Part 8 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

I can speak other languages and the thing if you take a Bible written in English, Greek, Latin, Spanish etc. you will notice they contain the same contents from the Genesis to Revelation, God created the universe in 7 days, He created Adam in His image, Noah's flood, Lot, Abraham, Isaac sacrifice and his blessing to become the chosen people, Moses, Exodus, Joshua wars with the Caanites, Babylonian captivity, wars with Persia, Macedonia, King Saul, David, Solomon..etc. to Jesus Christ and to his Resurrection all Bible translations are the same or an equivalent to the original written language of the Bible and we can see the translations in it's equivalence are very accurate.

What happened was when heretics started not just misinterpreting but they are also introducing their own version such as claiming that Jesus is not the Son of God in every Bible translated language it is written that Jesus is the Son of God.

What was being challenge is the leadership and authority of the church as the church started to grow certain individuals started or wanting to separate from the church authority and introduce or implement their own interest especially when secular politics is attach to it.

Faith is just one part of it facts is the other part that is why God became flesh and blood as Jesus Christ so that he can personally be with us so that men will have no reason to say God does not exist but in spite of the fact that Jesus Christ personally face the Pharisees they refuse to accept and they had Jesus Christ crucified because they want to silent him at the same time accepting Jesus Christ challenge that he will resurrect and he did resurrected and now the only way for them to stop Christ is to discredit, censored, change what ever story exist about Christ and to persecute all of Christ followers.

John 20: 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

Thanks. We know that this Gospel was written in Greek as we have these pieces, but not the original. It is also possible that it was first written in Syriac as it is sometimes considered a Gnostic Gospel.

I don't accept most of the 60+ gospels of, revelations of, Infancy Gospels of, etc. They present us with a Jesus kind, gentle, violent, murderous, uncaring according to the various writers ideas.

 

You are obviously more knowledgeable than I.. I just don't think the NT was written in Hebrew.

 

=trevorw2539;1063239856][/B]

That is why Jesus Christ was very clear in every Bible translated language it is written;
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Leadership, that is why Peter and the Apostles were given authority and the Apostles were all in agreement that Jesus Christ is the Son of God;
Luke 9: Jesus called his twelve disciples together. He gave them power over all the bad spirits, and power to heal sick people.

2 He sent them out to tell people about the kingdom of God and to heal sick people.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+9&version=WE

The form of communication that they had back then was through the Holy Spirit, the Apostles even if they were far away from each other fulfilling God's mission they all taught the same message that Jesus Christ is the risen Lord, the Son of God and they baptise them in the name of the Father, the son and Holy Spirit.

Not only did they insist the gentiles must be circumcised but must also embrace Jewish tradition which also was not possible because the leadership of the Jewish people mainly the Pharisees refuse and have continue to reject Christ at the same time Christ preach about universality and another reason why the Pharisees are so against Christ was because Jesus was against their tradition;
John 1:12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

That is why church leaders spend their entire life studying and researching every discovered manuscript in order to determine it's authenticity because there were many manuscripts appearing written by anonymous scribes or writers are intent seem to distort and discredit Jesus Christ in fact in today's equivalent that is equal to counterfeit materials.

Church scholars research the Thomas gospel and they could not reconcile it's contents because of many contradictions;
http://carm.org/does-the-gospel-of-thomas-belong-in-the-new-testament

1. Dependence on the 1st Century New Testament Writings
2. Possible 2nd Century Syrian Influence
3. Lack of References from Early Church Fathers or First Century Witnesses
4. Heretical Nature and Gnostic-like Overtones
5. Disagreements and Variations from First Century New Testament Themes
6. Self-Conscious Promotion

The 4 Gospels have been authenticated; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

The first word common to the headings of our four Gospels is Euaggelion
The second word common to the titles of the canonical Gospels is the preposition kata, "according to"

Every Christian church accepted the 4 Gospels that even today's many Protestant and other independent Christian churches they all accept the 4 Gospels that was authenticated by early church fathers as true.

 

Quote Posted by Akhlut on pg. 52 #512 of Part 3 in response to WanRen's post

It is ironic that anti Christian always ask for proof but in Darwin's case they seem to be satisfy that humans evolve from apes even without any proof, (Post by WanRen)

There's plenty of proof of evolution. (Post by Akhlut in response to WanRen's post above)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you call theories, speculation, guesswork plenty of proofs, well yes, you are absolutely right there's certainly plenty of that my good man.

The thing that is missing though is the conclusive, indisputable evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Needless to say that will always be missing and so like my good freind WanRen said, "It is ironic that anti Christian always ask for proof but in Darwin's case they seem to be satisfy that humans evolve from apes even without any proof."

 

Quote Posted by Akhlut on pg. 52 #514 of Part 3 in response to WanRen's post

And this boils down to who design it to be that way? Computer needs a creator, humans don't need a creator? This is another elementary fallacy.(Post by WanRen)

Not really; we know how brains can develop without intervention from any entity, whereas we observe computers being built all the time. We also observe all the time that brains develop without creators. (Post by Akhlut in response to WanRen's post above)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are so so confused. You are now saying that "brains develop without creators" but on pg. 51 #503 of Part 3 you have been quoted as saying, "The body created the brain, yes, as a part of development as a result of numerous genes controlling for the formation and structure of the brain"

So now according to you the brains came first then it developed a body to go with it but previously you said the body came first and developed a brain to go with it...lol

Too funny!

Here is what actually truly happened, God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like ourselves. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground." So God created human beings in His own image. In the image of God He created them; male and female He created them." Genesis 1:26-27 NLT

 

Around 180 CE Irenaeus wrote 'Matthew also issued a written Gospel to the Hebrews in their own dialect while Paul and Peter were preac hing in Rome, and laying the foundation of the church'. This is probably not the Gospel we read which seems to have been written by a very learned Jewish Christian well versed in Jewish tradition, law and religion. It's quite possible that the disciple Matthew was the source of much information for this learned Jew. As well as the 'Q' source and Jewish tradition.
If you look at Matthew and Luke they are very similar in their format and contain most of Marks Gospel, though they have slightly different purposes for the different people they were written for. Johns Gospel is entirely different with a different emphasis.

Circa 125 CE Papias - a Bishop in Asia Minor - wrote that 'Matthew compiled the sayings - of Jesus - in the Aramaic language'.

Origen says the same - but he takes his thoughts from 'tradition'.

 

I have heard of this Q source....

 

Where are his bones?
How about your claim that folks misinterpreted what Jesus said.
What makes you so sure nothing else has been misinterpreted?

 

Read his posts. He can't communicate in english at all. Most of the time it is pretty incoherent.

 

Have you not read your post it is full of contradictions, and full of attempts to distort and it is a shame for a person like you who claims and pride itself to be good and excellent in English can't actually understand basic English.

 

Remember, Mitt is not talking about Jesus Christ bones don't try to distort Mitt's post just like you have been doing with mine.
There is no Jesus Christ bones because Jesus Christ resurrected.

Church fathers have this continuous program of researching including all new discoveries be it artifacts or science to make sure the integrity of the Bible is maintain and to protect it from malicious individuals whose aim is to misinterpret the Bible.

 

Rather than guess and distort your post, I'll just reply.
I have no clue what you just posted.

 

Quote Posted by Akhlut on pg. 52 #514 of Part 3 in response to WanRen's post

Maybe if we dig deeper we will find out, elementary fallacy = humans just appear from no where? (Post by WanRen)

The idea that YHWH just appeared from nowhere is a logical fallacy, as science makes no claims on the origin of the matter that constitutes the universe. (Post by Akhlut in response to WanRen's post above)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God didn't just appear from nowhere for He has no beginning or no end, He is the Eternal One, the Creator who just exist.

Since we know the universe had a beginning, then we can conclude that the origin of the matter that constitutes the universe came from God.

Wrap your finite mind around that concept.

 

Thank you at least now you have come forward and admit you have been distorting my post.
Not have an answer to my post is better than to try to lie or distort about the truth.

 

When Darwin first formulated his ape-human theory he really meant APES like monkeys that humans evolved from apes that is why early science in fact up to now we see pictorials showing actual apes that evolved into man.


Modern science has now define that humans evolved from Hominoidea separate from apes or monkeys. Humans and apes are part of the Hominoidea that evolved separately and are classified according to their kind.


Hominoidea contains two families of living (extant) species:
Hylobatidae consists of four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang. They are commonly referred to as lesser apes.
Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.[1][2] Alternatively, the hominidae family are collectively described as the great apes.There are two extant species in the orangutan genus (Pongo), two species in the gorilla genus, and a single extant species Homo sapiens in the human genus (Homo). Chimpanzees and bonobos are closely related to each other and they represent the two species in the genus Pan.

Members of the superfamily are called hominoids (not to be confused with the family of "hominids" - great apes, the subfamily of hominines, the tribe of "hominins" aka the human clade, or the subtribe of hominans).

Some or all hominoids are also called "apes". However, the term "ape" is used in several different senses. It has been used as a synonym for "monkey" or for any tailless primate with a humanlike appearance.[7] Thus the Barbary macaque, a kind of monkey, is popularly called the "Barbary ape" to indicate its lack of a tail. Biologists have used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[3] or more recently to mean all members of the superfamily Hominoidea, so that "ape" becomes another word for "hominoid"

The history of hominoid taxonomy is somewhat confusing and complex. The names of subgroups have changed their meaning over time as new evidence, from fossil discoveries and comparisons of anatomy and DNA sequences, has changed understanding of the relationships between hominoids. There has been a gradual demotion of humans from a special position in the taxonomy to being one branch among many. This history illustrates the growing influence of cladistics (the science of classifying living things by strict descent) on taxonomy.
As of 2006, there are eight extant genera of hominoids. They are the four genera in the family Hominidae (Homo – humans, Pan – chimpanzees and bonobos, Gorilla, and Pongo – orangutans), and the four genera in the family Hylobatidae or gibbons (Hylobates, Hoolock, Nomascus and Symphalangus). (The genus for the hoolock gibbons was recently changed from Bunopithecus to Hoolock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape#History_of_hominoid_taxonomy

What is so ironic that anti Christian people will always insist that humans evolved from apes even though it is clear it is not so thus contradicting their own science and facts and they contradict that because of their deep and exxtreme anti Christian ideology, maybe it is an attempt to discredit the Bible and or to distort facts and science for one purpose only to bring down God.

 

Yes, myself and everyone else who has ever replied to you have distorted your posts. Even when proving you wrong.
But now you can sleep better.

 

Are you attempting to portray Einstein as someone who believe in a deity?

 

My book of mormon makes it quite clear that the gold books are
from god.

 

You are reversing yourself again so soon you are flip flopping already.
I have always sleep well because I have been very successful in rebuking and exposing all you and your buddies lies and distortions in spite of my weak English against your self proclaim mastery of the English language.

 

You've succeeded in something, its not at all what you think, though.

We do have to point out that once again you are lying, in that nobody here proclaimed mastery. Why do you keep repeating this falsehood?

And that you are reversing yourself, having said that you English is better than mine.

Do you have the tiniest glimmer of an idea what a poor impression you make for what it is to be Christian?

 

re•buke (rɪˈbyuk)

v. -buked, -buk•ing,
n. v.t.
1. to express sharp, stern disapproval of; reprove; reprimand.
n.
2. a sharp reproof; reprimand.
[1275&#8211;1325; < Anglo-French rebuker

 

Quote Posted by AlphaOmega on pg. 52 #516 of Part 3

Math is math, a fossil is a fossil. Carbon dating doesnt lie it is fact. A T rex fossil is not made up it is real. Evolution is proven factually by studying animal records. It is not open to conjecture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carbon dating is only accurate to a certain extent. It is only accurate for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.

Evolution is just a theory and nothing has been conclusively proved and so it is always open to conjecture.

In summary a few of your statements have been exposed to be invalid.

 

Quote Posted by Akhlut on pg. 52 #512 of Part 3

And which part of evolution violates logic? If organisms have heritable material (they do) that is not perfectly copied over time (it isn't), then over time organisms will change as they breed (they do). There's not really anything there that isn't logically sound.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are essentially spewing out conjecture, guesswork, theories and for you to make conclusive factual statements it is clearly evidently seen as been dishonest.

You have no conclusive evidence to make such statements. So you can keep believing humans were evolved from ape-like creatures but until you can find and introduce indisputable conclusive evidence your belief is still an unproven theory.

It has been since its inception, nothing has changed but of course we always see the false assertions.

 

Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.


But then the Biblical story of creation is not proven either.