Original Quran was burnt

[lukewarm]

Man you’re a terrible debater and I will say dishonest while doing it, good day De Maria. I’ve already proven my point in this thread (which incidentally you did for me thank you). Take care.

This is the textbook definition of an ad-hominem attack:

I listed Bart Ehrman as my reference you replied:

"Bart Ehrman? The atheist? Is the what you call the “leading experts?”

That is an ad hominem to turn around and say “who thinks me calling an atheist an atheist is an adhominem” Shows me you are not going to be honest going forward in this debate it then becomes a waste of time, all your points are based on some logical fallacy.

My point was simple that the texts we have today as the Bible are corrupted with many changes and additions from even the copies of the copies of the originals. The Johaninee Comma proves that point which you admitted was removed from the Bible because it isn’t in the earlier codices. Then you went on to defend the addition because it “crystalizes Christianity”.

Maybe the Pope can hire you to append some stuff on praying to Saints and purgatory into the next Catholic edition of the RSV Bible?

 

[inJESUS]

Lukewarm, you sound like a Muslim. after all, you know that the gospels are not sent down from heaven. And you know that it is the Catholic Church that gave you the Bible. If you do not trust the faith and integrity of the people who passed it down for you, you will have to question every word in the Bible. So, if, and if there are additions and explanations to the text for whatever reason, you either trust the church or you don’t.

Cyprian specifically cites the verse on or around 250 AD. He writes,

"He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'

Athenagorus, a 2nd-century Greek writer (~177 AD) writes:

“Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason of the Father is the Son of God.”

“The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?”

Hence, Athenagorus connects the Father, the Son (whom he had previously referred to as “the Logos”, the Word), and the Holy Spirit, stating both their union and their distinction in order. The only portion of Scripture where these two points are juxtaposed in such a manner is I John 5:7. That Athenagorus likely had this verse in mind is suggested by his prior usage of the term “Logos”, which is not used in John 10:30, and hence would not likely be the source of this term in connexion with the unity of the Son and the Father.

Tertullian around 200 AD, In his apologetic work Against Praxeas, makes this statement concerning the Trinity,

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are One,’ in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.”

So actually your argument reflects and Islamic understanding of scripture where words are the literal words of Allah that decended from heaven via an angel , and not what Jesus taught His disciples to do nor the Catholic understanding in which you trust the Church and Tradition who gave you the true teachings of the apostles.

 

[De_Maria]

Lukewarm, you sound like a Muslim. after all, you know that the gospels are not sent down from heaven. And you know that it is the Catholic Church that gave you the Bible. If you do not trust the faith and integrity of the people who passed it down for you, you will have to question every word in the Bible. So, if, and if there are additions and explanations to the text for whatever reason, you either trust the church or you don’t.

Cyprian specifically cites the verse on or around 250 AD. He writes,

"He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'

Athenagorus, a 2nd-century Greek writer (~177 AD) writes:

“Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason of the Father is the Son of God.”

“The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?”

Hence, Athenagorus connects the Father, the Son (whom he had previously referred to as “the Logos”, the Word), and the Holy Spirit, stating both their union and their distinction in order. The only portion of Scripture where these two points are juxtaposed in such a manner is I John 5:7. That Athenagorus likely had this verse in mind is suggested by his prior usage of the term “Logos”, which is not used in John 10:30, and hence would not likely be the source of this term in connexion with the unity of the Son and the Father.

Tertullian around 200 AD, In his apologetic work Against Praxeas, makes this statement concerning the Trinity,

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are One,’ in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.”

So actually your argument reflects and Islamic understanding of scripture where words are the literal words of Allah that decended from heaven via an angel , and not what Jesus taught His disciples to do nor the Catholic understanding in which you trust the Church and Tradition who gave you the true teachings of the apostles.

Wow!!! InJesus, that is awesome!

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[lukewarm]

Lukewarm, you sound like a Muslim. after all, you know that the gospels are not sent down from heaven. And you know that it is the Catholic Church that gave you the Bible. If you do not trust the faith and integrity of the people who passed it down for you, you will have to question every word in the Bible. So, if, and if there are additions and explanations to the text for whatever reason, you either trust the church or you don’t.
.

Why do you think my name is Lukewarm?

Anyway, am I supposed to lie to myself and pretend that there haven’t been thousands of changes, additions, and deletions from the thousands of earlier manuscripts of the Bible over the centuries? That is a documented fact, should I bury my head in the sand?

I’m not a Muslim no matter how many times someone says I am, I read about Bible errancy and it is, it is not at all an accurate translation of the originals and that’s really a pretty easily proven fact, the Johanine Comma points as a very solid example of that fact.

The “Church” telling me yeah it is, isn’t going to change the facts surrounding subsequent deletions and additions to the Bible by scribes in the first four centuries of Christendom. It did happen, alot all the time, enough that scribes had to write to other scribes to stop doing it in the manuscripts themselves.

 

[De_Maria]

Man you’re a terrible debater

Now THAT’S what I call an ad-hominem!

and I will say dishonest

O, you got me, right here!

while doing it, good day De Maria. I’ve already proven my point in this thread (which incidentally you did for me thank you).

Naw.

Take care.

Somehow I don’t think you mean that.

But anyway, sorry we got off on the wrong foot,

May God bless you,

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[lukewarm]

Now THAT’S what I call an ad-hominem!

Uhh no that’s just an insult…

 

[De_Maria]

Why do you think my name is Lukewarm?

Anyway, am I supposed to lie to myself and pretend that there haven’t been thousands of changes, additions, and deletions from the thousands of earlier manuscripts of the Bible over the centuries? That is a documented fact, should I bury my head in the sand?

No, it isn’t. There have been discrepancies, ommissions, and mistakes along with natural decay, misplacement and loss of documents, but none have affected the message of Jesus Christ in the least.

I’m not a Muslim no matter how many times someone says I am, I read about Bible errancy and it is, it is not at all an accurate translation of the originals and that’s really a pretty easily proven fact, the Johanine Comma points as a very solid example of that fact.

Care to try again to prove that, especially after InJesus fine post?

The “Church” telling me yeah it is, isn’t going to change the facts surrounding subsequent deletions and additions to the Bible by scribes in the first four centuries of Christendom. It did happen, alot all the time, enough that scribes had to write to other scribes to stop doing it in the manuscripts themselves.

One scribe’s frustration with another scribe’s futility does not a conspiracy make.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[lukewarm]

Care to try again to prove that, especially after InJesus fine post?

The Johanine Comma existed in Bibles, it was later removed because it doesn’t exist in earlier codices (by your own admission). There proven, it’s a fact accept it and move on. This is one simple example there are many others.

 

[De_Maria]

Uhh no that’s just an insult…

• An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally “argument [aimed] at the person”, but usually translated as “argument to the man”), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself or an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs.
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad-hominem

An ad-hominem is an insult used as a means to attack the person when one is frustrated in a debate.

Therefore, since you couldn’t address the issue, you impugned my person. I believe this qualifies as an ad-hominem.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[lukewarm]

An ad-hominem is an insult used as a means to attack the person when one is frustrated in a debate.

Noooo an ad-hominem is attacking the person in an attempt to minimize their argument, exactly like you did by stating "Bart Ehrman the atheist this your “expert in the field?”. I was simply insulting you.

 

[inJESUS]

Why do you think my name is Lukewarm?

i understand why

Anyway, am I supposed to lie to myself and pretend that there haven’t been thousands of changes, additions, and deletions from the thousands of earlier manuscripts of the Bible over the centuries? That is a documented fact, should I bury my head in the sand?

 

[De_Maria]

The Johanine Comma existed in Bibles, it was later removed because it doesn’t exist in earlier codices (by your own admission).

I admitted no such thing. Read my words again:

However, the Johanine comma was absent from all previous known bibles so it should be removed until and when it can be proven that it was actually there.

However, I now have better information provided by InJesus who has knowledge which I didn’t have at the time I made that statement. Apparently, there is evidence that earlier codices contained this passage. I’ll just cite one, please refer to the rest of his message:

• Cyprian specifically cites the verse on or around 250 AD. He writes,
  "He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’*

It is evident that Cyprian was in possession or at least familiar with a Bible that included this passage.

There proven, it’s a fact accept it and move on. This is one simple example there are many others.

Man, do you understand the nature of proof and evidence? Again, all you’ve done is put a spin on the facts. The existence of differences between copies of Bibles simply means that there are differences between copies of Bibles. The differences are minute and do not affect the message one iota.

Those are the cold hard facts. Of course, if you can produce a codex which gives a different message than the message of Christ, that would go a long way into proving your argument.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[inJESUS]

The Johanine Comma existed in Bibles, it was later removed because it doesn’t exist in earlier codices (by your own admission). There proven, it’s a fact accept it and move on. This is one simple example there are many others.

this is called an argument from silence. Six MSS (61, 88mg, 429mg, 629, 636mg, and 918) contain the Johannine Comma. D.A. Waite cites evidence of some twenty MSS containing it (those confirmed are 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318) along with two lectionaries (60, 173) and four citations by the Church Fathers (namely, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome). E. F. Hills cites Codex Ravianus as proof positive for 1 John 5:7.

So if it does not exist in some, it does not mean it is a forgery because 1- it exists in others and2- which is more important, it is cited as scripture by Church Fathers.

In other words, you either believe what “some” scholars want you to believe, or you believe your church.

 

[De_Maria]

Hi, I just noticed that I missed these two comments in one of your messages. I think the last one is important to address because it is patently false.

I already did you dismissed him as a valid source because he is an atheist, that’s an ad-hominem.

I dismissed him as a valid source for myself. You are free to believe him if you want. That is why I challenged you to defend his teachings.

Certainly you don’t expect me to accept his findings as true, do you? If so, why? Because you do?

The message we have today is there, but that can never be proven that it is the same message that exists 2,000 years ago.

Have you ever compared any current Bible, even the JW, which is the worst translation that ever existed on this earth, to any ancient Bible?

If so, which current Bible did you compare to which ancient codex and what leads you to believe that the message of Jesus Christ has been totally lost?

That is presonal belief and faith and little else.

It seems to me that you are the one, along with the Muslims on this forum, who are simply putting forth personal belief and little else.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[inJESUS]

Knowing that none of such arguments make sense to a Catholic, why don’t we stick to the Quran’s preservation? why don’t we discuss if it is indeed preserved, and why would the preservation of Gnostic teachings in Islam mean they are from God?

 

[Montalban]

Noooo an ad-hominem is attacking the person in an attempt to minimize their argument, exactly like you did by stating "Bart Ehrman the atheist this your “expert in the field?”. I was simply insulting you.

Well that’s okay then?

 

[Montalban]

Better watch out, Dolph, or Dr. Edwin (Contarini) Freud will be accusing you of insanity as per G.K. Chesterton as he did me! :whacky:

Vickie

Lukewarm has achieved his goal of apologising for Islam.

There’s now several pages dedicated to off-topic attacks on Chrisitanity, followed by more pages of banter between himself and Christians over the meaning of ad hom. And Islam is spared further criticism

Hopefully we can forget this apologists attempts at diversion and return to the topic at hand.

 

[De_Maria]

Noooo an ad-hominem is attacking the person in an attempt to minimize their argument, exactly like you did by stating "Bart Ehrman the atheist this your “expert in the field?”. I was simply insulting you.

Any Mods in the house? This guy just admitted to breaking the rules!

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Montalban]

Any Mods in the house? This guy just admitted to breaking the rules!

Sincerely,

De Maria

I know. So wrapped up is he with the idea of winning a point that in order to do so, over meaning of ad hom, he’s admitted to insulting you!

It’s like someone saying “How dare you say I robbed! I murdered!” and thinking that they’d won a point!

 

[swariffin]

the Johannin comma, again, whether added or original will not deny the fact that it was quoted and explained looong time before the Bible’s compilation. Those who attack it give a blind eye to this fact.