Evolution of Jesus? from man to God?

[Malic]

---

Finally the weather has calmed down in here..hehehe..the emotional whirlwinds.

I think Mr. Malic had a point in this thread and if we are really true to ourselves there's indeed some 'dagdag bawas' to the Bible. It's a pain in the butt but it is the truth to which I will not contest.

But let me reply to the underlying ramification that might slips out from this.

Regardless of what Mr. Malic had point out between the difference of the two quoted verse, it cannot be denied also that on Mark 3:11 and Mark 15:39 the book yet again claim that Christ was the Son of God.

Mark 3:11 says, "And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God."

and

Mark 15:39 says, "And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God."

So there, case solve..no matter what, we can always say that the Bible claim that Christ is truly the Son of God.

Once again may I ask the simplest question: Why did the Jewish religious authorities killed Jesus in the first place?

Considering that there was no Bible yet at that time claiming what Christ is.

great, a gentleman has come out.


This is how I see Mark 15:39

In Roman religious culture when you say " son of God " it means a different thing. Unlike today, Christians are indoctrinated since childhood that Jesus is God. So when you read stuff like this one, the Christian mind immediately thinks that it means God. For us to have a proper interpretation of the phrase We must take the meaning from that time and from the context of the Roman culture.

Romans see their emperor as son of god with powers too.


But anyways sir, as ive said before, my intention was just to test someone here. no intention of bringing this issue further, in fact wala nako homana akong presentation sa akong arguments, daghan pa unta sir but dili nalang kay in compliance sa number 1 objective sa Theosophy.

I can not cultivate the culture of unviversal brotherhood kung mag sige ko ug dwell ani.

Wish me luck na lang in my journey sa theosophy. have a nice day.

[hizuka007]

(\__/) mao jud!
(='.'=)

[masterjanuarius]

I did not skipped that part sir. In my previous post I wrote something about it, where I said that in the NIV bible there is a footnote that says- the phrase " son of God " is not in the old manuscript.

the problem of the "old manuscript" is that: is it an integral part of the Gospel of Mark, written in greek? or the manuscript cited here belongs to the so called apocryphal or gnostic bibles? or maybe the bible of the Nestorians? of which these have been branded as full of errors in the belief in Jesus Christ.

[Existanz]

great, a gentleman has come out.


This is how I see Mark 15:39

In Roman religious culture when you say " son of God " it means a different thing. Unlike today, Christians are indoctrinated since childhood that Jesus is God. So when you read stuff like this one, the Christian mind immediately thinks that it means God. For us to have a proper interpretation of the phrase We must take the meaning from that time and from the context of the Roman culture.

Romans see their emperor as son of god with powers too.


But anyways sir, as ive said before, my intention was just to test someone here. no intention of bringing this issue further, in fact wala nako homana akong presentation sa akong arguments, daghan pa unta sir but dili nalang kay in compliance sa number 1 objective sa Theosophy.

I can not cultivate the culture of unviversal brotherhood kung mag sige ko ug dwell ani.

Wish me luck na lang in my journey sa theosophy. have a nice day.

I think for a person in the service of nothing, but in the search of truth, should no be defeated by a few minds that tends to go berserk along the way. If sometimes because of our ideas, we get tomatoes in our face (in worst case, perhaps the toilet..God forbid!) from horrified folks, just accept it as part of the pain in our journey to the truth (truth that is true for each one of us, truth were each on of us can live our lives on). I suggest you stay around and blast people to kingdom come (in rational manner of course!). You are not oblige to reply to dumb answer di ba?

I'm not into Theosophy, but I kinda like what I read about it. I'm into existentialism for practical purposes in life (trying hard pa brad).

Still you didn't answer my question as to the reason why Jesus was killed in the first place ;-P

God bless Mr. Malic!

[Existanz]

I did not skipped that part sir. In my previous post I wrote something about it, where I said that in the NIV bible there is a footnote that says- the phrase " son of God " is not in the old manuscript.

If we look at the bottoms of the NIV, and other versions, pages, we will see things like "verse ___ wasn't in the oldest and best manuscripts". Maybe perhaps they should have written "wasn't in the manuscipts we chose to use, but was in the majority of them"...majority of them that they did not use for NIV.

[Existanz]

great, a gentleman has come out.


This is how I see Mark 15:39

In Roman religious culture when you say " son of God " it means a different thing. Unlike today, Christians are indoctrinated since childhood that Jesus is God. So when you read stuff like this one, the Christian mind immediately thinks that it means God. For us to have a proper interpretation of the phrase We must take the meaning from that time and from the context of the Roman culture.

Romans see their emperor as son of god with powers too.


But anyways sir, as ive said before, my intention was just to test someone here. no intention of bringing this issue further, in fact wala nako homana akong presentation sa akong arguments, daghan pa unta sir but dili nalang kay in compliance sa number 1 objective sa Theosophy.

I can not cultivate the culture of unviversal brotherhood kung mag sige ko ug dwell ani.

Wish me luck na lang in my journey sa theosophy. have a nice day.

By the way diay Mr. Malic, the book of Mark at the beginning already clears the matter by declaring Christ as the Son of God..with capital 's'. This was also pointed out by masterjanuarius.

[masterjanuarius]

If we look at the bottoms of the NIV, and other versions, pages, we will see things like "verse ___ wasn't in the oldest and best manuscripts". Maybe perhaps they should have written "wasn't in the manuscipts we chose to use, but was in the majority of them"...majority of them that they did not use for NIV.

The NIV may present itself as a scholarly work, banking on the number of translators and a wide range of bible texts and books available, with the different Qumran documents .. but TS has forgotten that the NIV is not the sole Bible that all christians should read and study .. there are many translations of the Bible which abounds and are very available .. a footnote on the bottom of the page of NIV about, "Son of God" in the ch1, v.1 of Mark is more for a literary reference and not an infallible truth as it may seems TS has an inkling .. the beauty of the Bible is found in the many translations available and thereby the capacity to compare one and the other in order to get the real sense of a given text .. of which the Qur'an maybe lacking since all the other written copies of the Qur'an were burned by a caliph (Omar was it?) so that only one copy becomes official ..

[Malic]

The NIV may present itself as a scholarly work, banking on the number of translators and a wide range of bible texts and books available, with the different Qumran documents .. but TS has forgotten that the NIV is not the sole Bible that all christians should read and study .. there are many translations of the Bible which abounds and are very available .. a footnote on the bottom of the page of NIV about, "Son of God" in the ch1, v.1 of Mark is more for a literary reference and not an infallible truth as it may seems TS has an inkling .. the beauty of the Bible is found in the many translations available and thereby the capacity to compare one and the other in order to get the real sense of a given text .. of which the Qur'an maybe lacking since all the other written copies of the Qur'an were burned by a caliph (Omar was it?) so that only one copy becomes official ..

no no no ako pasabot ato sir is the scholars that translated the NIV is honest enough to put in their footnote that the phrase " son of god " written at the beginning of the book is not found in the old manuscripts kung asa gi base ang ilang NIV version of the bible.

qur'an MAYBE lacking. if you can't prove it then your accusation remains an accusation.

[masterjanuarius]

no no no ako pasabot ato sir is the scholars that translated the NIV is honest enough to put in their footnote that the phrase " son of god " written at the beginning of the book is not found in the old manuscripts kung asa gi base ang ilang NIV version of the bible.

qur'an MAYBE lacking. if you can't prove it then your accusation remains an accusation.

it is a historical fact that somehow the caliph gathered all the existing written accounts of the words of the Prophet (as all those who listened to him were writing what he would say in leaves, on tablets, wood, camels hide, ets ..). It was decided that only one official copy should be available for all muslims .. now, when I said what is lacking, is not the CONTENT of what the Prophet may say, but the capacity to confront the written words with other manuscripts of the said accounts .. as for the Gospels, there are so many abounding: the official Four Gospels, the apocryphal books and gnostics and heretical books, (the Qumran Documents are not christian documents but Books on the Torah, the Prophets, etc, and the rule of life of the essenes): these serve as auto-criticism of the verses and words and thereby explore the veracity of the said verse or phrase. You just had it sir: "the verse in question, "son of God". I guess the same cannot be done in the study of the Qur'an.

[Malic]

it is a historical fact that somehow the caliph gathered all the existing written accounts of the words of the Prophet (as all those who listened to him were writing what he would say in leaves, on tablets, wood, camels hide, ets ..). It was decided that only one official copy should be available for all muslims .. now, when I said what is lacking, is not the CONTENT of what the Prophet may say, but the capacity to confront the written words with other manuscripts of the said accounts .. as for the Gospels, there are so many abounding: the official Four Gospels, the apocryphal books and gnostics and heretical books, (the Qumran Documents are not christian documents but Books on the Torah, the Prophets, etc, and the rule of life of the essenes): these serve as auto-criticism of the verses and words and thereby explore the veracity of the said verse or phrase. You just had it sir: "the verse in question, "son of God". I guess the same cannot be done in the study of the Qur'an.

masterjanuarius...

The one on this particular thread sitting on the witness stand is the bible and not the Qur'an. Distracting the attention of the Jurors away from the testimony of the witness so you can insist your insincere defense of the authenticity of the bible and bring into question the Reliability of the Qur'an w/c is by far considered by historians as more reliable and accurate than the bible can not give justice to your apologetics.

I will not defend. I already have stated my intentions in my previous post as to why it is so.

Im done w/ this ignorance - " my bible is better than your Qur'an. "

have a nice day.