Posts Tagged ‘new testament’

The text of Bible is not preserved in its original form

April 22, 2013

Hank Kimball Says vide his comments dated April 19, 2013:

“There is a warning to anyone messy with the bible from God; Revelation 22: 18-19“I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.”

Paarsurrey says:

I don’t think that one could generalize that which has been stated in the above passage in Revelation to the whole NT or to the whole Bible OT+NT.

Bible is not one book rather it is a collection of many books bound in one volume for convenience of the readers. The number of Books varies between the Jews, Catholics and Protestants.

It is therefore essential that for preservation of its contents every book must contains some warning or confirmation individually; then we could look into such claim on merit if it is correct or wrong.

I just quote three passages from Wikipedia:

1. Collections of related texts such as letters of the Apostle Paul (a major part of our society of which must have been made already by the early 2nd century)[2] and the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (asserted by Irenaeus of Lyon in the late-2nd century as the Four Gospels) gradually were joined to other collections and single works in different combinations to form various Christian canons of Scripture. Over time, some disputed books, such as the Book of Revelation and the Minor Catholic (General) Epistles were introduced into canons in which they were originally absent. Other works earlier held to be Scripture, such as 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Diatessaron, were excluded from the New Testament. The Old Testament canon is not completely uniform among all major Christian groups including Roman Catholics, Protestants, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Slavic Orthodox Churches, and the Armenian Orthodox Church. However, the twenty-seven-book canon of the New Testament, at least since Late Antiquity, has been almost universally recognized within Christianity(see Development of the New Testament canon).

2. The books that eventually found a permanent place in the New Testament were not the only works of Christian literature produced in the earliest Christian centuries. The long process of canonization began early, sometimes with tacit reception of traditional texts, sometimes with explicit selection or rejection of particular texts as either acceptable or unacceptable for use in a given context (e.g., not all texts that were acceptable for private use were considered appropriate for use in the liturgy).

3. Over the course of history, those works of early Christian literature that survived but that did not become part of the New Testament have been variously grouped by theologians and scholars. Drawing upon, though redefining, an older term used in early Christianity and among Protestants when referring to those books found in the Christian Old Testament although not in the Jewish Bible, modern scholars began to refer to these works of early Christian literature not included in the New Testament as “apocryphal”, by which was meant non-canonical. Collected editions of these works were then referred to as the “New Testament apocrypha”. Typically excluded from such published collections are the following groups of works: The Apostolic Fathers, the 2nd-century Christian apologists, the Alexandrians, Tertullian,Methodius of Olympus, Novatian, Cyprian, martyrdoms, and the Desert Fathers. Almost all other Christian literature from the period, and sometimes including works composed well into Late Antiquity, are relegated to the so-called New Testament apocrypha. These “apocryphal” works are nevertheless important for the study of the New Testament in that they were produced in the same ancient context and often using the same language as those books that would eventually form the New Testament. Some of these later works are dependent (either directly or indirectly) upon books that would later come to be in the New Testament or upon the ideas expressed in them. There is even an example of a pseudepigraphical letter composed under the guise of a presumably lost letter of the Apostle Paul, the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament

One could view Hank Kimball’s comments @:

https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/seeing-the-apparitions-of-mary-and-jesus/#comment-2484

“Shaming the Muslims Out of Islam (by Telling the Truth)”

July 24, 2009

http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/07/22/shaming-the-muslims-out-of-‎islam-by-telling-the-truth/#comment-17678‎

Hi everybody here (on the faithfreedom.org)

I agree with the following comments dated July 23, 2009 of brother jonc

PaarSurrey / IbnSahr:‎
The fact that the 9/11 terrorists were chanting” Allah-akbar!” and waiving Korans when ‎they committed mass murder should not be used per se to condemn Islam.

I remind people that Christian Crusaders cried “Deos Vult!” (=”God wills it”) when they ‎carried out their atrocities as well.

The real question is this:‎

Were the actions of any particular group in accordance with, or in opposition to, the ‎teachings of their religion?

Contrast this with the Crusaders: Had they read the New Testament, they would have ‎found no religious justification for atrocity or brutality and precious little for war itself.

Jonc got it alright; though to some extent.

Thanks jonc

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Deepak Chopra on Jesus – by David van Biema- at Time Magazine – Jesus in India

June 1, 2009

Paarsurrey says:

I don’t know as to how the wordpress manage top Clicks; I clicked the Top clicks on my blog today:

Top Clicks

time.com/time/arts/articl…

I found a very interesting article:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1858571,00.html

Those who had not previously read it may please read it; it would be a good read. For copyright reason I can’t give its contents here. One may or may not agree with the contents of the article; even then it is very informative.

At the bottom of the article there are other links about Deepak Chopra; also worth reading:

See TIME’s 10 Questions interview with Deepak Chopra

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1018104,00.html

See TIME’s 2002 profile of Chopra

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,402038,00.html

Paarsurrey is an interfaith religious discussion blog; we can discuss about these articles here if somebody likes it.
I love Jesus and Mary as described in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim.

Jesus always said “it is WRITTEN” to make authentic claims

February 7, 2009

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=4777922#post4777922

Hi

Jesus was a Jew and accepted OTBible as a source of religious Law. Torah book of Moses was his source of Law.

He himself never wrote a Book and never dictated anything in writing or he did not authorize anybody to write a book on his behalf and publish it.

This makes NTBible a book not at all required for religious following; may be a redundant book, in my opinion.

This is what I believe in sincerity; others could hold on to their own beliefs with sound reasons, no compulsion.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks
__________________
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Jesus is neither Son of God nor God in physical/literal sense but in metaphoric sense as per usage of Bible

November 15, 2008

Our learned friend R H Kelkar, who has translated New Testament into Marathi, a language in South India, has made following observations in his write-up titled “The Meaning of ‘Nava Karar “which could be viewed in entirety at :

http://marathibible.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/the-meaning-of-nava-karar/

We only give here only one point mentioned by him:

The New Testament or ‘Nava Karar’ portrays God as a loving and forgiving father, who sent His son Jesus Christ to this world in human form with an offer of salvation for all humanity.

Paarsurrey says:

The above point is not correctly derived by him from the OTBible; and hence it is not supported by Quran- the pristine and most secure Revealed Book among the Revealed Religions and hence incorrect. God is not a physical being; He has rather created the whole physical phenomenon as He willed. Nobody shares this or other of his attributes. Hence God is nobody’s physical or literal father.

God is father of the humans in a metaphoric sense, nothing could get created without his order/will; and this is the theme of the OTBible. God has no literal wife or He needs no sex that his off-shoots are called Sons of God. This is only in the metaphoric sense otherwise it does not carry any meaning literally and physically. GodAllahYHWH needs no wife or son; this is only a phenomenon of the mortal beings and a sort of extension of life given by the Creator to one’s species. GodAllahYHWH is immortal. Quran is very clear in this aspect:

[112:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2] Say ‘He is Allah, the One!
[112:3] Allah the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor, is He begotten,
[112:5] And there is none like unto Him.
http://www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=112

We can agree with R H Kelkar if he reconciles to the above explanation.

Jesus did not pay any debt of any human beings as maintained by R H Kelkar. Jesus never died a cursed death on Cross as incorrectly invented by Paul at Rome to misguide the Christian sheep. Jesus was not a scapegoat of Paul and his associated i.e., the Catholic Church.

If anybody has any debt, he shall have to pay it himself. When Paul propounded this philosophy, Jesus was at that time traveling in India, happily among his Jewish lost sheep of which he was also a shepherd. He was never a shepherd of the Gentiles; this is a concept wrongly ascribed to Jesus; this debt Paul shall have to pay for.

OTBible Says:

Son of God

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. JOHN 3.16

A DESCRIPTIVE TERM:
And they made a proclamation in Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of captivity. EZRA 10.7

Then said he, These are the two sons of oil, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. ZECHARIA 4.14

Behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial [satin], beset the house round about. JUDGES 19.22

The good seed are the children of the kingdom. MATTHEW 13.38

JESUS NOT THE FIRST BORN SON:

ANGELS
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan was among them. JOB 1.6 & 2:1

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. JOB 38.7

CHILDREN OF RIGHTEOUS:
That the sons of god saw the daughters of men that they were fair. GENESIS 6.2

THE ISRAELITES:

And thou shalt say to Pharaoh. Thus said the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born. EXODUS 4.22

And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. EXODUS 4.23

You are the children of the Lord, your God. DEUTERONOMY 14.1

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea. Ye are the sons of the living God. HOSEA 1.10

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/biblical/chapter_4.html

Ahmadiyya under guidance of the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 Says:

• The Term “Son of God”

While the term “Son of God” has been used in reference to Jesus, it should be noted that God has used this title for many of His chosen ones.

For example, God, in the Old Testament refers to David: “I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’” * (Psalm 2:7)

Furthermore, in a New Testament genealogy, Adam is listed as the “Son of God” (Luke 3.38).

In fact, some may argue that Adam could have a greater claim over the “Sonship of God” because, unlike Jesus, he had neither an earthly father nor mother.

In order to reconcile these references and many others, it is not unreasonable to conclude, that the Biblical usage of the term “Son of God” does not necessarily connote a literal “sonship to God” but a metaphorical one instead.

The Nature of Jesus

This metaphorical understanding is furthered by Jesus’ own words and actions. Jesus is known to have engaged in many human devotional activities such as fasting and praying. But perhaps the most significant evidence is that Jesus claimed to lack knowledge of the future because, as he claimed, only the Father possessed perfect knowledge. (Mark 13:32).

This is especially notable since Christian doctrine holds the view that Jesus’ nature is a “hypostatic union”. That is, he was “fully divine” and “fully man” at the same time. If this were true, then he should have at no point denied his own omniscience.

These, in addition to other philosophical considerations, lead one to question the biblical term “Son of God” and its literal application to Jesus.

http://www.alislam.org/topics/jesus/

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

The truth about Jesus’ resurrection from the dead

July 27, 2008

gavmbree Says:
July 24, 2008 at 9:14 pm

“4. If he didn’t really die and only passed out, then what happened years later if he eventually died? Why would Christianity have spread, if those that started it knew that it was a lie?
Also, the NT text clearly indicates throughout that Jesus really died and was really resurrected. My authority is the Old and New Testaments of The Holy Bible which is the Word of God.”

Paarsurrey Says:

Hi

Jesus got a new life after the tribulations faced by him on the Cross. By the grace of GodAllahYHWH he survived a cursed death on Cross. Without dying Jesus got a new life; this is a metaphoric usage, in my opinion, in all the language of the world. If one is sick with a deadly disease or faces a trauma in real life, when there is no hope for survival, it is commonly said that that person has got a new life. It is never taken as literal or physical life from the actually dead.

It is only a smartness of Paul or his cleverness that he made the humble Christians, simple minded sheep for centuries, to believe that Jesus had resurrected from the dead. He tried to make a mythical hero from the real Jesus. It was his attempt to win over the Christians by adding another feather to the hat of Jesus – whereas Jesus charisma needs nothing of the sort.

Even though I know that Jesus did not die a cursed death on Cross or he was not never resurrected from the dead; my love of Jesus and Mary is not lessened, since reality is always greater than the myth. Myth is only a fiction; isn’t it a reality?

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Promised Messiah 1835-1908 Says:

From the mere fact of Jesus not being in the tomb, can anybody in reason believe that he had gone up to heaven? May there not be other causes as a result of which tombs might remain empty. At the time of going up to heaven, it was up to Jesus to meet a few hundred Jews, and also Pilate. Whom was he afraid of in his glorious body. He did not care to furnish his opponents with the slightest proof. On the contrary, he took fright and fled to Galilee.

That is why we positively believe that though it is true that he left the tomb, a chamber with an opening, and though it is true that he secretly met the disciples, yet it is not true that he was given any new and glorious body; it was the same body, and the same wounds, and there was the same fear in his heart lest the accursed Jews arrest him again.

Just read attentively Matthew, chapter 28, verses 7 to 10. These verses clearly say that the women who were told by someone that Jesus was alive and was going to Galilee, and who were also told quietly that they should inform the disciples, were no doubt pleased to hear this, but they went with a terrified heart, — they were still afraid lest Jesus might still be caught by some wicked Jew.

The ninth verse says, that while these women were on their way to inform the disciples, Jesus met and saluted them. The tenth verse says that Jesus asked them not to be afraid, i.e. of his being caught; he asked them to inform his brethren that they should all go to Galilee; that they would see him there, i.e., he could not stay there for fear of the enemy.

In short, if Jesus had really come to life after his death and had assumed a glorious body, it was up to him to furnish proof of such life to the Jews. But we know that he did not do this. It is absurd, therefore, to accuse the Jews of trying to render negatory the proof of Jesus’ coming to life again. No, Jesus himself has not given the slightest proof of his restoration to life; rather, by his secret flight, by the fact of his taking food, and sleep, and exhibiting his wounds, he himself proved that he did not die on the Cross.
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/ch1.html

I would humbly request all the searching souls to form their own truthful opinion and when fully satisfied they should accept the truth and support it.

Jesus’ guards were bribed it is very much in the NTBible

July 25, 2008

prometheus7 Says:
July 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Your opinions take in a lot “secret” things that would have had to happen. Don’t forget that to bribe a roman guard, it would have taken a lot. Rome did not look litely on those kinds of things. Remember the story of when the stone was rolled away? It was a serious offense if those guards were sleeping.

What facts are there to support the India theory?

Also remember that all these “witnesses” paid with their lives. If it was a bunch of lies, I wouldn’t go to the death for that.

paarsurrey Says:
July 25, 2008 at 9:54 am

It is easy to understand from the NTBible that Jesus followers knew that the guards could be bribed. If the Jews could do it; why not Jesus’ friends? Everrything was possible to do secretly.

Please read carefully the following write-up.

Promised Messiah 1835-1908 Says:

In short, these gospels contain many things which show that they have not preserved their original form, or that their writers were some other persons — not the disciples. For example, can the statement of the gospel according to Matthew: ‘And this is well known among the Jews till to-day’, be properly ascribed to Matthew? Does it not show that the writer of the gospel of Matthew was some other person who lived at a time when Matthew had already died? Then, the same gospel of Matthew 28:12,13 says: And they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, his disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept’.

It would be noticed how unconvincing and irrational such statements are. If the meaning of this statement is that the Jews wanted to conceal the rising of Jesus from the dead, and that they had bribed the soldiers in order that this great miracle should not become generally known, why was it that Jesus, whose duty it was to proclaim this miracle among the Jews, kept it a secret; nay, he forbade even others to disclose it? If it is urged that he was afraid of being caught, I would say, that when the decree of God had descended upon him, and he had, after suffering death, come to life again, assuming a spiritual and a glorious body, what fear did he now have of the Jews — surely the Jews now had no power over him; he was now beyond and above mortal existence?

One observes with regret that while, on the one hand, it is said that he was made to live again and assume a spiritual body, that he met the disciples and went to Galilee and thence went to heaven, he is nevertheless afraid of the Jews for quite trivial things and, in spite of his glorious body, he fled secretly from the country, lest the Jews discover him; he made a journey of seventy miles to Galilee in order to save his life and time and again asked the people not to mention this to others.

Are these the signs and ways of a glorious body? No, the truth is that it was not a new and a glorious body — it was the same body, with wounds on it, which had been saved from death; and, as there was still the fear of the Jews, Jesus, making use of all precautions, left the land. All talk of anything contrary to this is absurd — as the one about the Jews having bribed the soldiers in order to make them say that the disciples had stolen the corpse while they (the soldiers) were asleep. If the soldiers were asleep they could be very well asked how they came to know in their sleep that the corpse of Jesus had been stolen away. From the mere fact of Jesus not being in the tomb, can anybody in reason believe that he had gone up to heaven?

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/ch1.html

I think it is very easy to understand and you would agree.

I respect your faith and I love Jesus and Muhammad.

Kindly form your own unbiased opinion; the account of the scribes of the NTBible is not much to be trusted.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Jesus is not a scapegoat of Paul’s sins

July 17, 2008

R H Kelkar Says:

Our learned friend R H Kelkar, who has translated New Testament into Marathi, a language in South India, has made following observations in his write-up titled “The Meaning of ‘Nava Karar “which could be viewed in entirety at : http://marathibible.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/the-meaning-of-nava-karar/

We only give salient points from his observations:

1. God had prescribed laws for His people. Those who followed them enjoyed privileges and God’s protection, and those who disobeyed the laws incurred punishment and God’s wrath.

2. The New Testament or ‘Nava Karar’ portrays God as a loving and forgiving father, who sent His son Jesus Christ to this world in human form with an offer of salvation for all humanity.

3. The price of our salvation has been paid on our behalf by Jesus Christ.

Paarsurrey comments:

We agree with his first point which is, in my opinion, the theme of OTBible and is correct as it agrees with Quran the Holy and the most secure Word of GodAllahYHWH.

The second point is not correctly derived by him from the OTBible or fom his first observation; hence it is not supported by Quran and hence incorrect. God is not a physical being, He has rather created the whole physical phenomenon as He willed. Nobody shares this or other of his attributes. Hence God is nobody’s physical or literal father. God is father of the humans in a metaphorics sense, nothing could get created without his order/will, this is the theme of the OTBible. God has no literal wife or He needs no sex that his off-shoots are called Sons of God. This is only in the metaphoric sense otherwise it carries not meaning literally and physically. GodAllahYHWH needs no wife or son; this is only a phenomenon of the mortal being and a sort of extension of life given by the Creator to one’s species. GodAllahYHWH is immortal. Quran is very clear in this aspect:
[112:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2] Say ‘He is Allah, the One!
[112:3] Allah the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor, is He begotten,
[112:5] And there is none like unto Him.
http://www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=112

We can agree with him if he reconciles to the above explanation.
Since the second point is not derived by him, the third one is most faulty, in my opinion.

Jesus did not pay any debt of any human beings; he never died a cursed death on Cross as incorrectly invented by Paul at Rome to misguide the Christian sheep. Jesus was not scapegoat. If anybody has any debt, he shall have to pay it himself. When Paul propounded this philosophy, Jesus was travelling in India, happily among his Jewish lost sheep of whom he was also a shepherd. He was never a shephered of the Gentiles, this is a concept wrongly ascribed to Jesus; this debt Paul shall have to pay for.

OTBible Says:

Son of God
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. JOHN 3.16
A DESCRIPTIVE TERM:
And they made a proclamation in Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of captivity. EZRA 10.7
Then said he, These are the two sons of oil, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. ZECHARIA 4.14
Behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial [satin], beset the house round about. JUDGES 19.22
The good seed are the children of the kingdom. MATTHEW 13.38
JESUS NOT THE FIRST BORN SON:
ANGELS
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and satan was among them. JOB 1.6 & 2:1
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. JOB 38.7
CHILDREN OF RIGHTEOUS:
That the sons of god saw the daughters of men that they were fair. GENESIS 6.2
THE ISRAELITES:
And thou shalt say to Pharaoh. Thus said the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born. EXODUS 4.22
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. EXODUS 4.23
You are the children of the Lord, your God. DEUTERONOMY 14.1
Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea. Ye are the sons of the living God. HOSEA 1.10
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/biblical/chapter_4.html

Ahmadiyya under guidance of the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 Says:

• The Term “Son of God”
While the term “Son of God” has been used in reference to Jesus, it should be noted that God has used this title for many of His chosen ones.

For example, God, in the Old Testament refers to David: “I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you'” * (Psalm 2:7)

Furthermore, in a New Testament genealogy, Adam is listed as the “Son of God” (Luke 3.38). In fact, some may argue that Adam could have a greater claim over the “Sonship of God” because, unlike Jesus, he had neither an earthly father nor mother.

In order to reconcile these references and many others, it is not unreasonable to conclude, that the Biblical usage of the term “Son of God” does not necessarily connote a literal “sonship to God” but a metaphorical one instead.

The Nature of Jesus

This metaphorical understanding is furthered by Jesus’ own words and actions. Jesus is known to have engaged in many human devotional activities such as fasting and praying. But perhaps the most significant evidence is that Jesus claimed to lack knowledge of the future because, as he claimed, only the Father possessed perfect knowledge. (Mark 13:32).

This is especially notable since Christian doctrine holds the view that Jesus’ nature is a “hypostatic union”. That is, he was “fully divine” and “fully man” at the same time. If this were true, then he should have at no point denied his own omniscience.

These, in addition to other philosophical considerations, lead one to question the biblical term “Son of God” and its literal application to Jesus.
http://www.alislam.org/topics/jesus/

What language did Jesus speek?

July 17, 2008

Question at “Yahoo Answers”: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080717055713AAOjTEC&r=w#EKxwUzK1AFc__h67F.av

What language did Jesus speek?

Paarsurrey answers:

Hi

Jesus and his mother Mary were Jewish religious people; they spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. The languages of the common inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus were Hebrew or Aramaic; and they were addressees of Jesus. So Jesus spoke one of these languages only then his message could reach the masses that Jesus was set to purify.

In no case Jesus’ language was Latin or Greek; while we find the scriptures or NTBible in Latin or Greek languages which means the originals if any were lost or were non-existent and what we have now is translations only or that these have been written much afterward and most probably were not an account of the eyewitnesses of the account of Jesus’ life or Mary’s life. The disciples of Jesus were also Jews and hence they spoke Hebrew or Aramaic.

Paul was not a disciple of Jesus; he was not trained or educated by Jesus; he was an enemy of Jesus and his disciples and his own testimony is on record.

“Eli, Eli Lima sabaqtani” the only surviving words from Jesus mouth on Cross are of Hebrew; that proves undoubtedly that Jesus spoke Hebrew.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Source(s):
“Jesus in India” by the Promised Messiah 1835-1908
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jes…