Christianity vs Islam

[Dimi95]

Salam

Per Quran, God uses the same word for when people dream. And then he returns the ones who he didn't write death for. Sometimes it's used for death but in the expression as in God takes his soul up.

Q 39:42
"God takes the souls at the time of their death; and in their sleep those that have not died."

The ambiguity however is removed completely in the verse after. All three verses together make it very clear Isa (a) is alive and won't die without all people of the book believing in him.

Sleep is considered a form of death in Islamic theology,i understand that.
But you have mistaken me with a random Christian.

According to Islam, God can take your soul without you being killed. Therefore, it is plausible that the Quran is saying that God took Jesus' soul when he slept from exhaustion on the cross, and so Jesus' soul was taken without him being killed.

So let's start with:

'but so it was made to appear to them'

What does it mean that someone only appears to be dead?
How does the rest of the Quran understand this idea?

Consider these verses:
Do not say of those who are killed in the way of God, 'dead'. No, They are living, but you do not perceive that. (Quran 2:154)

Do not reckon those who were killed in God’s way as dead: No! They are alive with their Lord. (Quran 3:169)

These verses are referring to the martyrs of Islam who have died for the cause of Allah. Notice what is said about them: they are not dead, though it appears they are, instead they are alive. The Quran claims to reveal the unseen reality of the martyr. To the unbeliever, the martyrs appear dead, but to the believer they are alive. Believers and unbelievers see the events of this world differently. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to speak of the martyrs as dead. They are 'living' even though it appears they are dead.

Sayyid Qutb explains this.
"To all intents and purposes, those people [the martyrs] may very well appear lifeless, but life and death are not judged by superficial physical means alone ... According to Islamic tradition, people who are killed “for the cause of God” are not washed or prepared for burial in the conventional way, but buried in the clothes they happen to be wearing, because they are considered clean and pure, and because in reality they are not dead ... But who are the living martyrs? They are those killed in God’s cause, and in God’s cause alone.

The Quran’s description of the crucifixion seems to be describing Jesus this way.

So let's go further

"and those who differ about this are full of doubts, with no knowledge, but only assumption to follow, for of certainty they killed him not." (Quran 4:157)

What does it mean to be full of doubts, with no knowledge but only assumption to follow? This idea is spoken of many times in the Quran.
The Quran sees itself as the source of true knowledge because it reveals the seen and the unseen.

[Allah is] Knower of the unseen and the witnessed. (Quran 13:9)

Those who reject the Quran reject this knowledge. They only see the appearance of things, and do not know the unseen realities. They follow what they assume to be true. Therefore, when the Quran is describing the crucifixion it is claiming to reveal the unseen realities of what happened to Jesus, not the things that only appeared to happen.

And the last is,

Rather, God raised him to himself. (Quran 4:158)

The verses finish with God raising Jesus to himself. In what sense was Jesus raised to God? We see a similar idea spoken of elsewhere in the Quran.

If you are killed or die in God’s way, pardon and mercy from God are better than what they collect. If you die or are killed, you will be gathered up to God. (Quran 3:157-158)

Do not reckon those who were killed in God’s way as dead: No! [They are] alive with their Lord. (Quran 3:169)

That is, the souls of the martyrs are immediately taken up to be with God in paradise. This is the unseen reality. Verse 4:158 does not say that Jesus’ body was taken, but simply that he was raised up to be with God. According to the Quran, this is what happens to the soul of a martyr. God gives martyrs special treatment, and Jesus seems to be an example of this.

In summary, we have seen that verses 4:157-158 do not say, 'Jesus did not die', instead they say that it appeared to the unbelievers that they killed and crucified Jesus but they did not. The verses also do not say that God raised Jesus physically to himself. To understand the verses we looked at where the Quran teaches similar ideas and saw that God taking Jesus’ soul in sleep, or Jesus being a martyr, are both plausible explanations.

But are these explanations confirmed by the other verses in the Quran which speak about the crucifixion?
What do you think?

 

[Link]

4:157-158 alone, okay you can make theories, it can have differing interpretation. But 4:159 completes the context with each other and together it's clear Jesus (a) is alive. As the verse follows two verses that are on the subject of Nabi Isa's (a) death, it's clear the "his death" does not refer to a person's of the people of the book death, but rather Jesus (a) and his death is the subject. Now if it was "he is alive and not dead like martyrs meaning" that he won't die one day in that sense. He won't die in that sense ever. But the verse is saying he will die one day, but not until all of the people of the book believe in him.

It's the same with 4:59. By itself, sure, people can say it means rulers, intellectuals, scholars, you name it, but the verses before and after, especially 4:54 leaves no room for ambiguity but that it is the family of Mohammad (s) that is meant.

And this is the flaw of mankind with Quran. They take words of God out of their place. As predicted by God to those with hard hearts or this is a spiritual disease in the heart.

However, if a person fears God, then the Quran becomes easy. No games with it and it's clear. And whatever is ambiguous the person does not follow it till something else where clarifies it.

The whole Quran in it's various dimensions is only collected and known to Ahlulbayt (a), this is true. However, believers do not follow anything ambiguous in it and over all it is a very clear book and they follow what is clear of it's signs. They also share insights to one another.

 

[Dimi95]

4:157-158 alone, okay you can make theories, it can have differing interpretation. But 4:159 completes the context with each other and together it's clear Jesus (a) is alive. As the verse follows two verses that are on the subject of Nabi Isa's (a) death, it's clear the "his death" does not refer to a person's of the people of the book death, but rather Jesus (a) and his death is the subject. Now if it was "he is alive and not dead like martyrs meaning" that he won't die one day in that sense. He won't die in that sense ever. But the verse is saying he will die one day, but not until all of the people of the book believe in him.

It's the same with 4:59. By itself, sure, people can say it means rulers, intellectuals, scholars, you name it, but the verses before and after, especially 4:54 leaves no room for ambiguity but that it is the family of Mohammad (s) that is meant.

And this is the flaw of mankind with Quran. They take words of God out of their place. As predicted by God to those with hard hearts or this is a spiritual disease in the heart.

However, if a person fears God, then the Quran becomes easy. No games with it and it's clear. And whatever is ambiguous the person does not follow it till something else where clarifies it.

The whole Quran in it's various dimensions is only collected and known to Ahlulbayt (a), this is true. However, believers do not follow anything ambiguous in it and over all it is a very clear book and they follow what is clear of it's signs. They also share insights to one another.

Observations on Surah an-Nisa' 4:159

Pickthall:
There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them -

Yusuf Ali:
And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-

Shakir:
And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them.

Sher Ali:
And there is none among the People of the Book but will continue to believe in it before his death; and on the Day of Resurrection, he (Jesus) shall be a witness against them.

Rashad Khalifa:
Everyone among the people of the scripture was required to believe in him before his death. On the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them.

Let's see some info...

Yusuf Ali commentary note 665:

Before his death: Interpreters are not agreed as to the exact meaning. Those who hold that Jesus did not die refer the pronoun "his" to Jesus. They say that Jesus is still living in the body and that he will appear just before the Final Day, after the coming of the Mahdi, when the world will be purified of sin and unbelief. There will be a final death before the final Resurrection, but all will have believed before that final death. Others think that "his" is better referred to "none of the People of the Book", and that the emphatic form "must believe" (la-yu` minanna) denotes more a question of duty than of fact.

Note 664 on Surah 4:158 is maybe a helpful background to the above note, since in 665 he only talks on the basis of what he just stated is the generally accepted Muslim view:
There is difference of opinion as to the exact interpretation of this verse. The words are: The Jews did not kill Jesus, but Allah raised him up (rafa`u) to Himself. One school holds that Jesus did not die the usual human death, but still lives in the body in heaven, which is the generally accepted Muslim view.


In a mailing discussion, Muslims claim this clearly - that all People of the Book will believe in Jesus before his (future) death.

This seems to be grammatically possible as i see it.
Several translators seem to follow this understanding and their translations say something to the effect that "everyone from the People of the Book will (certainly) believe in him ...".

However, why would Jesus be a "witness against them" when they believe in him?
Should he not be a witness against those who do NOT believe in him?

Rashad Khalifa is the odd one out who transfers this into the past tense (was required to believe), while all others see this either present or future. Khalifa circumvents the problem by inserting the word "required" which is not in the Arabic.

The main question so far seems to be whether the emphatic form means "certainty of fact in the future" (will believe) or "duty for everyone" (required, must believe). But there are more opinions on the meaning of this verse...

In response to Yusuf Ali's translation of this verse, i have found what Ahmadiyya gives as explanation regarding their interpretation of this verse:

Everybody will believe in whom? The verse you quoted does not give a name anyway. Why not? And whose death is being referred to? I mean, many *People of the Book* die everyday without believing in Jesus a.s. anyway. i.e. the Jews, whilst the Christians already believe in him as the Messiah anyway. And if you mean to say that they will all believe in him as a Prophet of God after his hypothetical return to earth and subsequent death, then there would be no need for Jesus a.s. to be a witness against them on the Day of Judgement anyway. So, your proposed construction of the verse becomes untenable.
Besides the Arabic pronoun used does not here mean *him* but *it*, because the incident being referred to in the preceeding verse is to Jesus's a.s. alleged death on the cross, so the correct translation (with my explanation in brackets) will be:
"And there is none among the People of the Book but will (continue to) believe in IT (i.e. the death of Jesus a.s. on the cross) before his (own) death (i.e. the death of the Jew or Christian himself); and on the Day of Judgement he (Jesus a.s.) will be a witness against them ... [4:159].

This Ahmadiyya interpretation gets rid of some problems but substitutes it for others.

The way this is now translated and interpreted by the Ahmadiyya, it says that ALL the people of the Book, Jews and Christians, will continue to believe the death of Jesus on the Cross. But Muslims tell us that there have been thousands (or even millions) of Jews and Christians who converted to Islam, and consequently they do no longer believe in this death on the Cross.

Does that not mean the Qur'an is wrong, according to the interpretation given above?
Isn't the Ahmadiyya translation only removing one problem by substituting it with another interpretation, equally wrong on the factual level?

Is there any interpretation of this verse that is consistent with the rest of Islamic theology (whether the Sunni or the Ahmadiyya version) and the facts of life that some Christians and Christians do convert to orthodox Islam, some to Ahmadiyya Islam and believe exactly as these movments tell, and most of them continue to believe in the revelation given by God in the Bible?

Whatever this verse means, the facts will contradict any theory which understands it in a way such that all of them will continue not to believe, or all of them will believe.
This is certainly a challenge to the "none ... but" construction in the aya which makes a statement that supposedly holds without exception.

The one and only passage in the Qur'an dealing with the issue of the Crucifixion is extremely vague and riddled with problems of its own. How then can it be the bases for rejection of the very clear meaning of the passion narratives in the Gospels?

 

[Dimi95]

No I do not understand Greek... Although my mother was Greek, I never learned the language.

It's never too late..

How I get there - the basis for my beliefs - is the Baha'i Writings. With that knowledge I make my own interpretations of the Bible.

I can do the same thing in reverse order , how does that help?

I hope you understand that verse is subject to different interpretations.
That said, I am accustomed to reading the Writings of Baha'u'llah and He spoke plainly about God and Jesus and Himself and who He was claiming to be.

The New Testament is not clear at all. Jesus spoke figuratively rather than plainly, but He said there would come a time when that will no longer be the case. I believe that time has come since I believe that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ.

John 16:25-28 New International Version

25 “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 26 In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”

‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'"

Do you think that verse is Jesus saying that He was before God? How could Jesus come before God?

That verse is about as clear as mud.

Who came after Jesus? Baha'u'llah came after Jesus, so that verse could be referring to Baha'u'llah, since He came in the station of the Father, just as Jesus came in the station of the Son.

Muhhamad came after Jesus , Allah came after Jesus.

You confuse yourself with interpretations.

Tell me , why there are NIV , ESV , EGB , KJV ... ?

This is all the information that you need for gospel of john 16

Chapter 16 of the Gospel of John - Original Greek text and translation

Chapter 16 of the Gospel of John - Original Greek text and translation

www.gospel-john.com

John 16:32-33
"Behold, an hour is coming, and has already come, for you to be scattered, each to his own home, and to leave Me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me.
These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."

Just curious , have you ever visited South-East Europe?

 

[paarsurrey]

I think that what brings us together should be the topic of discussion.

The respect towards other religions is based upon the common ground.

And the common ground in Christianity and Islam is Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful/righteous Israelite Messiah and his truthful teachings, right?

Regards

 

[1213]

But the Bible is a corrupted message.

How do you know the message is corrupt? Can you give one example?

The Koran is in its original language.

Could still be corrupted, original language is no guarantee.

We could have fewer wars.

I think all wars are because the leaders are greedy and selfish, not because of any religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

How do you know the message is corrupt? Can you give one example?

I was only making the claim that I hear from Muslims
about the Bible being corrupted. But I do recognize
that people are reading different interpretations of
different versions of translations of translations of
the Bible. To believe that each of the various ones,
which include or omit different portions, would be
the complete inerrant word of God makes no sense.

Could still be corrupted, original language is no guarantee.

I think all wars are because the leaders are greedy and selfish, not because of any religion.

Personally, I find all scripture to be corrupt,
given that they're inventions of humans.

 

[Link]

However, why would Jesus be a "witness against them" when they believe in him?
Should he not be a witness against those who do NOT believe in him?

The translation here is not the best. It does not say "against them", rather "alayhim" means "upon them" or "regarding them". There is a big theme in Quran that chosen guides witness people and can see their deeds.

I think the three verses are very clear, I've already given my explanation as to why.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's never too late..

No, not if one has interest and motivation to do something.
Were I to learn another language it would be Spanish, not Greek, since I am not interested in understanding the older scriptures.

I can do the same thing in reverse order , how does that help?

Yes you could do make your own interpretations of the Baha'i Writings using your knowledge of the Bible.

Help what?

Muhhamad came after Jesus , Allah came after Jesus.

Allah is the one true God of all the religions, and He came before any of the Messengers of God, so Allah did not come after Jesus, Allah came before Jesus.

Allah, the one and only God in Islam. Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilāh, “the God.” The name's origin can be traced to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was il, el, or eloah, the latter two used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).Dec 21, 2023

Allah | Deity, Meaning, & Facts - Britannica​

Tell me , why there are NIV , ESV , EGB , KJV ... ?

This is all the information that you need for gospel of john 16

Chapter 16 of the Gospel of John - Original Greek text and translation

Chapter 16 of the Gospel of John - Original Greek text and translation

www.gospel-john.com

John 16:32-33
"Behold, an hour is coming, and has already come, for you to be scattered, each to his own home, and to leave Me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me.
These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."

Do you have a point to make?

Just curious , have you ever visited South-East Europe?

No, why?

 

[justaguy313]

I think the old testament is severely corrupted while Gospels are minorly corrupted. To prove what I'm saying, I see a lot of parallels between Gospels and hadiths of Imams (a): Gospels and Shiite hadiths match up.

I think Paul's explanation of Gospels and parts of old testament (like Lut (a) being righteous) line up with Islam more then Christianity. In fact, the Paul explanation can be seen directly explaining the Imamate from Adam (a) till now scenario, as that is why he talks about the leader before Ibrahim (a) and emphasizes on God's choice of righteous individuals including Lot (a) who is not righteous and righteous per the Torah (a contradiction).

Paul was most likely a saint, and Simon was a successor of Jesus (a) in some capacity in leadership while the spiritual pole leading and behind scenes role and holy spirit position was continued by Elyas (a) till Mohammad (s) came.

To understand that Elyas (a) was the Guide who can perform miracles and Simon (a) was a saint but not pre-chosen by God like Prophets (a) and the two successions carried the flag till Mohammad (s) is to understand the succession to Mohammad (s) right now and to understand the two representations of leadership during Ghayba.

The Gospels over all are perfect and sublime, just misunderstood and mistranslated.

That said, the other type of succession (from Simon (a)) as fallible, volatile, and corruptible, same with the clergy of Shiites. This is why balance, check, and accountability of scholars of what they say, is necessary. We can't just blind follow clergy and expect the results as if following Imams (a) through them. A lesson learned is when falsehood was spoken by clergy in Christianity, it eventually lead to trinity. We should then acknowledge that scholars can inherit corruption in religion and lead others astray.

The New Testament is more like Gospel of Paul. If you want to read the real gospels you should refer to texts from Nag Hammadi codex like Secret book of John, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene and Second treatise of The Great Seth. That's not to say that things Jesus a.s. says in the New Testament aren't true, it's just that Paul completely corrupts his message.

Prophet Muhammad(PBUHAHF) said:

“ The arrogant ones shall be gathered on the day of resurrection like atoms in the image of men, humiliation will surround them from everywhere, they shall be taken to a prison in Hellfire called Paul.”
~ Tirmithi, Vol.4 P.67 ~

 

[Trailblazer]

The New Testament is more like Gospel of Paul. If you want to read the real gospels you should refer to texts from Nag Hammadi codex like Secret book of John, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene and Second treatise of The Great Seth. That's not to say that things Jesus a.s. says in the New Testament aren't true, it's just that Paul completely corrupts his message.

I fully agree with you. Paul has corrupted the New Testament message.
You might be interested in this thread I started a few years ago.

Below is an excerpt from the section of a book entitled The Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ by Udo Schaefer which explains how Paul changed the course of Christianity. You can read the entire section of the book which includes the references on the link to my thread below.

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

"That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Paul, however, did not pass on the revealed doctrine reflected in the glass of the intellectual categories of his time, as is often asserted; he transformed the ‘Faith of Jesus’ into ‘Faith in Jesus.’ He it was who gave baptism a mysterious significance, ‘so as to connect his mission with the experience of initiates in Hellenic mystery cults’, (232) he turned the last supper into a sacramental union with the Lord of those celebrating it; (233) he was responsible for the sacramentalization of the Christian religion, and took the phrase ‘Son of God’--- in the Jewish religion merely a title for the Messiah --- to be an ontological reality. The idea of the Son of God, come down from heaven to earth, hitherto inconceivable to Jewish thought, (234) was taken from Paul from the ancient religious syncretism of Asia Minor, to fit in with the need at the time for a general savior. It is generally accepted by critical scholarship that the godparents were the triad from the cult of Isia (Isis, Osiris and Horus) and also Attis, Adonis and Hercules. Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ……..

This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy, the preservers of the original branded as ‘Ebionites.’ As Schoeps puts it, the heresy-hunters ‘accused the Ebionites of a lapse or relapse into Judaism, whereas they were really only the Conservatives who could not go along with the Pauline-cum-Hellenistic elaborations’. (238) Schonfield comes to the same conclusion: ‘This Christianity in its teaching about Jesus continued in the tradition it had directly inherited, and could justifiably regard Pauline and catholic Christianity as heretical. It was not, as its opponents alleged, Jewish Christianity which debased the person of Jesus, but the Church in general which was misled into deifying him.’ (239) ‘Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. This is even admitted by some Catholics: ‘Christianity today mostly means Paul.’ (245) And Wilhelm Nestle stated—as noted also by Sabet—‘Christianity is the religion founded by Paul who replaces the Gospel of Jesus by a gospel about Jesus.’ (246) So also Schonfield: ‘Paul produced an amalgamation of ideas which, however unintentionally, did give rise to a new religion.’ (247)……

(Udo Schaefer, Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ )

 

[Dimi95]

The New Testament is more like Gospel of Paul. If you want to read the real gospels you should refer to texts from Nag Hammadi codex like Secret book of John, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene and Second treatise of The Great Seth. That's not to say that things Jesus a.s. says in the New Testament aren't true, it's just that Paul completely corrupts his message.

Prophet Muhammad(PBUHAHF) said:

“ The arrogant ones shall be gathered on the day of resurrection like atoms in the image of men, humiliation will surround them from everywhere, they shall be taken to a prison in Hellfire called Paul.”
~ Tirmithi, Vol.4 P.67 ~

What is your Aqeedah?

Let's how you stand.

 

[justaguy313]

What is your Aqeedah?

Let's how you stand.

I think I explained that thoroughly in this topic:

Presentation of beliefs of members of faith of Ahmadi religion of Peace and Light

This is a quick recap of our beliefs, if anybody wants to look any further all information is on the website, if you want to ask any questions, we also have Telegram groups in all languages, so if anyone is interested in a research I would be glad to help We are the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and...

www.religiousforums.com

If you have any questions about my faith, please post there, so we can avoid off topic discussions

 

[1213]

Personally, I find all scripture to be corrupt,
given that they're inventions of humans.

In the case of Bible, I think the claim of it's corruptness means that there was an original version and copies of it have been altered so that it is not anymore the same message. So, this is not about was the original somehow corrupted or wrong, only about the copies of it. And, to claim the copies are not correct, one would need to know what the original said. If one doesn't know what is said in the original, there is no way to know are the copies corrupted.

However, it is true that there are different copies of the Bible. And I don't claim they all are correct. I think they all are close enough, but some are closer to the oldest copies.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I believe Jesus was referring to himself as a Son of God, as in Mankind are all Children of God.

Indeed, the message seems clear enough; God is the father, we are all His children.

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

- Matthew 6:9-10

 

[Revoltingest]

In the case of Bible, I think the claim of it's corruptness means that there was an original version and copies of it have been altered so that it is not anymore the same message.

There's also the issue of differing content, eg....

The King James Bible And The Ethiopian Bible: What's The Difference? - Grunge

The Bible has had many versions over the years. The oldest version is the Ethiopian and the most ubiquitous is the King James version and here's how they differ

www.grunge.com

So, this is not about was the original somehow corrupted or wrong, only about the copies of it.

Which original?
How is it known to be the original?

And, to claim the copies are not correct, one would need to know what the original said. If one doesn't know what is said in the original, there is no way to know are the copies corrupted.

Languages & word definitions evolve.
How is a precise inerrant meaning from
an ancient language known?

However, it is true that there are different copies of the Bible. And I don't claim they all are correct. I think they all are close enough, but some are closer to the oldest copies.

"Close enuf" appears to outsiders to vary greatly.
Justifying (or not) slavery, genocide, theocracy,
anti-science, & various kinds of bigotry.

This atheist has been told by various Christians....
- I'm a good Christian.
- I'm a tool of Satan.
- I'm going to Hell.
- I'm going to Heaven.

I discern that there is no real core message
delivered by Christianity. It might appear
so only in cases of shared culture.

 

[Link]

I fully agree with you. Paul has corrupted the New Testament message.

I don't thinks so. I think Paul was a saint and his words are misinterpreted till this day.

 

[Muffled]

What's "sinking sand?"

I believe sometimes it is quicksand.

 

[justaguy313]

Indeed, the message seems clear enough; God is the father, we are all His children.

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

- Matthew 6:9-10

I will just leave this here for people to contemplate

 

[Muffled]

Who said that?
It wasn't Jesus, now was it?

I prefer the version in Genesis ..

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

That verse from John is too philosophical to me .. "logos" (translated 'word') is Greek, which Jesus did not speak.
He was God, and was with God.. huh??

I believe this is something philosophical. God is an intelligent being and the expression of that intelligence is words. So at the same time those words are of Him and from Him out into the world. Jesus is the Word of God out into the world. Having the intelligence of God every word out of His mouth are words of God.