Extremely good debate. Two smart people, a balanced interviewer, and an interesting topic. Congratulations!

What does God say about his word? Does God say he will preserve his word? Will God judge all by his word? What does the word of God say about how his word was given to us and who was the author? What I'm hearing is doubt....what fruit will that produce? Have faith in God and seek him. He will direct your path in this matter. Have faith that he has given us his word.

This is what happens when schollars can't see straight. Bart mentions Mark1:41 and states that he believes the correct word was "angry". So, what he wants us to do is to discard the fact that: a) Mark introduces to us the "angry verse" by putting good light on the lepper by saying: And there came a lepper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling, down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. (In Greek it sounds way nicer/I'm Greek.) Would you do that when you know you are about to write that Jesus became angry at him? I wouldn't. b) Wouldn't the normal thing be that if Jesus was angry at him, when he healed him, that He would have left out the words "I will" (In Greek it's: I want)???? Why not just say "be thou clean"????? The fact though that He firstly says: "I want." points to compassion not anger, something that disqualifies the few "anger manuscripts". c) Later on we Jesus rushing him off to go tell the piriests what happened to him. So Jesus seems to want to use this miracle for His causes. So why would He then be angry at the man? If He was angry with the lepper for some reason b) would not take place, but he would have just healed him and just left him there with no further instructions. Having said that. Anyone who knows the Jesus of the Gospels knows that Jesus would not express anger at such a suffering man, but if that doesn't convince you, stick to a) b) and c). Read Scripture in context, basic rule that both schollars did not apply. Williams may have been caught of guard, but -I mean- Ehrman even commented on it in his book; what a frivolous write... PS.Keep in mind that we find other healing or genelar instances where we are told again and again that Jesus had compassion for people's situation, but NEVER anger.

@rodthesaj1778

7 жыл бұрын

outofthebox7 My dear outofthe

@jonfromtheuk467

3 жыл бұрын

right, so a highly regarded academic scholar with 20+ books on the subject "cant see straight" - Yep, that seems legit. This was the word used in the earliest versions - if you were correct why the hell would the modern day versions find the need to explain its not what it originally said ? So you are correct and everyone else is wrong? Got it.Its not the only place in the Bible where Jesus uses such language so your "Anyone who knows the Jesus of the Gospels knows that Jesus would not express anger" goes out the window as has been pointed out he does express anger at times. He calls people sons of vipers, a brood of snakes, compares the Canaanite women and her daughter as dogs and lets not forget this classic. Luke 14:26 If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters-yes, even their own life-such a person cannot be my disciple" Lets also not forget that the whole last 12 chapters of Mark are forgeries and are not found in the early copies so Barts contention that things were changed, stands

A very educated debate. Both scholars agree that the bible has been changed by the scribers. one insists that it was deliberate the other says no it was accidental. To me wether it was delibarate or accidental theses changes matter a lot to the christian dogma and theology. Take the example of Trinity essence, which is mentioned only by John and know we come to know that these were added by the scribers,obviously to make us beleive in trinity, which as matter of fact is a fabrication.

@rob5462

5 жыл бұрын

The doctrine of the Trinity is certainly not derived from a few added verses. The contention of Bart would be that those verses were added when a dispute over the Trinity was already ongoing. So the church would necessarily have to have had a trinity doctrine derived from other sources prior to the addition of the couple of verses (In one place only) which were added to support the doctrine the church already held. The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from the whole Bible, not just the New Testament. It would be true to say the primary text for doing so is the NT but much is determined by analysing how the NT refers to the OT.

The anger term subject is interesting.. With Mark 1:41. To me, I think the whole subject of the relevance of there being such a variant is a bit ironic. Seeing we know the variant (which would indicate that it was preserved or we would not know the error and its potential correction). Also, to me, it is not exactly relevant whether he was angry or not.. Obviously, he was not angry at the leper, or he would not have healed him (unless it was some sort of mild anger over maybe him begging).. However, I think it is more likely he was angry maybe over the man having leprosy.. Perhaps, Jesus could see all this man went through and felt angry maybe how others had treated him.. Or maybe just his anger was the culmination of all of the injustice he had seen. Of course, people love to blame God for pain, illness and such. However, such a blame can be seen to be very ill founded if one researches the ancient history of the world, reading such books as the "Book of Giants", which indicates fallen angels genetically messed with humans and animals.. Doing such genetic experimentation could have easily caused all the viruses, and illnesses we see today..

The debate was good, the moderator was pleasant but he took up way too much time summarizing each speakers point, then using them to form a following question. Would have been better just to have them make points back to back

Completely agree with Williams. Ehrman seems to be making much ado about very little, and the relatively inconsequential examples that he uses as his "smoking guns" only go to reinforce that is very little to be concerned about in regards to the transmission of the Bible. My questions is this though: Bart, if we one day find the original texts and discovered they have been transmitted in a highly accurate manner, would you become a Christian once again? What if we found the original texts, and they were not only highly accurate, but also cleared up any of the little contradictions you seem worried about . . . would you become a Christian again? My guess is "no", and there are actually much deeper personal issues at play.

Bart Ehrman 's problem is that his faith was based on "sola scriptura." It is a fact that most early Christians only had the old testament books for up to a few hundred years. They knew the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles through the prophecies of Tanakh lived through the sacred tradition. Now Bart has studied a lot of texts and seen errors and probably gnostic tampering but most is spelling. What I would like to ask this scholar is what did the Ante-Nicene fathers say and what texts did they qoute? It was not the 3 Alexandrian texts it was the Byzantine text which is conistant with the tradition of the ancient faith. For 300 years all the church fathers taught one lord, one faith and one baptism. Now for a Protestant who believes that the OT and NT are incompatible you have no option. However with the tradition of Jesus teaching you how to follow God it all works. Did you worship the word in the bible or the word that was God?

@DApostate

9 жыл бұрын

Trusting anything that is matched with the Latin's in a text is silly to base your faith on because Christianity is an eastern faith not a western one.

@Godrules

9 жыл бұрын

Avi Wangler Indeed.. And the problem of evil is solved with the understanding of books which have been removed from the Old Testament (and those also surrounding the biblical text), such as: Book of Enoch, Noah, Giants, Jubilees, Jasher and Genesis Apocryphon.. All of which, give very good argumentation as to why we have the problem of evil, suffering and sickness and also apologetically explain why God appears to be "genocidal" with certain nations (seeing they were not actually human beings, but half fallen angel offspring, which were initially trying to kill off humans before the flood). Also, some of the ancient understanding of Hell from other schools of theology, such as the School of Alexandria solve the dilemma of "eternal torment", showing the Bible does not actually teach this and that the terms have been skewed (when comparing the terms Jesus used in verses like Matthew 25:46 versus how the Historian Josephus wrote his theology on "eternal torment" using completely different working "timorian aidios" rather than "kolassis aionios"). Also Jonah 2:8 with Jonah in the belly of the fish/whale for "eternity".

Ehrman is a very competent speaker, so why is the interviewer compelled to interrupt and interpret his every sentence?!

Oh my goodness! Then Bart mentions the Hebrew verse. Both truths are supported by Scripture. He did die by God's grace for us, and was "without" God at the final moments on the cross; this makes sense in context, that is, He has to feel everything we might feel or would have felt when we die. So He had to feel abandonment for the sake of mankind and this seems to be elluded to in Matt.27:46-47. Jesus DID die, death is being cut off from life; this alone gives a sense of him as a human being cut off from the Father. It is a mystery after a point so it cannot be used. Point is, they key here is, that even if something was copied wrong, the rest of Scripture sheds clarity on it, so no real problem. God has provided and allowedthe mistake because THERE IS NO PROBLEM. .

From Moody Bible Institute to half a clue, keep going Bart!

@greglogan7706

3 жыл бұрын

👍😃😇

If Jesus was angry at the consequences of sin in the leper, that builds a believer's faith.

@TheAmmoniacal

8 жыл бұрын

+Kevin Wadey Why would a leper be sinner?

We could have more from the guest if Justin Brierley didn't talk so much, and ask so many leading questions. Let Peter and Bart, so we can get as much information from the as possible.

So silly. What about the inner witness of the Holy Spirit? Even if the Text has errors and it has) still by large the loving character of God is still coming through. Taking Scripture literally is already a big mistake and leads to division as we know we have thousands of denominations all arguing and all claiming they are "standing on the Word". Yes the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. How come the early christians had no bible, it did not exist at that time, yet they were ready to give their lives for the faith? The Spirit of God don't need and He is not dependant of a physical object like a Book that can be taken from you, burned, banned, misprinted or what ever. He is in us so how can you lose your faith the Book? The Word became flesh, Jesus is the Word of God and not any book not the Bible.

@rocio8851

5 жыл бұрын

Oh, dear, I wish you will see my comment. I totally agree with you! I have a personal relationship with God, the Holy Spirit. I've listened to Bart Ehrman many many times. The only one thing he can do is to cast doubts but he doesn't reject the idea that the Scriptures could have been inspired by the Holy Spirit and that he can carry the message through ages to me, personally. I meditated a lot and I came to the conclusion that even if we have 100% the original text, it's still insufficient without the Holy Spirit. You need to know how to apply the word right now to your life. Furthermore, the original text was without punctuation, but this is very important. Again, you need the Holy Spirit to purify the heart of every wrong presupposition, to help you see the whole context, to point you to a good commentary or other instruments for the biblical interpretation. What a blessing to have the Holy Spirit in you!

@GodlessGubment

5 жыл бұрын

The Mormons say the same thing - and the Muslims.

@rocio8851

5 жыл бұрын

@@GodlessGubment Wrong. Muslims do not have the idea of a personal relationship with God. Allah "revealed" the Quran to Muhammad through an angel, Gabriel. Allah didi not even talk personally to Muhammad, not to mention a personal relationship with him. On the other hand, if Mormons say the same thing they have at least a common ground with us: the Bible. This is not a defeater for my belief. But, Holly Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. How can the book of Mormon be true if contradicts the previous revelation of the Holly Spirit, the Bible? They are wrong too.

@rocio8851

5 жыл бұрын

@Donald Nadeau 1) The Holy Spirit is a person alongside with God the Father and God the Son, Jesus Christ. He is not transferable but since He is omnipresent he can come in a personal relationship with everybody. 2) Holy Spirit created the whole universe together with God the Father and God the Son, Jesus Christ. Of course He can go through time. Have atheists ruled that out and I did not know? As far as I know no Atheist has proven that the belief "God exists in three persons and that He created the whole universe" is false. 3) How do you know what is in my mind? By which means can you study my personal relationship with God? The only thing you can attack is my objective ground, not my subjective experience with God. You can help me see that there is a better explanation than God for the origin of the universe, origin of life, the laws of truth, the fine tuning of the universe, the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, the resurrection of Christ and many other facts. As far as I know there is no better explanation for all of these facts. God, who has come into a personal relationship with me, is the Creator of the universe, is the Author of the Bible, the God who incarnated in Jesus Christ and lived among us.

I also agree with those that say Justin talks too much on his show, let the guests lead the topic and be there to keep it on course.

We don't have to rely on Julius Caesar's biography to know he existed though. For example, there is official Roman currency with his portrait on them and various works of art and inscriptions of him from the time he lived. It's clear that at least the Romans thought he lived in a much more direct way than Jesus. There are vastly more high quality textual sources(As in, sources that aren't members of a personality cult around him), including contemporary ones, and less supernatural material.

I think that ,originally,it said ''Jesus got angry'',but some dishonest scribe changed the word deliberatly afterward.

@joelrodriguez1232

7 жыл бұрын

juan c. rios evidence?

@Resenbrink

3 жыл бұрын

@@joelrodriguez1232 no evidence - just wish’s it was so.

Bart's testimony is a great example of why "sola scriptura" is a wrong approach to faith.

I wonder if you still believe that the Bible is the word of God so far.

@joelrodriguez1232

7 жыл бұрын

juan c. rios absolutely. Peter demonstrated that the Bible is the inerrant word of God

very interesting

Jesus Christ I know well, but who is Julius Ceasar?? Bruno

Excellent debate. Thanks for uploading. Bart Ehrman does really important work. That someone can argue that it doesn't make a difference if such an important passage as that about the adulterous woman was, or not, in the original text is, to say the least, astonishing. If it has long been known that that passage was not originally there, then it should have been removed long ago, independently of tradition. Ditto for the ending of Mark's Gospel, the Prologue and Epilogue of John Chapters 1 and 2 of Luke, etc. Shame on Christians that it is an Agnostic that is making this known.

@brianorf461

5 жыл бұрын

many modern translations either leave those passages out or have footnotes that say those passages aren't in the earliest manuscripts. This is not something new that Bart is doing. Biblical scholars have been aware of this and have made that information available in the translations that are used every day.

I am pretty sure about the existance of Julius Caesar.Iam not not sure about Jesus.

@rodthesaj1778

7 жыл бұрын

juan c. rios existance? Can't even spell properly. Please go back to grammar school.

@brenosantana1458

3 жыл бұрын

There is a lot of information about him.

Yeah you can argue any old crap from the Bible and you don't actually need any particular verse.

In other words, BS

The host completely takes over, controls, directs, and interjects far too much. Could otherwise have been more valuable discussion ... but Christians accept the Word on the central core teaching of the Word: That Christ died on the cross, and provided the means for our salvation (sparing us from condemnation before the Law) by His Grace. If you believe this in your heart and mind it is because this truth has been placed in you by the Father, just as Christ stated. No one can rob you of that Truth. Ehrman is tossing up a meaningless smokescreen to direct one away from that central Truth. He has other reasons for rejecting the Bible, having read stories in the Old Testament that he objects to on moral grounds, the same objections having brought up by atheists, and agnostics everywhere. Those stories also do not impinge on the central core teaching of the Word.

@forthetruth101 "I have never heard Bart made Te (sic) same argument against other historical data. If I were to believe Bart I would be compel to believe that Julius Ceasar never existed" Bart Ehrman never makes the argument that Jesus never existed, he's certain Jesus did exist. His argument is that IF the bible is the "word of God" God didn't preserve his words for us. The bible is the work of men, not God. Ehrman does not believe in the deity of Jesus and does not believe in the miracles of the virgin birth or his resurrection.

So why is the Bible not perfect? Well for some reason God put people here. And , of course, these stories are transmitted by people who error. Who are not perfect and over the centuries misspell, make mistakes and add things that they shouldn’t . I don’t think we can blame God for mans errors or weaknesses. These arguments can be extended to many things. For example car repair manuals. Just because we can’t find the original manual does mean we can’t use a newer repair manual or word of mouth . Is Bart throwing the baby out with the bath water? Maybe.

Sura Maryam 19:1 - 33: The 4th Gift of the Magi As I say, I first encountered the mind of Islam in 1995 at the Million Man March by Minister Louis Farrakhan. I was impressed with his oratory and agree with his theme that America’s racism is a mental illness, but the thing that I came away from this encounter is that the mind of Islam, like the mind of the Pharaoh’s, has been shaped by an 8-base numerology and that the number 19 was important to Minister Farrakhan. Subsequently, I checked a copy of the Cairo translation of the Qur’an out of the library and read it. My overall impression was that the Spirit of God does not abide therein, at least in translation, and that my initial intuition of the primacy of an 8-base numerology was correct. Although there is a strong 7-base influence from the lunar calendar and residual idolatry, a 7-base numerology is characterized by divination while the thrust of an 8-base numerology is calculation. 2 is the cube root of 8 and this reflects the engineering and defining constraints of Egypt and Islam. A thousand years before Moses was pulled from the water, the Pharaoh’s had fashioned a society with sufficient social organization to put a man on the moon and it was the paradigm shift that occurred when the pharaohs and priests adopted the 8-base numerology as the theological and mystical standard that led to the success of the nation. The problem with an 8-base numerology is that it is something of an intellectual cul-de-sac, in that it permits sublime executive manipulation of the finite boundaries and the material, but it becomes limited entirely by those boundaries. This is why the priests and advisors of the Pharaoh could not interpret his dream of the 7 fatten cattle and the 7 lean cattle nor the dream of the 7 fat sheaves of grain and the 7 withered sheaves of grain. Enter Joseph, whose heritage from the God of Abraham is a 9-base numerology. Where as an 8-base numerology is characterized by the boundaries of knowledge, a 9 base numerology is characterized by the horizons of wisdom, knowledge expanded by the Spirit of the Lord. And that was my impression of the Qur’an: it was firmly anchored in the finite and measurable and bereft of the Spirit of God I associate with the scripture of the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels. On the other hand, it held the same intellectual qualities for me as the epistles of Paul. From my perspective, if you take Jesus out of the theology of Paul, you have Islam. Recently, I have reviewed virtually all the Bishop NT Wright’s videos on KZread and I come to appreciate the intellectual design of Paul’s theology, but I have no passion for it. Bishop Wright is an ENFP, while I am an ESTP, and NFs are all about passion while SPs tend to be significantly more existential. The important thing about Paul’s theology is that is originates in the Jerusalem doctrine that is defined by Peter’s confession in Acts 10: 32 - 43 and is absolutely reliable in this regards, For myself, I am aligned with Bishop Wright’s epistemology and his emphasis on the Cross, the here-and-now of the Kingdom of Heaven, Agape as the coin of redemption and Filos as the engine of the Christian community. In short, Islam offered me nothing, The argument that the power of the Qur’an is lost in translation may be true, but it is a weak argument on the face of it. I don’t read Greek, Hebrew, or Latin, but none of the essential power of the Gospel story is lost in translation, Bart Ehrman notwithstanding. I would say that the biggest cultural problem Americans have with Bible stories, generally, is that we have absolutely no analogue for life under a monarchy. Evangelicals like to work themselves into a lather about King of Kings and Lord of Lords, but it doesn’t translate for me. But what does translate is Jesus as a study in Duty and Servant-Leadership as it relates to translating the Kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven. From my perspective, Islam amounts to little more that a re-invention of the Torah and adopting an Arabic version of an Amish lifestyle. So, I moved on. I have been interested since 1990 in establishing Cornelius as the author of the Gospel according to Mark, which has been made apparent to me by the Holy Spirit and certain elements of numerology associated with the chapter=and=verse numbering. If you want to see the divine in action, this is about as blatant as it get. In the first place, the numbering for the chapters and verse was not added until 1511: it is not part of the original text of the 20.000 manuscripts of the first 400 years and was added primarily to facilitate type-setting. In addition, the symbols we use for numbers are a direct result of Islam and didn’t exist as such, generally until about the 12th century. My point being that the insights I will cite are based on elements added to the Bible (and Qur’an) for purely utilitarian purposes: these numbers were added to make it easier to access the text. Period. But the hand of God has employed this pedestrian exercise with revelation. Starting first with the number 13, this is an important symbol, numerologically, of the Finger of God in the Hebrew Bible. In the dreams of the Pharaoh, Joseph recognized that the dreams represent a 13 year weather cycle in that there will be 7 years of plenty and 7 years of famine which over lap at the 7th year of plenty and the 1st year of famine, This configuration, 6-1-6 occurs at regular intervals throughout scriptures and is recognizable to anyone familiar with DeVinci’s Lsst Supper. 13 can be seen as an Ideogram, with a lightening bolt being held over the head of the Trinity. It just shows up everywhere in the text. Itself. But in the chapter-and-verse addition, Revelation 13 jumps out at me for a number of reasons, First of all, it is something of a Cubist portrait of the centurion in charge of Jesus’s execution (Paula Gooder observes that William Blake reveals to her that Revelation is less a book than an art gallery). Of course, this chapter is famous for the Number of the Beast 666. I’ve read a lot of commentary that this is the result of numerology associated with the name of a Roman emperor or a particular Jewish patriarch, but I think it is literally the number on Jesus’s death warrant. The Romans were hopelessly bureaucratic and the centurions were what we call “warrant officers” in the modern military organization and carried a cudgel of their authority in the same way British police carry a warrant card. Jesus was number 666 execution in that fiscal year. Now, as an Ideogram, I happen to like 666 because, with the modern number symbols, they can be seen as the bent nails driven into Jesus’s flesh. Military officers are in the habit of knocking wood 3 times if they say anything that might be construed as hubris and tempting fate and the tradition originated on Golgotha. But, it turns out that a newly discovered manuscript of Revelation 13 is the oldest version yet discovered and the number is 616, which is equally satisfying to me, for several reasons, including its reflection of the chapter=and-verse addition of Revelation 13. But, as an Ideogram, 616 is symbolic of the Risen Lord as a butterfly newly emerged from its chrysalis and spreading its wings to dry in the sun before taking flight. Take your pick: I like either one. But that isn’t the important revelation from Revelation 13. One of the questions about Christianity is why and how it spread so quickly and I think the connection between this chapter in Revelation and the Synoptic Gospels, generally, provide the explanation. If you compare the verse structure of Revelation 13 to the first 18 lines of Matthew 13, they are identical (at least, close enough for government work). This is the Parable of the Sower. Now, there is a certain gestalt with the narrative constructed of the figure of the SEED being spread by the Sower and the ground of the GROUND upon which the SEED falls, Bishop Wright inevitably focuses on the SEED and characterizes the seed that falls on the GOOD GROUND as GOOD SEED and the seed that falls on the inhospitable ground as BAD SEED. Well, the hidden message of this relationship is that the GOOD GROUND which produced the 100 fold return is, generally, the Roman Empire and, more specifically, the Roman Legions. That’s why the numerology of Revelation 13 is pointing at Matthew 13: it is my premise that the news of Jesus’s resurrection was being circulated by the Roman soldiers who witnessed it first hand that first Easter morning and that the event spread throughout the Roman legions in Italy long before either Peter or Paul got there. My position is that Cornelius wrote the Gospel according to Mark after he debriefed Peter in Acts 10 in 40 CE and that Peter’s narrative was added to what was already circulating around campfires and ready rooms across the empire. In fact, at the same time that Mark can be seen as the result of what Peter told Cornelius, the Gospel of Peter is what Cornelius told Peter at the same time. As bizarre as that narrative may seem to us, it reflects the psychological impetus behind the spread of the story of the resurrection. Now, as I say, Revelation 13 points to Matthew 13 and, in the methods of numerology, in which all numbers are reduced to a single digit, 13 reduces to 4 and Mark 4:1 - 18 is the Parable of the Sower. Where 13 can be seen as the Finger of God as a lightening bolt, 4 is the number of the material world and represents the place where the lightening strike occurred. Revelation 13 is a divine revelation to lift the veil on the mystery of the proliferation of Christianity and the author of Mark. Cornelius is both the author of Mark and the source of the Gospel of Peter and the reason the details of the resurrection was not included between Mark 15:47 and Mark 16:1 was to conceal his identity and in compliance with the arrangement the soldiers made with the Jewish authorities. Plus, they didn’t need a reminder of the details of the resurrection. All this is background to the subject of this commentary, that is, the divine revelation in Sura 74:30 “And above it is nineteen”. 19 years ago, I came away from the Million Man March with the numbers 8 and 19 emergent in my intuition, I have been dabbling in numerology since 1965 and I am constant alert to numbers as I encounter them in my environment. For one thing, it is one way the Holy Spirit communicates with me. Not the only way, but numbers are handy: He just hasn’t found it necessary to give me some winning Power Ball numbers, but it’s a little bit like the angels who dwelt with Jesus in the Wilderness, a reminder of His constant presence. So, when 19 pops up, I tend to pay attention, the most famous being the 19 Jihadists who carried out the 911 attacks. 20 people originally comprised the attack team, but one of them got arrested before the assault, so only 19 conducted the attack. These details came out almost immediately and it would be hard not to see the hand of God in these circumstances, Only, I had no idea what it meant except I was suppose to pay attention to it (just for the record, it so happens that there are 19 bones in the hand and 8 in the wrist, so my reference to the Hand of God is not without a literal reference). What changed was that my brother gave me a lap top in 2012 and, earlier this year, I began to expand my research into Mark in KZread videos. One of the first of these was Dale Martin’s Study of the New Testament on Princeton Online. For various reasons, the most important fact regarding the historicity of Jesus I gleaned from this series is John 19:19, which describes the sign Pilate attaches to the cross of Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. All four gospels mention this fact, but the numbers caught my attention. At some point, it occurred to me to google the relationship between 19 and Islam and that’s when I was led to various KZread videos around the theme of “The Mathematical Miracle of 19 in the Qur’an” around the Hidden Secret of Sura 74:30 and the computer analysis Dr Rashad Khalifa undertook employing 19 as the common denominator. Muslim propagandists are beginning to take these sites down because the revelation 19 represents is doing to 1446 years of Muslim academics and Islamic apologetics what Jesus did for the money changers in Mark 11. The fact is, Dr. Rashad Khalifa didn’t understand what he had wrought, because he claimed for himself the status of Prophet by virtue of being named in the Qur’an. He assumed the status qua would remain constant and his personal status would be elevated in the rarified air of Muslim scholarship. The fact that he was assassinated had more to do with intramural jealousies and blood feuds than any understanding of the essential reconfiguration 19 represents to the status quo. While the various producers of these videos are spiking the ball and taking a victory lap with their various calculations, their efforts are invested in trivia. While what they reveal is the extent to which 19 is woven into the fabric of the Qur’an, they miss the true significance of The Hidden Secret. When I apply the numerology of 19 to the Qur’an in the same way I did with Revelation 13, the meaning of the Qur’an reveals itself like the embedded image in one of the 3-D Magic Eye graphics: the Qur’an reveals itself to be a parable that Mohammad never understood and Sura Maryam 19:1 - 33 is the crown jewel literature. In fact, a case can be made that the rest of the Qur’an can be thrown away as Satanic Verses while its meaning is perfectly preserved for Islam in these 33 ayat. There is no other context but 19 and the need for Arabic to tell the tale is completely obviated. What 19 reveals is that Mohammad was a Christian heretic whose task was to lead the Children of Ishmael to Jesus and into covenant with Abraham. Instead, he hijacked the revelations for political expedience and personal benefit. Once Ta’if converted in 631, his usefulness to God was complete. As it is written, God opened his aorta soon after he issued the blasphemy and apostasy of Sura 9. At the same time, Sura 74:30 is the legacy of Mohammad. The Qur’an is the beginning of Arabic literature and Sura Maryam is the last gift of the Magi to be laid at the crèche of the Baby Jesus. The future of Islam leads through Sura Maryam, with its opening ayat Christ is my God and ayat 19:19 that leads to John 19:19 and the Jihad of the Cross. It is not a coincidence that Malala Yousafzai has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize she shares with a kindred spirit from India, but an expression of divine purpose. Malala is engaged in the Jihad of the Cross. Maryam is her Guardian Angel who cradled her back to life when the Jinns of the Jihad of the Sword tried to chill her blood. Maryam is the Patron Saint of Islam and, in the fullness of time, her ayats will be adopted by the catholic church as liturgy to be sung for Mary, Mother of God, Redemptrix during Advent. Amen.

According to the Bible all of humanity is in rebellion to God. Sickness and desease is a consequence of that sin. That is one the issues Jesus came to put right.

The Trinity is formulated from what the New Testament, in it's entirety, teaches about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It doesn't rely on single verses, and their are man Trinitarian patterns (or what you call essence) through the NT and early Christian writings. The doctrine was already in existence among the earliest Christians prior to the scribal error/insertion in 1 John 5:7.

@rob5462

5 жыл бұрын

The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from the whole Bible, not just the New Testament. It would be true to say the primary text for doing so is the NT but much is determined by analysing how the NT refers to the OT.

In other words, BS