choda
2004-03-31, 03:21
About thirteen years ago my life and my faith both were changed forever while searching for answers that I use to have about the Christianity and the Bible. It was not that I never believed in the Bible, yes, indeed I did believe in the Bible almost all my life until I reverted to Islam. But it was the Bible itself that gave me the proof to reject the Christianity and the Bible both. The Chapter 3 of Gospel according to John is the lifeline of the New Testament and the verse John 3:16 is the fake jewel in the fake crown of Christianity. Christian scholars have admitted that this verse John 3:16 is a later insertion, but that has hardly been my concern. The real issue for me has always been the verse John 3: 17. Let me also point out that in the New Testament at many places what Jesus is said to have uttered was not understood by the disciples and Jesus is not seen to have made any attempt to clear things up for his disciples, we find a classic example of this in John chapter 3: 1-12; let me quote John 3:16-17 before I point out the main problem.
KJV John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him MIGHT be saved.
There has always been a serious problem with the word everlasting used in 3:16 above. But the major problem lies in the verse 3:17 where the word MIGHT is used.
The word “might” is a clear proof that salvation by following Christianity and believing in Jesus is not only highly questionable but is contrary to the fact.
The word might is the past tense of word may, which is used in the English language to indicate a condition or state contrary to fact. Please keep this in mind that this is not my opinion, it is a fact that can be verified by using any good English dictionary or grammar rules book. Let me quote the American Heritage Dictionary to prove my point:
might2 (mºt) aux.v. Past tense of may1. 1.a. Used to indicate a condition or state contrary to fact: She might help if she knew the truth. b. Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may: We might discover a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. 2. Used to express possibility or probability or permission in the past: She told him yesterday he might not go on the trip. 3. Used to express a higher degree of deference or politeness than may, ought, or should: Might I express my opinion? [Middle English, from Old English meahte, mihte, first and third person sing. past tense of magan, to be able. See MAY1.]
Now who want to believe in something like John 3:16 that Jesus was alleged son of god or god himself, but John 3:17 tells us that salvation is not a matter of fact but rather it is contrary to the fact.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Why would some one follow a religion in which salvation is not possible and is contrary to the fact according to John 3:17; let alone guaranteed?
Let me also quote some other eye opening facts showing why I am not Christian and why you shouldn’t be as well?
Jesus and his Mother Tongue
This lack of information is so broad that we are kept in ignorance of many of Jesus’ most fundamental attributes. If a full list of his sayings has never been known to his followers, have scholars at least agreed on what tongue these sayings may have been uttered in? The gospels, as well as Christian writers from past and present, have failed to provide any answer with certainty. Among the guesswork of early scholars in the regard, we have:
a Galilaean dialect of Chaldiac (J.J.Scaliger); Syriac (Claude Saumaise); the dialect of Onkelos and Jonathan (Brian Walton); Greek (Vosius); Hebrew (Delitzsch and Resch); Aramaic (Meyer); and even Latin (Inchofer, for “the Lord cannot have used any other language upon earth, since this is the language of the saints in heaven”). (See Schweitzer, pp. 271, 275.)
The above quote obviously proves that Christians don’t have any clue that what was the mother tongue of Jesus.
CANON MONTEFIORE: WAS JESUS GAY?
Speaking of Jesus at the Modern Churchmen’s conference at Oxford, 1967, Canon Hugh Montefiore, Vicar of Great St. Mary, Cambridge, stated:
“Women were his friends, but it is men he is said to have loved. The striking fact was that he remained unmarried, and men who did not marry usually had one of the three reasons: they could not afford it; there were no girls; or they were homosexual in nature. (See The Times, July 28, 1967.)
In the above quote here the Vicar of Great St. Mary; Cambridge is admitting that Jesus was Gay.
Martin Luther: Jesus Committed Adultery Thrice
Martin Luther also negates the image of a sinless Jesus. This is to be found in Luther’s Table-Talk (See Weimer edition, ii: 107) whose authenticity has never been challenged even though the coarser passages are cause for embarrassment. Arnold Lunn writes:
Weimer quoted a passage from the Table-Talk in which Luther states that Christ committed adultery three times, first with the woman at the well, secondly with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery, “whom he let off so lightly. Thus even Christ who was so holy had to commit adultery before he died.” (See Arnold Lunn, The Revolt Against Reason, Eyre & Spottiswoode (Publishers), London, 1950, p.233.)
Following is the original!
“Christus adulter. Christus ist am ersten ein ebrecher worden Joh. 4, bei dem brunn cum muliere, quia illi dicebant: Nemo significat, quit facit cum ea? Item cum Magdalena, item cum adultera Joan. 8, die er so leicht dauon lies. Also mus from Christus auch am ersten ein werden ehe er starb.“
Jesus and his message: Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand
All sources for the so-called teachings of Jesus emanate from the anonymous authors. Herman Reimarus (1694-1768) was the first to attempt a historical modeling of Jesus. In this he drew a distinction between what lies written in the gospels and what Jesus himself proclaimed during his lifetime, concluding that his actual teachings can be summed up,
In two phrases of identical meaning, ‘Repent, and believe the Gospel,’ or, as it is put elsewhere, ‘Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” (See Schweitzer,p. 16)
Because he never went on to explain either of these phrases, Reimarus argues that Jesus was working and preaching within wholly Jewish framework, content with having his audience understand ‘the Kingdom of Heaven’ in the Jewish context. Namely that he was Deliverer of Israel. The intention of setting up a new religion never existed. (See ibid, pp. 16-18)
The Implications of the Term ‘Christian’ in the Early Days
In fact, it appears likely that the term ‘Christian’ was merely an invention of Roman propaganda, for in the early days,
“the name ‘Christian’ was associated with all kind of detestable crime-this, too, is a common feature of the political propaganda, and the author of 1 Peter… admonishes his readers not to suffer for the things which for the populace were implied in the name ‘Christian,’ (4:15) 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. (See Dictionary of the Bible, p. 138)
The early church busied itself with fighting this ‘Christian’ appellation, which in Roman minds was equated with a breed of criminals. Examining the origins of this terminology implies that it was Romans, and not the earliest Christians, who were eager to distinguish followers of the new religion from ancient Israelite tradition. In fact, the early church was content to designate the new religion simply as the Way, as in the ‘Way of the Lord,’ the ‘Way of Truth,’ the ‘Way of Salvation,’ and the ‘Way of Righteousness.’ (See Dictionary of the Bible, p. 139)
The above-cited facts are a brief account of truth about the Bible and Christianity, you must ask yourself the following questions:
1. Do I really want to convert or follow to a religion (Christianity) whose god himself is not guaranteeing MY salvation according to its scripture?
(3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.)
2. “might be saved” is contrary to the fact as explained above, so why should I remain a Christian or convert to Christianity?
I reverted to Islam after reading the Qur’aan and pondering upon its teachings. Islam guarantees a Jew or a Christian double reward in the Hereafter, and guaranteed forgiveness of all past sins including a guaranteed salvation without any ambiguity and confusion. I know that Islam is the same message from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon all the messengers/propehets).
KJV John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him MIGHT be saved.
There has always been a serious problem with the word everlasting used in 3:16 above. But the major problem lies in the verse 3:17 where the word MIGHT is used.
The word “might” is a clear proof that salvation by following Christianity and believing in Jesus is not only highly questionable but is contrary to the fact.
The word might is the past tense of word may, which is used in the English language to indicate a condition or state contrary to fact. Please keep this in mind that this is not my opinion, it is a fact that can be verified by using any good English dictionary or grammar rules book. Let me quote the American Heritage Dictionary to prove my point:
might2 (mºt) aux.v. Past tense of may1. 1.a. Used to indicate a condition or state contrary to fact: She might help if she knew the truth. b. Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may: We might discover a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. 2. Used to express possibility or probability or permission in the past: She told him yesterday he might not go on the trip. 3. Used to express a higher degree of deference or politeness than may, ought, or should: Might I express my opinion? [Middle English, from Old English meahte, mihte, first and third person sing. past tense of magan, to be able. See MAY1.]
Now who want to believe in something like John 3:16 that Jesus was alleged son of god or god himself, but John 3:17 tells us that salvation is not a matter of fact but rather it is contrary to the fact.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Why would some one follow a religion in which salvation is not possible and is contrary to the fact according to John 3:17; let alone guaranteed?
Let me also quote some other eye opening facts showing why I am not Christian and why you shouldn’t be as well?
Jesus and his Mother Tongue
This lack of information is so broad that we are kept in ignorance of many of Jesus’ most fundamental attributes. If a full list of his sayings has never been known to his followers, have scholars at least agreed on what tongue these sayings may have been uttered in? The gospels, as well as Christian writers from past and present, have failed to provide any answer with certainty. Among the guesswork of early scholars in the regard, we have:
a Galilaean dialect of Chaldiac (J.J.Scaliger); Syriac (Claude Saumaise); the dialect of Onkelos and Jonathan (Brian Walton); Greek (Vosius); Hebrew (Delitzsch and Resch); Aramaic (Meyer); and even Latin (Inchofer, for “the Lord cannot have used any other language upon earth, since this is the language of the saints in heaven”). (See Schweitzer, pp. 271, 275.)
The above quote obviously proves that Christians don’t have any clue that what was the mother tongue of Jesus.
CANON MONTEFIORE: WAS JESUS GAY?
Speaking of Jesus at the Modern Churchmen’s conference at Oxford, 1967, Canon Hugh Montefiore, Vicar of Great St. Mary, Cambridge, stated:
“Women were his friends, but it is men he is said to have loved. The striking fact was that he remained unmarried, and men who did not marry usually had one of the three reasons: they could not afford it; there were no girls; or they were homosexual in nature. (See The Times, July 28, 1967.)
In the above quote here the Vicar of Great St. Mary; Cambridge is admitting that Jesus was Gay.
Martin Luther: Jesus Committed Adultery Thrice
Martin Luther also negates the image of a sinless Jesus. This is to be found in Luther’s Table-Talk (See Weimer edition, ii: 107) whose authenticity has never been challenged even though the coarser passages are cause for embarrassment. Arnold Lunn writes:
Weimer quoted a passage from the Table-Talk in which Luther states that Christ committed adultery three times, first with the woman at the well, secondly with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery, “whom he let off so lightly. Thus even Christ who was so holy had to commit adultery before he died.” (See Arnold Lunn, The Revolt Against Reason, Eyre & Spottiswoode (Publishers), London, 1950, p.233.)
Following is the original!
“Christus adulter. Christus ist am ersten ein ebrecher worden Joh. 4, bei dem brunn cum muliere, quia illi dicebant: Nemo significat, quit facit cum ea? Item cum Magdalena, item cum adultera Joan. 8, die er so leicht dauon lies. Also mus from Christus auch am ersten ein werden ehe er starb.“
Jesus and his message: Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand
All sources for the so-called teachings of Jesus emanate from the anonymous authors. Herman Reimarus (1694-1768) was the first to attempt a historical modeling of Jesus. In this he drew a distinction between what lies written in the gospels and what Jesus himself proclaimed during his lifetime, concluding that his actual teachings can be summed up,
In two phrases of identical meaning, ‘Repent, and believe the Gospel,’ or, as it is put elsewhere, ‘Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” (See Schweitzer,p. 16)
Because he never went on to explain either of these phrases, Reimarus argues that Jesus was working and preaching within wholly Jewish framework, content with having his audience understand ‘the Kingdom of Heaven’ in the Jewish context. Namely that he was Deliverer of Israel. The intention of setting up a new religion never existed. (See ibid, pp. 16-18)
The Implications of the Term ‘Christian’ in the Early Days
In fact, it appears likely that the term ‘Christian’ was merely an invention of Roman propaganda, for in the early days,
“the name ‘Christian’ was associated with all kind of detestable crime-this, too, is a common feature of the political propaganda, and the author of 1 Peter… admonishes his readers not to suffer for the things which for the populace were implied in the name ‘Christian,’ (4:15) 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. (See Dictionary of the Bible, p. 138)
The early church busied itself with fighting this ‘Christian’ appellation, which in Roman minds was equated with a breed of criminals. Examining the origins of this terminology implies that it was Romans, and not the earliest Christians, who were eager to distinguish followers of the new religion from ancient Israelite tradition. In fact, the early church was content to designate the new religion simply as the Way, as in the ‘Way of the Lord,’ the ‘Way of Truth,’ the ‘Way of Salvation,’ and the ‘Way of Righteousness.’ (See Dictionary of the Bible, p. 139)
The above-cited facts are a brief account of truth about the Bible and Christianity, you must ask yourself the following questions:
1. Do I really want to convert or follow to a religion (Christianity) whose god himself is not guaranteeing MY salvation according to its scripture?
(3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.)
2. “might be saved” is contrary to the fact as explained above, so why should I remain a Christian or convert to Christianity?
I reverted to Islam after reading the Qur’aan and pondering upon its teachings. Islam guarantees a Jew or a Christian double reward in the Hereafter, and guaranteed forgiveness of all past sins including a guaranteed salvation without any ambiguity and confusion. I know that Islam is the same message from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon all the messengers/propehets).