The origins of Religions.

  • Thread starter Thread starter dolphinlove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dolphinlove

Guest
Ok, so…
Im sick to death of people claiming the bible is corrupt without giving any substantial proof. And we can possibly all agree by trying to prove who is right and who is wrong by using references out of the bible, quran, mormon bible etc etc is going to take an eternity to prove who is right.
We can all say, but the bible says this, and the quran says that, but we know it takes more than this to prove anything.
Thats why i think the key is in the founder of the religion, and how it originated.
Well, people on here are claiming the bible is corrupt, i would like for you to prove to me it is corrupted, and saying because it says so in the quran isnt going to cut it.
I can prove the quran is made up, by passages in the bible warning us that the devil can appear as an angel of light.
Now, with the origins of Catholicism, it traces right back to Jesus, who had certified witnesses and were with him. The author of the quran had no witnesses.
So, go on, try proving the bible is corrupt.
And, also would like for you to try and attempt to prove the quran is from G-d.
Im not making this just about Catholicism vs islam, but if any others want to weigh in, be my guest!
 
dolphinlove said:
Now, with the origins of Catholicism, it traces right back to Jesus, who had certified witnesses and were with him.
Click to expand...
Hi

I have mentioned many times before in this forum; may be you missed it. Messengers of GodAllahYHWH, the most truthful persons never had any witnesses for receiving the Word of Revelation from GodAllahYHWH, in my opinion.

Kindly mention with quotations from Bible what witnesses did each of the following had in this connection:
Adam, Noah, Abraham,Issac,Jacob,Moses,Aaron, David, Elijah, Issiah,Solomon, Jonah and John the Baptist.

I think witnesses for Jesus had been mentioned by Paul/s; whereas none was required, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Krishna and Buddha.

Thanks
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

I have mentioned many times before in this forum; may be you missed it. Messengers of GodAllahYHWH, the most truthful persons never had any witnesses for receiving the Word of Revelation from GodAllahYHWH, in my opinion.

Kindly mention with quotations from Bible what witnesses did each of the following had in this connection:
Adam, Noah, Abraham,Issac,Jacob,Moses,Aaron, David, Elijah, Issiah,Solomon, Jonah and John the Baptist.

I think witnesses for Jesus had been mentioned by Paul/s; whereas none was required, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Krishna and Buddha.

Thanks
Click to expand...
My question to you is, prove the quran was inspired by God and not made up by muhammad.
No taqqiya please!
 
dolphinlove said:
Ok, so…
Im sick to death of people claiming the bible is corrupt without giving any substantial proof. And we can possibly all agree by trying to prove who is right and who is wrong by using references out of the bible, quran, mormon bible etc etc is going to take an eternity to prove who is right.
We can all say, but the bible says this, and the quran says that, but we know it takes more than this to prove anything.
Thats why i think the key is in the founder of the religion, and how it originated.
Well, people on here are claiming the bible is corrupt, i would like for you to prove to me it is corrupted, and saying because it says so in the quran isnt going to cut it.
I can prove the quran is made up, by passages in the bible warning us that the devil can appear as an angel of light.
Now, with the origins of Catholicism, it traces right back to Jesus, who had certified witnesses and were with him. The author of the quran had no witnesses.
So, go on, try proving the bible is corrupt.
And, also would like for you to try and attempt to prove the quran is from G-d.
Im not making this just about Catholicism vs islam, but if any others want to weigh in, be my guest!
Click to expand...
CthulhuBryan'sBookofDiscerningCults:
#2. A Cult will claim that:
a. They have discovered a “new” book of God that
supersedes the Bible
b. The Bible is incorrectly understood and only their
“Translation” is accurate

#5. In order to establish their position in the eyes of potential adherents the Cult will attack the Catholic Church as Heretical, wrong or misguided and that they have the “correct” revelation from God
Click to expand...
Therefore, since you are asking someone to do something that they cannot do without opening their minds to Truth and if they open their minds to Truth they will have to admit the fallacies of their current set of beliefs.

Unlike the Bible which is the inspired word of God and the Catholic Church which is promised by Christ to Peter, cults have to base their Cosmovision based on negatives. In other words, they cannot establish what they are they have to show what they are not.
Islam, like Mormonism, is based on a man being deceived by the Enemy into accepting “new” findings and establishing them as a new church along with special benefits to themselves (women, prestige, power, riches to Mohammed, women and prestige to Joseph Smith who was martyred and women, prestige, power and riches to Brigham Young)

Since both men (Mohamed and Young) later taught things directly in opposition to their original teachings they should be viewed very skeptically.
 
come on Muslims, why can`t you prove the Bible is corrupted?

Sister Amy, Muslima727, Muslim Woman…Meedo, ect…

where you at?:o
 
paarsurrey said:
I have mentioned many times before in this forum; may be you missed it. Messengers of GodAllahYHWH, the most truthful persons never had any witnesses for receiving the Word of Revelation from GodAllahYHWH, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
God spoke the ten commandments to all of Israel, hundreds of thousands of people. If anyone feels that their soul originates with the witness of that group, they should convert.

Exodus 20
 
Hi there.

First I would like to ask you to define “Corrupt”. Do you mean that people claim it’s inconsistent, or that it’s not the inspired word of God, or that it teaches bad morals?

If you can quantify this for us, it would help.

It may be that your thread originated from a discussion elsewhere, but a clarification would be helpful for the rest of us.

Thanks!
 
Okay, irrespective of answering my question to quantify corrupt, here is my response to this thread.
Dolphinlove: Now, with the origins of Catholicism, it traces right back to Jesus, who had certified witnesses and were with him.
Click to expand...
How do you know about the certified witnesses? Where is your proof of this? Is your claim that he had witnesses based on the bible? So you are basically using the bible to prove the bible?

Essentially you don’t have certified witnesses proving anything written in the bible, or any religion text for that matter.
None of the apostles who walked with Jesus actually wrote any scriptures. The best we can do is that the earliest Gospel, Mark was most probably (hence, not proven) written by someone who knew Mark, and was written when Mark was already very old.
So, the best authority you have for calling the bible factual is that you have a third hand account of happenings, based on hearsay from a man who was very much an elderly person.
Also proven, and agreed upon by most ancient scholars is that Matthew and Luke are all expansions of Mark.
Thats why i think the key is in the founder of the religion, and how it originated.
Click to expand...
This is your opinion, subjective, because of your statement “I Think”. In a debate such as this, we need facts, we need objective truths.

In religion, especially claiming that one’s holy text is the inerrant word of god above another’s, there are none.
If there was such a proof, then all honest seeking people would be compelled to convert, especially the free thinkers, rationalists and any honestly seeking religious person.

In order to prove that the bible, or any other religious text, is the inerrant you have to be able to back that up from external sources.
The only other external sources you have is Catholic Sacred Tradition. How are you going to use that as irrefutable proof (that’s what you are going for right?) for proving the bible as correct?
At least the bible is only a 3rd generation hearsay, but now you are going to pull in 2000 years of hearsay to back that up.

Essentially you are leaning towards eventually proving that not only the bible, but your religion is true and others are not.

It’s not possible. All of the texts and religions have to be subjected to the same scrutinies, the same questions have to be asked of each, the same proof have to be require of each.

Untill such proof is forthcoming you will not prove any text is true.

Even in the year 325 AD, they were not sure enough that Jesus was divine. They had to vote on it. So, essentially, a scarce 300 years after Jesus’ death, they weren’t even absolutely sure of his divinity.

Another argument would be that the Holy Spirit guided this, so it has to be true…but where do you get your proof of that statement?
It’s another statement taken from either the bible or from tradition. So there is no proof that you can offer up to suggest that your bible is true and the others are false.

The same with the Koran. Do they have irrefutable proof that the Koran is the inerrant word of God? No. If they did, and if it was not all just hearsay, then there would be a lot more rational thinking people converting.
Right now the only people that are thinking totally clear are the ones that discount all religious texts, because how is one better than the other?
And here is the punch line:
If you discount most religions on the basis of lack of proof and lack of evidence of their holy texts or traditions, then you have to do it to all of them. You have to. Otherwise you disqualify yourself from the argument in the first round, as do all other religions. Hence the stalemate that we have right now in this world.

We have to demand proof, rational evidence, of any claims made, otherwise they do not hold any water.
 
Bear_Claw said:
Hi there.

First I would like to ask you to define “Corrupt”. Do you mean that people claim it’s inconsistent, or that it’s not the inspired word of God, or that it teaches bad morals?

If you can quantify this for us, it would help.

It may be that your thread originated from a discussion elsewhere, but a clarification would be helpful for the rest of us.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
To answer your questions, its going to take me time to summarize and write it, or if you want, i can provide you links, which i dont think is the best way to answer, this has however, been debated on this site a number of times now, so if you want to do a search, it would help, im actually going away this saturday and time is limited, but ill do my best to give you a full answer, just give me time.
 
I always say -
Bring it - dont sing it.👍

Ok, i might need to read the links - but for those who do actually read my post - the Bible was not corrupted [its intact] and just because you dont realise the language changed over the thousand of years and how they spoke changed as well, doesn’t mean the Bible was corrupted.

When it says ‘I hate Essu’ it means ‘I left him to sin because he wouldn’t accept Me,’
Sinning leads to hell… so God allowed the hardness of some to lead them astray and away from Him.

He allows anyone the same free will to follow strange ‘New Gospels’…

One thing Islamics should fear from Paul - is when he said ‘If you receive a new gospel from an angel from Heaven - let them be accursed.’

Fear the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top