Catholics, Christains, Sunni, Shia, Muslims, PLEASE READ!

[johnnyc176]

That right that can also refer to the Catholics. Considering they disagreed with the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, the Gnostic, and who knows what other early christian group. Maybe it was the Catholics that are responsible for wandering into myths?

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Why those guys?

I learned it was to give the gospels more credibility to make it seem they came from the traditions of Jesus Christ.

 

[dronald]

The Crucifixion is not a historical issue in Islam, it is a theological issue, if it appeared that Isa ibn Maryam (A) was crucified, then of course historians would record the apparent.

Thus creating the greatest confusion the history of the world has ever known.

Allah had tricked every early Disciple of Jesus (including all of the writers of the first century). He also tricked all of the earliest historians including that of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. He tricked every secular historian who claim that the one thing we can be sure of with Jesus was his death.

He created the largest Religion in the world based on a trick he played on humanity. I wonder what other tricks Allah has pulled like the fake crucifixion? I wonder how he’s tricked you?

I learned it was to give the gospels more credibility to make it seem they came from the traditions of Jesus Christ.

How so?

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

johnnyc176:
@ johnnyc176

Could you explain to me what it means that the gates of hell will never overcome the Church? Because looking back at history if there was such a thing to begin with in the 1st or 2nd century of Christianity, it seems like that’s actually what happened. Like I said, the history of the Church that profess in the trinity and the bible have been inconsistent till this very day. The Orthodox have a different view on this verse, so do Evangelical Christians. The Catholics use this verse to claim the catholic church will never be ‘literally’ destroyed as in corrupted as well as diminished.

But looking past that. How do we even know that verse came from the words of Jesus as he was speaking to the disciple Peter?

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Thus creating the greatest confusion the history of the world has ever known.

Allah had tricked every early Disciple of Jesus (including all of the writers of the first century). He also tricked all of the earliest historians including that of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. He tricked every secular historian who claim that the one thing we can be sure of with Jesus was his death.

He created the largest Religion in the world based on a trick he played on humanity. I wonder what other tricks Allah has pulled like the fake crucifixion? I wonder how he’s tricked you?

I have to agree with you. This is something I just can not wrap my head around with that God would do something like that. Especially if we don’t know for what purpose he did something like that.

How so?

Well two names Mathew and John are actually names of the supposed disciples of Jesus and the other two are supposed to be disciples of the disciples. None of that can be proven though.

 

[dronald]

Well two names Mathew and John are actually names of the supposed disciples of Jesus and the other two are supposed to be disciples of the disciples. None of that can be proven though.

Thanks for your great inquiries; I can tell by the way you’re posting that you’re actually interested and not just looking for an argument.

Do you believe that there really was a man who was laying on Jesus who also wrote what we have always traditionally called the “Gospel of John”?

John 13:23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus’ side

25 so that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, “Lord, who is it?”

John 21:20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper …24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

Do you believe that the man who wrote Luke also wrote The Acts?

Luke 1: 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Acts 1: 1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

And do you believe that Mark, Matthew and Luke were really so significant that some people would make up a story that those men wrote those Gospels instead of choosing someone a little more popular in the Church? Why not James, Peter or how about John for the synoptics?

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Thanks for your great inquiries; I can tell by the way you’re posting that you’re actually interested and not just looking for an argument.

Do you believe that there really was a man who was laying on Jesus who also wrote what we have always traditionally called the “Gospel of John”?

Wait, I am not sure if you’re asking if I I believe that or if I learned that the Christians believe that. I just said names were added many years after the gospels were written in order to put more credibility in the collection they gathered.

And do you believe that Mark, Matthew and Luke were really so significant that some people would make up a story that those men wrote those Gospels instead of choosing someone a little more popular in the Church? Why not James, Peter or how about John for the synoptics?

I am glad you see my intentions. Like I said one of the reasons for me posting this thread was for myself because I can assure you I do not have any motivation to change anybody’s believes. I actually had this problem for the majority of my life. I am trying to better myself in every way possible.

Its a technical game to be honest. Were there more popular figures in the Church that the RC could’ve ascribed more significant people to? Sure they could have. But realize other early Christian groups attempted to do that as well and failed big time.

 

[Clevus]

Can we link any book to Jesus as being the Prophet that the Quran makes him out to be?

We can do one better. We have Mohamed himself who implies the Divinity of Jesus. So if he is Divine what does that make him…class?.. .

ecclesia.org/truth/koran.html

 

[Captain_America]

I think the long-accepted teaching is that Jesus is the CULMINATION of an historical prophetic tradition. . . and the culmination of previous teachings.

So of course the Trinity exists. Sufficient evidence exists throughout the New Testament. QED.

 

[dronald]

I am glad you see my intentions. Like I said one of the reasons for me posting this thread was for myself because I can assure you I do not have any motivation to change anybody’s believes. I actually had this problem for the majority of my life. I am trying to better myself in every way possible.

Its a technical game to be honest. Were there more popular figures in the Church that the RC could’ve ascribed more significant people to? Sure they could have. But realize other early Christian groups attempted to do that as well and failed big time.

I’m sure that you understand that the existence of other ideas that arose to compete with Christianity do not negate the truth found in the true texts, if indeed they are true.

Also, that doesn’t answer any of my questions. Why them specifically, and what are your answers to the questions I posted above?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

From what I learned there is only inconsistencies in the gospels themselves as you read from the earliest to the oldest. But what bothers me the most is that we don’t even know if the gospels we have can even be traced to any disciples of Christ.

Well we know they can be, it’s just that that can never be absolutely certain.

What we know for certain, however, can be written on the back of a postage stamp

 

[rabbitdonkey]

I agree. but how should i know that the Ebionites, the Nazareens, the Gnostics and other Christians groups who also lived in the second century after Jesus were Heresies and not the Catholic Christians?

Because the Church condemned them. Also have you considered reading the more conservative scholars who argue that the books of the New Testament were written by those who we believe wrote them.

Thanks

God Bless

 

[Church_Militant]

those names were put there many years AFTER the gospels were written.

You’ll have to offer verifiable documentation of this claim. All the Gospels we have are the ones that bore those names from the outset.

From what I learned there is only inconsistencies in the gospels themselves as you read from the earliest to the oldest. But what bothers me the most is that we don’t even know if the gospels we have can even be traced to any disciples of Christ.

Prove otherwise then.

You can’t and since your best likely sources are atheistic speculations (at best) then your premise is badly flawed.

There’s no better source out there than the Catholic Church who has spent 2,000 years studying and documenting all of this and then defending and preserving both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[tgGodsway]

The four Evangelists most certainly were named Matthew Mark, Luke and John.

Sorry, after that I couldn’t read any further.

Why not? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all agree with the Apostle’s Paul, Peter, James, and Jude. John who wrote the gospel of John also wrote 1st, 2nd. and 3rd. John not to mention the book of Revelation. All of them were under the inspiration of holy Spirit and have the same divine author. Anyone who would not recognize this settled fact, has bought into Church propaganda.

 

[Reuben_J]

Could you come with any convincing argument why I should believe what the Catholic Christians believed in instead what the Ebionites or even what the Gnostic believed in.

I do not have much time now but here it is:

Peter.

Peter was the chief disciple of Jesus, who when asked what he taught of Jesus was, he said Jesus is the Son of the living God, and Jesus said to him that he was blessed because what came out of his mouth just then was not from his own but from the Father in heaven.

This same Peter who listened to Jesus teachings, witnessed Jesus deeds and words until the end of Jeus’ life on earth, was the first Pope.

Today his remains was buriend deep underneath the Vatican and that Church had not been interrupted ever since, where she can trace all the Popes thereafter.

It still stands today. No other religions in the world can boast of this today and how ancient the uninterruption is.

All the other Gospels that you mentioned came out later and could not compared to the Gospels which which were written during the contemporary of the apostles.

The dates matter.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Dear Community,

I read all of your responses and I am thankful that some of you took the time to reply to this thread. I am just begging the question here. Do we have one singular document that we have that can be traced back to the disciples of Jesus? Whether you are Christian or Muslim, how can you prove that Jesus was either the literal Divine Son of God or God’s Chosen Prophet that predicted the coming of Mohammad?

If you read my op I said it was the Church not Jesus or the disciples of Jesus that decided what books should be in the bible. They are the ones that decided what we should believe came out of the mouth of Christ. And all of that 300 hundred and some years after Jesus.

The Quran came 600 hundred years after Christ and it ALSO includes teachings about Jesus Christ. For example that he was born of a Virgin, that he spoke as an infant, he made living birds out of clay, predicted Mohammad to come after him, ect. ect…

However… is there anything that we can trace back to Jesus Himself and/or the original teachings of Christ to confirm your teachings about him?

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

You’ll have to offer verifiable documentation of this claim. All the Gospels we have are the ones that bore those names from the outset.

Prove otherwise then.

You can’t and since your best likely sources are atheistic speculations (at best) then your premise is badly flawed.

There’s no better source out there than the Catholic Church who has spent 2,000 years studying and documenting all of this and then defending and preserving both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Do the Gospels claim they were written by Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John? The Gospels were not named until afterwards this is discussed among scholars. We do know that the other writings in the New Testament, the authors actually did identify themselves for the most part. Not at all with the Gospels though.

And even if the authors were ascribed to these names, these names were DEFINITELY not the original disciples of Jesus. But the fact still stands, initially the gospels were anonymous .

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The Quran came 600 hundred years after Christ and it ALSO includes teachings about Jesus Christ. For example that he was born of a Virgin, that he spoke as an infant, he made living birds out of clay, predicted Mohammad to come after him, ect. ect…

However… is there anything that we can trace back to Jesus Himself and/or the original teachings of Christ to confirm your teachings about him?

No disrespect intended to our Muslim friends, but I think the Koran is a mixture of parroted bible stories, some gnostic legends and even appears to plagiarize from the Talmud, calling it scripture.

Therefore a single person is created to teach that if any causes a single life to be lost, it is on him as if he has lost a whole world, and if anyone saves a single life, it is on him as if he saved a whole world.l one man ~

Sanhedrin 4:5

For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

~Quran 5:32

The Catholic Church, that was given the keys by Jesus, says that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John authored the Gospels.

We are talking very ancient documents in an era when the Church was under heavy persecution.

We have no originals just like we no longer have the original Torah, the stone tablets given to Moses or the Ark of the old covenant.

But we know these men, less John, were martyred for what they believed in. How many people willingly go through that unless they are real convinced in their minds?

We have relics from these people and tend to also know their burial spots.

The standards you are applying seem to be a little unrealistic, imo. We have thousands of ancient NT manuscripts saying the same things. And it’s like 99.5% textually pure.

If you look at other ancient material like Plato and Aristotle, you will see that there is nothing in existence even close to resembling originals. We are talking like a thousand years removed from originals. Yet the work is accepted as accurate account by pretty much everyone, everywhere.

 

[dronald]

However… is there anything that we can trace back to Jesus Himself and/or the original teachings of Christ to confirm your teachings about him?

Concerning the authorship of the people that the Gospels are claimed to have been written by, all early testimony points to that of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Including Papias who lived in the first century.

We actually have Paul quoting what Jesus said in his letter to timothy “the worker deserves his wages” which was pulled from the gospel of Luke.

We also have Paul explain Jesus’ final days, communion and the mention of betrayal which also seems to have been pulled from Luke. I can pull up references if you like later. Just at work now.

Also you never answered all of my questions!!

 

[tony12356]

And do you believe that Mark, Matthew and Luke were really so significant that some people would make up a story that those men wrote those Gospels instead of choosing someone a little more popular in the Church? Why not James, Peter or how about John for the synoptics?

The other option is that the early church were convinced that those people wrote the gospel, but that doesn’t mean they were correct.