Comments by "MU MU" (@mumu9690) on "The Times and The Sunday Times"
channel.
-
51
-
33
-
8
-
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.
8
-
8
-
7
-
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
6
-
6
-
5
-
You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephes 6:5 NLT) Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Tim 6:1-2 NLT) In the following parable,
Jesus clearly approves of bee. ting slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong. The servant will be sevrely punn. ished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12.
5
-
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.
5
-
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.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
cil Followers of Other Religions
“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kcil him. Your hand shall be the first raised to zlay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to dev, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slvry. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such 3vi7 as this in your midst.” (Deut13..
4
-
4
-
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.
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 who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was,
4
-
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.
in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya
Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.]
John 7:53-8:11, often described as “The Passage of the Woman Caught in Adultery” (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage?
The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to today’s reader that it is part of the Gospel of John
4
-
Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that
what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did?
Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But
with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural
movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins
of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus
and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written
by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John,
they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and
Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later
developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament
scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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.
3
-
3
-
You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephes 6:5 NLT) Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Tim 6:1-2 NLT) In the following parable,
Jesus clearly approves of bee. ting slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong. The servant will be sevrely punn. ished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12.
3
-
3
-
cil Followers of Other Religions
“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kcil him. Your hand shall be the first raised to zlay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to dev, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slvry. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such 3vi7 as this in your midst.” (Deut13..
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
cil Followers of Other Religions
“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kcil him. Your hand shall be the first raised to zlay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to dev, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slvry. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such 3vi7 as this in your midst.” (Deut13..
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Known as the “Great Commission,” Matthew 28:19 describes Jesus sending his disciples out to preach the Gospel, instructing them, “Teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” In other words, the three persons in one God. This formula is an important piece of scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity.However, the rest of the New Testament refers to baptism only in the name of Jesus. For example, in Acts 2:38, Peter preaches that believers should “repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” This has led some to suspect that the Triune baptismal formula was added later in order to shore up the doctrine of the Trinity, which was rejected by the Arians and other early Christian sects. The fourth-century Church historian Eusebius quotes the text thus: “Go ye into all the world and make disciples of all the Gentiles in My Name.”
Christian Eucharistic celebrations repeat Christ’s words over the cup of wine at the Last Supper: “This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” But did Jesus really say it? The passage where it appears, Luke 22:20, is not in the fifth- or sixth-century Codex Bezae. Since Bezae is notorious for adding text, rather than subtracting it, the omission has caused some scholars to speculate that the text was not originally part of Luke.The doctrine of atonement conveyed by these words is also alien to Luke. In his Gospel and Acts, Luke portrays Christ’s death as a horrendous miscarriage of justice and nothing more. Christ’s blood is significant only in the sense that his unjust death pricked the conscience of some who called for it, leading to their conversion. The rejection of a vicarious sacrifice was quite conscious on Luke’s part. As Bible scholar Bart Ehrman writes: “Luke eliminated or changed the Markan references to Jesus’ atoning sacrifice; he chose not to quote Isaiah 53 to depict Jesus’ death as an atonement for sins, even though he quoted the passage otherwise . . . it is not at all difficult to account for an interpolation of the disputed words.”Moreover, the wording of the disputed passages is rather non-Lukan. In fact, the passage looks closer to something Paul might have written. Thus, the longer reading may be a scribal attempt to inject I Corinthians 11:24 into Luke’s Gospel.Defenders of the passage maintain that it doesn’t contradict Luke’s theology. While the passage is understood to be about atonement, Luke did not see it that way. Rather, he was drawing a parallel with the Passover lamb whose blood sealed the Old Covenant. The lamb was not itself a sin-offering.
In the King James Bible, the Gospel of Mark ends with 16:20, “And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” Most translations of Mark follow the KJV, with varying verbiage for the verses of chapter 16, which closely follow the Gospel of Luke. They appear to have been added by an unknown author or authors other than the original author of Mark, based on the oldest known manuscripts of the work. The oldest extant copies of Mark end at 16:8, and there are numerous copies which indicate the work ended there. One is the Sinaitic copy, circa 370 CE, another is the Vatican copy, circa 325 CE.
There are many theories regarding the gospel stopping abruptly after 16:8, as well as when the additional verses were added. The additional verses describe the Ascension, and are included in the KJV without subsequent commentary, though many newer translations contain notes pointing out the unknown provenance of the subsequent verses after 16:8. Much of the later verses refer to the criteria for salvation (which differ from elsewhere in the Bible), proselytization, and the Great Commission, the command from Jesus to preach the word to all. The Great Commission is to many fundamentalists their Prime Directive, unaware that it was a later addition to the Gospel and of unknown origin.
The translators allowed several Hebrew words to be used interchangeably when their meanings in the original were very much different. One of these is the Hebrew word alma, which was translated into Greek as meaning virgin, when in fact it refers to a young woman, betulah being the Hebrew word to refer to a pure woman, that is, a virgin.
Isaiah 7:14 prophecies the birth of Emmanuel to a virgin, and is quoted in the first Chapter of Matthew, describing the virgin birth of Christ, one of the bases of Christianity. But Isaiah uses the Hebrew word amah, meaning a young woman, rather than betulah, meaning a pure woman. Matthew quotes the virgin birth as being the fulfillment of the prophet, the delivery of the Messiah. But the translation is wrong. The word amah appears only once in Isaiah (7:14) but the word betulah appears five times in the book, each time clearly in reference to a virgin (23:4, 23:12, 37:22, 47:1, and 62:5). The translation into Greek remains the source of the description of the prophecy of the virgin birth, it is not apparent in the original Hebrew.
One of the most frequently quoted verses cited as proof that the entire contents of the Bible is divinely inspired comes from 2 Timothy. Verse 3:16 reads, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” This is a mistranslation and likely a deliberate one in the King James Version, which was written in part to be the only bible available for use in the Church of England, rendering it, and by extension its leader, the King, infallible and incontrovertible.
The correct translation from the oldest extant copy of 2 Timothy renders the verse in this manner, “All God-breathed scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” By writing that God-breathed scripture – not all scripture – is profitable Paul implies that there is scripture that is not directly the word of God, while some parts of the scripture are. This mistranslation appears in the King James Version and has been altered in later revisions of the bible, which reject the theory that the entire work is the literal word of God, and thus infallible in its teaching, an outrage to some believers in the King James Version.
Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," represents a rare biblical reference to the Holy Trinity. However, the trinity did not become church doctrine until the 3rd century CE, and even 4th century citations of this verse by Eusebius of Caesarea mention only baptizing] in the name of Jesus, as do similar biblical passages (e.g. Acts 19:5).
The highly nuanced doctrine of the Trinity is a bit hazy in the Bible, so some scholars think scribes might have resorted to fabricating the scriptural proof themselves. Notably, they might have added the famous Johannine Comma to I John 5:7, which reads: “And there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.” This is one passage where the case for inauthenticity is virtually a slam dunk.Only eight extant Greek manuscripts from the 10th century onward contain the Comma. Four of these have the text only on the margin. All appear to be translations of the Latin Vulgate, itself a late text. No Church Father quotes it in debates with anti-Trinitarian heretics like the Arians. It is supposed that the Comma originated as a marginal note in certain Latin versions, eventually making its way into the Vulgate.The few proponents of the Comma accuse the Arians of suppressing the text. They argue that Bishop Cyprian appears to reference the Comma around AD 250. In the late fourth century, St. Jerome was aware of copies with the Comma and raged against scribes who were deleting it, calling them “unfaithful translators . . . who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition, omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit.”But is it really believable that the Arians could have expunged so many Greek manuscripts, even with their dominance of the Eastern Roman Empire for half a century? Textual critics think not. Modern critical versions of the Bible now usually omit the Comma. For example, the English Standard Version reads: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.”
1