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

[tony12356]

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.

Papias lived after Jesus died. The works of Papias are in fragments and some are quotes from other people’s works. Note that Papias got his sources from oral stories from others who claimed to have some connection to the disciples through some source. Note that Papias was also a christian who already accepted the writings.

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.

What Paul wrote about what Jesus is irrelevant, since Paul never was a witness to what Jesus said.

 

[dronald]

Papias lived after Jesus died. The works of Papias are in fragments and some are quotes from other people’s works. Note that Papias got his sources from oral stories from others who claimed to have some connection to the disciples through some source. Note that Papias was also a christian who already accepted the writings.

What Paul wrote about what Jesus is irrelevant, since Paul never was a witness to what Jesus said.

If Papias was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp then we would be right to accept his witness. Even the earliest enemies of Christianity referenced these gospels by name.

I don’t believe anyone argued that they know which disciple wrote the Gospels besides the four attributed to them. The entire early church said Matthew, mark, Luke and John.

What Paul wrote about what Jesus is irrelevant, since Paul never was a witness to what Jesus said.

What a ridiculous criteria.

 

[tony12356]

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.

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

That is irrelevant since the Catholic Church doesn’t have evidence that those people were the authors.

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.

Correct

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?

Convinced in something doesn’t mean it’s true. The Mormons were killed and abused by others and they still believed. However, that doesn’t mean Mormonism is true.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_violence

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.

You do realize that most of the fragments we have are about the size of half a page. Also the amount of copies is irrelevant to whether the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

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.

No, first off I don’t know anyone who claims that the current documents of Aristotle and Plato are accurate to the original documents.

 

[Wesrock]

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.

This is a bit incorrect. While it is the Church’s duty to determine what is appropriate for the liturgy and as sound sources of doctrine, and that formal pronouncements were made in the fourth century, many of these texts are attested to have been in wide use among the Christian Churches in the second century, including all four gospels and Paul’s epistles, among others. These were essentially universally accepted across the Christian (non-gnostic and such) community. When it came to formalizing the canon, the debates and discussions were all about establishing what was authentic, what was used earliest, what could be seen as apostolic, and what wasn’t. Apocryphal books like the “Gospel of Thomas” were already even then widely known to have appeared on the scene at a very late date compared to the documents that were accepted as part of the Bible. It wasn’t just a matter of doctrine. They did have knowledge about when these documents emerged, how universally they are used, etc… all criteria used to measure authenticity.

We (Catholics) believe in the Bible not because it’s the Bible, that would be circular, but because we believe that Christ’s resurrection is historical fact, and it being historical fact is the best explanation for the explosion of Christianity through the primitive Church’s willingness to profess it through torture and up to their execution. We believe their attestation, then, that Christ did found a living Church which would formally exist to spread the gospel, and that this Church has the authority to make these decisions and to tell us that the Bible as it has been given to us is true.

 

[tony12356]

If Papias was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp then we would be right to accept his witness. Even the earliest enemies of Christianity referenced these gospels by name.

I don’t believe anyone argued that they know which disciple wrote the Gospels besides the four attributed to them. The entire early church said Matthew, mark, Luke and John.

What a ridiculous criteria.

It doesn’t matter that Papias knows Polycarp. What matters is who were his witnesses that he used to make this conclusion. If one of the witnesses was Polycarp, then that is great. Then we can look at his relation to everyone else and his history.

 

[tony12356]

This is a bit incorrect. While it is the Church’s duty to determine what is appropriate for the liturgy and as sound sources of doctrine, and that formal pronouncements were made in the fourth century, many of these texts are attested to have been in wide use among the Christian Churches in the second century, including all four gospels and Paul’s epistles, among others. These were essentially universally accepted across the Christian (non-gnostic and such) community.

You do realize that the Gnostic gospels would have been rejected for having different views. The early church cared more about agreeing on what should and shouldn’t have been read. So saying they rejected it doesn’t mean it wasn’t true.

When it came to formalizing the canon, the debates and discussions were all about establishing what was authentic, what was used earliest, what could be seen as apostolic, and what wasn’t. Apocryphal books like the “Gospel of Thomas” were already even then widely known to have appeared on the scene at a very late date compared to the documents that were accepted as part of the Bible.

Here are the dates given to the gospels in order. As you can see from the list there were other gospels written before and or right after the four gospels.
Thomas 50-140
Mark 65-80
Secret gospel of Mark 70-160
Matthew 80-100
Luke 80-130
Gospel of Hebrews 80-150
John 90-120
Ebionites 100-160
Eve 100-200
Gospel of Egyptians 120-150
Mary 120-180
Gospel of the Saviour 120-180
Gospel of perfection 120-180
Judas 130-170
Egerton 130-170
Infancy Gospel of James and Infancy Gospel of Thomas 140-170
Gospel of truth 140-180
Peter 150-200
Philip 150-250
Mani 250-274
Gamaliel 300-600

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

You do realize that the Gnostic gospels would have been rejected for having different views. The early church cared more about agreeing on what should and shouldn’t have been read. So saying they rejected it doesn’t mean it wasn’t true.

Here are the dates given to the gospels in order. As you can see from the list there were other gospels written before and or right after the four gospels.
Thomas 50-140
Mark 65-80
Secret gospel of Mark 70-160
Matthew 80-100
Luke 80-130
Gospel of Hebrews 80-150
John 90-120
Ebionites 100-160
Eve 100-200
Gospel of Egyptians 120-150
Mary 120-180
Gospel of the Saviour 120-180
Gospel of perfection 120-180
Judas 130-170
Egerton 130-170
Infancy Gospel of James and Infancy Gospel of Thomas 140-170
Gospel of truth 140-180
Peter 150-200
Philip 150-250
Mani 250-274
Gamaliel 300-600

Tony, I find your responses very informative and useful. It actually confirms what I was saying. If you don’t mind me asking you this, but would it be bothersome for you to list some books that you personally read regarding early Christianity. I have a few books, “the fathers know best”, and “lost Christianity”. I would love to learn more about it. So if you do by any chance have books that you read and think would be useful to me, I would hope you’ll share them with me.

 

[GratefulFred]

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?

I believe you are sincere in asking your questions. And I have next to nothing in study of the Early Church from Jesus to the canonization of the Bible in the early 300s. But this is what I accept as true enough to be reliable:

It is common for many of us to ask for reliable records and careful analysis, both pro and con, before we commit to a position we would hold firm the rest of our lives.

To me, the key part is FOR MANY OF US. This approach leaves GOD out of it.

• God made us;
• God discloses Himself to us in the ways He determines.
• God certainly has not disclosed all He could and all He will when we are face to face with Him in Heaven.
• We are called to FAITH - trusting in what and how God has disclosed His expectations of us to have a proper relationship with Him.

I simply cannot apply today’s standards of written proof to actions and inactions 1,700 to 2,000 years ago. I am aware that ORAL History was important as many could not read or write and still needed to know. Teachers were careful to pass on the Truth as best they could. Police write reliable reports about events they did not personally witness. To assert they should have done better so I can believe 2,000 years later is to ignore that God’s Way is higher than man’s ways. To ignore the Power of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church Christ established through His Apostles.

I do believe that God exists and Jesus Christ is the Living Son of God. The history of Christ found in the Bible is accurate and complete enough to justify my Faith.

It is impossible for me to believe that God’s Will was for us to be led astray by a Bible that man intentionally modified 300 years after Christ and against their knowledge of God and of Christ both written and ORAL in those days…

If the Catholic Church is FALSE, it is very hard to explain why God has allowed it to exist, and grow these past 2,000 years. It is hard to explain how the rules of a good life expressed in the Old and New Testaments and the Gospels were so well put together, yet quite possibly so different from what Christ taught, as to be a very unreliable basis for behaviour these past 2,000 years.

Bottom line for me: The Bible, put together in the early 300’s is indeed a reliable statement of God’s Will. We accept that in Faith or not.

 

[Church_Militant]

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 .

Apparently you haven’t read them very closely.

Luke’s Gospel and Acts were plainly stated as his work. And what documentation do you ave of this late naming that you allege? so far you have not supported anything you’ve said but only come back with further unsubstantiated allegations which doesn’t prove anything.

 

[Reuben_J]

This is a bit incorrect. While it is the Church’s duty to determine what is appropriate for the liturgy and as sound sources of doctrine, and that formal pronouncements were made in the fourth century, many of these texts are attested to have been in wide use among the Christian Churches in the second century, including all four gospels and Paul’s epistles, among others. These were essentially universally accepted across the Christian (non-gnostic and such) community. When it came to formalizing the canon, the debates and discussions were all about establishing what was authentic, what was used earliest, what could be seen as apostolic, and what wasn’t. Apocryphal books like the “Gospel of Thomas” were already even then widely known to have appeared on the scene at a very late date compared to the documents that were accepted as part of the Bible. It wasn’t just a matter of doctrine. They did have knowledge about when these documents emerged, how universally they are used, etc… all criteria used to measure authenticity.

We (Catholics) believe in the Bible not because it’s the Bible, that would be circular, but because we believe that Christ’s resurrection is historical fact, and it being historical fact is the best explanation for the explosion of Christianity through the primitive Church’s willingness to profess it through torture and up to their execution. We believe their attestation, then, that Christ did found a living Church which would formally exist to spread the gospel, and that this Church has the authority to make these decisions and to tell us that the Bible as it has been given to us is true.

Well said.

 

[Robyn_p]

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?

This is a great question. And really it gets to the heart of the whole issue. Why SHOULD we trust the early Church fathers as reliable witnesses to what Jesus and the apostles taught?

First of all, there’s one major difference between the writings of the heretical groups and traditional Christianity. All of those other sects were based on the claim that Jesus taught his disciples X, but X had either been lost in confusion or suppressed by the Church. But lo and behold, this secret knowledge was made known to this particular group, (e.g. the Donatists, the Marcionites, the Manicheans etc.) and now only they possess the true Christian faith. In other words, they ALL claimed that the message of Jesus had been corrupted or lost somehow, but now they were here to fix things.

But that’s not what the Early Church Fathers did to prove their credentials. They didn’t appeal to any secret knowledge, instead their argument is pretty much the exact opposite. Look at what Irenaeus, who was writing to refute the arguments of the Gnostics, does:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

He tells Christians that they can easily know what the true teachings of the apostles are because the apostles appointed successors - all of which can be traced back to them - to faithfully guard the teachings they received, and this tradition is manifested - not just in a few local places - but in all the apostolic churches throughout the world. That was how Christians could discern what was true doctrine and what was an innovation. No special revelation or inside knowledge was required.

So basically the question then boils down to whether there are good reasons to believe the early church DID in fact preserve Jesus’ teachings as it claimed to, or if there is good reason to believe that the teachings were corrupted. I would argue that the evidence supports the former over the latter, but that’s for another post as this one already is getting a bit long. My point here only is that the mere fact that there were opposing groups claiming to be the true form of Christianity does not prove that we can have no way of knowing what that true form is. We can examine the claims of the various groups, and see which ones are built on a sturdier foundation. And when we do that, traditional Christianity is by far on top.

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.

Yes, they did, and that raises the question: WHY did they fail so miserably? Why were books attributed to nobodies like Mark and Luke immediately accepted by the Christian community as authentic Gospels, but books attributed to famous disciples like Thomas or Mary Magdalene were widely rejected, even before the canon was officially codified?

 

[Reuben_J]

This is a great question. And really it gets to the heart of the whole issue. Why SHOULD we trust the early Church fathers as reliable witnesses to what Jesus and the apostles taught?

First of all, there’s one major difference between the writings of the heretical groups and traditional Christianity. All of those other sects were based on the claim that Jesus taught his disciples X, but X had either been lost in confusion or suppressed by the Church. But lo and behold, this secret knowledge was made known to this particular group, (e.g. the Donatists, the Marcionites, the Manicheans etc.) and now only they possess the true Christian faith. In other words, they ALL claimed that the message of Jesus had been corrupted or lost somehow, but now they were here to fix things.

But that’s not what the Early Church Fathers did to prove their credentials. They didn’t appeal to any secret knowledge, instead their argument is pretty much the exact opposite. Look at what Irenaeus, who was writing to refute the arguments of the Gnostics, does:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

He tells Christians that they can easily know what the true teachings of the apostles are because the apostles appointed successors - all of which can be traced back to them - to faithfully guard the teachings they received, and this tradition is manifested - not just in a few local places - but in all the apostolic churches throughout the world. That was how Christians could discern what was true doctrine and what was an innovation. No special revelation or inside knowledge was required.

So basically the question then boils down to whether there are good reasons to believe the early church DID in fact preserve Jesus’ teachings as it claimed to, or if there is good reason to believe that the teachings were corrupted. I would argue that the evidence supports the former over the latter, but that’s for another post as this one already is getting a bit long. My point here only is that the mere fact that there were opposing groups claiming to be the true form of Christianity does not prove that we can have no way of knowing what that true form is. We can examine the claims of the various groups, and see which ones are built on a sturdier foundation. And when we do that, traditional Christianity is by far on top.

Yes, they did, and that raises the question: WHY did they fail so miserably? Why were books attributed to nobodies like Mark and Luke immediately accepted by the Christian community as authentic Gospels, but books attributed to famous disciples like Thomas or Mary Magdalene were widely rejected, even before the canon was officially codified?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men

We can examine the claims of the various groups, and see which ones are built on a sturdier foundation. And when we do that, traditional Christianity is by far on top.

Excellent argument!

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

This is a great question. And really it gets to the heart of the whole issue. Why SHOULD we trust the early Church fathers as reliable witnesses to what Jesus and the apostles taught?

First of all, there’s one major difference between the writings of the heretical groups and traditional Christianity. All of those other sects were based on the claim that Jesus taught his disciples X, but X had either been lost in confusion or suppressed by the Church. But lo and behold, this secret knowledge was made known to this particular group, (e.g. the Donatists, the Marcionites, the Manicheans etc.) and now only they possess the true Christian faith. In other words, they ALL claimed that the message of Jesus had been corrupted or lost somehow, but now they were here to fix things.

But that’s not what the Early Church Fathers did to prove their credentials. They didn’t appeal to any secret knowledge, instead their argument is pretty much the exact opposite. Look at what Irenaeus, who was writing to refute the arguments of the Gnostics, does:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

He tells Christians that they can easily know what the true teachings of the apostles are because the apostles appointed successors - all of which can be traced back to them - to faithfully guard the teachings they received, and this tradition is manifested - not just in a few local places - but in all the apostolic churches throughout the world. That was how Christians could discern what was true doctrine and what was an innovation. No special revelation or inside knowledge was required.

So basically the question then boils down to whether there are good reasons to believe the early church DID in fact preserve Jesus’ teachings as it claimed to, or if there is good reason to believe that the teachings were corrupted. I would argue that the evidence supports the former over the latter, but that’s for another post as this one already is getting a bit long. My point here only is that the mere fact that there were opposing groups claiming to be the true form of Christianity does not prove that we can have no way of knowing what that true form is. We can examine the claims of the various groups, and see which ones are built on a sturdier foundation. And when we do that, traditional Christianity is by far on top.

Yes, they did, and that raises the question: WHY did they fail so miserably? Why were books attributed to nobodies like Mark and Luke immediately accepted by the Christian community as authentic Gospels, but books attributed to famous disciples like Thomas or Mary Magdalene were widely rejected, even before the canon was officially codified?

You know my friend, I am very satisfied with your response. I am going to further investigate Christian History and if I get the chance I will perhaps make a thread challenging whether or not if The Roman Catholic Church can trace its processors to Jesus Christ teachings.

And I also agree, this is a very good arguments.

OneBlanketBoss:

You know my friend, I am very satisfied with your response. I am going to further investigate Christian History and if I get the chance I will perhaps make a thread challenging whether or not if The Roman Catholic Church can trace its processors to Jesus Christ teachings.

And I also agree, this is a very good arguments.

predecessors****

 

[Robyn_p]

You know my friend, I am very satisfied with your response. I am going to further investigate Christian History and if I get the chance I will perhaps make a thread challenging whether or not if The Roman Catholic Church can trace its processors to Jesus Christ teachings.

And I also agree, this is a very good arguments.



predecessors****

Glad it could help! Keep us posted on what you find.

A book I would recommend for your study is “By What Authority?” by Mark Shea. It goes into a lot more detail about what I was talking about. Its main focus is on why we can trust that the Bible is the Word of God, but he addresses a lot of the same questions you had about the Gospels and the early Church. You might find it helpful.

Another book you could check out is “The Apostasy That Wasn’t” by Rod Bennett, as it gives a lot of historical evidence that the Catholic Church can be traced back to Jesus and the apostles.

Here’s the links to both of those books if you are interested:

amazon.com/What-Authority-Evangelical-Discovers-Tradition/dp/1586177826/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=ZSNZK4129PEQSSD51MMT

amazon.com/Apostasy-That-Wasnt-Extraordinary-Unbreakable/dp/1941663494/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501716729&sr=1-1&keywords=the+apostasy+that+wasn%27t

Praying for you on your journey and please pray for me as well.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Glad it could help! Keep us posted on what you find.

A book I would recommend for your study is “By What Authority?” by Mark Shea. It goes into a lot more detail about what I was talking about. Its main focus is on why we can trust that the Bible is the Word of God, but he addresses a lot of the same questions you had about the Gospels and the early Church. You might find it helpful.

Another book you could check out is “The Apostasy That Wasn’t” by Rod Bennett, as it gives a lot of historical evidence that the Catholic Church can be traced back to Jesus and the apostles.

Here’s the links to both of those books if you are interested:

amazon.com/What-Authority-Evangelical-Discovers-Tradition/dp/1586177826/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=ZSNZK4129PEQSSD51MMT

amazon.com/Apostasy-That-Wasnt-Extraordinary-Unbreakable/dp/1941663494/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501716729&sr=1-1&keywords=the+apostasy+that+wasn%27t

Praying for you on your journey and please pray for me as well.

Awesome ! Awesome ! Awesome !

definitely going to order those books once I get the chance. I appreciate this a lot.

I do appreciate your prayers but unfortunately i can not return favor due to the fact i lost faith in praying for the most part

 

[hasantas]

Is the Quran the unique revelation which never got corrupted?

My answer: Yes. But do that means Torah and Bible(Injeel) corrupted?

My answer: Both Yes and No.

I have no so much knowledges about Torah but I know that there are many comments of writers in it. Some Jews scholars for their self benefits interpreted verses according to their inclinations. In Quran God point that. That is corruption. And same thing is valid for Christians. There is no Trinity in Bible but Christians claim to be exist. That is coruuption. Jesus declared very clearly that our Lord is one! And also Jesus said “O Israel” but not O People. So that means Jesus preached to Jews.

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Mark 12

In Quran God caution both Jews and Christians to perform and confirm revelation which came to them as Torah and Injeel. But they incline from the truth by some ways. So God call them to come the true way. Quran is the evidence that God’s word cannot be changed. Some try to do that but God do not allow that. So the previous revelations(Torah and Injeel) is also under preservation of God.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I do appreciate your prayers but unfortunately i can not return favor due to the fact i lost faith in praying for the most part

Holy Scriptures are not like history books, they are not intended to be just for academic study.

The creation of the universe is history, either, God created the universe and life, or there is no God. If God exists fully and totally, he has to hold the greatest meaning for all our lives, because at some point, we shall all have to stand before God.

You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

I searched for a God of mercy, compassion, justice, forgiveness love and hope. In order to find God, you have to do something.

May God bless you so that you may live
from deep within your heart
where God’s Spirit dwells.

May God bless you with anger…
at injustice, oppression,
and exploitation of people.
May God bless you so that you may
work for justice, freedom, and peace.

May God bless you with tears…
to shed for those who suffer from pain,
rejection, starvation and war.
May God bless you so that you
may reach out your hand
to comfort them and turn their pain into joy.

And may God bless you with
enough foolishness
to believe that you can make a difference
in this world, in your neighborhood,
so that you will courageously try
what you don’t think you can do, but,
in Jesus Christ you’ll have all the strength necessary.

May God bless you to fearlessly
speak out about injustice,
unjust laws, corrupt politicians,
unjust and cruel treatment of prisoners,
and senseless wars,
genocides, starvations, and poverty that is so pervasive.

May God bless you that you remember
we are all called
to continue God’s redemptive work
of love and healing
in God’s place, in and through God’s name,
in God’s Spirit, continually creating
and breathing new life and grace
into everything and everyone we touch.

 

[MartinJordan]

Is the Quran the unique revelation which never got corrupted?

My answer: Yes. But do that means Torah and Bible(Injeel) corrupted?

My answer: Both Yes and No.

I have no so much knowledges about Torah but I know that there are many comments of writers in it. Some Jews scholars for their self benefits interpreted verses according to their inclinations. In Quran God point that. That is corruption. And same thing is valid for Christians. There is no Trinity in Bible but Christians claim to be exist. That is coruuption. Jesus declared very clearly that our Lord is one! And also Jesus said “O Israel” but not O People. So that means Jesus preached to Jews.

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Mark 12

In Quran God caution both Jews and Christians to perform and confirm revelation which came to them as Torah and Injeel. But they incline from the truth by some ways. So God call them to come the true way. Quran is the evidence that God’s word cannot be changed. Some try to do that but God do not allow that. So the previous revelations(Torah and Injeel) is also under preservation of God.

Jesus is still talking to us through the Holy Spirit and His Church. Our Profesion of Faith in fact follows this. We believe in One God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth.

But you already know this. Enough of games Hasantas.

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

The Son Superior to Angels
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”[a]?
Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”**?
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”[c]
7 In speaking of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”[d]
8 But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”[e]
10 He also says,

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”[f]
13 To which of the angels did God ever say,

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”[g]?
14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

Just a sample.

You also will know Jesus was still talking in the verse you picked. He then talks at the temple courts in Mark 12. Which touches on exactly what St Paul says above.

MJ**

 

[MartinJordan]

There is no Trinity in Bible but Christians claim to be exist. That is coruuption. Jesus declared…

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Mark 12

No Qur’an nor Hadith claims Jesus ever said this using Mark. If there is give me it. I’m waiting…

MJ