Do you believe the BIBLE is the word of God m2c? That every word in it comes directly from Him? If so how do you explain that the Bible we use was written over many years by many different men with many different agendas and they decided what books to include and what books to exclude? Thank you for your reply.
Exactly it was written over many years and many authors yet it all comes together in harmony. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. Not sure how anyone could claim Christianity and not believe the Bible.
Just because a person believes in a god does not mean they believe in the true God, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
1- "believe in the true God" - According to Jesus speaking as recorded in John 17:3 the heavenly Father is "the ONLY true God"
2- I don't think "the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob." had Jesus as His only begotten son whom He sent to be sacrificed for the atonement of humanity.
Ok. but revised Bibles based on older manuscripts have thrown out the word begotten as a later fabricated addition. So Bibles now call Jesus the one and only son.
However, ALL Bibles show God had other sons. So Jesus CANNOT be the one and only son. Adam is also called son of God.
In any case the Bible itself explains very clearly in Romans 8:14 that "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"
If we go back to original Greek. The word being translated as either "begotten" or "one and only" is monogenes (mono....only, genes.... offspring) so to eliminate either the only or the offspring is ignoring the complete meaning.
3439monogenḗs (from 3411/misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085/génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).
The entrance of "only begotten" into the English Bible was not directly from mono-genes but from the Latin of the Vulgate, which had uni-genitus (one-begotten)
The meaning of monogenēs was part of early Christian christological controversy regarding the Trinity. It is claimed that Arian arguments that used texts that refer to Christ as God's "only begotten Son" are based on a misunderstanding of the Greek word monogenēs[33] and that the Greek word does not mean "begotten" in the sense we beget children but means "having no peer, unique".
The New Testament apparently contains 9 uses of the Greek monogenes [only]. Notice how the translator add to the meaning depending on the verse it occurs in:
Luke 7:12 "her only son (o monogenes uios)" Luke 9:38 "only son (o monogenes uios)" John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son (o monogenes uios)" John 3:18 "he has not believed in the name of God’s only son (o monogenes uios)" 1 John 4:9 "God sent his only Son (o monogenes uios) into the world" Luke 8:42 "only daughter (e monogenes thugater)"
John 1:14 "only begotten" (monogenes) John 1:18 textual variation in manuscripts: a. "only begotten" God (monogenes theos / b. "the only begotten Son" (o monogenes uios)
Heb.11:17 "only-legitimate son (o monogenes uios)" – since Abraham also fathered Ishmael, from the slave girl Hagar, and six other sons, from Keturah.
EDIT: Whats the difference between John 5:44 and John 1:18? If they are both just supposed to say "only God", why don't they both just say monos theos? What root word does genes come from and what does it mean? https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/jhn/5/44/t_conc_1002044
I'm pretty neutral. If you have an issue you need to pick that up with the Bibles that have dropped the word begotten from their versions.
You might also have an issue with "The meaning of monogenēs was part of early Christian christological controversy regarding the Trinity." which I also found in the fairly neutral source.
My personal belief, not that it matters, is God is above all needs, including the need for a son. I don't think a begotten son of God is consistent with monotheism. A begotten son, unlike an adopted son, must be of the same nature as the father. Thus by definition you have two Gods. I also accept the metaphorical use of the phrase son of God as explained by the Bible itself at Romans 8:14 that "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" That is consistent with God having many sons with Adam too according to the Bible being son of God, the first one, of course.
Being a footstep follow of Christ is what makes a person a Christian. Saying you believe in Jesus is not all that there is to do. Christianity has been grossly misunderstood because of the claim of many "so called Christians". When I look at the comments of atheist about why they don't believe in God, in most cases it has something to do with what apostate Christianity has said.
The bible says at John 17:3 "This means everlasting life their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ"
Yes, indeed it is from the lips of the Christ himself that the heavenly Father is "the ONLY true God" but "the comments of atheist about why they don't believe in God" also includes the Christian claim that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob had Jesus as His only begotten son whom He sent to be sacrificed for the atonement of humanity. There is no record that Abraham, Issac and Jacob had or taught any such belief.
No memorizing the bible and spouting scriptures does not make you a Christian. Being a Christian means to be Christ like and to follow his example. Since none of us are perfect, we all fall short of that, so we can only do the best that we can. It's a one on one relationship and only God can read our hearts. And no one can tell another person who is and who is not accepted. I know that there are many religions who think that they are the only true religion and unless you are a member of that religion you are doomed. Only God can make that judgement no matter how may scriptures they can spout.
If "Being a Christian means to be Christ like and to follow his example." then isn't it an irony that Christians don’t follow the example of the Christ, whereas Muslims who don’t name their religion either after the Christ or Mohammed, and who don’t claim to follow the Christ are actually the best follower of the Christ'a teachings. Quite ironical, that.
TY K. No it isn't and it isn't part of Islam either. It's an abomination and that's why it isn't included in the list of being Christlike that I have posted under my answer to the main question.
It is part of Islam. So is killing a female if she falls in love with someone other than the husband her parents pick out for her. It's not part of all Islam, but it is there.
"It is part of Islam" sounds like a papal decree. I'm intrigued by your authority to declare what is part of Islam and what isn't but in Islam no matter what authority a person claims to have they have to justify their assertions by reference to the HQ. So if you can back up your decrees about those beliefs being part of Islam by quoting from the HQ I will consider them. Otherwise, I'm afraid you'll have to try and persuade others.
have a nice day K
This post was edited by CLURT at January 18, 2017 2:02 PM MST
ok you've taken one step towards reason by moving from "It is part of Islam" to "Whether it's in the HQ or not, it's happening."
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Criminal Victimization Survey, in 2012, there were 346,830 reported rapes or sexual assaults of persons 12 years or older. That'x not all because approximately 30% of sexual assault cases are reported to authorities.
Now just because it IS happening can we rationally say that it is part of the American constitution or encouraged, approved or tolerated by it? I hope you can see the difference between what everyone is required to do and what a few end up doing.
"Does memorizing the Bible and spouting multiples passages from memory make you a GOOD CHRISTIAN?" I think many would say No.
"If not what does and why?" Many Christians, for obvious reasons, say that "Being a Christian means to be Christ like and to follow his example." So, Christians name their religion after the Christ Jesus whom they claim to follow but actually don’t follow Muslims, who don’t name their religion either after Christ or Mohammed and don’t claim to follow the Christ are actually the best follower of his teachings. Yet paradoxically you get Christians who regards Muslims as being anti Christ.
my2cents 