Bible:- Canon of the Bible..

aenemy7

http://www.themodernreligion.com ... rist/bible_cool.htm

'Cool' Bible launched in US
BBC, 11 May 1999

An updated, "cool" version of The Bible - retitled The Book - has been launched in the United States with the most expensive literary promotion in history. Gospel singers, children and evangelists poured out of a giant copy of The Book to herald the start of the $7m advertising campaign, which includes a series of star-studded TV commercials.

Anti-religion activists in the US have branded the relaunch a blatant confidence trick, designed to make money. They say it is a sign of weakness that religions have resorted to such measures.

But the mastermind behind The Book, TV evangelist and former presidential candidate, Pat Robertson, denied he was promoting The Book for profit. "Our goal is not to sell Bibles. It is to make Bible-reading cool and American," he said.

Doug Knox, of publishers Tynedale House, explained what he saw as the appeal of the updated version. "The Book looks friendlier than your typical leather Bible," he told the launch party. It's got a cool title, contemporary package design and clear-reading, single-column type."

Mr Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) is The Book's principal backer. CBN believes that statistics, as well as religion, justify the massive showbiz advertising campaign.

Untapped market

More than 90 million Americans have not read the Bible, suggesting a huge, untapped market of potential readers.

Critics object to what they see as a cynical commercial ploy. Some observers have described the TV commercials as more appropriate for a brand of washing powder than a religious publication.

American Atheists' spokesman Chris Pokrop said that when a religion resorted to trying to make itself "cool" it had "lost the point".

"People should be attracted to their religion because it makes sense, it's meaningful and has something applicable to say," he said. "I think people are no longer turning to the Bible and Christianity for their help and this is just a ploy to sucker more people into the religion."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Readers,

Despite the fact that Christians resort to such elaborate measures to 'sell' Christianity, Islam is growing at a faster rate in America. Muslims don't do the HUGE amount of missinary work Christians do (I don't mean to say we Muslims should be proud of it) and we certainly don't spend $7 m on an advertising campaign. As Chris Pokrop said, ""People should be attracted to their religion because it makes sense, it's meaningful and has something applicable to say. I think people are no longer turning to the Bible and Christianity for their help..."

Your sincerely,
Webmaster
Islam - The Modern Religion


Allah Knows Best...
Peace Yall....

aenemy7

http://answering-christianity.com/1john5_7.htm

John 5:7

The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7


"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."


This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says:
"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."


Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God's people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "Trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the true nature of God as being a "Trinity." Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see chapter two).


If these people were being "inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did they need to put these words into other people's mouths (in our example, in the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to "inspire" his "true" nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?

The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words:


"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."
"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.


Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year 400C.E.(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).

Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said


"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."


To which Mr. Bentley responds:


"In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the interpolation."


Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had predicted, the simple fact that the most learned scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.


Peake's Commentary on the Bible says


"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."


It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all:


"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books… Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best"

Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156


According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament.


For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations got together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of the RSV Bible, please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible.


Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt", or was it an "ass and a colt"? see point 42 in the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read:


"And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring [him]. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed [them] in the way And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."


Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of any description of the "Trinity" which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. I found myself asking the question: If every aspect of Christian faith is described in such detail such that even the description of this ass is so vividly depicted for us, then why is the same not true for the description of the "Trinity"? Sadly, however, it is a question for which there is no logical answer.

aenemy7

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9182.htm

This is the view from an atheist about the bible,it's a Q&A...have a look at it!!interesting view from those who disbelief about the existence of God...

What Is The Atheist View On The Bible?Eric

From: "Charles Hitztaler"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: PA-via_Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 10:13 AM

I'm just curious as to what the atheist view on the Bible is. I know atheist believe it is false and contradictory, but how do they explain how it came to be? Was it a huge manipulation by a group of bandits? Was it just grossly misinterpreted? Was it a work of fiction?
Sincerely, Eric

Answers:

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Charles Hitztaler"
Subject: Re: PA-via_Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 4:04 PM

Atheism is a very minor aspect of anybody's comprehensive viewpoint. Since there is really no such thing as the atheist view on anything, I can give you only my own viewpoint. But, if no gods exist, then the Bible, like all written material, was written by humans. Thus, if it claims to have been written by a god, then it is just so much hucksterism.

I don't think the Bible makes for itself a very strong claim that it was written by gods. Certain portions, such as Ezekiel, make strong claims of that nature for themselves, but most of the Bible seems to be either mythology, which was common for the era, or simple historical accounts of a tribe (albeit exaggerated and highly moralized). Matthew and Luke are not ashamed to revise and correct Mark and to tailor his accounts to their own theology (for example: Matthew's Jesus would never take an entire day to wither a damned fig tree and thinks the donkey prophecy specifically calls for two donkeys). Even Paul interjects that he is speaking his own opinion and goes to great lengths to say hello to his friends.

Before the New Testament Gospels were written, the Christians had only the Hebrew Scripture to go on. So, they meticulously sought to fulfill their belief that all of that body of work spoke prophetically of Jesus. This explains many of the Jesus stories which seem so contrived in their attempts to conform to this or that Hebrew tale, and this also explains how almost everything the Gospel Jesus did has a "parallel" in Hebrew Scripture: the Gospel accounts are based more on this presupposition that the Hebrew Scriptures speak of Jesus than they are accurate accounts of a historical Jesus, and since Jesus was seen as the greatest of all prophets (and more), it behooved his biographers to be very careful that he was never upstaged by any miracle in Hebrew Scripture.




Allah Knows Best,Peace Yall....

aenemy7

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible/bible_closer_look.htm#ch1

"Is 'King James' Version the Actual Bible?"
- by Yusuf Estes - former Christian - Muslim Chaplain [Revised July 7, 2004]-

Note: The word "Bible" comes from the Koine Greek word "biblios" and it simply means the same as the word "book" in English. Nowhere in the Bible do we find the word "Bible." However, it is interesting to note the word "kitab" (Bible in Arabic) appears many times in the Quran, referring to the Bible and the People of the Book (Jews and Christians).

Let me begin by saying that the King James "version" of the Bible is in English. There was no English language until the year 1066 AD when the Normans invaded the Saxxons. Therefore the English Bible cannot be anything like what any of the prophets spoke or understood, as it did not exist in their times.

Next, my grandfather, who was a devout and wonderful Christian man gave a gift of the Holy Bible to my sisters and I almost fifty years ago. It was an authorized version of the Bible, being The Revised Standard Version of the Bible which was a revised version of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a version of the King James Version, published in 1611, which was revised and corrected for the first time in 1612, etc. I was very much impressed with the easier to read text and clarification of some of the wording which was presented in this version and began to read the Bible on a daily basis for hours at a time. The removal of the Elizabethton English terms, phrases and expressions made the Bible a more accessible and understandable and intimate Book for me. But that is not all the RSV did for me and many others, as well.

My love and respect  for the Word of God increased the more that I spent time reading and understanding the message. The Bible became my most prized and respected book in my life. I often turned to it throughout the rest of my life in times of joy, happiness, sadness, troubles and pain. It was my compass, my road map, my weather vane and my friend. However, there were still some problems with this IMPROVED VERSION of the Holy Bible. It began to disturb and concern me to the extent that I made consultation with my father, who was also an ordained minister and student of the Bible since childhood. Based on his research and background in the origin and sources for modern day Christianity, I began to go deeper into the problems which had plagued my thinking and faith since childhood.

I prayed to Almighty God and then found the answers to some of the problems were spelled out very clearly in the very beginning of the exact same book.  I have that book lying in front of me on my desk as I write this article and would like to quote to you from some of the PREFACE page iii and iv:

"The King James Version has with good reason been termed 'the noblest monument of English prose.' Its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration of 'its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of express... the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.' It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt."

"Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision of the English translation. The task was undertaken, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bibles was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work, was published in 1901."

"Because of the unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two decades between 1881 and 1901, which tampered with the text of the English Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American Standard Version was copyrighted, to protect the text from unauthorized changes. In 1928 this copyright was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education, and thus passed into the ownership of the churches of the United States and Canada which were associated in this Council through their boards of education and publication."

".... decision was reached that there is need for a thorough revision of the version of 1901..""In 1937 the revision was authorized by vote of the Council."

"Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making the revision, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the co-operating denominations."

"Each section has submitted its work to the scrutiny of the members of the charter of the Committee requires that all changes be agreed upon by a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the Committee."

"The problem of establishing the correct Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old testament is very different from the corresponding problem in the New Testament."

"For the New Testament we have a large number of Greek manuscripts, preserving many variant forms of the text. Some of them were made only two or three centuries later than the original composition of the books."

"For the Old Testament only late manuscripts survive, all (with the exception of the Dead Sea Texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk and some fragments of other books) based on a standardized form of the text established many centuries after the books were written."

"The present revision is based on the consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic text as fixed early in the Christian era and revised by Jewish scholars (the 'Masoretes') of the sixth to ninth centuries. The vowel signs, which were added by the Masoretes, are accepted also in the main, but where a more probable and convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been done."

"... vowel points are less ancient and [less] reliable than the consonants."

"Departures from the consonantal text of the best manuscripts have been made only where it seems clear that errors in copying had been made before the text was standardized."

"Most of the corrections adopted are based on the ancient versions [translations into Greek Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin], which were made before the time of the Masoretic revision and therefore reflect earlier forms of the text."

"Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text."

"Many difficulties and obscurities, of course, remain."

"Where the choice between two meanings is particularly difficult or doubtful, we have given an alternative rendering in a footnote."

"If in the judgment of the Committee the meaning of  a passage is quite uncertain or obscure, either because of corruption in the text or because of the inadequacy of our present knowledge of the language, that fact is indicated by a note."

"It should not be assumed, however, that the Committee was entirely sure or unanimous concerning every rendering not so indicated."

"To record all minority views was obviously out of the question."

"The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying."

"It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts."

"The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and [yet] he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus."

"We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the new Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. The evidence for the text of the books of the New Testament is better that for any other ancient book, both in the number of extant manuscripts and in the nearness of the date of some of these manuscripts to the date when the book was originally written."


The words are in plain English. The second paragraph says it all, "Yet, the King James Version has grave defects.

Therefore, we must conclude the "King James Version" is NOT the Actual Bible sent by God to mankind.

Allah Knows Best,Peace Yall....

aenemy7

This is an article written in bahasa indonesia/melayu.....

http://swaramuslim.net/ISLAMKRISTEN/more.php?id=38_0_7_10_M

Mengenai Bible
Oleh : Fakta 30 Nov, 04 - 9:30 am

Kitab ini diturunkan pada Nabi Isa a.s dalam bahasa Yahudi Kuno (Ibrani).

Kitab pertama yang asli telah dimusnahkan oleh Paulus dari pihak Gereja Pauline pada 325 M. Semua naskah Injil yang bertentangan dengan Injil resmi kerajaan Romawi saat itu dibakar. Siapa saja yang memiliki salinan naskah asli dihukum mati. Kitab Injil tertua saat ini ada dalam bahasa Yunani Kuno, bukan Yahudi kuno (Ibrani).

Terdiri dari :
Kitab Perjanjian Lama (Old Testament) yang berisi Taurat dan Zabur
Kitab Perjanjian Baru (New Testament) yang berisi Injil Markus, Matius, Lukas dan Yahya, perkataan Nabi Isa dan surat pendakwah (Paulus ).


Siapakah Yang Menulis Injil.

Di dalam kitab Injil terdapat 2 bagian yaitu Kitab Perjanjian Lama dan Kitab Perjanjian Baru. Namun begitu Umat Kristian melarang penganutan terhadap Kitab Perjanjian Lama. Sebelum diadakan usaha-usaha membentuk kitab Perjanjian Baru, kitab Injil terdiri daripada 75 bab / surah. Surah ini dikarang oleh perseorangan atau kumpulan pendeta. Inilah yang menyebabkan kitab tersebut mengandung banyak pertentangan dan perbedaan yang serius dan nyata. Pengumpul-pengumpul kitab tersebut juga tidak hidup semasa zaman Nabi Isa atau tatkala Nabi Isa masih hidup. Kebanyakan mereka lahir selepas 20-40 tahun setelah peristiwa penyaliban.

Kitab Perjanjian Baru ini baru ada semasa persidangan Nicea pada tahun 325 M di mana semua ketua gereja berkumpul untuk menentukan kembali isi kitab Injil. Sejumlah 27 risalah saja dari sekian banyak risalah ditentukan sebagai yang betul, setelah itu 27 risalah ini dijilidkan menjadi kitab Perjanjian Baru.

Kitab perjanjian ini terdiri dari sejarah dan pelajaran. Bagian sejarah terkandung dalam Injil Matius, Markus, Lukas dan Yahya. Sementara bagian pelajaran terdiri dari 21 risalah yaitu : 14 risalah Paulus, 3 risalah Yahya, 2 risalah Petrus, 1 Yakub dan Yahuda.


Injil Matius

Nama Injil Matius diambil dari nama pendeta Matius dari gereja Alexandria Mesir dalam bahasa Hebrew. Beliau dipercayai sebagai orang pertama yang menghasilkan risalah kandungan sejarah. Hasil karangan Matius ini dikarang 20 &#8211; 27 tahun setelah Nabi Isa tiada. Bahkan kitab asli karangan Matius sendiri telah hilang, ini diakui sendiri oleh umat Kristian. Setelah itu injil dalam Bahasa Yunani dijumpai, dan dikatakan sebagai Injil karangan Matius. Banyak tokoh Kristian menolak pendapat bahwa Injil ini merupakan karangan Matius, tetapi sebaliknya merupakan karangan gurunya, Petrus.


Injil Lukas

Injil Lukas diambil dari nama pendeta Lukas dari tahun 25 &#8211; 30 M. Beliau juga tidak pernah bertemu Nabi Isa. Banyak tokoh Kristian sendiri mengakui bahwa Injil karangan Lukas merupakan fakta palsu yang bukan merupakan ajaran Nabi Isa. Sebenarnya beliau mengarang injil ini disebabkan tekanan geeja waktu itu. Begitu juga dengan Markus dan Yahya. Kesemuanya tidak pernah hidup sezaman dengan Nabi Isa.


Injil Yahya

Kitab Injil Yahya diambil dari nama pendeta Yahya atau lebih dikenal sebagai Yohanes. Beliau merupakan putera saudara perempuan Maryam yaitu ibu Nabi Isa. Yahya mengarang injilnya dalam bahasa Yunani antara tahun 45 &#8211; 65 M. Banyak pendeta meragukan kandungan Injil Yohanes ini. Bahkan Encyclopedia Britanica menegaskan bahwa Injil yahya tidak syak lagi di karang oleh seorang mahasiswa Institusi Iskandariah dan bukannya karangan Yahya.

Persoalan mengapa di dalamnya berisi Taurat juga tidak dapat di jawab dengan pasti dan tepat. Ini mungkin juga merupakan bukti bahwa orang Yahudi selalu ingin memalsukan fakta Injil asli, karena bagi mereka, Yahudi, mereka senang bila dapat menyesatkan kaum Kristian dari ajaran asli Nabi Isa, dan mereka berhasil.


Persidangan Nicea

Menurut perkiraan para ahli sejarah, kitab Injil yang masih asli belum diikuti campur tangan para pendeta, masih ada hingga 325 M. Setelah tahun 325 M, kitab ini mulai dinodai oleh Raja Konstantin Rom pada Persidangan Nicea. Karena semasa persidangan ini terdapat perdebatan dan pertentangan pendapat mengenai ketuhanan dan kenabian Isa, perdebatan dalam ajaran pokok, akidahnya. Satu pendapat (Golongan Arius) mengatakan bahwa Nabi Isa hanyalah seorang manusia dan Nabi yang membawa ajaran agama dari Tuhan. Satu pihak lagi mengatakan bahwa Nabi Isa ialah "anak Tuhan".

Pendapat tentang Isa "anak tuhan" ini didukung oleh pihak gereja dari Alexandria yang diketuai oleh penolong Bishop Iskandariah bernama Athanasius.

Raja Konstantin mempunyai niat tersirat untuk campur tangan dalam hal agama, demi menjaga hak politiknya agar tidak jatuh ke tangan orang lain. Semasa persidangan tersebut, sebanyak 2048 orang Uskup telah hadir untuk membincangkan perselisihan pendapat mengenai Nabi Isa.

Sebanyak 1730 orang telah setuju bahwa Nabi Isa adalah seorang manusia biasa yang diutus Allah, 318 orang mengatakan bahwa Isa ialah Anak Tuhan. Walau bagaimanapun majoritas pendapat ini ditolak mentah-mentah Raja Konstantin dan mengambil pendapat minoritas, yaitu Nabi Isa adalah seorang anak Tuhan.


Arius ketua pendukung bahwa Nabi Isa bukan anak Tuhan.

Arius (250-336 M) adalah salah seorang murid utama Lucian berbangsa Libya yang juga bersama-sama dengan gurunya menegakkan ajaran Tauhid kepada Allah, Arius merupakan seorang presbyter (ketua majelis agama /gereja) digereja Baucalis Alexandria, salah satu gereja tertua dan terpenting di kota itu pada tahun 318 M.

Sejak mangkatnya Lucian pada tahun 312 M ditangan orang-orang gereja Paulus, perlawanan Arius terhadap doktrin Trinity semakin memuncak, dan dalam perjuangannya ini, Arius mendapatkan dukungan dua orang saudara Kaisar Constantin yang bernama Constantina dan Licunes.


Arius dianggap sebagai seorang pemberontak Trinity dengan mendasarkan

teori:
"Jika Jesus itu benar-benar anak Tuhan atau Tuhan itu sendiri, maka Bapa harus ada lebih dahulu. Oleh karena itu harus ada "masa" sebelum adanya anak. Artinya anak adalah makhluk. Maka anak itu pun tidak selamanya ada atau tidak abadi. Sedangkan Tuhan yang sebenarnya haruslah abadi, berarti Jesus tidaklah sama dengan Tuhan."

Atas pandangan Arius tersebut, sebanyak 100 orang pendeta Mesir dan Libya berkumpul untuk mendengar pandangan Arius. Pada waktu inilah juga Arius mengemukakan kembali pendangannya :
"Ada masa sebelum adanya Jesus, sedangkan Tuhan sudah ada sebelumnya. Jesus ada kemudian, dan Jesus hanyalah makhluk biasa yang bisa binasa seperti makhluk-makhluk lainnya. Tetapi Tuhan tidak mungkin binasa."

Arius memperkuat pendapatnya dengan sejumlah ayat-ayat Bible seperti Yohanes 14:8, "Bapa lebih besar daripada Jesus"; Seandainya kita mengakui bahwa Jesus adalah sama dengan Tuhan, maka kita harus menolak kebenaran ayat Yohanes tersebut.

Pendapat Arius ini secara sederhana dapat dijelaskan sebagai berikut : &#8222;Jika Jesus memang "anak Tuhan", maka akan segera disertai pengertian bahwa "Bapak Tuhan" haruslah ada terlebih dahulu sebelum adanya sang "Anak".

Oleh sebab itu tentulah akan terdapat jurang waktu ketika "Anak" belum ada. Oleh karena, "Anak" adalah makhluk yang tersusun dari sebuah "esensi" atau makhluk yang tidak selalu ada. Dan Tuhan merupakan suatu zat yang bersifat mutlak, kekal, tidak terlihat dan berkuasa, maka Jesus tidak mungkin bisa menjadi sifat yang sama sebagaimana sifat Tuhan.

Argumen Arius ini tidak dapat dilawan lagi, maka mulai tahun 321 M Arius dikenal sebagai seorang presbyter pembangkang. Ia mendapat banyak dukungan dari Uskup-uskup daerah Timur. Hal ini membuat Alexandria (yang pernah menghukum mati Origen tahun 250 M) menjadi semakin marah.

Arius pula orangnya yang sangat menentang keras keputusan Nicea pada tahun 325 M, sehingga senantiasa mendapatkan tantangan dari orang-orang gereja Paulus. Pada tahun 336 Arius dibunuh di Constantinopel dalam satu muslihat yang licik.

Setelah pembunuhan ini segala usaha menentang trinitas dilawan habis-habisan. Naskah Injil diseragamkan. Naskah yang tidak sama dengan pihak Gereja Pauline dimusnahkan, dihapuskan di bumi Kerajaan Romawi. Inilah sejarah awal tersesatnya ajaran Kristian.


Mengenai Bible (2)

Dalam persidangan Nicea, beberapa Doktrin diperkenalkan, diantaranya Doktrin Trinitas dan Doktrin Penebusan Dosa. Konsep Trinitas sebenarnya telah direka oleh Athanasius, seorang pegawai Gereja Mesir dari Iskandariah, diterima oleh Majelis Nicaea pada 325 M.

Konsep Trinity [KeEsaan Tiga] ini serupa filsafat Plato, kepercayaan Yunani, &#8216;Neo - Platonisme" yang mempercayai "Tiga Kekuatan". Kemungkinan doktrin trinitas tertulari kepercayaan Yunani kuno ini. Trinity yang di pelopori oleh Paulus merupakan ajaran agama Yunani- Romawi, yaitu kerajaan yang berkuasa di Rom pada masa itu. Jadi paham trinitas dari Katolik Roma atau pun aliran kristen yang lain jelas merupakan hasil proses masuknya ajaran lain dalam ajaran Isa, dan bukannya ajaran asli Nabi Isa sendiri !.

aenemy7

Begitu juga dengan Dokrin Penghapusan Dosa yang dipelopori Gereja Alexandria di mana mereka mengatakan bahwa Nabi Isa telah disalib demi tujuan menyelamatkan seluruh umat manusia. Ajaran ini juga jelas hasil proses masuknya ajaran agama romawi Kuno. Hari Minggu yang dianggap hari Suci bagi agama Kristian merupakan hasil pengaruh daripada Kepercayaan ini dan tanggal 25 Desember yang diperingati sebagai Natal, Sebenarnya merupakan tanggal kelahiran tuhan Matahari mereka yaitu "Mithra" dan jelas bukan tanggal lahir Nabi Isa.

Mulai tahun 1582 di Rheims, Bible diterjemahkan dari bahasa Latin berdasarkan Bible Versi Tyndale. (Yang digunakan Gereja Katolik Rom) juga dikenali sebagai Roman Katolik Version. Ini merupakan versi bible yang tertua yang dikenal.

Sejak itu sebanyak 4 kali terjemahan telah dibuat. Pada tahun 1611 King James I telah memerintahkan supaya dilakukan penulisan ulang karena terdapatnya pertentangan yang meragukan. Versi penulisan ulang ini kini dinamakan King James Version (KJV) yaitu dengan tidak memasukkan 7 buku kecil (bab). Versi ini selanjutnya dirilis ulang pada tahun 1881 dan diperbaharui pada tahun 1952 dan 1971. kedua Versi terakhir ini dinamakan Revised Standard Version (RSV).

Collin yaitu percetakan yang mengeluarkan Revised Standard Version ( RSV ) melaporkan bahwa :
"Meskipun begitu, Versi Raja James memiliki cacatan-cacat yang serius, dan cacat ini ada terlalu banyak dan terlalu serius sehingga satu penulisan ulang masih benar-benar diperlukan."

Pada masa kini terdapat lebih kurang 1.500 naskah Bible pelbagai bahasa, telah diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa ibu suatu negara dan ethniknya. Bagaimana pula jauhnya penyimpangan mengingat keterbatasan kosakata setiap bahasa? Dan manakah yang bisa dijadikan standar pengajaran?

Umat Kristian sendiri ada yang secara jujur dan arif mengakui bahwa Injil telah dinodai oleh tangan mereka sendiri. Bagaimanakah umat Kristian di Indonesia, apakah berani sejujur ini ? :

1. The Bible Society Of Singapore, Malaysia & Brunei 1987 Perjanjian Baharu Berita Baik Untuk Manusia Moden Pendahuluan
"&#8230;&#8230;.Walaupun kandungan kitab-kitab ini berlainan, tetapi diseluruh kitab ini pokok fikirannya satu. Kesatuannya ialah bahwa kasih Allah telah dinyatakan kepada manusia dengan perantaraan Yesus Kristus.

"Tiap-tiap kitab didahului oleh pendahuluan, yang menerangkan pokokfikiran dan garis besar kitab itu. Ayat yang ditandai dengan [ ]bererti ayat tersebut tidak terdapat pada naskah perjanjian Baharu yang tertua dan terbaik.


Contoh ayat yang memiliki tanda [ ] dalam Perjanjian Baru :

1. Matius 6 : 13
&#8230; [ Engkaulah raja engkaulah,dan engkaulah yang mempunyai kuasa dan kemuliaan selama-lamanya ]

2. Matius 23 : 14
[ alangkah dasyatnya bagi kamu guru-guru Taurat dan orang Farisi : kamu munafik! , kamu memperdayakan janda-janda dan merampas rumah-rumah mereka, lalu berpura-pura berdoa panjang-panjang, sebab itu, hukuman kamu akan menjadi lebih berat.! ]

3. Markus 7 : 15
[ Sebab itu, jika kamu bertelinga, dengarkanlah! ]

4. Markus 10 : 44 & 46
[ Di sana ulatnya tidak mati-mati dan apinya tidak padam-padam ] 44 [ Di sana ulatnya tidak mati-mati dan apinya tidak padam-padam ] 46

5. Lukas 17 : 36
[ Dua orang laki-laki yang sedang berada di ladang : seorang akan , dan seorang lagi ditinggalkan ]

6. Lukas 22 : 19 &#8211; 20
" inilah tubuhku [ yang diberikan untuk kamu. Buatlah sedemikian untuk memperingati aku." &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. "cawan ini ialah perjanjian Allah yang Baharu, yang dimenteraikan dengan darahku, darah yang ditumpahkan untuk kamu ]

7. Lukas 22 : 43 &#8211; 44
[ Seorang malaikat tampak kepadanya dan menguatkannya karena penderitaan nya lebih tekun lagi dia berdoa, sehingga peluhnya menitik ke tanah seperti darah. ]

8. Lukas 23 : 17
[ Pada tiap perayaan paskah, Pilatus melepaskan seorang tahanan bagi rakyat ]

Bukti di atas merupakan sebagian saja yang telah ditambah dan berapakah jumlah ayat yang telah ditambah / dikurangkan sebenarnya? Tidak diketahui jumlahnya !. Sejarah telah jujur dan nyata membuktikan bahwa Injil telah mengalami banyak perubahan selama berabad-abad. The Revised Standard Version 1952 & 1971, The New American Standart Bible dan The New World Transalation Of The Holly scriptures telah menghapuskan beberapa ayat dalam The King James Version. Reader&#8217;s Digest telah mengurangi isi kandungan Kitab Perjanjian Lama sebanyak 50 % dan Kitab Perjanjian Baru sebanyak 25 %.

Persoalan yang timbul di sini ialah :
- Dari mana datangnya ayat di atas ?
- Siapa yang mengarang ayat tersebut ?
- Sebenarnya ayat mana saja yang masih perlu diuji kesahihannya?

"Di antara mereka itu ada satu golongan yang memutar belitkan lidahnya dengan (membaca) Kitab supaya kamu kira bahwa kitab itu dari Allah padahal ianya bukanlah dari sisi Allah dan sedang mereka berdusta terhadap Allah sedang mereka mengetahui...." (Surah 3:78)


Contoh peristiwa besar yang bertentangan dengan akal atau ayat yang saling bertentangan :


1. Nabi Daud berzina dengan istri orang lain
II Samuel 11 : 4-5
"Dan Nabi Daud mengantar para utusan, dan mengambilnya (isteri Uriah); lalu ia datangi dan tidur bersama maka setelah perempuan itu membersihkan dirinya, lalu kembali ke rumahnya. Dan wanita itu telah hamil, lalu mengirim dan memberitahu Daud dan katanya saya bersama bayi".

Mungkinkah ini ayat dari Allah? Atau ditulis oleh rasul suci ? Berpikirlah !

2. Nabi Nuh Mabuk dan Bugil
Kejadian 9 : 23 &#8211; 24
" Dan Shem dan Japhet mengambil sehelai pakaian, dan meletakan di atas bahu mereka, dan berjalan undur ke belakang dan menutup tubuh bapanya yang telanjang dan muka mereka membelakangi bapa mereka agar tidak melihat tubuh bapa mereka yang bugil itu. Dan Nuh tersadar dari araknya, dia tahu apa yang telah dilakukan oleh kedua anaknya".

Apakah Allah mengutus Nabi Nuh yang digambarkan berperilaku seperti itu ? Berpikirlah ! Mungkinkah ini penyelewengan yang dilakukan Yahudi untuk menyesatkan kaum kristian?

3. Kematian Yudas Pengkhianat, bandingkan !
Matius 27 : 3 - 5
"&#8230; Bila Yudas melihat Yesus telah dijatuhkan hukuman mati, dia menyesal lalu dia mengembalikan 30 uang perak upahnya kepada imam Yahudi; dan berkata : Aku telah berdosa mengkhianati orang yang tidak berdosa sehingga dihukum mati. Yudas melempar uang itu ke dalam bilik sembahyang , lalu dia menggantungkan diri.

Kisah Para Rasul 1 : 18 &#8211; 19
Apa yang terjadi yaitu dengan uang yang diterima Yudas dari perbuatannya yang jahat itu, dia membeli sebidang tanah. Di situ dia tersungkur mati. Badannya terbelah dan perutnya terburai. Semua orang yang tinggal di Yerusalem mendengar kejadian ini."

4. Misteri Malkisedik
Ibrani 7 : 1 &#8211; 3 :
"Adapun Malkisedik itu, yaitu raja di Salem dan Imam Allah Taala, yang sudah berjumpa dengan Ibrahim tatkala Ibrahim kembali daripada menewaskan raja-raja lalu diberkatinya Ibrahim."
"Kepadanya juga Ibrahim sudah memberi bagian sepuluh esa. Makna Malkisedik itu kalau diterjemahkan, pertama-tama artinya raja keadilan, kemudian pula raja di Salem, yaitu raja damai." Yang tiada berbapak dan tiada beribu, dan tiada bersilsilah dan tiada berawal atau berkesudahan hidupnya, melainkan ia disamakan dengan Anak Allah, maka kekallah ia imam selama-lamanya."

Jelas sekarang, bahwa Malkisedik seorang raja di Salem tanpa bapa dan ibu, malah tiada silsilahnya. Apakah cerita yang disebutkan dalam Kitab Injil ini benar ayat dari Allah atau cuma dongeng purba atau dongeng sebelum bobo buat adik bayi kita supaya tertidur ?

Kalau umat Kristian memuja kehebatan Yesus, memujanya anak tuhan, bahkan Tuhan itu sendiri, yang tidak berawal serta berakhir, maka kenapa Malkisedik yang sakti mandraguna ini tidak diangkat sebagai salah satu cabang Tuhan juga ? mungkin bisa menjadi tokoh ke-4 memainkan peranan Tuhan.

Yesus ternyata tewas dibanding Malkisedik, Yesus masih dilahirkan oleh Mariam atas kekuasaan Tuhan Bapa, sementara Malkisedik tidak memiliki Bapa dan tidak memiliki ibu sama sekali, silsilahnya pun tidak ada.

Jika memang Malkisedik ini kekal. Dimana beliau sekarang berada dan sedang ngapain? Jadi masih mungkinkah kitab ini dipercaya, atau yang mempercayainya masih serupa mereka yang mempercayai keris, tanpa ilmu pengetahuan, hanya kebutaan ?

aenemy7

Mengenai Bible (3)

Kitab Suci / Holy Bible dalam agama kristen itu terbagi dalam dua bagian, yaitu : Old Testament (Perjanjian Lama) dan New Testament(Perjanjian Baru). Literatur kristen dalam bahasa Indonesia memanggil salinan kitab suci itu dengan "Alkitab".

Biblia, yang merupakan Kitab Suci dalam agama Yahudi, dipanggil oleh pihak kristen dengan Perjanjian Lama dan merupakan bagian dari kitab suci agama kristen. Biblia itu terbagi atas tiga bagian : Torah dan Nebiim dan Kethubiim.

Kitab suci agama Yahudi itu disebut juga &#8222;Perjanjian&#8220;. Inti isinya termaktub dalam Sepuluh Perintah (Ten Commadments) seperti termuat dalam Keluaran (20: 1-12) dan dalam Ulangan (5:1-21), yang merupakan perjanjian Yahuwa dengan bani Israil.

Sepuluh Perintah itu termuat dalam dua buah Luh, yang dibawa turun oleh Nabi Musa dari puncak sebuah bukit batu di semenanjung Sinai, yang pada puncak yang terpandang suci itu Nabi Musa menerimakan perjanjian dari Allah Maha Kuasa (Yahuwa)

Di dalam hubungan perjanjian Yahuwa dengan bani Israil itu, Kitab Suci Al-Qur'an dari agama Islam menyebut &#8222;Perjanjian&#8220; tersebut dalam berbagai Surah dengan al-Mitsaq , (Baqarah, 27; Ra'ad, 27; Nisak, 153; Maidah, 15; Baqarah, 63, 84,93; dan berbagai Surah lainnya), yang bermakna: Perjanjian.

Karena pihak kristen berpendirian bahwa ketetapan yang diberikan Allah Maha Kuasa kepada Jesus (Isa Al-Masih) itu pun merupakan perjanjian, maka lahir dua istilah dalam dunia kristen, yaitu : Perjanjian Lama dan Perjanjian Baru.


Perjanjian Baru / New Testament

Perjanjian Baru merupakan kitab suci yang paling azasi dalam agarna kristen sekalipun dunia kristen itu mengakui kitab suci agama Yahudi merupakan bagian dari kitab sucinya juga.


Perjanjian Baru itu terbagi atas empat bagian :

1. Gospels (himpunan Injil) terdiri atas empat Injil :

a. Injil Matius, karya Matius.
b. Injil Markus, karya Markus.
c. Injil Lukas, karya Lukas.
d. Injil Yahya, karya Yahya.

2. Acts of Apostles (Kisah Rasul-Rasul) terdiri atas sebuah kitab saja, yang merupakan karya Lukas.

3. Epistles (himpunan Surat) terdiri dari 14 buah Surat Paulus (Rum, Korintus Pertama, Korintus Kedua, Galatia, Epesus, Pilipi, Kolose, Tesalonika Pertama. Tesalonika Kedua, Timotius Pertama, Timosius Kedua, Titus, Pilemon, Ibrani, 1 buah Surat Yakub (James), 2 buah Surat Peterus, 3 buah Surat Yahya, 1 buah Surat Yahuda.

4. Apocalypse (Wahyu) terdiri' atas sebuah kitab saja, yang merupakan karya Yahya.

Perbandingan luas isi dari keempat-empat bagian itu, dengan meminjam Kitab Perjanjian Baru cetakan 1955 yang diterbitkan Gedung Alkitab di Jakarta, tercatat sebagai berikut :

Injil Matius ------------ : 93 halaman
Injil Markus ----------- : 60 halaman
Injil Lukas ------------- : 97 halaman
Injil Yahya ------------- : 74 halaman
Kisah Rasul-Rasul - : 90 halaman
Surat Paulus --------- : 216 halaman
Surat-surat lain ------ : 43 halaman
Kitab Wahyu --------- : 45 halaman
jumlah ====== : 718 halaman

Melihat perbandingan luas isi di atas dapat disimpulkan suatu fakta bahwa himpunan Surat-Surat Paulus itu merupakan bagian yang sangat dominan di dalam Perjanjian Baru itu.


Synoptic Gospels

Keempat Injil di atas itu adalah tulisan empat tokoh mengenai peristiwa-peristiwa dalam kehidupan Jesus, semenjak lahir sampai menjalankan missinya dalam wilayah Galelia (Palestina Utara) dan terakhir dalam wilayah Judea (Palestina Selatan).

Tiga Injil yang pertama (Matius, Markus, Lukas) itu disebut dengan Synoptic Gospels, yakni Injil-Injil yang hampir bersamaan isinya.

Sekalipun dijumpai perbedaan-perbedaan kecil di sana sini mengenai urutan Silsilah, urutan Kejadian, ragam Peristiwa, akan tetapi dalam rangka keseluruhannya hampir bersamaan.

Kalangan Sarjana-sarjana-Bible (Biblical Scholars), yang melakukan penelitian secara intensif terhadap satu persatu Injil itu, menyimpulkan bahwa masing-masing penulis Injil sama-sama memungut dari suatu Sumber Asal, akan tetapi Sumber-Asal (Q) itu sudah tidak dijumpai kini dan tidak dikenal sama sekali.

Sebaliknya Injil Yahya mempunyai cara sendiri di dalam mengisahkan kehidupan beserta missi dari Jesus itu. Baikpun urutan Kejadian maupun ragam peristiwa agak jauh berbeda dengan 3 Injil yang disebut Synoptic Gospels itu.

Perbedaan lainnya bahwa 3 lnjil yang pertama itu bercerita dalam bentuk yang sederhana dan mudah dipahami, akan tetapi Injil Yahya telah dipenuhi oleh ungkapan-ungkapan filosofis.

aenemy7

Perbedaan lainnya yang sangat tajam sekali ialah mengenai lama missi yang dijalankan Jesus dalam wilayah Galelia dan wilayah Judea itu. 3 Injil pertama bercerita bahwa Jesus Kristus itu menjalankan missinya dalam masa satu kali Perayaan Paskah, lalu tertangkap pada masa perayaan Paskah itu di Jerusalem. Jadi, Jesus menjalankan missinya dalam tempo lebih kurang satu tahun saja.

Tetapi Injil Yahya bercerita bahwa Jesus Kristus itu menjalankan missinya dalam masa tiga kali Perayaan Paskah, dan terakhir ditangkap dalam Perayaan Paskah di Jerusalem. Jadi menurut Yahya, Jesus Kristus menjalankan missinya dalam tempo 3 tahun, bukan satu tahun seperti keterangan ketiga Injil yang tergolong Synoptic Gospels itu.

Keempat Injil itu disusun penulisnya di dalam bahasa Greek kuno (Yunani). Sedangkan Jesus Kristus lahir dan hidup dalam lingkungan masyarakat Yahudi di Palestina, yang dewasa itu berada di bawah kekuasaan imperium Roma, dan menjalankan missinya dalam lingkungan masyarakat Yahudi itu, yang dewasa itu cuma mengenal dan mempergunakan bahasa Arainik yaitu suatu dialek dari bahasa Ibrani (Yahudi).


Nazarenes dan Christians

Pengikut Jesus yang pertama sekali terdiri atas kelompok-kelompok Yahudi dalam wilayah Galelia maupun Judea, yang oleh kalangan Sarjana-sarjana Bible (Biblical Sholan) disebut dengan Early Christians, yakni Orang kristen yang pertama sekali.

Pada masa hidup Jesus sendiri maupun masa berikutnya belum dikenal sebutan orang kristen (Christianis). Mereka itu cuma disebut oleh kalangan lainnya, terutama oleh pihak-pihak yang menantang Jeus, dengan sebutan Nazarenes. Yakni para pengikut Nazareth. Hal itu disebabkan Jesus sekalipun dilahirkan di Bethlehem, akan tetapi keluarganya menetap di kota-kecil Nazareth dalam wilayah Galelia.

Oleh sebab itulah para mukmin pertama itu disebut pihak lawannya dengan pengikut orang Nazareth atau Nazarenes. Dari sebutan Nazarenes itulah lahir sebutan Nashara dalam bahasa Arab dan sebutan Nasrani dalam bahasa Indonesia.

Sedangkan sebutan Christians (Kristen) baru muncul pada masa belakangan, jauh sepeninggal Jesus. Sebutan itu bermula lahir di kota besar Antiokia di Syria Utara, sewaktu Barnabas dan Paulus menjalankan missinya di kota besar itu, yang mempunyai kedudukan sebagai ibukota imperium Roma untuk wilayah belahan Timur.

Disebabkan Barnabas dan Paulus di dalam missinya tidak henti-hentinya menyatakan dan menegaskan bahwa Jesus itu adalah Christos (AI-masih) maka orang sekitarnya memanggilkan mereka itu dengan para pengikut Kristus (Christians). Dari situlah lahir sebutan Orang kristen di dalam bahasa Indonesia.

Jesus wafat, menurut A. Powell Davies di dalam The First Christian cetakan 1957 halaman 13, sekitar tahun 29 Masehi. Pendapat itu dikukuhkan oleh Hugh J. Schonfield dalam The Authentic New Testament cetakan 1958 halaman XIV.

Sedangkan peristiwa pada kota-besar Antiokia itu terjadi, menurut Hugh J. Schonfield, sekitar tahun 46-48 masehi. Jadi Iebih kurang dua puluh tahun sepeninggal Jesus barulah muncuI sebutan Christians (orang Kristen).


Early Christians (Kristen Pertama) dan Gentile Christians (Orang Kristen Asing / Berikutnya)

Pada akhirnya pecah sengketa sengit antara Barnabas dengan Paulus pada kota-kota besar Antiokia itu (Kisah Rasul-Rasul, 15 :39), dan juga Peteros dengan Paulus pada kota-besar Antiokia itu ia, 2: 11-21 ). Inti pokok yang menyebabkan sengketa itu tidak pernah dijelaskan di dalam Kisah Rasul-Rasul, akan tetapi hal itu akan dicoba dijelaskan dalam uraian berikut.

Karena sengketa sengit itu Paulus bersama Silas meninggalkan kota-besar Antiokia untuk selama-lamanya (Kisah Rasul-Rasul, 15:40-41) menuju Asia Kecil dan Makedonia dan semenanjung Achaia (Grik) guna mengembangkan ajarannya dalam lingkungan orang Grik dan mereka itulah yang disebut dengan Gentile Christians (Orang kristen Asing).

Sebutan itu lahir dalam dunia kristen untuk membedakan kelompok Pengikut yang Baru itu dengan Kristen Petama, Early Christians, yakni para pengikut Jesus Kristus yang mula-mula dalam lingkungan masyarakat Yahudi di Palestina, yang disebut dengan Nazarenes itu.

Para pengikut yang pertama diyakini telah musnah sebagian besarnya pada masa pemberontakan total bangsa Yahudi di Palestina terhadap penindasan imperium Roma, yang berlangsung sepuluh tahun lamanya, yaitu antara tahun 65 sampai 75 masehi. Legiun X dari pihak Roma melakukan pembunuhan-pembunuhan massal (massacre) pada perkampungan-perkampungan Yahudi di seluruh Palestina, kecuali yang sempat melarikan diri ke lembah Mesopotamia dan Arabia Selatan dan berbagai wilayah lainnya.

Sewaktu Panglima Titus pada tahun 70 masehi berhasil merebut dan menguasai benteng pertahanan terakhir dari pihak Yahudi, yaitu Kota Suci Jerusalem, maka berlangsung pembunuhan massal lagi. Panglima Titus bertindak menghancurkan Bait Allah di atas bukit Zion, yakni Bait Allah yang terkenal megah dan agung itu, yang pada masa dulu bermula dibangun oleh Nabi Sulaiman dan dikenal dengan Kuil Sulaiman (Solomon's Temple).

Panglima Titus mengumumkan wilayah Jerusalem dan sekitarnya dikuasai kini oleh pihak imperium Roma dan wilayah tersebut diberi nama dengan : Aeliae Capitolae. Semenjak tahun 70 masehi itu setiap orang Yahudi tidak di izinkan memasuki wilayah Aelice Capitolae itu.

Semenjak pemberontakan total yang gagal itulah dikenal dalam sejarah bangsa Yahudi dengan Great Diaspora, yakni masa memencar tanpa tanah air. Pada masa yang sangat tragis itu diyakini kelompok-kelompok pengikut Jesus yang pertama-tama (Early Christians) ikut musnah. Kecuali kelompok kecil yang sempat meliputkan dirinya ke kota Pella di seberang sungai Jordan, yang pada masa belakangan dikenal dengan sekte Ebionites yang mempunyai Injil sendiri yang dikenal dalam sejarah dengan Ebionite Gospel (Injil Ebionites), yang isinya jauh berbeda dengan Injil-Injil yang menjadi pegangan dunia kristen pada masa berikutnya dan kini.

Karena kelompok yang pertama-tama dapat dikatakan telah musnah pada masa pemberontakan itu maka berkembanglah kelompok pengikut yang baru, dibawah ajaran Paulus, yaitu Gentile Christians (Orang Kristen Asing).


http://swaramuslim.net/ISLAMKRISTEN/more.php?id=38_0_7_10_M


Allah Knows Best,Peace Yall....

snipersnake

bumping

aenemy7

This is a Q&A about the "Dead Sea Scrolls" taken from indonesian websites(http://swaramuslim.net/ISLAMKRISTEN/more.php?id=2517_0_7_20_M)

Check it out.....

FAQ : Penemuan Naskah Kuno Laut Mati (Dead Sea Scroll)
Oleh : Redaksi 11 Nov, 04 - 2:47 pm

Assalamu' alaikum wr wb.
Pak Ustadz, saya membaca mengenai penemuan Naskah Kuno Laut Mati (Dead Sea Scrolls) di daerah Qumran-Palestina yang kini telah menjadi warisan sejarah dunia. Dalam galian di beberapa gua di daerah tsb, ditemukan ribuan naskah kuno yang diselidiki berasal dari tahun 68 SM (Sebelum Masehi). Pada gua yang ke-4 ditemukan setiap Kitab nabi dari Kitab Perjanjian Lama (Bible perjanjian lama orang Nasrani yang sekarang).

Pertanyaan saya:
1. Setelah diselidiki dan dibandingkan dengan Bible kaum Nasrani yang sekarang, selain daripada sedikit perbedaan ejaan bahasa, disimpulkan bahwa tidak ada satu kata pun yang telah berubah dari Naskah tersebut. Hal ini menjadikan Bible nya orang Nasrani yang sekarang adalah sama dan tidak berubah dengan naskah tersebut yang umurnya lebih tua 2000 tahun Pak Ustadz, bagaimana kita kaum Muslim menyikapi hal ini, karena kita berpendapat bahwa Kitab Kaum Nasrani telah dirubah oleh mereka?

2. Naskah tersebut berumur 68 tahun sebelum lahirnya nabi Isa SAW. Pada salah satu naskahnya diceritakan mengenai akan datangnya seorang Mesias/Al-Maseh (Isa SAW) yang akan menderita dan akan mati di kayu salib (naskah Nubuatan Isiah). Bagaimana kita menyikapi hal ini karena berdasarkan Quran Nurkarim, dinyatakan bahwa Isa SAW tidak mati di kayu salib, melainkan diangkat oleh Allah.

Terima Kasih dan mohon penjelasannya.

Wassalamualaikum, Wr. Wb.

Dedy Awaluddin

Hegarmanah - Bandung
2003-10-21 10:51:54


Jawaban:

Assalamu `alaikum Wr. Wb.
Al-Hamdulillahi Rabbil `Alamin, Washshalatu Wassalamu `Alaa Sayyidil Mursalin, Wa `Alaa `Aalihi Waashabihi Ajma`in, Wa Ba`d
Apa yang Anda sampaikan itu bisa kita cermati dan kita buat beberapa tanggapan sebagai berikut :


1. Keshahihan inormasi.

Informasi yang Anda terima itu biar bagaimana perlu untuk dichek ulang keshahihannya. Karena peristiwa mengklaim bahwa ditemukan ini atau itu yang intinya menjadi hujjah buat kalangan non Islam untuk menyalahkan Islam bukanlah hal yang asing.

Yang paling jelas di depan mata adalah kebohongan publik tentang teori evolusi Darwin yang ternyata bohong belaka. Hampir semua penemuan fosil tentang manusia purba menunjukkan bahwa ada sejuta kebohongan yang secara sistematis ditutupi oleh mereka sekedar untuk memenangkan teori Darwin itu. Dan hari ini, sedikit dmei sedikit terungkaplah kebohongan itu di mata publik.

Dan kalangan evolusionis itu harus menanggung malu berkepanjangan atas semua kebohongan yang mereka lakukan. Dan semua terjadi akibat kita terlalu percaya dengan klaim-klaim yang mereka rilis, padahal kejujuran orang barat itu sangat tipis dan antara jujur dengan bohong hanya dibatasi oleh sebuah garis tipis saja.

Hari ini, hampir semua fakta ilmiyah yang selama ini mereka dengungkan terungkap kebohongannya. Bukan oleh kalangan muslim, namun oleh kalangan mereka sendiri yang tidak tahan atas kebohongan publik yang memalukan itu.


2. Perjanjina Lama Yang Mana ?

Dan sebagai sebuah tes kecil-kecilan, kalau dikatakan bahwa isi naskah kuno itu sama dengan Perjanjian Lama yang ada sekarang, maka Perjanjian Lama versi yang mana yang sama ? Padahal hari ini kita punya sekian ribu versi Perjanjian Lama yang isinya saling berbeda satu dengan lainnya. Sehingga tidak perlu dibandingkan dengan versi tahun 68 SM yang informasinya belum jelas itu, dengan sebuah logika sederhana saja pun sudah bisa disimpulkan. Bahwa di antara ribu sekian versi Perjanjian Lama itu tidak mungkin semuanya benar. Pasti hanya ada satu yang benar atau malah semuanya tidak ada yang benar.


3. Perjanjian Lama Versi Tahun 68 SM Tidak Ototmatis Asli

Anda sebutkan bahwa ada kesamaan antara Perjanjian Lama di masa sekarang ini dengan yang ditemukan di gua itu yang ditulis pada 68 tahun sebelum lahirnya nabi Isa.

Fakta ini sama sekali tidak membuktikan bahwa Perjanjian Lama yang ada sekarang itu asli atau benar. Karena kalau sekedar sama dengan versi yang ditulis pada tahun 68 sebelum masehi, maka pemalsuan dan campur tangan kalangan petinggi agama sudah terjadi sejak turunnya wahyu kepada Nabi Musa as.

Padahal kitab yang turun kepada Nabi Musa yang oleh sebagian mereka diklaim sebagai perjanjian lama adalah kitab yang turun di zaman beliau hidup, yaitu sekitar tahun 1527 s/d -1408 SM. Jadi kalau ada kitab yang ditemukan tahun 68 sebelum masehi, kemungkinan bahwa kitab itu palsu juga sangat besar.

Jangankan terpaut masa 1500-an tahun, bahkan ketika masih diturunkan pun, orang yahudi saat itu sudah mengingkarinya dan berusaha untuk memalsukannya. Mereka hanya mau menjalankan apa-apa yang sesuai dengan selera mereka dan membuang apa-apa yang tidak sesuai.

Para pengikut Nabi Musa as sejak ketika beliau masih hidup adalah tipe orang yang kerjaanya mengubah ayat Allah SWT dan menulis sendiri karya mereka lalu diakui sebagai ayat yang turun dari Allah SWT. Betapa nista dan hina apa yang mereka lakuikan itu. Lihatlah surat Al-Baqarah yang menelanjangi perilaku meniympang mereka itu :
Apakah kamu masih mengharapkan mereka akan percaya kepadamu, padahal segolongan dari mereka mendengar firman Allah, lalu mereka mengubahnya setelah mereka memahaminya, sedang mereka mengetahui? (QS. Al-Baqarah : 75).

Maka kecelakaan yang besarlah bagi orang-orang yang menulis Al Kitab dengan tangan mereka sendiri , lalu dikatakannya; "Ini dari Allah", untuk memperoleh keuntungan yang sedikit dengan perbuatan itu. Maka kecelakaan yang besarlah bagi mereka, akibat apa yang ditulis oleh tangan mereka sendiri, dan kecelakaan yang besarlah bagi mereka, akibat apa yang mereka kerjakan. (QS. Al-Baqarah : 79)

Jadi kalau Anda menemukan sebuah kitab yang ditulis di zaman Nabi Musa sekalipun, belum tentu bisa dipercaya. Pertama, karena tidak ada pembuktian ilmiyah bahwa kitab itu memang ditulis dimasa itu. Katakanlah Anda punya mesin waktu dan bisa menyelinap masuk ke masa Nabi Musa hidup lalu mencuri salah satu kitab yang ada pada masa itu, tapi ini pun masih belum bisa dipertanggungjawabkan. Kenapa ? Karena karakteristik mereka memang tukang palsu yang kerjanya memalsukan ayat Allah SWT. Jadi sejak masa itu sudah beredar kitab-kitab palsu buatan tangan mereka sendiri.

Anda hanya bisa memastikan bahwa kitab itu benar kalau Anda dalam petualangan Anda itu Anda berhasil bertemu langsung dengan Nabi Musa dan bertanya kepadanya , &#8220;Wahai Nabi Musa, benarkah kitab yang barusan saya curi ini asli dan sesuai dengan wahyu yang Allah SWT turunkan kepada Anda ?&#8221;. Kalau beliau menjawab benar, maka barulah Anda boleh percaya. Tapi kalau Cuma katanya dan katanya, tidak ada satu pun yang berhak dipercayai.

Karena generasi yang ditinggalkan oleh Nabi Musa tidaklah seperti genarasi shahabat Rasulullah SAW yang oleh Al-Quran Al-Karim dipastikan sebagai orang-orang yang tisqah dan adil, dimana Allah SWT telah ridha kepada mereka.

Generasi di zaman nabi Musa tidak lain hanyalah kelompok penentang ayat-ayat Allah SWT dan tidak pernah ada jaminan kemurnian aqidah dan syariah mereka. Tidak ada jaminan keaslian kitab sucinya dan tidak ada jaminan kekalnya ajaran mereka hingga akhir zaman sebagaimana Islam.

Hadaanallahu Wa Iyyakum Ajma`in, Wallahu A`lam Bish-shawab,
Wassalamu `Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh.


Allah Knows Best,Peace Yall....

aenemy7

This article was written by a former christian, Gary Miller(Abdulahad Omar) in 1983....check it out;

http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ-reply.html

A Concise Reply to Christianity &#8211; a Muslim View
by Gary Miller (Abdulahad Omar) (1983)

If this booklet were written to announce my conversion to Christianity, no Christian would complain that it is too blunt. So if I must reject an aspect of Christianity in a succinct form, let me not be accused of bluntness either. A Muslim believes in the religion of Jesus but sees mainline Christianity as a religion constructed about Jesus. Our protest is against two excesses: The apotheosis of Jesus and the most frequent missionary tactic directed toward Muslims.
Part One

Christians and Muslims who learn something of one another's religion find that a crucial issue is the nature of Jesus. The majority of Christians deify Jesus while Muslims say that he was no more than a prophet of God, a faultless human being. The doctrine of the Trinity avows that three distinct co-equals are God. In particular, Jesus is said to be God the Son, or the Son of God. As the Muslim questions details of this theology, the Christian characteristically forms a common explanation for our differences: He complains that Muslims do not understand the Trinity; that we are actually accusing Christians of Tritheism and other heresies.

So the Muslim seeks clarification of the teaching and asks at every step: "How could that be so?" For example, we insist that the term "Son of God" cannot have a literal interpretation. Sonship and divine nature would be necessary attributes of such an actuality, but these are incompatible. The first describes a recipient of life while the second describes One who received life from no one. These are mutually exclusive requirements then. To be a son is to be less than divine, and to be divine is to be no one's son.

As a discussion proceeds, it is the Christian who will eventually take refuge in the response: "These are things that we cannot understand." His assessment of the Muslim's problem becomes his own confession. The Christian explanation becomes self-defeating so there is a change of tactic.

He complains that the Muslim refuses to accept what cannot be understood. But the modified approach is a diversion. Now the concepts of verification and understanding are confused. To illustrate: Chemical reactions may be verified but the atom is not thereby understood. Facts are catalogued but not always explained. This distinction is the key to our concise reply. It is the Muslim who must redirect the discussion. Our primary issue is more basic than resolving the incongruities of Trinitarian doctrine. Rather than ask how the Trinity can be so, we should ask why it must be so. We ask, "Why must Jesus be divine? Can we verify the necessity of this belief?"

The Muslim Position

A few centuries ago, European Philosophers commonly felt that a conjecture was proven if it could be shown to be equivalent to an assertion made by Aristotle. Unfortunately, such an approach stopped short of challenging Aristotle and discovering truth. Similarly, testing the Trinitarian case on what people have said about Jesus stops short of establishing the integrity of the authorities and the truth of the matter.

Our purpose here is no more than the illustration that belief in the Trinity can only be based on Church authority. Many Christians admit that this is the case while others insist that the teaching was elaborated by Jesus himself. "Let them produce their proof," is the repeated admonition of the Quran, that is, "provide the documentation that Jesus himself claimed unqualified deity," (Quran 21:24). Unless this evidence can be produced, authorities are subject to challenge. Then the Christian may not evade the Muslim's questions concerning understanding. The Christian will have no justification for maintaining an illogical position, unless he is content to rely on the opinions of men. If he will probe no deeper than this, the Christian-Muslim dialogue is finished.

For Christians, the only documents accepted as reporting the words of Jesus are the accounts given in the Bible. We leave the Muslim attitude toward the Bible for part II of this essay and find our motivation now in the Quranic verse, "Say: 'O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." (Quran 5:71). Christians are advised to support their claims by citing their books. Thus Muslims believe that no saying of Jesus can be produced which shows him grasping at equality with God. The primary issue is not whether Jesus is God. The first question is whether he said that he was equal to God.
  
  

Methodology

The Bible record of sayings credited to Jesus is quite meager. After allowance for duplication in the four gospel accounts, these sayings could be printed in two columns of a newspaper. None of this handful of texts is an explicit claim of deity. All quotations are implicit, that is, they require interpretation. We are told what Jesus said and then told what he meant. So our methodology takes an obvious form.

It is not our intention or obligation to reinterpret the Bible. We are satisfied to merely verify that Christian interpretations are insufficient, ambiguous, or impossible. We mean to argue: 1) that where the meaning of a quotation is clear, it is still insufficient to prove that Jesus claimed equality with God; 2) that other quotations cited are open to various interpretation, ambiguous; 3) and that still other quotations have been given interpretations that are impossible. This means the evidence is either inadequate, inconclusive, or unacceptable, respectively.

Insufficient Evidence

The virgin birth of Jesus and the miracles he demonstrated are cited by some as proof of his divinity. The insufficiency of the premise is obvious. We need only read the Biblical account of Adam's creation, without father or mother, and the accounts of miracles associated with the prophet Elisha (Genesis and 2 Kings chapters 4,5,6). In the case of these two men, no Christian asserts their divinity, yet each has a qualification in common with Jesus.

Some maintain that Jesus was God because the Hebrew Scriptures predicted his coming. The inadequacy here is only slightly less apparent. The ancient Hebrew Scriptures are also cited as predicting the role of John the Baptist (Malachi chapter 4). These three arguments are mentioned to show that the ready claims of Christian betray a selective or forgetful recall of scripture. They know the fact of virgin birth as well as they know the account of Adam's origins, yet they interpret the first and overlook the second.

Now to pursue our case indirectly. Does the Bible quote Jesus as claiming equality with God? Bible texts are produced to show that Jesus used the terms "son of man", "son of God", "Messiah", and "savior". But each of these terms is applied to other individuals in the Bible. Ezekiel was addressed as "son of man" (Ezekiel chapter 3). Jesus himself speaks of the peacemakers as "sons of God" (Matthew 5:9). Cyrus the Persian is called "messiah" at Isaiah 45:1. The duplicity of translators is manifested here, for they inevitably render only the meaning of the word "Messiah" which is "anointed". Where other Bible verses seem to refer to Jesus, they prefer to transliterate "Messiah" or the Greek equivalent "Christ". In this way they hope to give the impression that there is only one Messiah. As for "savior", the word is applied to other than Jesus (2 Kings 13:5). Christians choose to cite the forty-third chapter of Isaiah as proof that there is only one savior. Again, translators have tried to obscure the fact that God is the only savior in the same ultimate sense that He is our only nourisher and protector, though men also have these assigned tasks. By over specifying this pronouncement in Isaiah they hope to have us believe that God equals savior and Jesus equals savior therefore Jesus equals God. The conspiracy of modern translation is easily demonstrated. The King James Bible of 1611 is everywhere available. Compare it to a more recent translation, say the New American Bible of this century. In the earlier version we find 2 Kings 13:5 contains the word "savior", but in the newer version the synonymous word "deliverer" has been substituted. In fact, "saviours", the plural, will be found at Obadiah 21 and Nehemiah 9:27. Here again, by substituting a different word, the connotation of divinity tied to the word "savior" has been guarded in modern versions by less than honest translation.

Once more we have exhibited the insufficient warrant of arguments offered: Those terms said to connote divinity are used of individuals other than Jesus.

There is a quotation that should be mentioned here also. At John 8:58 it is reported that Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am". Even if Jesus meant to claim by these words that he was alive before Abraham was, is this sufficient ground to say that he was divine? If Jesus lived in heaven then came to earth it might mean something remarkable, but it would not be enough to establish him as God incarnate. Additionally, it should be noted that these words are open to other interpretation. Christians do not imagine that the prophet Jeremiah had a pre-human existence and so they find a suitable way of interpreting the words of Jeremiah 1:5 which portray such a situation, if taken literally, Why not apply a similar understanding in the case of John 8:58?

aenemy7

Ambiguous Evidence

Some scholars have insisted that in this statement of Jesus just discussed, he appropriated for himself a divine title. In Exodus chapter 3, it is reported that God told Moses "I am what I am," as most English Bibles translate the Hebrew text. At John 8:58 Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I am," as most English Bibles translate the Greek text. But here is the key to another deception. The original of the first text is in Hebrew while the original of the second is in Greek. All but a few of Jesus' words were recorded in Greek. For two hundred years before the time of Jesus the Jews used a Greek translation of their Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint. This work translated the key phrase "I am" of Exodus as HO ON. However, the words of Jesus, "I am", have been given to us in Greek as EGO EIMI. If the gospel writer of John 8:58 wanted to tell his Greek-speaking audience that Jesus had imitated God he would have used the familiar words of the Septuagint, otherwise the point would be lost. The evidence of John 8:58 is far from conclusive.

There is another Greek word to consider which betrays suppression or neglect of evidence. At John 10:30 Jesus is quoted as saying "I and the Father are one." The Greek word translated "one" is HEN. Certain scholars have insisted that the only possible understanding of this word is "one in essence or nature". One need not be a Greek scholar to refute this unjustified claim. A counter example is sufficient. The same word is used by Jesus in John 17:11,21,22,23, as he includes his disciples in this oneness, whatever its meaning.

The most widely translated sentence on earth is said to be Jesus' statement of John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son..." While Christians wish to say that the word "only-begotten" gives Jesus special status among all the "sons of God", again there is a problem if ambiguity. The same word translated as "only-begotten" is found at Hebrews 11:17. In this verse the word refers to Isaac. The Bible itself shows that Isaac's older brother Ishmael outlived his father (Genesis 25:9). Therefore, at no time was Isaac, strictly speaking, the only-begotten son of Abraham. Recognizing this, Christian scholars qualify the meaning of the word in this case and give it a less than literal interpretation. But if the meaning is subject to interpretation here, why not also in the passage of John 3:16? Once more the possibility of ambiguity means that John 3:16 is inconclusive evidence.


Whether or not Jesus really used the term "Father" when speaking of God is another controversy. But here our point is again, that suck use is inconclusive evidence that God was literally Father to Jesus. All Christians use the term when addressing God. The Jews themselves used the term (John 8:41). Jesus told them that the devil was their father (John 8:44). Of course, he was not speaking literally.

Certain scholars stress the verse of Mark 14:36 where Jesus speaks the Aramaic word for Father, "Abba". They insist that this implies a very unique relationship between Jesus and God. This displays a- schizophrenic forgetfulness. For favorite scripture passages are Romans 8:14 and Galatians 4:6 where every Christian is said to use this term of address for God.


  Impossible Evidence

An episode is recounted in the twentieth chapter of John and a certain Thomas is quoted as saving, "My Lord and my God." In interpreting this, Christians maintain that Thomas was addressing Jesus by both of these titles. The Muslim would have no objection to the term "Lord". As the Bible explains, the word means "master" and Sarah is said to have called her husband Abraham by this title (Peter 3:6). The suggestion that Thomas addressed Jesus as literally being God is a different matter. Jesus has already pointed out that the Hebrew scriptures themselves address men as "gods" (John 10:34; Psalms 82:6). This would allow for Thomas' use of the term. However, Paul gave new rules in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, saying that there are many lords and gods "...yet for us there is but one God, the Father.... and one Lord, Jesus Christ..." Christians apply this verse to sort out the ambiguities of Thomas' expression. But now we are left with an unorthodox doctrine, namely that Jesus is the Father. This ancient heresy has been branded by the Church as Patripassianism, Monarchianism, or Sabellianism. The impossibility of an orthodox interpretation of Thomas is now apparent.

The distinction between Father and Son is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity. This distinction is blurred again when John 14:9 is pressed into service. Here Jesus' reply to a man named Philip is recorded as, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." A strictly literal explication would mean the unacceptable doctrine that Jesus is the Father. So interpreters say that "Father" is here equivalent to "God". However, we cannot possibly be obliged to understand that Jesus meant to say that seeing him was exactly the same as seeing God because he was God. Our reason is found in the contrariety of John 5:37. Here he told a crowd about the Father saying, "You have neither heard His voice at any time not seen his form."

aenemy7

The Total Evidence Did the Jews Understand?

Surprisingly enough, it is often conceded that individual verses are insufficient, inconclusive, or even unusable in the case made for the divinity of Jesus. However, there are those who insist that while any given verse may be deficient, it is the total collection of all such verses that proves the case. This betrays a misunderstanding of the reasoning process. Each verse must prove something, or it is dispensable. Given a verse, we must demand to know exactly what it does prove, and why. Christian exegesis, the traditional explanation of scripture, has been exposed as incredible within the church itself. It has been shown to be enthymemic in the extreme. That is, premises and conclusions are not clearly stated. (Exactly what is meant by the "redemption of man" is still not clear to this date. [This article was written in 1983]) Whether we probe the roots or the outgrowth of the system, the structure becomes vague. (See for example, THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE, a Christian publication.)

A final argument has been offered based on the understanding of the Jews. Christians have said that our rebuttal given here is unimportant because the Jews understood Jesus to grasp at equality with God. They cite John 5:18, ' ...because ... (he) was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." They pass over the verses that follow immediately, where Jesus subjected himself to God, naming those things which God gave him.

They cite the tenth chapter of John where the Jews tried to stone Jesus for blasphemy. The point of the reply Jesus made is neglected. He demonstrated to those Jews, by quoting their own scripture, that they had no grounds for their accusation.

Curiously enough, in their haste to put claims on the lips of Jesus, part of the Christian church constructs a very confused story. The Hebrew scriptures made reference to a Messiah and the Church says this can only mean an incarnate God and so when Jesus spoke of himself as Messiah he was blaspheming because no man can be God, according to Hebrew scriptures ... or so the reasoning seems to flow together in confusion.

There is a legal point to be made here. If the a understood that the Messiah was to be a man who was equal to God then a man who claimed to be the Messiah could only be condemned as a false messiah. He could not be condemned on the grounds that he uttered a statement which must always be blasphemous in itself. At some future time, the true Messiah would have to speak the very same words without being condemned. When certain Jews declared Jesus' words as blasphemy they could only have meant to condemn him as a false messiah. Any supposed connection between the word "Messiah" and the attribute of divinity has no bearing on this matter. (The fact is, the Jews have never believed that the promised Messiah would be a man who is equal to God.)

In the second chapter of Mark, Jesus tells a man, "Your sins are forgiven." The customary interpretation takes the side of the Jews then present, who asked, "Who can forgive sins but God Alone?" But the verse at John 12:49, among others, explains very well how a man could make such a statement. In this verse Jesus denies any personal initiative. (See also John 8:40; 14:10.) The argument based on Jewish understanding makes the assumption that the Jews understood Jesus. A more viable hypothesis is simply that the enemies of Jesus misunderstood him. In fact Jesus repeatedly alludes to this (e.g. Mark 4:11, 12). It is interesting to note that today Jewish scholars find virtually no objections to anything Jesus said. (See the reference under Jesus in the UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA.)




Conclusion

We have not merely used the Bible to suit ourselves. Verses have been cited without any commitment as to their veracity. It has been our intention only to show the defects in the Christian stand which says: "Jesus claimed to be equal to God." If we decoct the mixture said to establish that stand, we find inferior ingredients, weak evidence and specious reasoning. Our position has been narrowed enough to make almost any Christian response a step toward the Muslim&#8217;s position. We have cited the most quoted and clear scriptures, so if any others are brought forward, the Christian admits the deficiency of previous arguments, and thus makes a short list even shorter ... the list of quotations said to prove his case. Or, if the Christian builds a case on something other than the words attributed to Jesus, he repeats exactly what we first protested: mainline Christianity is based on what people have said about Jesus.
  
  

Afterword

We asked, "Why must Jesus be divine?" By this we meant to ask why a Christian believes so. If the question is asked without reference to the foregoing discussion, a Christian will answer that Jesus must be divine if his death is to be sufficient atonement for the sins of mankind. In the Christian scheme of redemption, it is held that sacrificial death was necessary that men might be saved. Ask why the death of any man would be insufficient and the Christian replies that all men are imperfect. Ask why they are imperfect and we are told that this is an inheritance from our fathers. Jesus had no father. By their own scheme he would have been an unblemished sacrificial victim. Nevertheless, they still require that he be divine to suit the role of redeemer. So we ask, "Did God die?" He quickly replies, "No, only the man Jesus died." Jesus is said to be a God-man and it was the human component that died. But now he has said that the death of a man has atoned for sin. The Infinite is required for this ritual of sacrifice but the Infinite is not actually sacrificed.

Part Two

There are many missionary tactics directed by Christians toward Muslims. The bulk of these stands immediately condemned by the Bible which speaks about their Master's path being straight (Luke chapter 3, Matthew chapter 7). Missionary strategies have included enticement with money, women, alcohol and social status. These methods may lead people, but do they lead by a straight path? A complete exposure of such activities would be a worthwhile document, but this in not our concern here. Christian authors who deal with the Quran and the Bible in order to win converts are the subject now.
  
  

Disputing the Quran

Attacks on the Quran have abounded since the Book's first appearance. In fact, in a remarkable verse the Quran invites examination; "Have they not considered the Quran? If it was from other than God, surely they would find in it many inconsistencies," (4:82). While many theories have been offered to explain the Quran's origin, "today no sensible person believes these theories. This leaves the Christian in some difficulty," in the words of the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. We want to also mention that no theory has yet been suggested that is not already commented on within the Quran itself ... the book replies to its critics.

When a verse of the Quran is said to be in error, the Muslim's natural urge is to correct the inaccurate interpretation. But we perform more efficiently if we are realistic. There is a difference in attitude between those who study the Quran and those who assault the Quran. A sincere questioner has open-mindedly accepted the challenge of the verse 4:82. But most often the missionary both attacks and distorts the Quran, while pretending to be reasonable. This opponent is not interested in the proper understanding of any given verse. So, we may best proceed as outlined in Part I: We demonstrate only that the so-called difficulty of any Quranic verse originates in an interpretation which has not considered sufficiency, ambiguity, or acceptability.

We need only to show: (1) that a given interpretation is inadequate to build a case; (2) or that the meaning of words has been overly restricted and is not the only meaning possible; (3) or that a meaning has been given which is actually impossible.

My experience has often been that Christians who question will find their answers in the same place they found their questions. Frequently they have studied the Muslim commentaries of the Quran (TAFSEER), and when they find an obscure point, they bring it to Muslims hoping that we are unaware of research and explanation already done on the matter centuries ago.

aenemy7

What does the Quran say About the Bible?

Certain missionary writers intend to tell not only Christians about the Quran, but Muslims also by their eristic methods they build a flimsy case in order to provoke controversy where none exists. They tell us that the Quran says the Bible is accurate. They tell us that the Quran accuses Christians of changing the texts of their scriptures. The Quran does not make either of these assertions. By pointing to disagreements between the Quran and the Bible they hope to make difficulty. By arguing for preservation of ancient Biblical texts they intend to cause still more confusion for Muslims. However, these tactics can only work if we admit the premises on which they stand ... and we do not.

First, the Quran states that Christians have access to the truth in their scriptures. But it does not catalogue the sixty-six small books called the Bible and label them as accurate. In fact it condemns those who would claim divine inspiration for something composed by a man. Part of the Bible, as will be seen, falls into this category.

Second, the Quran does not accuse Christians of deliberately tampering with the original texts of their scriptures. Rather, it accuses them of manipulating the understanding of their scriptures. The deceptive translations mentioned in part I illustrate this practice.

In short, the Muslim believes that the Bible contains the words of God, and more words besides these.
  
  

Is Total Acceptance of The Bible Deserved?

The last sentence of the preceding section states the Muslim's attitude toward the Bible. It is actually the attitude of many Christians. It is only a certain collection of Christians (the Fundamentalists) who maintain that ALL of the Bible originated with God. Adherence to this belief is unwarranted for at least four reasons; (1) It is not claimed within the Bible itself; (2) It is an unworthy attitude; (3) It is not self-consistent; (4) It is logically impossible.

(1) ... The Bible nowhere names itself. The word "Bible" is not in the Bible. Sixty-six books have been bound as one without any divine command to do so. Compare, for example, the opening of the book of Jonah: "The word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying &#8230;" and the opening remarks of the writer of the third gospel account: "... it seemed fitting for me ... to write it out... ," (NEW AMERICAN BIBLE). The first book claims divine inspiration, while the second author makes no such claim.

By trading on the vagueness of the words "scripture" and "book" the Fundamentalists try to make a case for the Bible's total inspiration. For example, they quote 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul wrote to Timothy, "... all scripture is inspired of God ..." In the first place, it still remains to establish the authority of Paul ... did he speak for God here? But the real trickery is in the isolation of this verse. In the sentence before this. Paul indicated what he considered as scripture, namely, that which Timothy studied as a child. When Timothy was a child the last twenty seven books of the Bible had not been written.

The antepenultimate verse of today's Bible seems to conclude the whole of the Bible, as it warns against adding or subtracting contents in "this book". However. "this book" can only refer to this last book of the Bible and not to the Bible itself. The reason is clear: Any Christian reference will acknowledge that other books of the Bible were written after this one, that is, the last book in today's Bible was not the last one written. In fact, exactly which books should form the contents of the Bible was still being debated three hundred years after Jesus.

(2) ... The official position of Fundamentalist churches is really a modification of the blunt statement: "The Bible is the perfect word of God." While they consider the modification only slight, it is actually ruinous. They say that the Bible is "inerrant in the original manuscripts". If all contradictions in the Bible could be explained away as misunderstandings, why would they rely on this excuse? By taking this position they admit to errors in the Bible. These are said to be only small copying errors made over the centuries as the scriptures were recopied. They have disregarded the advice of Jesus who said that carelessness in the little things means carelessness in large matters (Luke 16:10). Yet the unworthy statement about today's Bible is really: "The Bible contains small mistakes but no big ones."

(3) ... There are abundant copying errors in the Bible, the conflicting statistics of Ezra 2:5 and Nehemiah 7:10, for example. On the one hand the Fundamentalist admits this to be the case and excuses it as a minor copying error. On the other hand, he puts his trust in the statement of Isaiah 40:8 which says, "The word of our God stands forever." This verse does not go on to accept minor details due to flaws in the transcription of His word. According to this verse, if God says it, it does not get lost. But mistakes of transcription means something of the original has been lost. It is inconsistent to excuse error and simultaneously disallow error. The only solution is to drop the notion of total divine inspiration of the Bible.

(4) ... Total inspiration is illogical because it is both disavowed and disproved within the Bible. At 1 Corinthians 7:25 the Bible writer specifically says that he is about to make a statement which did not originate with God ... inspiration is disavowed. In the first chapter of Titus we have a counter example which disproves total divine inspiration. Paul quoted the famous Epimenides paradox, specifying that the speaker himself was a Cretan: "Cretans are always liars ...". He then says that the man spoke the truth. But when the statement is spoken by a Cretan it is definitely not true. If it was true then at least once, a Cretan was not a liar, in which case the statement is false. The conclusion is the denial of the assumption, so the statement is not true. The writer Paul at least on this occasion, was without divine guidance for he did not discern this subtlety.
  
  

aenemy7

Conclusion

The Christian who would preach to Muslims must first be prepared to allow us to clearly establish our own position. Otherwise he confronts a man of straw but misses the target of genuine Islam. His comparisons of the Bible and the Quran are most often seen to be shallow and misleading. As with the matter discussed in part I, our most fruitful debates will be those that consider Why not How. If the Christian wishes to prove his stand, he must justify it after explaining it. Conversely, if he would attack out stand he must understand it correctly before we can be asked to justify it.

Finally, this is not an attack on the Bible. It is an attack on an unjustified attitude held by some concerning the Bible. Again, the Muslim believes the Bible to contain God's words, but he does not accept the entire contents as such. Deciding which portions deserve our acceptance is not a matter of convenience. It is a matter of consistency. Those portions, and only those portions, which are self-consistent, compatible with reason, and self-proclaimed as divinely revealed deserve our consideration.
  
  

Part Three - A Suggestion

Christian belief reduces to this: The Jews have cherished an incorrect notion of the Messiah. That is, while Jews expect someone who is only son of God in a figurative sense, Jesus told the Jews that the Messiah was literally the son of God. In this frame of mind, the Christian can point to every Biblical account of Jews being angry with Jesus and claim that this new truth was the cause of their upset.

But there are important facts to consider. The concept of the Messiah was gradually formed by the Jews and opinions differed. While several men had already been called Messiah, son of God, son of man, in scripture, the Jews came to expect a preeminent Messiah, a victorious leader through whom their nation would be a blessing to all the world.

Our suggestion is this: Suppose instead that Jesus meant to tell the Jews that while he also deserved to be called Messiah, he was not to fulfill their unrealistic and misunderstood expectations. Now several mysteries are clarified. Jesus could not have meant to claim status for he charged his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the true Messiah (Luke 9:21). Notice how he dissuaded a man who may have had mistaken ideas (Matthew 8:20). While many Jews believed that the Messiah would inherit his kingly rights from David, Jesus pointed out the difficulty of this interpretation (Matthew 22:43). Note also that today's Jewish scholars have indicated that "son of God" is given its Christian meaning not by Jesus, but by Paul. (See "son of God" in reference 3.)

Meanwhile, some Jewish aspects have been adopted. Paul incited Christians to find symbolic meaning in scripture (1 Corinthians chapter 10). So we have impossible parallels like that of Matthew 2:15 which quotes a fragment of Hosea 11:1,2 and thus likens Jesus to an idolatrous nation! We have the unprecedented case of a prophet who supposedly would die then to return to fulfill all things expected of him. While acts 3:20-23 promises the return of Jesus, Christians understand that the prophecy yet to be fulfilled before he can return is actually only a reference to Jesus... as though Jesus was the one predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy chapter 18. The scripture quoted here by the disciple Peter reports that God told Moses about the future prophet "like you from among their brothers". While Jesus was unlike Moses in being leader of a nation, Christians believe that he will be victorious on his second visit. However, they do not usually expect him to acquire a human father, a wife and children and then die of old age like Moses. Moreover. "from among their brothers seems to indicate not an Israelite, but a relative of that nation.

There is another historical figure who fits the role as the prophet promised by Moses better than Jesus. He was not an Israelite, but Jesus said that God's special favours would be taken from Israel and given to a nation which would become fruitful (Matthew 21:43). It was Jacob or Israel the man himself, who prophesied that the kingdom would be the possession of the family of his son Judah until the coming of "the one whose it is" (Genesis 49:10). While Christians see this one as Jesus, look again at these words. When I give a man something and tell him to keep it until the owner comes, do I mean to say that the item belongs to one of his descendents? This would hardly be a natural understanding.

The many Quranic and Biblical references to the last prophet are a new subject, a satisfying discussion that inexorably leads to the Messenger who brought Islam to a nation and through them to all nations. (Quran 6:89,90).
  
  

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, 1977, The Lockman Foundation La Habra, California.
2. THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE; 1978, Edited by John Hick; Westminster.
3. UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA; 1948, Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Co. Inc.; New York, N.Y.
4. NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA; 1967, The Catholic University of America; Washington D.C.
5. THE KORAN INTERPRETED; 1964, Arthur J. Arberry; Oxford University Press; Oxford.

(http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ-reply.html)

Allah Knows Best,Peace Yall...

aenemy7

Here's an article about various bible produced in various language and about the missionaries ethic in their mission work history....

( http://www.kentaxrecords.com/iac ... 8&type=articles

Missionary Ethics?

November 24, 2004, 9:53 am

by Valery Countryman
Council for Secular Humanism

Christianity has misled people by hypocritical teachings and false writings for centuries. Its history is an unhappy one characterized by disunity, distrust and conflicting philosophical messages. Christian missionaries sought conversions in accordance with the laws of their "revealed" religion. They began ministerial efforts in Africa when the trade route by sea around the Cape of Good Hope was discovered in the 15th century. They felt driven by their god to thoroughly displace African concepts with Christianity and to rehabilitate native traditions into more acceptable (to them) viewpoints of Eurocentric Christianity.

To Christendom's mindset, African culture had little or no significance. One reason for this misperception was that only a handful of more than 800 languages were written ones before missionaries arrived. Christian zealots perceived this as an indication of ignorance. They developed means of writing these languages in order to provide religious textbooks (bibles). These tomes were utilized as primary tools for education and indoctrination into Christian thinking and belief. Some translations of biblical passages had already been produced. In Egypt, the book of Psalms had been scripted in a Coptic dialect as early as the fourth century. Christian efforts didn't result in printing of a complete missionary bible until the 1700's. Today, these mixtures of tales and legends are translated into over 100 African languages with selected chapters available in 400 others.

In 1867, cleric Charles Lavigerie came to Africa as the newly appointed archbishop of Algeria. He believed that "God has chosen France to make Algeria a great and Christian nation." He sent his emissaries out with the goal of uniting northern and central Africa to Catholicism. Meanwhile, Protestants were working in other areas of the continent, spreading word of their particular ideologies. Lavigerie's hope and dream of a Christian nation failed. Today almost 99% of Algerians are Muslim.

Missionaries of the various Christian denominations were not united in their views. Even before leaving Britain many heated doctrinal disputes occurred at the Missionary Society headquarters. Each group appeared to have its own conception of what the message should be, with conflict increasing after settling into mission stations. The bitter arguments were often detrimental to specific evangelical objectives. The clergy seemed to spend as much time and energy quarreling with each other as they did in seeking to accomplish conversions. The result was often formation of rival missions, as both Catholics and Protestants fiercely competed in the name of God. Eventually several million of Christianity's converts left the mission churches, but having been indoctrinated, they merely formed denominational churches of their own.

Competition among missionaries was not the only cause of this "Black Reformation." There was also strong resentment against "White superiority." Believing that Christian religious belief was the same as European culture and leadership was evidence enough of an attitude of superiority. Few missionaries made earnest efforts to learn any of the local dialects, but expected indigenous populations to speak European languages.

A few clerics who did acquire a working knowledge did so merely as a means of translating scripture. Communication was limited unless the African submitted to the language norms of the missionary. The lack of literacy on the part of the clergy was to Africans a manifestation of the missionaries' attitude of racism.

During these times of proselytization, no provision for state/church separation existed. In 1828, one British clergyman boasted, "Whenever the missionary places his standards among the savage tribes, their dependence on the Colony is increased and every convert becomes the friend of Government." No wonder European officials saw missionaries as useful and necessary tools for a colonial expansion. Missionaries welcomed conquest, believing it was impossible to separate the aims of religion from those of government. These aims were power, influence and control over others in the name of a higher authority. The Portuguese came to Mozambique with the full blessing of the Catholic church. The country was then plundered of its treasures (ivory, gold and human beings) during 470 years of Christian and colonial rule. Some efforts to assert control relied on military might. In religious terms, army and navy forces were used to "accomplish God's purpose," each Christian sect finding justification in denominational doctrine.

aenemy7

Coastal towns were sometimes demolished by British gunships if villagers refused to accept clerical leadership. After establishing themselves, it was a common practice for missionaries to usurp power from native authorities. Once established, missionaries used other types of force, including coercion and physical brutality, to maintain theocratic laws. The favorites instrument by which disapproval was expressed was the cikoti, a long whip of hippopotamus hide. Anglican preachers frequently descended from the pulpit during services to whip latecomers. This had the effect of instilling messages of fear rather than the message of "God's love" that was supposedly being offered. After being persistently and vehemently told that fighting was pointless and wicked, many Africans were encouraged to fight when World War I erupted in Europe. Converts were ordered to take sides in this European civil conflict with some clerical authorities even leading their troops into battle.

All throughout the years, missionaries condemned African culture. Misguided efforts to substitute Christianity for prevailing rituals - one being the practice of consultation of "diviners" to appease spirits of dead ancestors - at the same time promoted veneration of saints and the Virgin Mary. These Catholic teachings served to confirm the belief that dead ancestors were also alive. By venerating religious icons such as crucifixes, justification was given to the African use of amulets as a means of protection from evil spirits. It was possible for converts to participate in the worship service while carrying concealed amulets, or to go from church to diviner without feeling that a conversion had been violated. Indeed, in a cemetery near Cairo, a 490 page bible of Coptic origin was excavated from the grave of a 12 year old girl. With the book was a tiny ankh, a pagan talisman in the shape of a cross with a loop on top. This ancient Egyptian symbol of life was apparently as strong a religious totem as the Bible. Complete conversion to Christianity was not a total success for the missionaries.

One reason for partial failure of conversion was due to the many doctrinal differences between rival sects. Some potential converts were warned that their pagan forefathers were being tormented in a fiery Hell, and that the same fate would befall them if they refused to accept Christian teachings. This fundamentalist eternal torment doctrine conflicts with others. Depending on which Christian is consulted, their Bibles can be used to prove that "sinful human souls die" and "the dead are conscious of nothing at all." Some sects preached that those who died before receiving an opportunity to convert would have the prospect of being included in the coming resurrection. On judgment day, such souls will be told the conditions for salvation and if they respond appreciatively, reward will be everlasting life in an earthly paradise!

By the 18th century, efforts at conversion were becoming extremely difficult. In addition to confusing bombardment with religious messages, church involvement with slavery was a factor. The official position of Christian clergy was approval and support of participation in slave trading despite the horrendous suffering it produced. Slavery was a close companion of Christianity and was not thought to conflict with religious doctrines. For example, by 1880, a Jesuit monastery in Angola had subjugated 12,000 Africans as slave laborers. Before boarding the ships bound for Catholic countries in South America, entire families were forcibly taken to churches and baptized in batches of hundreds at a time. After having been sprinkled with the "holy water" they were told, "You are now children of God. Don't think any more about where you came from. It's the will of God." One Christian bishop, sitting at dock-side on a stone chair, bestowed his episcopal blessing on departing human cargo, giving guarantees of future happiness when "the stormy trials of life are over."

Missionaries of numerous diverse and conflicting religious persuasions continue to proselytize in Africa as well as in the United States. Their methods may be somewhat different from those of the past 500 years, but the end results are the same-subjugation of intellect to concepts of divinity. At the pinnacle of its philosophy, religion positions a god and expects humanity to live by "God's law." In efforts to clarify life's ethical code, religions have only succeeded in division and separation. Each particular sect uses its own man-made rituals, scriptures and formal theology. Cultural variations exist and divisions are frequently made along racial and socio-economic lines. Instead of building a philosophy based on humanity's relationship to fellow human beings and the world, religion stresses mankind's obligation to an unknown and unproved deity. By citing God as authority, religion can prove anything it sets out to prove. It is simply a matter of selecting proper conditions and then insisting that suppositions are divinely inspired.

While mistakes of the past cannot be undone, repeat occurrences can be prevented with faith in our earthly future and the belief that the highest goal for human endeavor is to strive for a better world for all. The manner in which we live in the here-and-now, and the kinds of relationships we have with others, are more important than an irrational spirituality. Since discovering we need no cover of sacredness over our lives, we live quite well without clerical authority and a deity.

Maybe we humanists need to become missionaries. Our perspective would certainly be more ethical than the legacy of Christianity. Missionaries of years past often spent an entire lifetime seeking to impose their creeds, doctrines or lifestyles on fellow human beings. An implementation of the philosophy of secular humanism would eliminate the superstition, bigotry and totalitarian influence of religion. As members of AAH, we try to build a world based on individual freedom and respect, combining personal liberty with social responsibility, and trying to find satisfaction in an ethical lifestyle. Can we do any less?

Allah Knows Best,Peace Yall...

aenemy7

This is an article written by a former priest Yusuf Estes....it's about the effect of Nicaea Council 325 A.D to modern christianity!!!check it out......




Nicaea Council of 325 A.D.

What Was It All About? - How Did It Change Christianity?

Read what the Catholic Church Says About Itself

Many people today, even Catholics, do not know the Holy Roman Catholic Church was already in business several hundred years BEFORE Jesus, peace be upon him, was even born. It was a pagan church established by the Roman government in an effort to control the subjects of Rome by having them all participate at least to some extent, along with other Roman citizens in some kind of common worship practices and beliefs. The year was 325 A.D. according to the Roman calendar. A council was convened by order of Constantine, the Roman emperor. He had been a leader in the cult known as Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun) and now wanted to unite the Christian sects in the empire under his existing church; the Universal Church of Rome. Many changes to the religion of Christianity were about to take place at that council, including:

Formulation for wording concerning the Trinity based on Anthanias (description of the formulation is mentioned below)
Changing Verses of Bible
Eliminating certain verses and books from the Bible
Declaring Arian's "unitarian" (belief in the Unity of God) as heresy
Changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday
Changing the date of Jesus' birthday to December 25th
Introduction of Easter (pagan worship called "Feast of Ishtar")
Church of Roman "officially" became the "Universal Church of the Holy Roman Empire" (the word 'Catholic' means 'universal'
The Roman Catholic Church took on a new face.
What follows is a quote from the Roman Catholic Church. It is their explanation behind the many changes occurring during the Nicaea Council.
"Arian belief in One God - meant Jesus was not God or a part of God. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church could not accept this.

Easter needed to be added as well.
[Begin Quote]

Council of Nicaea, First Ecumenical Council - 325 A.D. (Christian Era)

The Nicene Council is considered by all as the first Ecumenical Council of the Church (Roman Catholic Church). It was occasioned by the Arian heresy which in effect denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. The major product of this council was the Creed, the "Nicene Creed"; but it also addressed the date of Easter, and the place of the Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Heresy" was the term now being used to describe what many fomer priests and bishops had been teaching.

"God is One, without partners" seems to be the theme throughout the Old Testament. But now suddenly when the pagan Romans are about to make Christianity the offical church of the Holy Empire, the need to rethink the concept of God arises.

A God-Man and Man-God seem to fit right in with the "former pagan" concept of their 'gods on earth.'

Could this explain the source for "Trinity?"

"Trinity" does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament.

Even the phrase, "And these two are one" (First Epistle of John, Chapter 5, verse 7) is fabricated and based on the verse prior to it.
[see: Revised Standard Version of the Bible, 1952 and History of Translations of Bible to the English Language, F. F. Bruce)
  

Occasion for the Council
The Arian heresy had infected parts of the Church all the way from Alexandria through Palestine, Syria, Asia minor to Greece. It was bad enough that it viciated the very heart of Christian doctrine from within, but there was also danger that it would weaken the Empire itself, and so Constantine, who was trying hard to consolidate the Empire, took an active part in trying to solve the matter. He called for a council of bishops of the Church. At first it appeared that he had in mind only the Eastern bishops since he first designated Ancyra in Galatia (Ankara in Turkey) as a place for the bishops to assemble. Arianism had particularly divided the Church there. But this would make it difficult for himself to attend, and besides it might be good for other bishops to attend, those not necessarily involved in the controversy. Hence Nicaea in Bithynia was finally selected; it was close to the sea making it easier for more bishops to attend, he had there a large palace compound, both to house the bishops and with a great hall in which they could assemble, and he could keep an eye on them from nearby Nicomedia.

Constantine himself was strongly influenced by certain Arian bishops, particularly by Bishop Eusebius of the capitol city of Nicomedia, and if he did not actually have Arian leanings himself, he had been informed by them that a council of the Church would show that the teaching of Arius was correct. It would be to Constantine's credit that when the bishops in council voted the opposite way, condemned Arianism and overwhelmingly affirmed the traditional doctrine, that he got behind them 100% and promulgated their decisions.

aenemy7

The Council Called
He announced the council (a command-performance for important bishops) by the imperial post, heretofore reserved for civil administration and urgent military matters. Of course the bishops wanted to settle matters too; the heresy and schism were tearing the Church apart, but Constantine's calling for a general council and the manner in which the council was conducted shows us to what great extent there was almost a union between church and state. Constantine put the imperial transportation system at the disposal of the bishops. This meant they could travel on his boats free, that they could go by cart or wagon, horse, whatever means the Empire had to offer, all under the protection of the Roman army (travel was not only difficult, but brigands made it dangerous). Constantine housed the bishops, fed them and provided his own palace as a place to meet.

The Council Assembled 300 bishops were present (Ambrose of Milan and Hilary of Poitier report 318, but this may be a symbolic number representing the 318 servants of Abraham, Gen 14:14) most of them from the East. Not a few of the bishops attending were maimed or their predecessors had been killed by the very soldiery which now guarded them; they winced as they paraded into the council chamber, the soldiers with their swords and shining armor now forming an honor guard on either side of their procession. There is no doubt but what the bishops had every freedom of discussion and vote (at this council at least) because that was the rule of the Roman senate after which a council is patterned, and yet to these bishops at least so shortly out of persecution, the soldiers who stood guard inside the chamber, both to assure good order and prevent any intrusion from outside, must have been a symbol of imperial power and influence, formerly unleashed against them.

Constantine himself opened the council with an impassioned plea for unity and peace, and his good friend Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (a suspected Arian or at least an Arian sympathizer) gave the opening address. According to the pattern of the Roman senate the council was actually presided over by another good friend of Constantine, Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, Spain, who had presided over a local council in Elvia, Spain, some 30 years before. Hosius was assisted by the delegates from Pope Sylvester, the simple priests, Vitus and Vicentius, all in true senatorial style. The history at the time does not explain why the delegates of the Bishop of Rome held such a prominent place in the Council. Catholics like to stress that it was because the pope has some position of authority or leadership over the other bishops. Others maintain it was because Rome was the seat of the civil government (but it had just been moved from there to Constantinople). Anyway this pattern would be followed at many succeeding councils.

The Nicene Creed
The big thing which happened was the Nicene Creed, but in this way:

Most held out at first for a Scriptural language and expression to make clear against the Arians what the catholic doctrine had been, but as the discussions progressed it became evident that there was no Scriptural vocabulary which would correctly express the orthodox teaching. They lighted on a philosophical term, homoosios (same substance as) to express what they meant and what had always been the catholic teaching, but there was still needed a formula to summarize and convey their meaning. Of all bishops, Eusebius of Caesarea, who had been clobbered by the synod at Antioch the year before, produced a creed he used in his church. As far as it went, it was acceptable to the rest of the bishops, but they made additions in order to make it very clear that Arius' position was not what they espoused. This creed would be further amended by the First Council of Constantinople, and hence is technically known as the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed", but maybe it should be known as the Caesarean-Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Here it is beneficial to explain something councils do, almost as a byproduct. Primarily a council's purpose, at least a dogmatic council, is to proclaim with unmistakable clarity a doctrine already a part of the teaching of the Church. But at Nicaea there were not a few bishops, well-intentioned and open to the Spirit, who actually would have been hard pressed themselves to give a clear explanation of the relationship of the Son to the Father. But because they had humility and good will they learned from the discussions of the Council, at the same time that they were a part of the council process. Hence a council can also teach bishops. All of the bishops present signed the Creed, except two, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarica. Constantine banished them along with Arius (whom he later recalled).

aenemy7

Date of Easter
Among other things they also settled (they thought) was the date of Easter. While most celebrated Easter on a Sunday to commemorate the resurrection, there were a few who celebrated on weekdays (even Good Friday) according to a Jewish reckoning (the Quartodeciman controversy  addressed by Pope Victor, 189-198), and those who did observe Sunday did not all observe on the same Sunday. Constantine wanted, as did most bishops, a universal observance. To this very day it is disputed what the council fathers meant by their decision, and Easter is still observed variously, but the points of their decree supposed by most are: 1) Easter should be celebrated on the same day by all (a point all agree was contained in the decree); 2) Jewish custom was not the criterion to be followed (a point which is not cited by the Greeks, but strongly mentioned both in the writings which preceded the council and in Eusebius' report of it); and 3) that the practice of Rome and Alexandria (then West and Egypt) should remain in force, namely the Sunday after the first full moon of the vernal equinox (the Creeks do not cite the first half of this point, only the second). But even Alexandria and Rome did not agree for a long time, due to calculations (miscalculations) as to the date of the vernal equinox. Rome celebrated the equinox on March 18, and Alexandria on March 23. Since this is something scientific, that is, half way between the shortest and the longest day of the year, it could be and was eventually solved by the devising of various cycles, so that a fixed day in the lunar calendar (14th of Nisan) would occur according to a predetermined pattern in the Julian calendar. Today Greeks and other Orthodox maintain that the Roman date of Easter is wrong, saying that the Nicene Council stipulated that the Resurrection must always be celebrated after the Jewish Passover.

Now it must be remembered that only incomplete records of canons and decrees exist from the Council at Nicaea. What we actually have is the Creed, the disciplinary action against the Arians, 20 disciplinary canons, a letter to the Alexandrian church, and a list of the bishops present (a list which varies from language to language).

The rest of the canons (if authentic at all) have been garnered from other sources, including Arabic writings. In thus citing Nicea about Easter coming after the Jewish Passover, the Greeks must have sources which are not commonly known, and stronger sources than the west is aware. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea writing just after the Council quotes from the letter of Emperor Constantine to all who were not present at the Council,
". . .relative to the sacred festival of Easter. . . it was declared to be particularly unworthy for this holiest of all festivals to follow the custom of the Jews. We ought not therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews. We desire to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews for it is surely shameful for us to hear the Jews boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. In their blindness, they frequently celebrate two Passovers in the same year. . . How then could we follow these Jews. . . for to celebrate the Passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible ."

Alexandrian Patriarchate
Another important question (Canon 6) the council took up was the position of the ancient see of Alexandria because there were problems of jurisdiction down there due to the Melitian schism. The Council's purpose was to bring order to the Church in Alexandria, but in so doing they gave evidence to something which was developing in the Church, namely, listing the metropolitan centers of Christianity and putting them in order of their importance. Not a few have seen this as a sort of ambitious clamoring on the part of some sees to "lord it over" less important places. Perhaps there was some of this (later there certainly was), but it would seem that the intention of Nicaea was merely to establish order and place responsibility of keeping order and orthodoxy on strong and capable centers of Christian teaching. In brief, the council stated that Alexandria had under its jurisdiction the whole of Egypt, Libya, and Pentopolis. But in solving this problem with regard to Alexandria, almost as a byproduct and as if it went without saying, they mentioned that Alexandria was second only to Rome which had similar rights in the West. It mentions Antioch being in the third place but does not define its territory.

They remind all, however (Canon 7) of the importance of the See of Jerusalem but still left it under the jurisdiction of Caesarea. (Remember Jerusalem had been destroyed in the year 70 by Titus and it took a while for Christians there to make a come-back.) Of course there was no Constantinople yet. We speak nowadays of the "Patriarchates" of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, as being established or recognized by the Council of Nicaea, but it is important to stress that at this juncture Nicaea doesn't use this term at all. It does use the term "Metropolitan", but mostly it just refers to the "Bishop of Alexandria", or the "Bishop of Rome" etc. (Canon VI). Of the remaining canons, all interesting, none really apply to the question of East-West relations or the church-state problem we are addressing. Constantine himself (who apparently had attended many sessions, though neither he nor the Roman presidents voted) brought the council to a close with another talk on unity but in it he calls himself a "fellow bishop", showing how closely he associated himself with the work of the Church.
[end quote]


( http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible/NicaeaCouncil325.htm )

Allah Knows Best,Peace Yall....