If this is true, for the parties they are trying not to offend, anything short of Islam -- of professing that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is his messenger -- would be "offensive." This is not making Christianity more palatable. It is de-Christianizing it. It is manufacturing yet another Christian heresy.
Indeed, for many denominations, the validity of baptism depends on the words used: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." No euphemisms, no nicknames: for example, trial balloons aiming to portray a more gender-neutral God have already been burst: the use of "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" in baptism has been rejected by the Catholic Church, if not others.
Those who truly believe they are winning souls for Christ would not risk the validity of baptism, and those who are genuinely convinced that they possess the truth will not apologize or worry it is offensive.
As a technical matter, one wonders how the translators handle the words: "Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22). And "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:33).
One last bit of holy writ: "You might as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far backward." - James Thurber
"'Father' and 'Son' Ousted from the Trinity in New Bible Translations," by Hussein Hajj Wario for the Yahoo! Contributor Network, January 27 (thanks to CGW):
A controversy is brewing over three reputable Christian organizations, which are based in North America, whose efforts have ousted the words "Father" and "Son" from new Bibles. Wycliffe Bible Translators, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Frontiers are under fire for "producing Bibles that remove "Father," "Son" and "Son of God" because these terms are offensive to Muslims." Concerned Christian missionaries, Bible translators, pastors, and national church leaders have come together with a public petition to stop these organizations. They claim a public petition is their last recourse because meetings with these organizations' leaders, staff resignations over this issue and criticism and appeals from native national Christians concerned about the translations "have failed to persuade these agencies to retain "Father" and "Son" in the text of all their translations."
Clearly, they fail to appreciate the far-reaching ramifications that Christians not only may dare, but are commanded to call on the Creator of the Universe as "Father." That fundamentally re-wires one's relationship with God and describes a unique intimacy and bond of love that ought not be squandered to score short-term points.
Biblical Missiology, a ministry of Boulder, Colorado-based Horizon International, is sponsoring the petition.The main issues of this controversy surround new Arabic and Turkish translations. Here are three examples native speakers give:
First, Wycliffe and SIL have produced Stories of the Prophets, an Arabic Bible that uses an Arabic equivalent of "Lord" instead of "Father" and "Messiah" instead of "Son."
Second, Frontiers and SIL have produced Meaning of the Gospel of Christ , an Arabic translation which removes "Father" in reference to God and replaces it with "Allah," and removes or redefines "Son." For example, the verse which Christians use to justify going all over the world to make disciples, thus fulfilling the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) reads, "Cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit" instead of "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Rev. Bassam Madany, an Arab American who runs Middle East Resources, terms these organization's efforts as "a western imperialistic attempt that's inspired by cultural anthropology, and not by biblical theology."Third, Frontiers and SIL have produced a new Turkish translation of the Gospel of Matthew that uses Turkish equivalents of "guardian" for "Father" and "representative" or "proxy" for "Son." To Turkish church leader Rev. Fikret Böcek, "This translation is 'an all-American idea' with absolutely no respect for the 'sacredness' of Scripture, or even of the growing Turkish church."
SIL has issued a public response stating "all personnel subscribe to a statement of faith which affirms the Trinity, Christ's deity, and the inspiration of Scripture." However, in the same statement, which is similar to Wycliffe's, it claims "word-for-word translation of these titles would communicate an incorrect meaning (i.e. that God had physical, sexual relationships with Mary) [sic]," thus justifying substituting "Father" and "Son" in new translations. Calls and emails to Wycliffe and SIL to clarify their positions were not returned. Frontiers responded to calls with articles that critics have already dismissed as skirting omissions of "Father" and "Son" in new Bible translations.
The point about sexual connotations is baloney. Many of these countries have, or once had indigenous Christian populations with scriptures in indigenous languages where this was not a problem. If they're coming up with something untoward, they need better translators.
The idiocy and arrogance of this translation is astonishing.
Way to remove all the power and challenge from the scriptures. Muslims will read it and, rather than being challenged, they will think that the Bible agrees with Islam.
This can only serve to strengthen the beliefs about God that Muslims already hold. Soon you'll find it quoted by ignorant Muslims as the only 'honest translation', 'admitting' that Jesus wasn't God's Son.
"..."word-for-word translation of these titles would communicate an incorrect meaning (i.e. that God had physical, sexual relationships with Mary) [sic],"
These companies have been infiltrated by muslims this is obvious from the above attitude.
One of the first things that shocked me about muslims was their inability to conceptualize the spiritual. Everything with them is literal. They literally were disgusted with the thought of god having sex with Mary. They cannot even conceive of immaculate conception in metaphorical terms. I saw them as childish morons. The idea of a god cavorting with earthly maidens died out with the belief in the gods of Olympus.
That's why I cannot stress enough that there is nothing spiritual in islam. I get a hoot and a howl when muslims try to tell me that all the ayats about houris, pearly boys, and the perpetual orgy in allah's whorehouse in the sky is metaphorical. I know they're lying because their minds cannot even accept the metaphorical immaculate conception.
All in all there is no doubt in my mind after SIL'S statement as to why they're mangling the Bible that they've got muslims on staff or are under pressure from muslims. Only muslims think god literally humped Mary.
As for these two companies there's one easy way to deal with their prostrations to muslim supremacists: don't buy their Bibles.
On the other hand, muslim translators are doing a great job manipulating the islamic english translations of their holy books...
"..the Divine Inspirations do not come to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha." Bukhari, 3.47.755
The exact translation should read:
"..the Divine Inspirations do not come to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s"
"ثوب امرأة" was translated as "beds" instead of "woman's dress" !!!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/12/perfect-man-of-islam.html
Fools. This is Satan at work. They don't realise that by bowing to Islam they are slapping Christ in the face!
Christians are offensive! Because the world does not want to hear of sin! I will see that my church no longer supports these organizations in any way.
The theological case for the Trinity and against Islam: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/tawhid-or-tawheed-versus-christian.html
Sod all these trendy translations. . Heck, I was given a KJV by my gran at the age of 7 -which I used to read by torchlight under my blankets in the school dormitory - and then an NIV by my uncle, a year later. Even at that näive age I could sense the warp of terminology. . Call me old-fashioned.
Sounds like taking a Western dining table and cutting the legs off.
Obviously the translators must be beheaded ASAP. Street demonstrations must be organized and the printing presses destroyed. This cannot stand! The Bible can only be read in English and no translations should be permitted!
Wait a minute...........I think I missed something at the start.......
I agree that the organizations have been infiltrated by Muslims. We must resist changing our ways, words, or message to the world and continue to tell the truth of Christ Jesus.
Poker. .you bring back that Rohald Dahl episode, the one with the Chippendale, so much with that comment. :-)
There is a multi-sided war on against Biblical culture.
And by Biblical culture I mean not only the various religions that hold the Bible and its teachings sacred, but also the various secular or semi-secular ethical, philosophical and other cultural main stays that draw from the Bible and its outlook. Western law and ethics f'rinstance.
That said, as in any war there are going to be cowards, and appeasers and surrender monkeys -- like the people rewording the Bible described above.
. .correction. . Roald Dahl. .' Parson's Pleasure '.
Might as well pull down the crosses and stick up the Islamic moon-god symbol, veil our women and pay the jizya.
Here on the other hand is an interesting take by a Muslim who says that ACCORDING TO THE QURAN the Bible is the uncorrupted word of God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDSPND0suVY&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nMZ62pzQnOI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwbWQRxr6hc
What next? St Paul's e-mails to the Corinthians...!?
Clowns!
The dhimmis who posted such garbage should convert to Islam or renounce Christianity.
They have lost any aspect of "Christianity" they claimed to have had before.
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea." (Mark 9:42)
I think they first dropped reference to "Father" and "Son" in order to avoid offending the feminists.
I feel for the poor people in the area where this translation is being made. They have the choice of being cheated by either Muslims, or by pseudo-Christians who hang up a sheep's head and sell them dog meat.
Where does the Catholic Church stand on these translations? We were always told to look for the imprimatur of the church in any Bible, since not all versions of the Bible conform to Roman Catholic doctrine.
They were disgusted with God having sex with Mary? It seems to me Muhammad must have come from God's own excrements.
"For example, the verse which Christians use to justify going all over the world to make disciples, thus fulfilling the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) reads, 'Cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit' instead of 'baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'" -- headline
Allah is NOT the God of the Bible:
"Muslims believe that there is no other God besides Allah and that he is the God of the universe. They claim that not only is he their God, but that he is the God of the Jews, the Christians and everyone else. When examining the profile of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and comparing it with Allah’s profile, there are a number of distinct differences between them that can only result in one conclusion: These profiles simply do not match! Allah is NOT the God of the Bible!"
"The Islamic faith, through the teachings of Muhammad, asserts that Allah is God and attempt to place him within the confines of the Holy Scriptures. When the Bible contradicts their teachings, they allege that it is flawed, has been tampered with, and has many errors. They further claim that the Koran, through the teachings of their prophet Muhammad, corrects them. However, it has already been established that Muhammad was both a false prophet and teacher. Therefore, Islam’s allegations are unsupported, baseless and without merit."
"There are a number of major differences between the God of the Bible and Allah. This chapter will focus upon five reasons why they are not the same. According to the Holy Scriptures, the God of the Bible is the one true God while Allah is a false god."
Above excerpt here: http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/is_allah_not_God.html
"Cleanse them with Water in the name of Allah, the Messiah, and Holy Spirit"...
This is horrible! First of all, God, to Christians, is one, but a living richness including the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The reported mistranslation leaves the impression that there are either three gods, or God and two subordinates, both of which are unacceptable.
As for Bible translations, while I'm not a King James Only type, I'm sticking to that one in English.
BTW, while I agree there's a large difference between the Christian Triune God and the Islamic Allah, there's also a difference between the Christian God and Chinese shen 神 used in many Chinese editions of the Bible. However, most Chinese Christians understand their 神 to be very different from the little gaudy wooden thing sitting in a shrine. Further, our own _God_ probably has a very different connotation from what the Pagan Anglo-Saxon thought. Indeed, even when the Septuagint and New Testament say "Theos", they mean something different from the classical Greek gods. Hence, let the Arabic speakers explain what the proper word for God is in that language.
As I understand our faith, Mary's relationship to each Person of the Holy Trinity is thus--highly favored daughter of Our Father; mother of His Son, Our Lord; and spouse of the Holy Spirit. Rather like the relationship of a Christian to Almighty God: each of us a child of God the Father, a brother of God the Son, and a spouse of the Holy Spirit. As I see Jesus Christ as the New Adam, I happen to see Mary his mother as the New Eve.
I am not surprised. There are always different translations that attack basic Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ, virgin birth, eternal punishment, ect. The New World Translation is designed to accommodate the JWs. Now there is a new version to appeal to muslim beliefs? If you are searching for truth you will not find it in most new translations. The King James and Duoey-Rheims (Catholic Bible) are the most accurate translations today.
Here's the link again to the muslim who became a christian and shows well the "before" and "after" faces. Note his face at 1:30 when he was muslim.
"Mohammedans in Arab World leave Mohammed and coming to Jesus Christ !"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izwhqPYTeDE
Interesting video, gerard. Thanks for sharing that. : - )
The "Chrislam" movement has spread to America among many so-called Christian churches, but it's actually part of apostate Christianity that's merging with the devil’s religion of islam. That day is here ...
"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
Revelation 3:14-16 / King James Version
Also ...
Christianity and islam have nothing in common, and the two should NEVER be joined together under any circumstance:
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"
2 Corinthians 6:14 / KJV
Muslims are offended by the Bible in general.
Try quoting these verses with other Bible translations...
The have a Bible called the Douay Rheims which is an authorized version translated by Greek scholars. It was published in 1609 and two years later the King James Version was published. It almost mirrors the DR version except it does not contain the Apocrypha.
Ladies and gentlemen
I observe that the author of the article is one " Hussein Hajji Wario ".
Hajji- the title given to a Muslim who has gone on Hajj.
If he's a Muslim, why is he writing this? Might not this article be a 'plant'? Do we have other, reliable sources for this?
I would like to point out to people that in the past SIL/ Wycliffe Bible Translators have done excellent work in translating the Scriptures for many small - and non-Muslim - people groups around the world; work that has resulted in strong, growing churches soundly rooted in the Word. I wouldn't write them off in toto, just because some - how many - of their translators appear to have been led astray. And if they *have* been, then failure is not final: inaccurate translations can be corrected, very easily in these days of desktop publishing.
It should be added that the awful possibility that Muslims have infiltrated this and other organisations, or are exercising - as linguistic or cultural/ translation 'advisers' - undue influence over Christians who have got the 'harmless as doves' part down pat but have forgotten about the need to be 'wise as serpents' is very real.
Wycliffe Bible Translators, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Frontiers are under fire for "producing Bibles that remove "Father," "Son" and "Son of God" because these terms are offensive to Muslims."
..................................
Hard to know *what* is going on here.
This might be depressing old fashioned dhimmitude—largely an attempt to safeguard dhimmi Christians from aggressive Muslims. If so, this would—as noted by Marisol—surely not go far enough. In fact, *nothing* short of full converions to Islam would satisfy Muslims.
Secondly, this might be "political correctness"—an attempt by "multiculturalists" to avoid "offending" Muslims. But again—anything short of banning Christian texts outright would fail to mollify Muslims.
It is also possible—as some have suggested—that Muslims themselves have infiltrated the publishers, and are attempting to undermine Christian texts.
More:
To Turkish church leader Rev. Fikret Böcek, "This translation is 'an all-American idea' with absolutely no respect for the 'sacredness' of Scripture, or even of the growing Turkish church."
..................................
Whatever this is, it is *anything* but "all-American". The majority of Americans are Christians—and while there are many, many denominations of Christianity represented in the US, virtually *all* of them hold strongly to the core idea of "the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost".
It is also possible—as Dumbledore's Army suggests—that a pious Muslim like "Hussein Hajji Wario" has his own axe to grind.
You are free to quote whatever translation of the Bible you may choose, as am I ...
Wycliffe Bible Translators (WBT) and their sister organization, SIL, have been producing or helping to produce "meaning-based translations" for Muslims in their "heart language" since the 1990s, from Southern Asia to the Middle East.
Two of their most vocal supporters for removing "Father", "Son," and "Son of God" are Rick (Richard) Brown and Larry Ciccarelli writing under the pseudonym, "Leith Gray" (he is also known as Larry Chico and Mansour Ciccarelli). You can search the archives at http://ijfm.org and http://missionfrontiers.org.
You can also go to http://sabeelmedia.com/ and http://alanbiya.net and listen to the Life of Jesus in their "Stories of the Prophets" series if you can understand Arabic. In the Irbed version they explain Son of God as follows:
Not to interrupt your talk, but we know that there are people who say of our master Isa [i.e. Jesus], that he is the Son of God. I beg forgiveness from God for speaking like this!!! I don’t understand why they say this thing! It is known that this is an extremely important thing to them. You must know that this [kind of] talk is a title for the awaited Messiah. [His] birth doesn’t mean a [natural] birth from a woman. The purpose [of this] is that God, the praised and exalted, chose our master Isa to be the king over the Lord’s Kingdom [lit. the Lordly kingdom] which He promised in the time of the prophets. He [i.e. Isa] is the agent/deputy who became God’s Caliph over the people. Because of this we can say that he is God’s Caliph in place of “Son of God” because God put him over the Lord’s Kingdom.
Good! When they call him God’s Caliph it is certain that he is someone important [lit. big] among the people. Yes, Oh Mutlaq [name of the man the narrator is speaking to], may the audience not take offense [that I singled you out and did not mention every one by name] while we read the Honorable Injil [i.e. the New Testament]. Surely our master Isa was originally the word of God that became a human in the virgin Mary’s womb. This is for the purpose of expressing the glorious nature of God.
Yes, according to WBT-SIL, Jesus is no longer the Son of God but the Caliph of God.
You should also be aware that WBT-SIL have sent out a response to the petition. Their response has been met by the following Fact Check and should be read: http://biblicalmissiology.org/2012/01/16/fact-check-biblical-missiologys-response-to-wycliffes-comments-on-lost-in-translation/
FYI I know the writer Hussein Hajji Wario and he is a Christian from a Muslim background. He didn't pick his name, his family gave it to him. He is an advocate for reaching Muslims for Christ, and is very versed in these translations. He is not a 'plant'.
Wycliffe is very much guilty of these mistranslations, and they cannot be 'fix' so easily. Tens of Thousands of copies in various languages have already been distributed around the world.
Please check out the fact check: http://biblicalmissiology.org/2012/01/16/fact-check-biblical-missiologys-response-to-wycliffes-comments-on-lost-in-translation/
Also please sign the petition, and share it with others: http://www.change.org/petitions/lost-in-translation-keep-father-son-in-the-bible
As mentioned before Hussain is not a Muslims, but a Christian from a Muslim background, a godly man who has stood with Christ in defending the Word of God.
The ultimate reason these translations exist is simply because the translators truly believe they know best, and believe that they have a spiritual mandate to go against millennia of church history and to ultimately redefine the trinity in a way that is unrecognizable. They truly believe muslims can follow christ and remain in Islam.
Simply put, they are spiritually deluded by the spirit of this age, postmodernism.
Christians in Arab speaking nations use Allah for Elohim and Yahweh and have since before Islam. So using Allah in an arabic text is understandable, as there is not other word for God.
Yet, in the Turkish translation they also used Allah, while in Turkey, the Turkish Christians by in far use Tanri for God. This is definitely an attempt for them to Islamize the gospel in Turkey.
You claim:
Christians in Arab speaking nations use Allah for Elohim and Yahweh and have since before Islam. So using Allah in an arabic text is understandable, as there is not other word for God.
My research reveals that "Jehovah" in Arabic is يهوه pronounced "yahwa.", or Yahweh. So you are incorrect in stating the allah is their ONLY choice.
A closer examination of the history and character of "allah" from the information that I provided above clearly shows that allah is NOT the God of the Bible, so I don't care if Arab Christians are accustomed to using allah or not; they are in error, plain and simple. They need to honor the one true God by calling Him Yahweh then, since they do have that option.
A couple of things here. First Wycliffe and SIL are not companies the are Missions organizations. They are not "infiltrated with Muslims".
I would have to look into this further before I form an opinion but I can tell you that a lot of strategic thought went into these translations. They purpose of not"offending" Muslims here is not to play the Dhimmi or to be politically correct, but is to smooth barriers that would keep Muslims from accepting the gospel.
These organizations have one goal and that is to bring people to Christ. Whether or not this linguistic strategy compromises the word to much is open for debate, but people should realize that many of these Wycliffe and SIL people are living behind "enemy lines" if you will trying to bring Christ to Muslims and are risking there lives in doing so.
This is interesting news. Bowdlerizing the Bible so as not to "offend" Muslims? But Muslims wouldn't be caught dead reading any version of it. So, what's the point? And if the Koran were similarly bowdlerized, about 90% of it would land in the trash can, that’s how offensive it is to Christians and atheists. In the meantime, shall we call this "turning the other cheek"? You really shouldn’t castigate these translators for scouring the Bible for Muslim-averse text. They’re practicing a Christian virtue: humility, tempered with pragmatism and a consideration for the other fellow’s feelings.
There is no theological reason to translate the phrase "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" to a phrase less "offensive" to Muslim readers. There is no scriptural reason to re-translate the phrase either. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is translated properly and to re-translate it is to deny a very fundamental doctrine of the Bible. The "translators" of this new translation are perverting the truth of the Word of God, not making a translation that appeals to a Muslim audience. I am a bit surprised that Wycliffe would be involved in such a perversion as their's is an honorable organization-until now. The re-translation is a doctrinal abomination. For one thing, so many Muslims are illiterate or functionally illiterate. Where is the large audience that this translation would appeal to? All it does is supply ammunition to Muslim apologist that Christian Scripture is polluted and its real message corrupted. In this case, they would be right.
Skeen66 wrote:
These organizations have one goal and that is to bring people to Christ.
_____________
Consider what Susan Van Wynen wrote in justification of removing Father, Son, and Son of God from the Bible:
"Our goal is not to “convert people” from one religion to another."
http://www.wycliffe.net/resources/missiology/Bibletranslationandmission/tabid/96/Default.aspx?id=2213
Consider what Henk Prenger, West Eurasia Director for SIL, wrote in his paper, "Missiological Reflections for SIL" (Feb. 2010, p. 9):
"In our limited understanding we need to point people to salvation through Jesus Christ, but we do not want to presume to limit the saving power of God.
There is a tension in that previous sentence, and that tension is welcome. We regard our involvement in mission as an adventure and we are prepared to take risks. We are anticipating surprises as the Holy Spirit guides us into fuller understanding. Our ultimate goal is to become participants in the mighty works of God (Missio Dei)."
Prenger must have missed this verse in the Bible:
John 14:26 - "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (NASU)
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6).
The Holy Spirit does NOT lead people to believe that there is salvation outside of faith in Jesus Christ.
Prenger oversees the majority of the WBT-SIL personnel that have worked and are working on these mistranslations.
If you are still unconvinced that WBT-SIL have serious problems, simply read their recent, official statments on translation:
http://www.sil.org/translation/divine_familial_terms.htm
http://www.wycliffe.org/TranslationStandards.aspx (see point 9)
Ever hear of Muslims who come to faith in Jesus Christ? I am a former Muslim from Kenya. I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior in August 1989. I knew SIL Associate Area Director for Eurasia, Andy Clark, who is one of the officials who are receiving “Lost In Translation: Keep "Father" & "Son" in the Bible” petition signatures. Andy lived in the same neighborhood with me when he worked with the Digo language in the 1990s. If you still doubt whether I am a Muslim implant, please go to my website http://husseinwario.com/blog/about/ and there is a link to my testimony. In one of them you will hear a pastor of a church in Hudsonville, Michigan, telling his congregation in September 2009, his friends who were Wycliffe Bible Translators’ missionaries to Kenya at that time had verified who I am.
By the way, Hajji Wario is my father’s name. I am Hussein and there is no requirement as a Christian for me to take on a new name. Hussein Hajji Wario is my penname. Please let me know if you have further questions. Thank you.
All these comments are faith based (believing in that for which there is no verifiable evidence) rather than scientific. There is no Allah, Jehovah or Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And its even possible that Jesus and Muhammad did not exist.
UNLESS OF COURSE SOMEONE HAS SOME GENUINE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY...... But there is none, is there ????
And still the millions of 'faithful' engage in religious proselytizing, terrorism, arguments and holy wars
To deny the existence of Jesus Christ in light of historical evidence is an indication of either serious ignorance; or, more likely, the predisposition of a totally biased mind regarding the subject. Even the renowned Encyclopedia Britannica with approximately 20,000 words uses more space regarding Jesus Christ than it does for Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napoleon Bonaparte.
For the serious (genuine) truth-searcher in this matter, the following masterful work by Josh McDowell is recommended, which contain a much more complete list of references of ancient writers, both Christian and non-Christian, who mention Christ and His followers, not to mention a mountain of other evidentiary proofs pertaining to Jesus Christ: The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.
+++++++++++++++++++++
The authenticity of Jesus Christ has been in the past, is today and will always be a hot topic of inquiry for skeptics, both those who are sincere and those who are not. And there are certain facts regarding Christ that pose questions even for Christians and truth-searchers of every type. Such questions as:
· Can we know for sure if He ever existed?
· Did He claim to be God, and if so, what is the significance of this fact?
· Was He really born of a virgin?
· Did He really rise from the dead, and if so, what is the importance of this event?
· Aren’t there contradictions in the resurrection story of Christ?
· What is the importance of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross?
This article will endeavor to answer these questions, maybe not to the complete satisfaction of the skeptical mind, but it should at least give rise to plausible thought on which to build for the honest truth-searcher, and will clarify for the Christian the person and work of His Lord and Savior.
Can we know for sure if Jesus Christ ever existed?
There are many who claim that Jesus never existed, that He was only a mythical character. But those who make such a claim are not historians, and, if sincere, are ignorant of the facts. The world has more information about the life of Jesus Christ than just about any other person of the ancient world. His birth, life, death and resurrection are revealed in much more detail than most ancient figures whose existence is taken for granted by historians. Consider the following:
1. The New Testament contains 27 separate documents that were written in the first century A.D. by eyewitnesses of the life and works of Jesus Christ and which chronicles firsthand testimony to what they had seen and heard.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of Life—the Life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that Eternal Life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)
2. The existence of Jesus Christ is recorded by the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who was born in A.D. 37.
Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.
He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities, XVIII, III)
3. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 112) referred to Jesus Christ and the Christians in Rome when he wrote about the reign of Nero (Annals, XV; 44). He further, in his Histories, referred to Christianity when mentioning the burning of the temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which record was preserved by Sulpicius Severus (Chronicles, 30:6). Additionally, the Roman historian Seutonius (A.D. 120) referred to Jesus or His followers in “Life of Claudius” (A.D. 112) in his Epistles, X, 96.
4. Writings from Jewish Rabbis (circa A.D. 40-180) in the Talmud and other Jewish writings refer to Jesus Christ, i.e., His “hanging” (on a cross) on the eve of Passover, His identification along with the names of five of His disciples, certain healings in His name and scoffing at the “claim” that He was born of a virgin—implying His birth was probably “illegitimate.”
5. Almost all major religions—those for and against Him—acknowledge the existence of Jesus Christ. For hundreds of years His existence was widely accepted as George Washington’s existence is accepted today. It is only in recent history that His existence has been seriously challenged. The enormity of early manuscripts referring to Jesus Christ is far and above any record of anyone who has ever lived upon earth. These manuscripts exceed 24,000, the earliest were written within 25 years of Jesus’ death. No work of antiquity approaches the Bible’s documentary credibility, including all works that are accepted as historical fact.
Above excerpt here: http://focusonjerusalem.com/JesusChrist-factorfiction.html
Stuart, Stuart, Stuart...I normally enjoy and agree with your posts, but this?
"And still the millions of 'faithful' engage in religious proselytizing, terrorism, arguments and holy wars."
_________________________________________________
Some Christians (not ANY Catholics I know) engage in proselytizing, and I don't like that too much - let each man decide for himself - but to accuse Christians, Buddhists, Protestants, Hindus, Atheists, etc., of "engaging in terrorism and holy wars" is just simply not true!
________
Did you really mean to suggest that Catholics, for instance, are "engaged in holy wars and terrorism"?
If you do, I'm going to have to show my disrespect by saying that you are sadly mistaken - regardless of your religious persuasion - or, apparently, lack of such.
Please don't let your Atheism cloud your observational skills...
___________________________________________________________
As for the Article...
"In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Amen."
Period. If you don't like it, fine - you don't have to believe - just "change the channel", or shut the "T.V" off.
___________________________________________________________
P.S. I struggled with the Trinity for many years before finally "understanding". It is difficult. It is a 'mystery", of sorts, but with time, and many years of strident Atheism, one day, when my Mother died, it hit me.
It's never "left", and yet, it still is one of the "great and beautiful" mysteries of Catholic Doctrine, to me.
___________________________________________________________
A small poem for you:
ELEGY
Sing now a song of betrayal!
This is the rusty knife
That bled the heart and
Poisoned the bones under the flesh.
Death, he did not fear,
For he was 'ready half-interred,
Half-rotting, half-standing in the dust.
And a sombra fell over the
Procession, following them as they
Took him to the dirt box and buried him there
Under a Cypress tree.
DMD 2011 Ensenada
How horrifying! It is compromise with satan, which is basic to dhimmitude but this goes a step further. It is perverting the Scriptures to conform to another perversion of Scriptures.