Comments by "MU MU" (@mumu9690) on "UNDISPUTED | Riyadh Season: Artur Beterbiev vs Dmitry Bivol Full Fight" video.
-
7
-
So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time?
EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor.
And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel.
And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being
So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God?
EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father.
These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make.
So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time?
EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel.
Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind.
And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king.....
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
Sadly only Muslims accept the teachings Jesus bought.
We will keep trying, to show them there was no mystery to Jesus, his teachings were clear cut and unambiguous.
The same message every prophet before and after Jesus bought.
They were the ONLY WAY to God, during their respective ministries. And by following their teachings, one could be saved.
Jesus, who insisted he was sent ONLY FOR THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL, when asked what was required for salvation, said to keep the commandments, most importantly that OUR lord God is ONE. When disciples wanted to go to the gentiles, he forbid them, and reminded them he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel.
This was always the way to God. God says in the o.t. that he hates original sin because its UNJUST, and says even the wickedest of the wicked can be saved by repentance and good works, exekiel 18.
20
This obviously completely contradicts paulanity, where Paul taught that the only way to be saved was from the death of Jesus. Something Jesus never ever said.
Many xtians don't know that Paul never met Jesus, and taught opposite what Jesus taught. Jesus said not one dot of the law shall be changed until heaven and earth pass away.
Paul came along after Jesus and said Jesus told him in a dream that we can do away with the law because Jesus died for our sins.
When he bought these teachings to the disciples they were irate, as they walked with Jesus and knew him better and Jesus kept the commandments with the disciples.
Unfortunately most xtians havent read the bible, let alone the history of the Gospels. They think the disciples wrote the Gospels 😅
Their own scholars say the authors are anonymous, and most definitely not the disciples, who were unlettered uneducated fisherman. They did not know how to write Greek.
The Qur'an says scripture was given to Moses and Jesus but man has written much and attributed to God, so we are to use the Qur’an to filter truth from falsehood in the previous scriptures and bring the people of the book back to their creator. So there are some parts of the bible we can accept, e.g. John 17.3, or where Jesus was asked what to do for salvation, and Jesus told him to keep the commandments, most importantly that OUR lord God is ONE. He didn't say that he would die for sins and believing that he died would save us!
It's no coincidence, when they try to prove they have the truth, they mostly point to the works of false prophet Paul, or the multi authored Gospel of John, written hundreds of miles away and after Jesus time. And this is the Gospel that turns Jesus to a God.
The real problem is the masses have been lied to and deceived about Islam for soo long. But now, in this technological era, its much harder for them to keep fooling the people.
And it's inevitable, when sincere people learn about Islam, they accept, as Allah said, truth is easily distinguished from falsehood.
Islam is nothing to be afraid of, its simply the submission of one's will to their creator. The religion of Adam, to Muhammad.
It's is pure monotheism, the way every prophet taught. There is only One God with no partners.
The desperate xtians and haters have painted Islam as a war mongering woman oppressing religion.
The biggest criticisms are the fact prophet Muhammad was polygamous. The Arabs at the time didn't not treat woman humanely, they were burying baby daughters at birth, had TENS of wives, and worshipped idols.
Muhammed through revelation, reduced the number of wives to max 4. These woman had better chance of being treated justly. So Islam reduced the number of wives, but if you listen to the haters,....Islam is bad because it let's you have 4 wives 🤦
All but one of his wives were divorced or widowed and such a state made it hard to get remarried. It was compassionate to marry such woman.
In the Bible, many prophets were polygamous, and there are instructions to be fair to your wives when you marry more than one. Deuteronomy 21.15
Then they say Muhammad was a pedo and he raped children. The girl in question, Aisha, was already engaged to someone else, but her father married her to Muhammad, who was his best friend, and he wanted for his daughter to marry the prophet, who wouldn't. Muhammad wasn't lusting after her, as liars say. This was an arranged marriage, and was only consumated 3 yrs later after she had entered puberty. Marriage at this age was the norm of the time, and this marr8age was never a criticism until last century. Only a few centuries ago, people were married even at 7 in the UK and USA. Bible historians put Mary as 12 and her husband as 90.
Xtians believe Jesus was always God, so authored the bible, where he commands kilin whole families including babies except the lil virgin girls, to be kept as sex slaves. So what's worse? Killing families and keeping only the virgin girls, or Muhammad arranged marriage chosen by God, and as we see, Aisha is the greatest scholar in Islam.
Then they see he was a war monger. More lies. His wars were in self defence versus the oppressors. And the rules of war were beautiful. No non combatants, woman, children, nor elderly or religious leaders, no building tress or animals. And if the oppressors surrendered, they were to be shown mercy.
When we contrast this with the teachings of Jesus in the bible, woman, babies even donkeys were to be destroyed in war.
When you look past all the lies and hate, what you see is the messenger sent for mankind, the final messenger, a mercy to mankind with the final revelation and our only WAY TO GOD NOW.
Unlike the other prophets, who were sent only to their people, Muhammad was sent for mankind. When you learn the truth about him, you will realise. Jesus also told you the spirit of truth, the comforter would lead us to all truth.
May peace be upon all the prophets of God
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
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.”,
2
-
tthew 21:11
And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.”
Luke 7:16
Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!”
John 4:19
The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
Matthew 21:46
When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
John 6:14
Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”
John 7:40
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.”
John 9:17
So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.”
Luke 24:19
And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,
Mark 6:15
But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.”
Mark 8:28
They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.”
Luke 9:8
and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again.
OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it
Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem.
Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family
2
-
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.
2
-
2
-
2
-
the commntry was diabolical, let alone the replays. i lost count how many times bivol missed with flashy combos and the cmntatrs said "absolutely amazing work by bivol" etc etc
its no surprise why so many ppl thought bv0l ejjed it. they wer misl3d by the presentation.
it was very close, but havin rewatched it, its clear why the better fighter got the decision.
and then compubox numbers confirmed it, as beterbiev landed more round for round, in 6 rounds to bv0ls 5, with one even.
bvol survived in the end, and would have been stopped if there wer more rounds,.,.,.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GMP007 now, the o.t and the n.t. are not the torah gievn to Moses, nor the Injeel given to Jesus.
According to christianity, Jesus never saw wrote or approved any of the n.t.
they were written after.
so injeel is not n.t as Qur'an confirms it was a book given to JEsus which he preached.
the torah, talks about Moses d3.ff, where he was 8urr.33d etc. so clearly not the books of Moses.
The Qur'an confirms the previous script was to be used at the time, but they have been changed, as God left it to the R.4bbies to protect, but they changed it up for a pretty penny.
and so God has sent the final revelation, which he promised HE would preserve, with the final propheet, who was sent for ALL mankind, unlik the previous, who wer sent to specific ppl.
1
-
1
-
@GMP007 What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”?
On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”?
On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
1
-
GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time?
EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor.
And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel.
And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being
So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God?
EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father.
These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make.
So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time?
EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel.
Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind.
And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king.
1
-
A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive.
If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him.
Matthew 21:11
And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.”
Luke 7:16
Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!”
John 4:19
The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
Matthew 21:46
When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
John 6:14
Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”
John 7:40
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.”
John 9:17
So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.”
Luke 24:19
And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,
Mark 6:15
But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.”
Mark 8:28
They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.”
Luke 9:8
and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again.
OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇
Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem.
Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”.
In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet.
Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
1
-
Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man.
John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent.
John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God.
Acts 2:22
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man…
Numbers 23:19 (NRSV)
God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal…
Hosea 11:9
For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..
1
-
1
-
GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time?
EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor.
And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel.
And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being
So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God?
EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father.
These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make.
So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time?
EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel.
Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind.
And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king.
1
-
A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive.
If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him.
Matthew 21:11
And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.”
Luke 7:16
Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!”
John 4:19
The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
Matthew 21:46
When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
John 6:14
Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”
John 7:40
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.”
John 9:17
So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.”
Luke 24:19
And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,
Mark 6:15
But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.”
Mark 8:28
They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.”
Luke 9:8
and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again.
OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇
Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem.
Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”.
In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet.
Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
1
-
Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man.
John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent.
John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God.
Acts 2:22
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man…
Numbers 23:19 (NRSV)
God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal…
Hosea 11:9
For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..
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
-
tthew 21:11
And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.”
Luke 7:16
Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!”
John 4:19
The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
Matthew 21:46
When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
John 6:14
Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”
John 7:40
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.”
John 9:17
So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.”
Luke 24:19
And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,
Mark 6:15
But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.”
Mark 8:28
They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.”
Luke 9:8
and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again.
OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it
Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem.
Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family
1
-
What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”?
On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
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
-
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
-
tthew 21:11
And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.”
Luke 7:16
Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!”
John 4:19
The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
Matthew 21:46
When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
John 6:14
Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”
John 7:40
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.”
John 9:17
So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.”
Luke 24:19
And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,
Mark 6:15
But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.”
Mark 8:28
They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.”
Luke 9:8
and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again.
OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it
Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem.
Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family
1
-
What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”?
On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
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
-
Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation.,
This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus.
This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025.
Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11.
1
-
1