:45).
Right and Left Hand Sides At the final judgment Muslims will stand on his right hand side and those who deny the teachings of the Qur'an will stand on his left hand side (90:17-19).
Counts He (Allah) takes a careful count of all people so that they will appear before him alone for judgment (19:94-95).
Tests Allah will test the believers until he discovers who among them will persevere (47:31).
Appearance on Earth The voice Moses heard from the burning tree said, “Moses, I am Allah...” (28:30). Allah was in the fire and all around it (27:8).
Watches Allah stands watching over every soul to know everything that is done (13:33). If three men talk in secret Allah is the fourth. If there are four, he is the fifth. If there are five, he is the sixth (58:7).
Hears Allah heard the conversation between a divorced woman and Mohammed (58:1). He hears and sees everything (4:134).
Hand of Allah Pledging loyalty, allegiance and devotion to Mohammed is like pledging it to Allah. When they put their hands together Allah’s hand is on top of theirs (48:10). His hands are outstretched (5:64).

But Jesus was the Messiah. We believe that too. The question posed to Jesus, as you put it:

Are you the Messiah, Son of the Blessed One. Answer: I AM! And you shall see Son of Man, sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

So, Jesus admitted he was the Messiah. Notice though, Jesus quickly mentioned the Son of Man (not the Son of God) coming down from the clouds.

Nothing here shows that Son of Man = God.

It is noone's problem if you just can't read because you are so motivated to prove us something. He just answered to a question YES I AM, the Son of the Blessed One. Who is this Blessed One? The question was not two fold, it was continuous... Then He referred to the messianic prophesy of Prophet Daniel identifying Himself, sure nothing points out Son of Man = God and that must be why Caiaphas tore his vestments.

 

[Islam_mulia]

It is noone's problem if you just can't read because you are so motivated to prove us something. He just answered to a question YES I AM, the Son of the Blessed One. Who is this Blessed One?

The question was not two fold, it was continuous... Then He referred to the messianic prophesy of Prophet Daniel identifying Himself, sure nothing points out Son of Man = God and that must be why Caiaphas tore his vestments.

Do allow me to elaborate further on why the bible writers were playing with words and did not accurately provide a realistic picture to defend Jesus.

The bible states:

63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered. 67 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68 and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?" (Matthew 26:63-68)

1) This drama happened after Jesus was seized and brought to the high priest. Some of the Jews were more than eager to accuse Jesus of anything to get rid of him.

Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people. (John 18:14)

2) In one of the interrogations, the high priest asked Jesus if he was the Christ, the Messiah, the son of God. Jesus replied: Yes.

Question is: Was Jesus replying that he was the Messiah, the Christ or that he was saying that he was God?

Answer: Jesus was replying to the main point of the question, that he was the Christ, not that he was God. Reasons being:

2.1 After Jesus replied he was Christ, the Jews slapped Jesus and called him, Christ, not God. (See above in red)

2.2 In the sysnoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) Jesus NEVER refers himself as a Son of God, but rather to being a Son of Man. Please show me if I am wrong here.

3) As this concerns the Jewish belief, it will be good to know that Jews do not equate the Son of Man (which Jesus claims to be) to be equal to God or a God-Man. There is no Jewish literature that points to this belief.
Bushmaster may want to counter this by providing a Jewish source that refutes what I wrote.

4) The high priest should know better that the Son of man is not God. Caiaphas was either exaggerating the Son of Man/Christ claim by saying that Jesus has blasphemed. Caiaphas could have claimed that Jesus was a false Messiah, that would make sense to the Jews. Or it could be that the bible writer wrote this to stretch his point and not understanding the Jewish belief. Matthew, or whoever wrote Matthew, has track record of misunderstanding the Jewish literature (eg, the Emmanuel story) and wrote this.

 

[yaqovzadeek]

Can you explain it in your own word about, in what ways John William thinks that the Word of God is altered? It would be easier for me than to read the whole lot of it, and it doesn't explain very well to me.

If you read the book yourself won't you understand? If i was to explain it to you i am sure I would get accused of misinterpreting or twisting as many Christians who do not want to hear the truth accuse others of.So I have posted the link the name is clear William Burgon was not an unknown.I am sure if you really want to understand what he said you could,he refers to various forms of Intentional corrption of the text.Ipost some of the headings because i had no time to go in depth when I posted it.Check www.ccel.org and just do asearch in ther for Corruption.The book is free you have to be a member to download it in PDF or other formats or you can read it online.
here is what he says about orthodx corruption of the Bible:
Peace
CHAPTER XIV.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

X. CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX.

§ 1.
ANOTHER cause why, in very early times, the Text of the Gospels underwent serious depravation, was mistaken solicitude on the part of the ancient orthodox for the purity of the Catholic faith. These persons, like certain of the moderns, Beza for example, evidently did not think it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired Text. If any expression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency, they altered it, or transplanted it, or removed it bodily from the sacred page.
Yaqovzadeek
aka James the Just

 

[yaqovzadeek]

I can hit back with this so hard, you'd regret posting it. Think of Trinity now.

Apply your rule above. God's incarnation and entering our time is something YOU CAN NOT COMPREHEND! anthropomorphism is simply a definition you like to tag to it, explain how it happened.

I posted a link in one of my threads about the connection between Judaism and christianity with the far Ancient Eastern religions.This link is a series of classes from Yale Uni's comparative studies Course.It is called an introduction to the new testament.It describes antropomorphism and how it crept into the Bible. How it is not simply a definition as some declare.Many Know alls decided not to even check out what the professor spoke about. Now they ask for explanations.
here is the link go check it out

 

[elijah115]

Sadly, what you posted has nothing to do with this:

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the Son of Man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? [Numbers 23:19]

Where in the bible is it written that Jesus lied or repented?

 

[elijah115]

You mean 1 x 1 x 1 = 1?

Or

1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x ... 1 = 1?

How may are there?

God is spirit. 1x1x1 = 1 is tangible and we only use it for illustration. You believe God is merciful and forgiving. Is he God because he is merciful and forgiving though? A man can be merciful and forgiving, but does that make him God? There's nothing ridicilous about us being patient with you to explain what we understand. It's up to you to extrapolate that because man is capacable of forgiving and being merciful saying God is merciful or forgiving is laughable. Hopefully you understand the pragmatic rather than semantic meaning of what I am saying, metaphorically, in discussing God who is spirit, according His own revelation to us.

 

[elijah115]

So, Elijah, are you a disciple of Jesus or do you think you are a follower of Jesus? How does Jn 13:35 relevant to you if you are not a disciple of Christ?

If you are not a disciple of Christ, you won't obey what he commanded. He didn't command me to pray for useless miracles.

But even if you are not a disciple, and has a faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move mountains, which I have not seen Christian performing the feat:

Maybe it didn't occur to you that we pray against tyrants, oppression and dictators not Mount Figi. If a person loves God, evidence of this is love for others, whoever they are.

You say "faith the size of a mustard seed" but what do you understand by faith. You claim to believe in God who created the universe, but you ridicule us for believing he can heal or remove oppressors. Where is the evidence of your faith if you are asking me to pray for useless things? If someone is suffering from cancer do you honestly think I am going to waste my time praying for something useless? There's nothing profound about your comment here.

What is God's will which you claim to submit to? What is faith?

Dont get me wrong. It's not that I dont believe in miracles, but the way the bible writers describe the unbelievable, I am tempted to believe superheroes are not made in hollywood.

The quran says that God created the world. Explain to me what you think is impossible for God?

Where does the OT prophecise about Jesus

Deutronomy 18:15/18

and where does it say Muhammad (pbuh) is not a true prophet?

Did I mentioned that? Why do you think it was not referring to MUhammad?

You really don't care if it's not referring to Muhammad, or why don't refer to Muhammad, so why ask?

Again, I did not mention that. If you think that the Quran is wrong to say that Imran was the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus, then tell me why I'm wrong.I make the same effort when Bushmaster mentioned some names.

Who would know more about you? Your sibling or a person born in 2608?

Explain your answer.

You based your reply on the bible as a historical document which actually I asked Bushmaster to discuss further. The bible contains stories that cannot be supported by modern day findings. Will that say much about using the bible to prove Jesus was crucified?

I also mention that are no extrabiblical documents to prove Jesus was crucified.

By your logic Alexander the Great never existed.

 

[MK11]

"In the same way also the Gospel lesson which has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation . . . Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously? It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds etc." (32)

Well. I see that there is a clear problem in that story. It is supposed according to what I understand that Jesus was crucified for people's sin, either for Adam's sin (which I see many Christians reject) or since forgiving the sin needed a sacrifice as the case in OT, so Jesus was the lamb who was given for sacrifice. When we Muslims ask, couldn't God forgive Adam's sin or say that the sacrificial law won't be applied on us without need to incarnate to be crucified. Christians will say: God doesn't change his words. It's ok, if you say that God doesn't change his words, well, he did in that story (pericrope de adultera), didn't he? I think this is a clear contradiction between the Bible and the Christian doctrine, either the doctrine of salvation is false, or it is the case that these verses are added from the Bible (interpolation).

According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. "Certain persons of little faith," he wrote, "or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin." (33)

Where did Augustine say so? Please cite me your reference.

Another evidence of the presence of the pericope de adultera in early Greek manuscripts of John is the citation of it in the Didascalia (Teaching) of the Apostles and in the Apostolic Constitutions, which are based on the Didascalia.

Do you know that the didascalia orders you not to shave your beard, not to wear gold and that your wife covers her head?

That's enough for now

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Bushmaster[/B]
We can agree that they are historical for a change because you can't seem to establish otherwise. If I gave you your tools of trade then what good are you? Gospels are historical, by manuscripts, documentary and archaeologically... show me a document that was produced as much as it was...
You noticed I decided to ignore the rest and concentrate on this which is more relevant to the OP.

Right, since you cannot give me any guidelines to present my case, can I propose the following to test the historicity of the bible?

Don’t misrepresent my words; I didn’t say I can’t give you guidelines. I just said Gospels are historical, by the testimony manuscripts, documentary and archaeological evidences.

1) the stories in the bible should not contradict modern-day findings

This is a vague rule. There are modern day findings that confirm biblical events; however, you just can’t propose that on stuff like Noah’s Ark … We can only judge our information with what we find in biblical archaeology. Such examples are St. Paul's reference to Erastus as the treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23) was thought to be erroneous, but now has been confirmed by a pavement found in 1929 bearing his name. Another example is St. Luke's use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a "district" of Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to describe divisions of a district. Also findings that seem to not match accounts do not necessarily means accounts are false and there are examples that further research reveals details in depth, St. Luke's usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under much criticism by secular historians, as the later traveler and writer Pliny never referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallio's true position. It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered. This inscription states, "As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia..." Here then was secular corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer o f Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd century as many liberal scholars suggest he would have agreed with Pliny and both would have been contradicted by the eyewitness account of the Delphi Inscription…
Though, you are obliged to use this same rule to Quran.

2) the characters of the bible are real and have support of old documents which are deemed authentic and not corrupted

Such as? Abraham's name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites… According to the historians there were no Hittites at the time of Abraham, thus the historicity of the Biblical accounts describing them was questionable. Now we know from inscriptions of that period that there were 1,200 years of Hittite civilization, much of it corresponding with the Patriarchal period. The account of Daniel, according to the skeptical historians, must have been written in the second century and not the sixth century B.C. because of all the precise historical detail found in its content. Yet now the sixth century's East India Inscription corresponds with the Daniel 4:30 account of Nebuchadnezzar's building, proving that the author of Daniel must have been an eye‐witness from that period. Either way it is amazing.

3) Any other points which you may want to highlight

Your ability to prove Apostles liars/wrongdoers and indicate motive why they would not tell the truth? Again, excluding the known heretical groups, motive for orthodox Christianity to believe and circulate unreliable accounts, and yet die for them??

Please let me know if the above guidelines are sufficient enough to discuss the historicity of the bible.

You know anything you apply to Bible, you will have to do the same to Quran.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

So, Elijah, are you a disciple of Jesus or do you think you are a follower of Jesus? How does Jn 13:35 relevant to you if you are not a disciple of Christ?

But even if you are not a disciple, and has a faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move mountains, which I have not seen Christian performing the feat:
Quote:
He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:20)
Dont get me wrong. It's not that I dont believe in miracles, but the way the bible writers describe the unbelievable, I am tempted to believe superheroes are not made in hollywood.

No, actually, Hollywood gets most of its stuff from Quran, birds carrying stones to attack armies, people overhearing insects talking…. That is like that cartoon “The Bee Movie”?? Mockery is not getting you anywhere. Christ when He said this, was pointing maybe to that He was just come down from, which might be in sight of the house where He was… Regardless, St. Peter by his faith walked on water towards Christ and when he lost it, he started sinking, these are accounts that are supposed to teach us a value, a lesson, yet you mock them, remember God is not MOCKED.

Again, I did not mention that. If you think that the Quran is wrong to say that Imran was the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus, then tell me why I'm wrong.

I make the same effort when Bushmaster mentioned some names.

Though it is not possible for you to disprove Church’s tradition at this point, what is your historical recording/finding that supports Quran? Mary’s parents are Sts. Joachim and Anna. And your quotation of them are refuted easily, absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence of absence. Holy Tradition remains.

You based your reply on the bible as a historical document which actually I asked Bushmaster to discuss further. The bible contains stories that cannot be supported by modern day findings.

Which modern-day findings?

Will that say much about using the bible to prove Jesus was crucified?

Christ was crucified, just the mention and belief and/or disbelief this event among sects is a proof of the event. Even Quran mentions it and wants us to believe otherwise. Not solely bible but Church and Tradition (which the bible is a part of) are the proof of this event. You have been answered million times in the thread related to Caiaphas already.

I also mention that are no extrabiblical documents to prove Jesus was crucified.

There are a lot of sources that testify to the existence of Christians, who entirely believed that He was crucified, including Apostles who died for this belief. Also, read again, absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence of absence. What is your external document that testifies to the birds carrying stones and attacking armies?

You mean 1 x 1 x 1 = 1?

Or

1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x ... 1 = 1?

How may are there?

Oh this is supposed to be funny? Start counting the persons of God manifest in Christian Scriptures, if you find more than 3 please name them and add them to the equation, Church fathers might have missed what you could easily find. You are hilariously unaware of Christian history and doctrine.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by islam_mulia
So, Elijah, are you a disciple of Jesus or do you think you are a follower of Jesus? How does Jn 13:35 relevant to you if you are not a disciple of Christ?

But even if you are not a disciple, and has a faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move mountains, which I have not seen Christian performing the feat:
Quote:
He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:20)
Dont get me wrong. It's not that I dont believe in miracles, but the way the bible writers describe the unbelievable, I am tempted to believe superheroes are not made in hollywood.

Oh thou of little Faith. Cannot you see that is symbolic? What group of people was Jesus talking to when he said that passage.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 4:20 The Fathers of us in the Mountain, this-one, worship, and ye are saying that in Jerusalem is the where to be worshipping it is binding.'

Matthew 21:21 Answering the Jesus said to them, "Verily I am saying to ye, if ever ye may be having Faith, and no ye may be doubting, not only the of the fig-tree ye shall be doing, but even-ever to the mountain, this, ye may saying, 'Be being lifted up! and be being cast into the Sea', it shall be becoming/genhsetai <1096> (5695)"; [Revelation 8:8]

Revelation 8:8 And the second messenger did sound, and as it were a great Mountain [OC?]with fire burning was cast into the Sea,.......