What church is the true church?

[sojourner]

http://www.adventureguide.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/20120804-164231.jpg

This is a picture of a small plain on a big mountain

I can even see reason why it would be notable. Have you ever walked uphill before? I have. When I reach a level place I am happy that I made it up and now I can enjoy my walk again.

A noble effort -- and on the surface a good idea -- but you're missing the mark here. The two stories can't simply be mushed together in order to resolve differences in detail, for then the unique particularity of each story is glossed over and lost. The gospel accounts must stand alone in order to retain their integrity.

 

[savagewind]

A noble effort -- and on the surface a good idea -- but you're missing the mark here. The two stories can't simply be mushed together in order to resolve differences in detail, for then the unique particularity of each story is glossed over and lost. The gospel accounts must stand alone in order to retain their integrity.

Mushed? Do you mean he really was on a plain like he says? And then he was on a mountain? Oooookaaaay OR are you saying they are accounts of two different times? What actually are you saying? Do you know what double speak is?

 

[sojourner]

Mushed? Do you mean he really was on a plain like he says? And then he was on a mountain? Oooookaaaay OR are you saying they are accounts of two different times? What actually are you saying? Do you know what double speak is?

I'm saying that each gospel writer simply tells the story in a different way. Matthew has the story set on a hillside. Luke has it set on a plain. Two writers -- two stories about the same event. Spending time trying to resolve the inconsistencies is fruitless, because they simply don't matter. All the effort does is take attention away from what really matters about each account.

 

[Monotheist 101]

These aren't reports -- they're storytelling from different points of view.

The Point your missing is, they are stories told by "MEN", It may refer to the word of God but it isnt his word exactly as conveyed by Jesus. It is the human beings perception of the events that took place.

The Quran is the literal "word" of GOD, it is as if words were put into Muhammads mouth. He isnt saying anything by himself..

" I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require [it] of him." (Deuteronomy 18:18-19)

Every chapter of the Quran starts with "In the name of Allah"

Ill give you guys an example notice how the word "say" are included

Chapter 112 (directed at the Christians)
"In the name of Allah, most gracious and most merciful"
Say, “The truth is: Allah is One. [1] Allah is Besought of all, needing none. [2] He neither begot anyone, nor he was begotten. [3] And equal to Him has never been any one.”[4]

Chapter 113:
"In the name of Allah, most gracious and most merciful"
Say, “I seek refuge with the Lord of the daybreak [1] from the evil of everything He has created, [2] and from the evil of the dark night when it penetrates, [3] and from the evil of the women who blow on the knots(sorcerers), [4] and from the evil of an envier when he envies. “[5]

Chapter 114:
"In the name of Allah, most gracious and most merciful"
Say, “I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind, [1] the King of mankind, [2] the God of mankind, [3] from the evil of the whisperer who withdraws (when Allah's name is pronounced), [4] the one who whispers in the hearts of people, [5] whether from among the Jinn or Mankind.” [6]

Chapter 109:
"In the name of Allah, most gracious and most merciful"
Say, "O disbelievers, [1] I do not worship that which you worship, [2] nor do you worship the One whom I worship. [3] And neither I am going to worship that which you have worshipped, [4] nor will you worship the One whom I worship. [5] For you is your faith, and for me, my faith." [6]

The difference between my belief system and yours is that, I was looking for the literal word of God while you are satisfied with an interpretation, firstly which are stories of Men, translated from Aramaic and Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, reprinted and edited a thousand times with underlying agendas..If this satisfies you and your quest for the truth than be my guest..to each his own..

P.S this Allah that I speak of is not some Pro-Jihad terrorist God, he is the same Father that you believe in the Yehweh that the Jews believe in and the Brahma that the Hindus believe in etc..The one true creator..thus the username Monotheist..

 

[Aamer]

Here's where you're missing the mark. (Didn't you read my last post?) The issue isn't at all whether "the facts are correct." Once again: These aren't reports -- they're storytelling from different points of view. Both are authentic because each approaches the Jesus Event from its own cultural perspective. If they had attempted to simply copy each other, without regard to their particular theological POV, then they wouldn't be authentic. As it is, however, they are eminently authentic.

The differences in detail (mountain or plain) point to subtleties in the difference of POV of the storytelling -- not to "mistakes in transmission from God to human being."

Ok so let's say you give a speech. Both me and my Friend Frank are the as witnesses. I write about it and sojourner gave a speech at a church. Frank writes and says sojourner gave a speech at the parking lot of home depot. We're both right?

 

[Aamer]

OMG am I on ignore

It was a flat place on the mountain. There are such things. Not enough words, is that it?

Not ignoring you brotha. It just wasn't a convincing argument. Almost sounds like Johnny Cochrane (lawyer) coming up with an argument to state there were other possibilities. However there was no evidence behind your claim. Keep in mind that if you read that entire section of Luke, it states Jesus was up on the mountain for three days and when he came down, his disciples gathered around him and then he gave the sermon. It doesn't fit with your theory that they were still on the mountain but the mountain had a plain on it. I'm not trying to be rude but it seems like you're just trying to make something that doesn't got.... Fit. Just to hold on to the thought that the Bible is infallible. No disrespect. Just telling you what I see. Btw, that was one of about thirty examples of material contradictions in the NT. We could go finding excuses for all of them but it would be painstaking and those who don't want to see will still cover their eyes and make excuses. But if we must go that road, I will. If it will help even ONE truth seeker see the truth, I will do it. Peace brother.

 

[savagewind]

Not ignoring you brotha. It just wasn't a convincing argument. Almost sounds like Johnny Cochrane (lawyer) coming up with an argument to state there were other possibilities. However there was no evidence behind your claim. Keep in mind that if you read that entire section of Luke, it states Jesus was up on the mountain for three days and when he came down, his disciples gathered around him and then he gave the sermon. It doesn't fit with your theory that they were still on the mountain but the mountain had a plain on it. I'm not trying to be rude but it seems like you're just trying to make something that doesn't got.... Fit. Just to hold on to the thought that the Bible is infallible. No disrespect. Just telling you what I see. Btw, that was one of about thirty examples of material contradictions in the NT. We could go finding excuses for all of them but it would be painstaking and those who don't want to see will still cover their eyes and make excuses. But if we must go that road, I will. If it will help even ONE truth seeker see the truth, I will do it. Peace brother.

Peace to you! I like peace. Thank you. Despite the fact that I like peace more than I like conflict I will not stop.

"place" a place

Apparently a primary word; a spot (general in space, but limited by occupancy; (whereas chora is a large but participle locality), i.e. Location (as a position, home, tract, etc.); figuratively, condition, opportunity; specially, a scabbard -- coast, licence, place, X plain, quarter, + rock, room, where.

"Level" (found just once in the Greek scriptures) level, a plain.

From a derivative of pous (meaning the ground); level (as easy for the feet) -- plain.

Now people make a discrepancy where there is no discrepancy.

It does not say he descended the mountain the whole way. And we know from other accounts the people followed him. So Luke means the people going down and the people going up met on a plain on the mountain. Does the link to the picture work?
http://www.adventureguide.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/20120804-164231.jpg

Another error in your post is

when he came down, his disciples gathered around"

But what is says is he called them to him"(Luke 6:13)...."and having descended with them he stood on a level place".

If you mean the people who met him were his disciples, I am sure that is stretching the truth. It is an impossibility that all in the the crowd were disciples. The crowd is described as a great multitude.

 

[Monotheist 101]

You guys are still caught up in what translation is correct..Why arent we more concerned with what is being said?

 

[savagewind]

You guys are still caught up in what translation is correct..Why arent we more concerned with what is being said?

The Word is to be believed. When seeming errors are exposed people leave off wanting to KNOW what it says.

I am concerned with what was said.

 

[sojourner]

The Point your missing is, they are stories told by "MEN", It may refer to the word of God but it isnt his word exactly as conveyed by Jesus. It is the human beings perception of the events that took place.

The Quran is the literal "word" of GOD, it is as if words were put into Muhammads mouth. He isnt saying anything by himself.

I'm not missing that point -- at all. I've known for years exactly what the bible is -- the human record of humanity's relationship with God. There's nothing wrong with that, for things are what they are -- unless we're deluding ourselves. We may as well deal with reality, yes?
Where your post goes awry at one point is where you say;

it isnt his word exactly as conveyed by Jesus.

In many places, we have reason to believe that Jesus' quotations are authentic.
But I believe your post goes awry at another important point. You claim that the bible cannot be God's word, as it proceeded from God's mouth -- and you are correct. But if that's true of the bible, then it's also true of the Quran. You don't get to claim special favor for your book, just because you happen to "believe in it." Remember: Things are what they are. For the record, I don't see how Muhammed would have any greater pipeline to God, than would Jesus, who is God.

 

[sojourner]

Ok so let's say you give a speech. Both me and my Friend Frank are the as witnesses. I write about it and sojourner gave a speech at a church. Frank writes and says sojourner gave a speech at the parking lot of home depot. We're both right?

This is the point you're missing! It doesn't matter! What matters is the theological point you're making with the story. This is not newspaper reporting of events -- it's theological storytelling. Any number of literary devices, such as places and characters, might be used in order to tell the story from a given perspective.

 

[savagewind]

I think they mean if major parts of the witness accounts are made up stories, how can a person trust the seemingly important parts are not also made up stories?

 

[sojourner]

I think they mean if major parts of the witness accounts are made up stories, how can a person trust the seemingly important parts are not also made up stories?

They're looking at all this from a modern -- not an ancient -- perspective. We moderns recognize only accurate, written factoids as truth, especially as corroborated by third party testimony. But these documents aren't written to be that kind of "proof." In fact, they're not written to be "proof" at all, in that sense. In fact, the stories likely weren't written, to begin with. To take ancient, oral accounts of mythic and parabolic stories, and force them into a model they were never intended to be, naturally yields doubt and skepticism. They've painted themselves into a skeptical corner they need not be in, with a brush intended for a different job, in a non-existent color. Then they claim that it's all a "sham," because it doesn't make any sense. their argument is a fallacy, because they've built a false argument on false evidence. Of course they don't trust what they read -- they're reading ancient Greek with a modern English dictionary.

 

[savagewind]

They're looking at all this from a modern -- not an ancient -- perspective. We moderns recognize only accurate, written factoids as truth, especially as corroborated by third party testimony. But these documents aren't written to be that kind of "proof." In fact, they're not written to be "proof" at all, in that sense. In fact, the stories likely weren't written, to begin with. To take ancient, oral accounts of mythic and parabolic stories, and force them into a model they were never intended to be, naturally yields doubt and skepticism. They've painted themselves into a skeptical corner they need not be in, with a brush intended for a different job, in a non-existent color. Then they claim that it's all a "sham," because it doesn't make any sense. their argument is a fallacy, because they've built a false argument on false evidence. Of course they don't trust what they read -- they're reading ancient Greek with a modern English dictionary.

That is very well said and true.
I do not post to cynics who write the posts. I post to skeptics who read the posts.

 

[Monotheist 101]

I'm not missing that point -- at all. I've known for years exactly what the bible is -- the human record of humanity's relationship with God. There's nothing wrong with that, for things are what they are -- unless we're deluding ourselves. We may as well deal with reality, yes?
Where your post goes awry at one point is where you say;

In many places, we have reason to believe that Jesus' quotations are authentic.
But I believe your post goes awry at another important point. You claim that the bible cannot be God's word, as it proceeded from God's mouth -- and you are correct. But if that's true of the bible, then it's also true of the Quran. You don't get to claim special favor for your book, just because you happen to "believe in it." Remember: Things are what they are. For the record, I don't see how Muhammed would have any greater pipeline to God, than would Jesus, who is God.

I have examined every scripture I could get my Hands on, have studied every doctrine that will give me an understanding of my creator and bring me close to the truth.. I personally hold the opinion that if I was looking for "the word of God" I have found it in the Quran. You should not jump to conclusion about the Quran..look up its History, its Content and what it is saying (we are told to love Jesus as a special messenger of God and the Christians as our closest brothers in belief), There is too much propoganda around Islam and IMO all the wrong people are representing it in their own wicked ways with hidden agendas. Too me non of that is important I was looking for God and I found him in the Quran. Look it up the first copy put together and the ones in print today do not even differ on a single apostrophe..The Quran is not storytelling by a human being, it is direct commands from God to the Human race and Jinn conveyed by Angel Gabriel through the medium of Muhammad (Mohammad was an illeterate arab in the middle of the desert who couldnt even write)

The difference in my belief and yours is,
I refuse to believe God the Uncreated became part of his creation in the form of Jesus or any other manifestation. The main problem I see with accepting Jesus as a Human messenger of God for the Christians is his virgin birth..It is only logical to think that if a Holy person is born of a virgin, than god must have begotten him (why do we reduce God to the animalistic instincts of the need to replicate? is he going to die and needs to pass on his God genes?) I believe that Jesus virgin birth was a miracle of God like the miracles He gave the messengers before him..Moses got Magic...Solomon had control of the Animals and Jinn...Abraham did not get burned by the fire...Muhammad conveyed his message through the miracle (The Quran) that was unheard of or inconceivable in the context of his situation.

I personally hold Jesus in very high regard..but not high enough to call him God or consider him a manifestation..I love him dearly and am awaiting his return so he will defeat the false messiah the Jews wait on.

In my findings Jesus is a very special Human being, him and Adam share the same quality of being created from nothing. God said Be and they were. Adams argument is easier for us to grasp even for christians because he is regarded as the first Human. In the case of Jesus we somehow get confused and think that God will actually have sex and have a baby..He doesnt need to do that, He only needs to say Be..

Quran:

• 2:117- The Initiator of the heavens and the earth: to have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is.

• 3:47- She said, "My Lord, how can I have a son, when no man has touched me?" He said, "God thus creates whatever He wills. To have anything done, He simply says to it, 'Be,' and it is."

• 6:73- He is the One who created the heavens and the earth, truthfully. Whenever He says, "Be," it is. His word is the absolute truth. All sovereignty belongs to Him the day the trumpet is blown. Knower of all secrets and declarations, He is the Most Wise, the Cognizant.

• 16:40- To have anything done, we simply say to it, "Be," and it is.

• 19:35- It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is."

• 36:82- All He needs to do to carry out any command is say to it, "Be," and it is.

• 40:68- He is the only One who controls life and death. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is.

I think Jesus didnt teach that God created Human Beings in his image..I believe God is something or someone, we human beings donot have the tools to percieve with our limited powers..We shouldnt try to make him a human (this only serves our human need of making it easier for us to relate to him), I refuse to believe that God has a pair of hands, testicles, other organs etc..God is the uncreated he does not have a distinct form that we can give him..Not of a Man not of an Idol..The problem is that out knowledge is limited..we only know what we or other before us have percieved of the world. How can we even begin to imagine what God looks like when he is not part of the creation (everything we perceive). i.e If you ask an arabic speaking kid raised in Saudi Arabia with no knowlege of English..If you sit him for the SAT exams, do you think he has the tools to even begin to understand what is written infront of him or what it means..to him they are just marks on paper.. I know this is a loose example but the point I am getting at is...we were never meant to see God..Why do we want to so badly tho?

P.S it was never "my book"..I tried every book I could get my hands on..this made the most sense to me..If God was going to speak to us..this is how he would do it.

 

[Monotheist 101]

I actually genuinely feel happy when I meet people of faith..any faith..atleast you are giving him..some sort of credit..You are open to suggestion..God knows our true intentions and he is a fair judge..doesnt matter what label society puts on me..I am a follower of Abraham (the first true monotheist) I dont care if society labels me a Christian a Jew a polytheist or a pantheist.

I love everyone who has faith..Hope your Kids grow up to pass on your good genes

 

[sojourner]

I personally hold the opinion that if I was looking for "the word of God" I have found it in the Quran.

Good for you! You are entitled to your belief.

Look it up the first copy put together and the ones in print today do not even differ on a single apostrophe.

It's a completely different kind of publication from the bible. The only thing the two have in common is subject matter. It's eminently cohesive nature does not make it "truer" or "better" than the bible, just as an orange's skin is no "better" or "truer" than that of an apple.

The Quran is not storytelling by a human being, it is direct commands from God to the Human race and Jinn conveyed by Angel Gabriel through the medium of Muhammad (Mohammad was an illeterate arab in the middle of the desert who couldnt even write)

You may think so, if you wish. But don't expect to use that belief as "proof" against the legitimacy of the bible and get by without a hefty response.

I refuse to believe God the Uncreated became part of his creation in the form of Jesus or any other manifestation.

Your loss, IMO.

The main problem I see with accepting Jesus as a Human messenger of God for the Christians is his virgin birth..It is only logical to think that if a Holy person is born of a virgin, than god must have begotten him (why do we reduce God to the animalistic instincts of the need to replicate? is he going to die and needs to pass on his God genes?)

If this is really what you believe we think, then you don't understand us well enough to make comment.

I personally hold Jesus in very high regard..but not high enough to call him God or consider him a manifestation

Again: your loss, IMO.

I love him dearly and am awaiting his return so he will defeat the false messiah the Jews wait on.

The difference in ideology here is quite evident: Your God defeats enemies. My God reconciles them. Which ideology works better in a pluralistic world that is becoming increasingly smaller and more capable of utterly destroying itself -- "defeating" or "reconciling?"

In the case of Jesus we somehow get confused and think that God will actually have sex and have a baby

You are very confused, if that's really what you think.

I think Jesus didnt teach that God created Human Beings in his image.

That line of thinking would be wrong, according to he biblical (and Traditional) record.

We shouldnt try to make him a human, I refuse to believe that God has a pair of hands, testicles, other organs etc.

Whatever. Your concept of what we think is so skewed, it's no wonder you're confused.

 

[Monotheist 101]

Good for you! You are entitled to your belief.

It's a completely different kind of publication from the bible. The only thing the two have in common is subject matter. It's eminently cohesive nature does not make it "truer" or "better" than the bible, just as an orange's skin is no "better" or "truer" than that of an apple.

You may think so, if you wish. But don't expect to use that belief as "proof" against the legitimacy of the bible and get by without a hefty response.

Your loss, IMO.

If this is really what you believe we think, then you don't understand us well enough to make comment.

Again: your loss, IMO.

The difference in ideology here is quite evident: Your God defeats enemies. My God reconciles them. Which ideology works better in a pluralistic world that is becoming increasingly smaller and more capable of utterly destroying itself -- "defeating" or "reconciling?"

.

Im not taking Jesus to be my God tho..he is a leader of Men from among Men

How is it logically possible for God to have any partners, why do you consider Jesus to be a manifestation of God? Do you consider Moses and the countless messengers before them as Manifestations aswell?


There are too many types of christian doctrine to keep up with..with greatly varying beliefs..I might not have understood your particular sect/group, forgive me for that..


Btw Just saying your loss IMO..doesn't serve the purpose of this being a fruitful discussion...its our collective loss..IMO

 

[Monotheist 101]

IMO Jesus was prosecuted before he completed his message and prophecies as mentioned to the Jews. Thus he kept saying that he has to return to his Father and he gave us news of a comfortor that will bring a light to guide us (Muhammad and the Quran), christians make up the concept of the Holy spirit..what is this Holy spirit? It again contradicts my understanding of the Oneness of God and his being seperate to his creation.

IMO your opinion is skewed because you take the partial truth which was revealed by Jesus (he ran out of time, due to his persecution) which was heavily influenced and changed by the Jews who were in power..bringing in the doctrines of the trinity ,original sin and atonement. (The Jews use to believe that, you can only be born Jew..you cant convert to Judaism, they believed they were Gods chosen people..How could the let the imposters (Jesus and his followers) follow the same monotheistic God that they believed in? How could they allow the imposters to live by the law that had been revealed to them..It only makes sense how the trinity and these contradictory concepts are Jewish in origin ( yet completely different to what the Jews themselves believe and teach their kids)


P.S in my earlier posts the Jews arent the general population of Jews ( I mean thier leaders who have the knowledge yet conceal it.)

 

[sojourner]

Im not taking Jesus to be my God tho..he is a leader of Men from among Men

You're entitled to your opinion. No one's twisting your arm.

How is it logically possible for God to have any partners,

I don't know what you mean by "partners." It certainly sounds to me as if you think Muhammed was in partnership with God -- and Abraham, etc. So you must mean something different by that term than I usually think of when I use the term.

why do you consider Jesus to be a manifestation of God?

Because it makes good theological sense to me, in light of what the bible says about him, about humanity, and about our relationship with God.

Moses and the countless messengers before them as Manifestations aswell?

Nope.

There are too many types of christian doctrine to keep up with..with greatly varying beliefs..I might not have understood your particular sect/group, forgive me for that

The bible reflects that multivalency quite well, don't you think?

Btw Just saying your loss IMO..doesn't serve the purpose of this being a fruitful discussion...its our collective loss..IMO

Probably a better way to put it, yes.