His Grizzled, how are you this morning? I really don't see how you can claim this, or that there is considerable evidence to back it up (I have only seen conjecture). There are known copies that vary either significantly or just a little from each other and from earlier copies. Even various versions of the Bible today are not identical and can often lead to the subtle changing of the message (not intentionally, of course). Keep in mind that originality, interpretation, etc did not really exist in the late ancient/early Christian world. Most texts from that time have been altered just because they have had to go through the copying procedure and it is a known fact, through examples, that monks would often add their own notes which would later get added into the next copying (I am not speaking of the Bible specifically, but it is included). I don't think you should worry about defending this point because, as I said, everything has been altered to some degree, including the Koran. I think that the general meanings still come through, don't get me wrong, but nothing is exact. Additionally, your examples do nothing to answer Azadre's position, as they do not address and explain Jesus and his role. It can say "there is only one God" all it wants, but others will see Jesus, God's son, as being the same as a god. Azadre, What is the point in saying the Gospels (NT) are not part of the Bible? That does nothing. Obviously you believe that because you are a Muslim. Obviously, Grizzled, Max, etc. believe that it is because they are Christian. I always enjoy talking religion, but I don't see the point in statements like that. Also, there are many things in the NT that have conflict with the OT and Jewish practice. It means nothing - the world was changing and ideas were changing. Many old practices and line of thought were being severed. Jewish practice also would have never allowed for a savior to be earthly in any way (which is probably why early Christians were split among literalists and symbolists in regards to the existence of Jesus). Nevertheless, many rejected common practice and believed that there was a phsycial man that was the savior, son of God. Quick question (grizzled, max, etc) while I am here: To whom does THE immaculate conception relate?
Wasn't education or a test...just curious as to other's thoughts. I have heard multiple versions. I have known it as relating to Mary.
Well thanks, and you? Whew! I had visions of many lost hours spent on the net sorting through conflicting arguments. As I said, the opinions of experts, while not completely irrelevant, are not my major tool in discerning the truth of the Bible. For me the process would be more akin to the recognition of beauty or truth in a work of art, or in life in general. (I’m making this up as I go, but that seems to fit.) I would say that the fact the Bible states in many places that there is only one God is germane to this discussion. Certainly the overwhelming majority of Christians (as in, I don’t know if I’ve ever heard of one who didn’t) believe that there is only one God, and that this is a central element to their belief. While it does not directly address the question of who Jesus is, it does give us a starting point. Now lets look at what role Jesus plays. Jesus was in character essentially the same as God (yeah, we could probably debate this). Note that he called God “Father.” He was an example to us for how to live our lives, and his body died on the cross, as a sacrifice in the OT sense of sacrifices, as atonement for our sins. He rose three days later and appeared to a number of people (thus proving that he had risen from the dead), but since then seems to have existed only in spirit form. So is he another God? No. He is one with God, the Father. Jesus, the son, came to earth for a specific purpose. The Holy Spirit also is one with God and fulfils a certain role. I should add that this is an issue that I haven’t really thought about that much, so this is first understanding of the issue you could say. Other Christians are welcome to chime in. Here’s a point I’m fairly uncertain about. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to say that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are part of the same essence that is God, but I believe that this is not exactly how others see it. I would welcome other’s perspectives on this. Franco Harris, isn’t it? Wait, that’s not quite right, is it? The term “immaculate conception” is a Catholic term for the most part isn’t it? Not being catholic, it’s not one I’m very familiar with. This appears to be the Catholic definition though. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Not too bad, thanks for asking. 1. I wasn't speaking anything to "truth" on a spiritual level. I am not trying to say it makes any of it less valid. 2. I responded as such because you spoke of "considerable evidence" that could be found in the world, that is all. Besides, it was just a minor aside...I understand your position fully and do not intend to argue it (besides, it can be argued that even those who made minor changes were acting under the will of truth, can it not?). 3. There is no truth or beauty in art or anything...doesn't exist. As to your Jesus comments - thank you for that. I think that that would be more helpful for people such as Azadre who misunderstand common Christian thought/practice. That was better than the two snippets that could be seen as not pertinent - that was all my point was. Well, again, I was just curious. Recently I had heard some different non-Catholic interpretations, so I was wondering what you two's (or whoever else's) thoughts were. Thus, you are no help.
