Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i have been reading the Bible for 40 years, off and on mostly, but every day for the last several years; and it now seems like i have just started reading It.
Amazing how that happens when you begin to see it through the mindset of the One who wrote it, isn't it? The NT was deliberately Helenized to remove as much of it's "Jewishness" as possible. But once your eyes are opened to the depths of Hebrew, and you realize that at one time (probably disappeared with Constantine) ALL the books were written in Hebrew, then you can backtrack to see what was REALLY being said. Peace
That's because you are singing from the same song sheet, just like Lutherans do from theirs , just like Catholics from their , just like Pentecostals from theirs , just like baptists from theirs , just like Methodists from their, just like universalists from theirs.
This is just proof you haughtily believe you have something others don't. If what you believe works for you, I respect that, but please don't try and tell me you are digging deep than others.
You can believe what you want. The truth of the matter is evident. Peace
I used to read and love a commentary by C H Mackintosh a 19th century Irish born preacher ..Notes on the Pentateuch, who said similar things to those you learned from, but his heart towards mankind seemed much larger then yours. His works were expensive but well worth the money at the time for me. He didn't boast superior knowledge, he broke it and shared it in humility.
There is hidden manna, the Word is plain on that. If that is boasting, so be it, I boast in the Lord for without His Spirit I couldn't see it. As for my heart, you are in no position to judge. And true humility is not bowing and scraping, but rather the emptying out completely of everything YOU THINK about the Word and everything else, to receive what HE thinks. Peace
Since when did an intelligible discussion turn into a tabloid representation of history.
Thrill.
I honestly hope you would study in earnest.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Seriously.
Seriously, pin, you spout mindless blurbs not knowing at all what you are saying. If you have something to counter my claims throw it out there and let us see it.
Here's my proof: The says of Krishna were written a full 500 years before Jesus. Below are just some of the sayings from the gospels that Jesus stole wholesale from Krishna:
Krishna:I am the way, supporter, lord, witness, abode, refuge, friend. (Ch. IX. 18) Jesus:I am the way the truth and the life. (John XIV. 6.) I am the first and the last. (Rev. 1. 17)
Krishna: They who worship me with true devotion are in me and I in them. (Ch. VI. 29) Jesus: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, lives in me, and I in him.
(John VI. 57) Krishna: Be assured that he who worships me, perishes not. (Ch. IX. 31) Jesus: He that believeth in me shall never perish, but shall have eternal life. (John III. 5)
Krishna: I am the beginning and the end of things. (Ch. X. 20) Jesus: I am Alpha, Omega, the beginning and the end. (Rev. I. 8)
Krishna: I will deliver thee from all sin; do not grieve. (Ch. XVIII. 66) Jesus: Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee. (Matt. IX. 2)
[/quote]
Seriously, pin, you'd have to be deluded not to see Jesus' exact replication of what Krishna said 500 years earlier. Jesus knew who Krishna was; he probably studied Krishna's saying, that's where Jesus got his theology. Either that or your rose-colored glasses are so fogged with fundamentalist drivel that they've blinded you.
Seriously, pin, you spout mindless blurbs not knowing at all what you are saying. If you have something to counter my claims throw it out there and let us see it.
Here's my proof: The says of Krishna were written a full 500 years before Jesus. Below are just some of the sayings from the gospels that Jesus stole wholesale from Krishna:
Krishna:I am the way, supporter, lord, witness, abode, refuge, friend. (Ch. IX. 18) Jesus:I am the way the truth and the life. (John XIV. 6.) I am the first and the last. (Rev. 1. 17)
Krishna: They who worship me with true devotion are in me and I in them. (Ch. VI. 29) Jesus: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, lives in me, and I in him.
(John VI. 57) Krishna: Be assured that he who worships me, perishes not. (Ch. IX. 31) Jesus: He that believeth in me shall never perish, but shall have eternal life. (John III. 5)
Krishna: I am the beginning and the end of things. (Ch. X. 20) Jesus: I am Alpha, Omega, the beginning and the end. (Rev. I. 8)
Krishna: I will deliver thee from all sin; do not grieve. (Ch. XVIII. 66) Jesus: Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee. (Matt. IX. 2)
Seriously, pin, you'd have to be deluded not to see Jesus' exact replication of what Krishna said 500 years earlier. Jesus knew who Krishna was; he probably studied Krishna's saying, that's where Jesus got his theology. Either that or your rose-colored glasses are so fogged with fundamentalist drivel that they've blinded you.
People, read post #20. This claim that Thillobyte is making has no merit. Read post #20.
People, read post #20. This claim that Thillobyte is making has no merit. Read post #20.
The Bhagavad Gita:
Quote:
The Bhagavad Gita has derived its special importance from its supposed resemblance to the New Testament. And as it claims to be much older than the oldest of the Gospels or the Epistles, it carries the inference that the [gospels and epistles] may have borrowed from it.
All this is readily available online if one just googles "New Testament and Bhagavad Gita" What Mike says in post #20 has no merit. There's enough history to show that the BG easily predates the New Testament just as the sayings of Krishna easily predate the words of Christ.
Theories on the date of composition of the Gita vary considerably. Scholars accept dates from the fifth century to the second century BCE as the probable range. Professor Jeaneane Fowler, in her commentary on the Gita, considers second century BCE to be the likely date of composition.[14] Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, a Gita scholar, on the basis of the estimated dates of Mahabharata, Brahma sutras, and other independent sources, concludes that the Bhagavad Gita was composed in the fifth or fourth century BCE.
Now Mike argues that its final form didn't come until the 4th century CE but he fails to acknowledge that the final form of the New Testament didn't come until the beginning of the Dark Ages. It's incredibly hypocritical and disingenuous of him to say one while conveniently ignoring the other because it shoots his whole argument in the foot. And even then scribes were making changes in the texts right through the 9th and 10th centuries and into the Middle Ages.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 11-06-2016 at 06:33 PM..
Wikipedia says:
Now Mike argues that its final form didn't come until the 4th century CE but he fails to acknowledge that the final form of the New Testament didn't come until the beginning of the Dark Ages. It's incredibly hypocritical and disingenuous of him to say one while conveniently ignoring the other because it shoots his whole argument in the foot. And even then scribes were making changes in the texts right through the 9th and 10th centuries and into the Middle Ages.
No, the claim that the final form of the New Testament did not come until the beginning of the dark ages is not true. Every book that is part of our present New Testament was written during the first century. That means that every book that is in our New Testament was written before the final form of the Bhagavadgita.
As shown in the Muratorian Canon which is dated to the second half of the second century, 21 of the 27 New Testament books were already a part of the canon. The other books were recognized later as authoritive and a part of the New Testament canon. But all of those books had been written during the first century A.D. Long before the final form of the Bhagavadgita.
The final form of the Bhagavadgita did not reach its final form until sometime between the fourth and seventh centuries A.D., which is after the time of Jesus. Furthermore, the earliest manuscript of the Bhagavad Gita is dated to the ninth century A.D.
This leaves plenty of time for the Bhagavadgita to have borrowed from the New Testament.
Read post #20, people.
Last edited by Michael Way; 11-06-2016 at 07:29 PM..
No, the claim that the final form of the New Testament did not come until the beginning of the dark ages is not true. Every book that is part of our present New Testament was written during the first century. That means that every book that is in our New Testament was written before the final form of the Bhagavadgita.
As shown in the Muratorian Canon which is dated to the second half of the second century, 21 of the 27 New Testament books were already a part of the canon. The other books were recognized later as authoritive and a part of the New Testament canon. But all of those books had been written during the first century A.D. Long before the final form of the Bhagavadgita.
The final form of the Bhagavadgita did not reach its final form until sometime between the fourth and seventh centuries A.D., which is after the time of Jesus. Furthermore, the earliest manuscript of the Bhagavad Gita is dated to the ninth century A.D.
This leaves plenty of time for the Bhagavadgita to have borrowed from the New Testament.
Read post #20, people.
What Mike is saying, folks, is completely misleading. The BG was in its final form NO LATER THAN 300CE
Quote:
It is estimated that the text probably reached something of a "final form" by the early Gupta period (about the 4th century CE). Wikipedia
This is why you cannot trust ANYTHING Mike writes---because he will not acknowledge the truth. He will write anything even if it's an outright lie to get you to believe his Bible is the original source of everything in the Gita when we know that certain stories such as the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-11 was being written and rewritten and rewritten again even as late as the 6th and 7the centuries until it finally took shape as what we have today:
Quote:
The pericope [of the woman taken in adultery]is not found in most of the early Greek Gospel manuscripts. It is not in P66, and it is not in P75, both of which have been assigned to the late 100s or early 200s. Nor is it in two important manuscripts produced in the early/mid 300s, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae, produced in the 400s or 500s (but displaying a form of text which has affinities with "Western" readings used in the 100s and 200s). Codex Bezae is also the earliest surviving Latin manuscript to contain it. Out of 23 Old Latin manuscripts of John 7-8, seventeen contain at least part of the pericope, and represent at least three transmission-streams in which it was included.
Proof beyond doubt that the story was be worked over and worked over and worked over some more over centuries until it reached the form we have today sometime in the latter part of the 1st millennium. James White, a noted fundamentalist apologist quotes Mike's hero, Dan Wallace as saying, "It's my favorite story that is NOT found in the Bible."
Now Mike is pulling a fast one in the very first paragraph he writes. He's cleverly saying that
Quote:
Every book that is part of our present New Testament was written during the first century.
Yes, he's most likely right. You can find every book there. What he doesn't tell you though is that every book was not in the form you read today--they were in very rough drafts bearing only a passing resemblance to what is found in today's translations and innumerable changes deleting and adding to the texts were being done to shape the books into their present form over a period centuries well into the late part of the millennium. Even the story of the woman taken in adultery was added much later, centuries later.
You see, folks, you can't trust a thing that Mike says.
Jump to 2:22 in the video below to hear James White quote Dan Wallace.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 11-06-2016 at 08:51 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
