Comments by "" (@fuuf102) on "Daily Express"
channel.
-
Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12
Jesus criticizes the Jews for not kilng their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10
Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15
John. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14
Acts
Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be kiled. 3:23
God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12 thessal,,,..,
1
-
wake up! they had to add the trinity later
Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version...,,..,.,
1
-
1
-
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”,..,.,
1
-
Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes:
“Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”.
He explains further, that:
“The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3]
Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus.
In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement.
Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83)
It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions.
It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version.
Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered,.,.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes:
“Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”.
He explains further, that:
“The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3]
Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus.
In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement.
Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83)
It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions.
It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version.
Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered.,.,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
in Islam, we r to love our neighbour as ourselves whatever relgion they were.
thats why when Islam expanded, they allowed everyone to practice their own religion, with their own courts etc.
the only conditon was that they paid income tax. this tax was only upon men, of those only who could afford it. no elderly, women, were reruired to pay, and they wer exempt from militry duties.
whilst upon the muslims, zakat which is higher than the tax the non muslims paid, was upon men and women, and they had to do milit duties.
they did not force their relig onto others, and therefore didnt impoze zakat on them.
this is why when ch3wz were bein purse. cute. ted around europe, by the paul followers, they ran to muslm lands for safety....
these r facts. any1 can luk it up.
whilst when paulanity x. p4nd3d, it literally unn. 47ibed everyone who dint blieve.
and thats why you see the huge diff in numbers above.
the oldest churches in the wrld are in muz lands.
there are 10ml christians in egypt.
1
-
And it's all in the scriptures.
They will cherry pick from the Qur'an and present verses that were revealed during w04h, against ppl who had broken treaties, and then even being given 4 months to leave, and if they didn't, then they were to be tacked. And during this, if any of them were to ask for mercy, they were Commandd to take those ppl to safety and protect them.
Meanwhile to this day, jelly. Slides are being kmitted and they r quiting the bible verbatim, to justify why they un. Alibe.
...👶...,,..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”,.
1
-
Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes:
“Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”.
He explains further, that:
“The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3]
Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus.
In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement.
Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83)
It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions.
It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version.
Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered,.,.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
in Islam, we r to love our neighbour as ourselves whatever relgion they were.
thats why when Islam expanded, they allowed everyone to practice their own religion, with their own courts etc.
the only conditon was that they paid income tax. this tax was only upon men, of those only who could afford it. no elderly, women, were reruired to pay, and they wer exempt from militry duties.
whilst upon the muslims, zakat which is higher than the tax the non muslims paid, was upon men and women, and they had to do milit duties.
they did not force their relig onto others, and therefore didnt impoze zakat on them.
this is why when ch3wz were bein purse. cute. ted around europe, by the paul followers, they ran to muslm lands for safety....
these r facts. any1 can luk it up.
whilst when paulanity x. p4nd3d, it literally unn. 47ibed everyone who dint blieve.
and thats why you see the huge diff in numbers above.
the oldest churches in the wrld are in muz lands.
there are 10ml christians in egypt.,.
1
-
And it's all in the scriptures.
They will cherry pick from the Qur'an and present verses that were revealed during w04h, against ppl who had broken treaties, and then even being given 4 months to leave, and if they didn't, then they were to be tacked. And during this, if any of them were to ask for mercy, they were Commandd to take those ppl to safety and protect them.
Meanwhile to this day, jelly. Slides are being kmitted and they r quiting the bible verbatim, to justify why they un. Alibe.
...👶...,,.,.,.
1
-
1
-
wake up! they had to add the trinity later
Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version...,,.,,
1
-
1
-
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”,.,.,.
1
-
Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes:
“Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”.
He explains further, that:
“The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3]
Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus.
In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement.
Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83)
It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions.
It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version.
Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered.,,.
1