Islam

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

inJESUS:

Hey Rodrigo what about taking this discussion to a new thread and leave this one to islam coz Justice did not answer any of my questions yet? :

Jesus’ crucifixion from islamic perspective
Why allah allowed his book to be corrupt?
was the Bible at mohammads time trustworthy?
didnt allah promise to preserve the Bible?

much appreciated

I’ll finish up with Justice2006 and join you in your discussion above, though I will have to read up on the discussion thus far.

I don’t think Justice2006 has anything more worthwhile to say though he has made another post with essentially repeat info.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Justice2006:

Mr. Rodrigo Bivar,

Your facts are actually “facts”.

Thanks, Mr Justice2006. I should hope so.

Justice2006:

The qoute I gave you was from the Catholic Bible (The New American Bible). It clearly tells you that:

“Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel [of John] as it now stands was written by one person.”

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm ]

Now, this is not me telling you, it is what the learned scholars of Catholic Bible, approved by the Holy Papacy/Magisterium is telling YOU and all the Catholics.

And you have again failed to see my point. What are we arguing here? Whether the Gospel of John was written by one or more people? No. I have already accepted that the Gospel’s authorship is unknown and that more than one person may have been involved in its writing – read what I wrote above. So why are you repeating what I already accepted – which is absolutely tangential to our discussion?

What we’re arguing is that the Gospel of John was written in Greek or Aramaic.

How does multiple authors make a difference to the original language? Do you mean that because more than one person wrote the Gospel it must have been written in Aramaic? I think you assume too much.

Justice2006:

In 1943 Pope Pius XII ordered to produce a new translation of the Bible. He wrote:

“We ought to explain the original text which was written by the inspired author himself and has more authority and greater weight than any, even the very best, translation whether ancient or modern. This can be done all the more easily and fruitfully if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.”

How does this advance your arguments?

Justice2006:

Then New American Bible was produced which is an achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work.The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that “correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books,” but that, “with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers” so that “all Christians may be able to use them.” for details see, the Preface of the New American Bible ]

So what? We’re discussing the original meaning of ‘monogenes huios’ and not some translation into different languages. What do I care about the translation of ‘monogenes huios’ in Swalihi, for example?

Justice2006:

Mr. Bivar, are you saying that all these scholars had no idea what they are talking/writing in the very introduction of Gospel of John in their official Catholic Bible?

No, not at all. I’m saying the term ‘monogenes huios’ commonly translated into English as ‘only begotten son’ is a specific term which is distinct from the ‘son of God’ and ‘begotten by God’ in other parts of the Bible. You cannot dismiss ‘only begotten son’ on the basis that there are other ‘sons of God’ and other people who were ‘begotten by God’ in the Bible because that term, ‘only begotten son’, carries a different meaning.

Let me give you a clue: According to the Nicene Creed, the word ‘begotten’ when used in relation to Jesus carries a special meaning – it means uncreated, not made. However, when used in reference to other people it has the opposite meaning.

Justice2006:

Now please qoute 1 John 5:7 from two Catholic Bibles, The New American Bible and Douay Rheims BIible.

And lets see what is really gpoing on. Please make sure you are not qouting the verses I did not want you to qoute.

All I am asking you to qoute only Verse 7 of Chapter 5 of First Epistle of Saint John ( 1 John 5:7 ) from The New American Bible and the Douay Rheims Bible. These both are Catholic Bibles.

We’ve been through this ground before. I don’t see why you want to repeat tangential discussions.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Here is what I think your mistakes are:

1. You have failed to see that the ENGLISH phrase, ‘only begotten son’, is a special phrase with special meaning that is not associated with other ‘sons of God’ or other people being ‘begotten by God’ in the Bible. This is because the phrase ‘monogenes huios’ is only found in the Gospel of John and is not taken to mean that Jesus was literally God’s sole progeny – which was what you were trying to convey.
2. The Gospel of John was originally written in Greek by person or persons unknown. It was not written in Aramaic. Multiple authorship does not mean it was written in Aramaic. I don’t know why you keep on about the multiple authorship because it doesn’t change the fact that the Gospel of John was originally written in Greek. This is established fact. Google and find out for yourself. Thus, your David Icke’s Aramaic explanation is plain wrong. It is speculation. Trying to defend this ‘Aramaic’ speculation based on the fact that the Gospel was written by multiple authors is a non-sequitar.
3. It is irrelevant whether modern English translations of the Bible translate ‘monogenes huios’ to be ‘only son’ or ‘only begotten son’ because the underlying meaning is unchanged. The Christians already know that Adam was a son of God. They read the Bible and know that many other people were also called ‘sons of God’. This does not mean that they are inconsistent in believing Jesus was the ‘only begotten son’ of God. It is merely the translators’ choice of how to describe ‘monogenes huios’. This is like us arguing whether Muhammad should be spelled Mahomet or Muhammed or Mohmad or Mahmud or Mahound – it doesn’t change the underlying meaning of the original word.

Hope I’ve made myself clear.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[Justice2006]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Here is what I think your mistakes are:

1. You have failed to see that the ENGLISH phrase, ‘only begotten son’, is a special phrase with special meaning that is not associated with other ‘sons of God’ or other people being ‘begotten by God’ in the Bible. This is because the phrase ‘monogenes huios’ is only found in the Gospel of John and is not taken to mean that Jesus was literally God’s sole progeny – which was what you were trying to convey…
   …

Well, Mr. Rodrigo Bivar, all of your “arguements” are meaningless and baseless when the Gospel of John which has verse 3:16, turned out to be not the work of a single inspired man thus you have no idea which part of it is inspired by the Holy spirit of St. John and which is not. Whoever wrote it are still unkown.

Then the only verse in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one **“Triune” being ** is the verse of 1 John 5:7, also turned out to be a later insertion/interpolation, because it was actually a sidenote/explanation of an another UNKNOWN author. No one knows who wrote it and inserted into your Bible.

This verse is now widely recognized as being a later insertion of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the **Revised Standard Version ** the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the **Phillips Modern English Bible ** …etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? The scripture translator **Benjamin Wilson ** gives the following explanation for this action in his **“Emphatic Diaglott.” ** Mr. Wilson says:

**“This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it’s authority. It is therefore evidently spurious.” **

Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God’s people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded.

Since the Bible contains no verses validating a “Trinity” therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God chose to “inspire” someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the “true nature” of God as being a “Trinity.” Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to “clarify” the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus Christ. People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being “inspired”.

If these people were being “inspired” by God, I wondered, then why did they need to put these words into other people’s mouths (for example, in the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say “God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name”? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to “inspire” his “true” nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?

The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words:

**“Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception…In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts…The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza.” **

“*Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,” * IV, Gibbon, p. 418.

Edward Gibbon was defended …

cont…

.

 

[Justice2006]

Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar **Richard Porson ** who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first **inserted ** by the Church into the Bible **in the year 400C.E.(**Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).

Regarding Porson’s most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said:

"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles ** will ever be polluted by this spurious text." **

--------courtesy: acsu.buffalo.edu-------

Mr. Bivar, what you are doing is arguing and talking on a subject which has no foundation, in the first place, in your Holy Bible.

You have no land but want to discuss with an architect about all the minute details of a new Palace to be built on a land that only exists in your imagination.

The more your Biblical scholars dig/discover/research the so-called “original” MSS of NT and OT, the more the foundations of Christian creed is being demolished from their own hands and thus they are slowly but surely coming towards Islamic point of view. Unfortunately the pace is very very slow. Like for example, Catholics took almost 2000 years to realise that the verse 1 John 5:7 is actually interpolation. And also keep in mind it took 2000 years for Holy Papacy to apologise and to partially reverse her stance towards the so-called “Christ-Killers”–Jews–God’s choosen people.

.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Justice2006:

Rodrigo:

Here is what I think your mistakes are:

1. You have failed to see that the ENGLISH phrase, ‘only begotten son’, is a special phrase with special meaning that is not associated with other ‘sons of God’ or other people being ‘begotten by God’ in the Bible. This is because the phrase ‘monogenes huios’ is only found in the Gospel of John and is not taken to mean that Jesus was literally God’s sole progeny – which was what you were trying to convey…

Dear Mr Justice2006,
What has happened to your discussion standard? You are committing huge logical fallacies. Instead of discussing ‘monogenes huios’ or ‘Only Begotten Son’ in John 3:16 you have taken the gross tactic of maligning the entire Bible because you don’t know who wrote it. I’m afraid that is a massive red herring.

The fact is that the Gospel of John was written in Greek, not Aramaic, so why don’t you get over that? You were perfectly willing to argue the words before even though the authorship of the Gospel is unknown. What has changed from yesterday to today? Has the authorship of the Gospel changed in the meantime? I don’t think so.

Justice2006:

Then the only verse in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one “Triune” being is the verse of 1 John 5:7, also turned out to be a later insertion/interpolation, because it was actually a sidenote/explanation of an another UNKNOWN author. No one knows who wrote it and inserted into your Bible.

This verse is now widely recognized as being a later insertion of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible …etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? …

Mr Justice 2006, this is all irrelevant, I’m afraid to say. It is a massive red herring. We are talking about John 3:16 and the meaning of monogenes huios and you distract our attention with the Johannine Comma.

Puhleeze – stay on track, buddy.

Justice2006:

The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words…

This is all an irrelevancy – you are arguing the authenticity of the Bible now, and based on translations. Please check out my ‘Parallelism’ thread where I showed how translational variations do not allow anyone to infer corruption of the Bible. This fact that 1 John 5-7 was an addition from the Greek has been known for centuries. Catholics know this, but they don’t care because the addition is not doctrinally incorrect.

Further, critics haven’t considered the Latin. Please note the Greek from which the translations were made were not the original but were later translations themselves. So again, you are arguing the choice of translations of the Bible, rather than its substance.

Thirdly, this is a well-known Islamist polemics against the Bible. I do know you’re a Muslim but please try to understand that Islamists have their own agenda and may not convey the right points of view. wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.5.html

May I remind you that the issue at hand is the meaning of ‘monogenes huios’ in John 3:16, and not the corruption of the Bible. If you want to use the corruption line, please restrict the discussion to John 3:16 – show that the verse was corrupted.

Justice2006:

Mr. Bivar, what you are doing is arguing and talking on a subject which has no foundation, in the first place, in your Holy Bible.

Please don’t generalize. You have failed to show the subject has no foundation. All you showed were translational variations – which means zippo.

Justice2006:

You have no land but want to discuss with an architect about all the minute details of a new Palace to be built on a land that only exists in your imagination.

Are you the architect? Please don’t blow your own trumpet. I have discussed this topic with you in very respectful scholarly language but your language and debating tactics have deteriorated quite a lot. Why is that?

cont.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Justice2006:

The more your Biblical scholars dig/discover/research the so-called “original” MSS of NT and OT, the more the foundations of Christian creed is being demolished from their own hands and thus they are slowly but surely coming towards Islamic point of view.

Untrue. Please don’t tell porkies. Tell me how many Biblical scholars have converted to Islam? Here I am discussing calmly and scholarly and you’re giving us polemics. We don’t need polemics – just the facts will do.

Justice2006:

Unfortunately the pace is very very slow. Like for example, Catholics took almost 2000 years to realise that the verse 1 John 5:7 is actually interpolation.

I’m sorry that you’re in error here: the addition of 1 John 5-7 into ENGLISH was known many centuries ago.

Justice2006:

And also keep in mind it took 2000 years for Holy Papacy to apologise and to partially reverse her stance towards the so-called “Christ-Killers”–Jews–God’s choosen people.

This is rather beside the point, isn’t it? Please keep your polemics out of our discussion.

Stay on track, buddy. Stay focused. Rodrigo is discussing theology with you here, not polemics.

Conclusion:
I note you are trying to use the controversy over 1 John 5:7 to totally invalidate the authenticity of the Bible. I must say this is a major distraction from our discussion point, which is the meaning of ‘monogenes huios’ or ‘only begotten son’ in John 3:16.

From that, I take it you have conceded defeat on the ‘Only begotten son’ issue and wish to discuss the Trinitarian Doctrine with me.

Is that the case Mr Justice2006?

Please bear in mind 1 John 5-7 is only a translational variation, and only in KJV, the Latin Vulgate and a few late Greek manuscripts. Christians have known it is an addition since they do read Greek manuscripts. Please also bear in mind this addition is not doctrinally incorrect as it accords with Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14.

In short, you’re arguing against several translations. This point is old and has been addressed by the Christians – hence it is not included in most modern translations. You’re barking up a dead tree.

I look forward to discussing the Trinitarian Doctrine and the Johannine Comma with you though I have to say that it is unlikely that either of us are experts in Greek grammar.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[Justice2006]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Conclusion:
I note you are trying to use the controversy over 1 John 5:7 to totally invalidate the authenticity of the Bible.

Indeed there is a controversy over 1 John 5:7 (alongwith other controversies about the various aspects of Biblical text) because your Bibles have interpolations, contradictions, inconsistencies and improbabilities etc.
Rodrigo Bivar:

From that, I take it you have conceded defeat on the ‘Only begotten son’ issue and wish to discuss the Trinitarian Doctrine with me.

Mr. Bivar, feel free to declare your hollow victory at any time.

The whole Gospel According to St. John is doubtfull. The very title of it is controversial because it is titled “Gospel according to Saint John”. Why “according to”? Because it is written by someone else and attibuted to a certain “Saint” named John. You have no idea what in fact Jesus uttered, what his disciples exactly believed/said and how reliable were the oral traditions from where those UNKNOWN authors re-wrote it.

Now, consider the following scenario:

In a criminal court case, defense lawyer was making his case stronger and stronger by producing “evidence” upon “evidence” to prove his client’s innocence. When prosecutor started cross-examination, the accused one finally confessed his crime in the court. The case was closed and criminal was sent to jail but the defense lawyer still wants to discuss the case even after the confession of his client, by saying “yes indeed my client is guilty but afterall he is a human being and not an angel thus he committed horrible crimes thus I want to discuss his whole life, his all other deeds and other minor crimes…etc…etc”.

.

 

[Justice2006]

Mr. Rodrigo Bivar,

Let me ask you a simple question:

All babies of any faith/religion/non-religion/atheists/legitimate/illegitimate, if die right after their birth, will go to Hell and burn there forever, as per Christian theology because they were born with “original sin”?

.

 

[freesoulhope]

injustice stop lying, and saying things that contradict what the Christian faith teaches. It has been fought, that the babys go to a different place where they are happy, but they dont see God face to face. It is a place reserved specailly for them. But recently the church has said that they dont know what happens, and that we must trust in are lords mercy. I told you this before, Good bye!

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Justice2006:

Rodrigo:

Conclusion:
I note you are trying to use the controversy over 1 John 5:7 to totally invalidate the authenticity of the Bible.

Indeed there is a controversy over 1 John 5:7 (alongwith other controversies about the various aspects of Biblical text) because your Bibles have interpolations, contradictions, inconsistencies and improbabilities etc.

Perhaps we can talk about how the Quran came to be compiled, how the variant copies were destroyed by Uthman, and how it is not permitted to change the Quran on pain of death – some other time. I’m always intrigued that Muslims marvel at the immutability of the Quran while they are not permitted to change it.

You see, there is another way of looking at things: Christians are more tolerant of diversity than Muslims. They don’t believe that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down by an angel or God Himself to any prophet – well, perhaps except for the 10 commandments. They believe that human writers were inspired by God and, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, came to write the Bible. That is the difference.

Also note that Christian scholars rely on no single text and consider the entire body of scripture in doctrinal deliberations. Thus, no Christian scholar would swear hand on heart on the KJV in preference to Tyndall’s version, for instance. In serious doctrinal deliberation, they consider the Greek and Latin texts as well, fully cognizant of translational variations, insertions, commentaries etc.

In contrast, Muslims have only the Quran and being proud of its immutability, cannot see this.

Justice2006:

Rodrigo:

From that, I take it you have conceded defeat on the ‘Only begotten son’ issue and wish to discuss the Trinitarian Doctrine with me.

Mr. Bivar, feel free to declare your hollow victory at any time.

Perhaps I was a little hasty, but what was I to do when you clearly deviated from our discussion point on John 3:16?

Justice2006:

The whole Gospel According to St. John is doubtfull. The very title of it is controversial because it is titled “Gospel according to Saint John”. Why “according to”? Because it is written by someone else and attibuted to a certain “Saint” named John. You have no idea what in fact Jesus uttered, what his disciples exactly believed/said and how reliable were the oral traditions from where those UNKNOWN authors re-wrote it.

Thus we come to your Islamist perspective. I hope we can broaden your horizon in this forum to include a basic understanding of Christianity. This ‘isnad’ business has no place in Christianity or any other religion. It is purely an Islamic invention. It does have its merits but on the other hand it is not the final solution to textual accuracy. For instance, the debate over which hadiths are sahih or not is solely based on scholarly opinions and the recollections of the final narrator in the isnad chain. Thus, again it is still hearsay, no matter how one cuts it.

For instance, this isnad:
‘Ab al-Hamid b. Bayan al-Sukkari → Muhammad b. Yazid —> Isma‘il (that is, Ibn Abi Khalid) —> Abd al-Rahman b. Abi al-Dahhak → man from Quraysh —> ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad —> Abd Allah b. Safwan & Another Person → From Ayesha

How do we know the veracity of the isnad? We don’t. All we have is the word of the final narrator that he heard from Muhammad b. Yazid who heard from Ismail who heard from Abd al-Rahman who heard from etc. etc. etc.

The compiler of the hadith didn’t go to each of these people in the chain and asked them if what was reported is true and did they say this or that to so-and-so. These isnads were produced at least 200 years after the supposed first narrator. Most of the people listed were already long dead by the time the hadiths were compiled. Thus, even Muslims have no real way of knowing the veracity of their hadiths, even after such documentation.

In the case of the Quran, I would ask you to consider that it was Zayd ibn Thabit who compiled the Quran on the orders of Caliph Uthman. How did Zayd decide which verse was true and in what order? He depended on the recollections of Muslims who supposedly learnt the verses from Muhammad or his companions. Some verses were written down but most were from recollection. Thus, again, the case can be made that the textural integrity of the Quran is suspect. Which was why Uthman ordered the variant copies to be burnt.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

So, we’re left with one version that is supposedly immutable. But it was immutable only from Uthman’s time and on pain of death. We also have early versions of the Quran that clearly show differences from the present version, so we know that scriptural integrity is also suspect for the Quran.

I know I’ve raised a lot of issues here that you will be unhappy with, so if you like let us take this on some other time.

The point I want to stress is that you are viewing the world through the prism of Islam, specifically the perspective of Islamic scriptural integrity. Thus, because you believe Islamic scriptures are super-accurate, you automatically dismiss or view as inferior the scriptures of other religions which you deem as less accurate as the Quran. Now, some might consider this view highly chauvinistic and devoid of understanding.

Justice2006:

Now, consider the following scenario:

In a criminal court case, defense lawyer was making his case stronger and stronger by producing “evidence” upon “evidence” to prove his client’s innocence. When prosecutor started cross-examination, the accused one finally confessed his crime in the court. The case was closed and criminal was sent to jail but the defense lawyer still wants to discuss the case even after the confession of his client, by saying “yes indeed my client is guilty but afterall he is a human being and not an angel thus he committed horrible crimes thus I want to discuss his whole life, his all other deeds and other minor crimes…etc…etc”.

I fail to see what this amusing anecdote has to do with our discussion but I take it you’re trying to convey the point that it is plainly clear the Bible is corrupted because the authorship is unknown or there is textual variations. Thus, according to your perspective, it is pointless to try to say otherwise because, according to you, the Bible being corrupted is self-evident.

Let me assume this to be your standpoint and let me argue from what I think Christian beliefs are, looking from the outside:

First, let us consider the difference between the Christian BELIEF and the Islamic BELIEF of scriptural integrity.

Christians believe their scriptures were written by humans inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore, even though some fundamentalists might argue otherwise, the vast majority accept that their scripture, e.g. the Gospels, were not exactly the direct word of God. This doesn’t matter to Christians because they believe in the substance of the message of Jesus Christ, and not in the exact words themselves.

In contrast, Muslims believe that the Quran is the EXACT WORD of God, handed down to Muhammad via Gibril.

In this sense, the Gospels are more akin to hadiths than the Quran. The Epistles themselves are merely letters that also no direct relation to God or Jesus. This is what I think you have failed to understand.

Thus, your typically Muslim attack on English translations of the Bible is solely from the Islamist perspective. You are saying: if there are variations in Christian texts then they are self-evidently corrupt.

But the Christians don’t see it that way. They understand that their scriptures contain variations and this doesn’t disturb them at all. What is important to them is not the exact representation of the words but the truth of the message. Was the Message of Jesus Christ preserved in the Gospels? What doctrines logically flow from this message? Those are more important to Christians than merely what words are in which places in which manuscript.

For this reason you’ll see the Bible translated and taught in different languages and nobody ever argues, unlike for the Quran, that only the original version in the original language is the right one.

In a sense, I would say that Christians try to preserve and teach the message rather than the words. In contrast, Muslims preserve the words at the expense of the message, in my experience.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[Justice2006]

Justice2006:

Mr. Rodrigo Bivar,

Let me ask you a simple question:

All babies of any faith/religion/non-religion/atheists/legitimate/illegitimate, if die right after their birth, will go to Hell and burn there forever, as per Christian theology because they were born with “original sin”?

.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Justice2006:

Mr. Rodrigo Bivar,

Let me ask you a simple question:

All babies of any faith/religion/non-religion/atheists/legitimate/illegitimate, if die right after their birth, will go to Hell and burn there forever, as per Christian theology because they were born with “original sin”?

Hola Senior Justice2006,
Where did you get the idea that babies go to hell because of original sin?

Hasta Luego,
Rodrigo

 

[Justice2006]

Rodrigo Bivar:

They [Christians] don’t believe that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down by an angel or God Himself to any prophet – well, perhaps except for the 10 commandments…

Yeap…thats right why should they believe ?.. because the literal word of God that was given to them is either **destroyed or lost ** and not yet discovered. Now the only option left for all thousands of denominations, sects and cults of whole Christiandom is to follow their own self-created theologies/dogmas/views/miseries, because the literal word of God is simply not in existence anymore.

Had they preserved the literal word of God, do you think they or you on their behalf still would have made an argument by making an assumption: “[Christians] don’t believe that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down by an angel or God Himself to any prophet – well, perhaps except for the 10 commandments”?

 

[Justice2006]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Hola Senior Justice2006,
Where did you get the idea that babies go to hell because of original sin?

Hasta Luego,
Rodrigo

Mr. Bivar, then where do babies of any faith go if they die in their infancy, as per Catholics theology/Catechism? And what was the stance/view of Catholic church for last 2000 years, in this regard?

.

 

[Reuben_J]

Justice2006:

Mr. Bivar, then where do babies of any faith go if they die in their infancy, as per Catholics theology/Catechism? And what was the stance/view of Catholic church for last 2000 years, in this regard?

.

A hint to brother Justice2006.

Catholics set aside one day in their lithurgical year as **a feast day ** of the **Holy Innocents ** in memorial for those babies killed by King Herod (men) around the years of the birth of Jesus. These babies were considered matyrs who lost their lives for no faults of their own but because of one man who wanted to destroy Jesus.

 

[Justice2006]

Mr. Rodrigo,
The Bibles are unreliable and not the Word of God, not because of the variant translations but because of these following reasons:

1. The Original Message in pure form in Jesus’ mother tongue is either destroyed or lost for various reasons.
2. What Christiandom now has in the name of Holy Bibles is written out of oral traditions/stories, centuries after Jesus’ departure from this world.
3. In these Bibles the New Testament books are mostly in Greek and they are divided in two groups:*ancient * and *most ancient * manuscripts. There are contradictions, inconsistencies, improbabilities in all of them. Then no two copies of these are alike.
4. When Christians made translation of these copies, the translators added further their own mistakes/errors willingly or unwillingly or upon Church’s specific instructions to accomodate their dogmas/distinct views. In these translations the various versions of the Bible became more unauthentic. No two translations of Catholic church alone, are alike. For example Douay Rhiems and New American Bible are not same in terms of their contents. Revised Standard Version and King James Version Bible are not alike. King James Versions itself has gone through many MAJOR revisions.

Rodrigo Bivar:

In a sense, I would say that Christians try to preserve and teach the message rather than the words.

Ofcourse…Christians should do that becasue thats the only option left for them because they have lost the Original Message of Jesus Christ.

But whether they really preserved and taught whatever “message” they have, thus far, just look back when Holy Papacy had full power in her hand in the Dark Ages of “civilised” Europe, how she behaved with her own subjects, especially with the God’s Choosen people–the so-called “Christ-Killers”–Jews. This Holy Papacy under the “guidance” of Holy Spirit, **did preserve ** what she really believes.

And now…is Vatican in the Rome or Rome is in the Vatican?
Rodrigo Bivar:

In contrast, Muslims preserve the words at the expense of the message, in my experience.

Your experience is not a right observation.

Muslims with God’s Grace, not only preserve the Word of God in it’s original pure form but they try their best level to implement it in their daily lives also. Thats why despite all kinds of false propaganda against Islam and the Muslims, Islam is growing faster than any other religion.

.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Justice2006:

Rodrigo:

They [Christians] don’t believe that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down by an angel or God Himself to any prophet – well, perhaps except for the 10 commandments…

Yeap…thats right why should they believe ?.. because the literal word of God that was given to them is either destroyed or lost and not yet discovered. Now the only option left for all thousands of denominations, sects and cults of whole Christiandom is to follow their own self-created theologies/dogmas/views/miseries, because the literal word of God is simply not in existence anymore.

Had they preserved the literal word of God, do you think they or you on their behalf still would have made an argument by making an assumption: “[Christians] don’t believe that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down by an angel or God Himself to any prophet – well, perhaps except for the 10 commandments”?

Justice2006, buddy. The Christians weren’t given the literal word of God to begin with. To think so is to misunderstand the history of Christianity.

Unlike Muhammad Jesus never claimed to have spoken to an angel. He never caused his words to be written down, unlike Muhammad.

You have to take off your Islamic eyeglasses if you want to understand other religions.

Justice2006:

Mr. Bivar, then where do babies of any faith go if they die in their infancy, as per Catholics theology/Catechism? And what was the stance/view of Catholic church for last 2000 years, in this regard?

I’m not sure the Catholic Church shares your view that babies go to hell because of original sin. I think the term ‘original sin’ is not ‘sin’ per se – it is the state of gracelessness inherited because of Adam’s real sin. In a sense, original sin is what makes us ‘human’ with human failings and mortality. It is not the mortal sin that sends transgressors to hell to be punished.

The Catholic Church has tried to reconcile its understanding of original sin with its understanding of baptism and the Salvation, and theorized that unbaptized babies go to a place called ‘limbo’ which is a place of natural happiness but not in the presence of God. Now, this isn’t exactly hell, though some people argue that it is since God is absent there.

This is merely a theological hypothesis and is not supported by any reading of the Bible. You won’t find any verse that says, ‘unbaptized babies will go to hell or limbo’. You’ll also find that this theological opinion was never official Catholic Church doctrine however pervasive it is.

Why care anyway? It is a theological puzzle, that’s all. Just because someone in 418AD, St Augustine, decided that all unbaptized babies go to hell doesn’t mean it is Church doctrine. Theologians in the Middle Age decided that opinion was too harsh and thought these babies must go to a place between heaven and hell, thus they created ‘limbo’ which is the edge, some say of hell, but without the punishments, merely excluded from the beatific view. It has no scriptural basis.

I suspect Christians have thought more deeply on this issue than Muslims who deem all babies to be Muslims, even without saying the shahada, even babies of non-Muslims. Again, without scriptural basis.

Ciubate,
Rodrigo

 

[Justice2006]

Reuben J:

A hint to brother Justice2006.

Catholics set aside one day in their lithurgical year as **a feast day ** of the **Holy Innocents ** in memorial for those babies killed by King Herod (men) around the years of the birth of Jesus. These babies were considered matyrs who lost their lives for no faults of their own but because of one man who wanted to destroy Jesus.

So only those babies killed by Herod are considered martys or any other baby of any faith who either killed by most sphisticated bombs such as* Daisy cutter * dropped on Afghan innocent civilain villagers or die due to any other reason in his/her infacy?

Then…when you consider them as martyrs, their martyrdom is due to the unjust killing by Herod or merely the death itself?

How about those babies who die an unknown natural death in their infancy, will they go to Paradise or Hell?

.