OneGodBeliever Posted April 12, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 120 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/18/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, Debp said: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John walked with Jesus, His disciples. But more importantly, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote. If you can believe that an angel dictated the Quran to Mohammed in a cave, how can you not believe the Holy Spirit moving upon men to write the inspired word of God? No Christian scholar believes they were disciples but came hundreds of years later after Jesus. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted April 12, 2018 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2018 2 hours ago, OneGodBeliever said: OK fair enough. I cannot say about other versions since verses are removed which u already agree to corruption in them. We can continue to my second claim books removed. Below 14 books are part of bible originally but were removed by the Vatican. My question is you claim KJV as word of God but it does not contain below books which are actually part of bible: 1 Esdras 2 Esdras Tobit Judith The rest of Esther The Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus Baruch with the epistle Jeremiah The Songs of the 3 Holy children The history of Susana bel and the dragon The prayer for Manasses 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Those books were never meant to be a part of the bible primarily because they are corrupted, having pagan teachings within them or rather fanciful unproven stores 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneGodBeliever Posted April 12, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 120 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/18/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: Those books were never meant to be a part of the bible primarily because they are corrupted, having pagan teachings within them or rather fanciful unproven stores As per previous comments of follow Christians they are part of bible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adstar Posted April 12, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 12 Topic Count: 75 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,399 Content Per Day: 0.43 Reputation: 1,307 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2018 10 minutes ago, OneGodBeliever said: As per previous comments of follow Christians they are part of bible! No.. They where not accepted as part of the Bible.. They where later added by the catholic religion and only declared by the catholic religion to be part of the scritures many years after they where added.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted April 12, 2018 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2018 10 minutes ago, OneGodBeliever said: As per previous comments of follow Christians they are part of bible! Those Christians, friend would not likely be true Christians, but Roman or Orthodox Catholics. Those people are largely not saved in Christ Those books were never part of the original canon because of what I said, they contain bad history, or pagan teachings, or as in the case of books like the Shepherd of Hermas, may be good works, possibly written by the person ascribed to them but their authorship cannot be determined with certainty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 56 minutes ago, OneGodBeliever said: Do you have gospel of Jesus? Not gospel according to Matthew, Luke, John etc! Yes and His Gospel is preserved in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted April 12, 2018 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, OneGodBeliever said: No Christian scholar believes they were disciples but came hundreds of years later after Jesus. Dont know where you are getting that from but Matthew, Mark, Luke and john were all 1st century believers. Matthew and John were apostles of Christ. Mark was not an apostle but was a follower of Peter (I think, someone correct me here if need be). Luke was a 1st century Gentile physician converted to Judaism and them to Christianity. I would like to point out to you http://www.bible-researcher.com/papyrus.52.html This talks about the oldest Gospel fragment, a fragment of the Gospel of John, which is dated to somewhere around AD 125 and gives every indication that it is a copy. So its second generation at least. I did read somewhere too of a fragment of Mark that might be first century. I'd have to find that one again. Wait...got it... https://www.livescience.com/49489-oldest-known-gospel-mummy-mask.html Luke is especially reliable as he was a scientist and used the scientific method to accurately research the facts for his gospel and the book of Acts. There is another good reason why one should accept that the gospels and epistles were all written before AD 69 (when all the apostles save for John had died by then). NONE of them mention the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, save for some future tense prophecies about it by Jesus in the gospels. Here I am talking about witnessing the actual event. If these gospels were not first century gospels, there would have been mention of it Edited April 12, 2018 by TheMatrixHasU71 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneGodBeliever Posted April 12, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 120 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/18/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Yes and His Gospel is preserved in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I would believe them word of God if there was no contradiction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneGodBeliever Posted April 12, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 120 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/18/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2018 43 minutes ago, Debp said: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John walked with Jesus, His disciples. But more importantly, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote. If you can believe that an angel dictated the Quran to Mohammed in a cave, how can you not believe the Holy Spirit moving upon men to write the inspired word of God? To add can you answer what was the language Jesus spoke & what language original bible is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneGodBeliever Posted April 12, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 120 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/18/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2018 57 minutes ago, Debp said: No, I did not say any versions were corrupted. That was a poster who only uses the KJV. I have asked a question but have not received an answer https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221132-corruption-of-the-bible/?do=findComment&comment=2790862 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts