Why Jesus come back to help all christians from lost?
How the hell christians now lost? What happen to the bible? Did christian change the religion? Or did christian add or change the bible? Did christian now become anti-christ? Will all the christian now be burned in hell?
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
well Jesus will come back but not for christians ! he will come back for all people and he will convert them to the truth "Amen" and did christian add or change the bible ? well yes
Did Jesus ever claim to be Lord?
"There is condensation and editing; there is choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history." (Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, The Call of the Minaret, p 277)
Jesus never claimed that he was literally the son of God, or God. There are many verses in the Bible confirming this fact. None of the verses quoted directly from Jesus support Trinity or deity of Jesus, if we eliminate the interpretations of St. Paul and his disciples. We will present those verses in the coming questions. It is a well known historical fact that today's Christianity is the product of the Nicene Conference (325 AD). In that conference, the clergy established the Trinity and banned many Gospels that did not contain their distorted ideas. In today's Bible there are a few distorted verses about the divinity of Jesus, which contradict the whole Old Testament, and the majority of the Gospels.
Some outstanding Christian scholars have reached the conclusion that the deity of Jesus is a mere fabrication. As the examples of critical studies on Christianity, here I list the name of two books: The Myth of God Incarnate, John Hick, ed., The Westminster, Philadelphia, 1977, and Jesus: Myth & Message, Lisa Spray, Universal Unity, Fremont, California, 1992.
The doctrine of modern Christianity with its implication that God Almighty has a multiple personality, and that He sacrificed one of His personalities for the salvation of human kind, has nothing to do with Jesus, as we will discuss in the next questions.
Two translations, two meanings
Here are two translations of Matthew 7:21. One is from the version authorized by a king (not God), King James, The other is The New American Bible, which was translated by the members of Catholic Biblical Association of America. Notice the contradiction between the two translations in the first three words of that verse:
King James Version:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
The New American Bible (1970):
"None of those who cry out, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of God but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven."
In light of the verses that follow (Mt 7:22,23), which clearly indicate Jesus' anger and displeasure at people who call him "Lord, Lord", it is obvious that both translators distorted Mt 7:21 in a different manner. Ironically, by comparing them side by side, the true account inevitably emerges: "None of those who call me, 'Lord, Lord,'. . ."
Our question for Christian Scholars on Mt 7:21 has two parts. The simple part of the question is:
Which One Is Correct:
"Not every one..." OR "None of those..." ?
And the difficult part is: Why?
How many Jesuses are there in the Bible?
"Although Matthew 1:21 interprets the name (originally Joshua, that is Yahweh is salvation) and finds it especially appropriate for Jesus of Nazareth, it was a common one at the time. Josephus, the Jewish historian, refers to 19 different persons by that name." (Encyclopedia Americana, Jesus, 1959)
Most would answer this question easily by stating that there is only one Jesus in the Bible. But, the fact is that the Bible is full of characters bearing the same name.
Jesus is not the original name of the prophet who brought the New Testament. It is a transliteration of Joshua. The same name can be found as Hosea, Hoshea, Jehoshuah, Jeshua, Jeshuah, Osea and Oshea (See: Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible). These names are mentioned hundreds of times in the Old Testament. They are all different spellings of the same word which means "Yahweh is salvation."
But, Matthew 1:21 tries to create a human-god out of a transliteration inconsistency:
"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Besides, there is more than one Christ (Anointed) in the Bible. Isa 45:1; 1Sa 24:6,10; 26:9-23; Nu 3:3 are few examples.
Related Questions: 1. According to the Bible, Jesus is a common name. Then, why do you try to make it unique by spelling it differently? 2. "Christ (Anointed)" is used for many. Do you still claim that "Christ" is unique?
1+1+1=1 or 1=1+1+1 Trinity?
"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance (Prayer Book, 1662). The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." (Athanasian Creed).
Millions of Christians believe in the "Holy Trinity" on faith. Through this formula they have made Jesus the "Son of God", and even God himself. However, history, logic, mathematics, the Old Testament, and the New Testament prove the contrary: Jesus was not Lord, he was a human just as we all are.
What is the Trinity?
The doctrine of Trinity is found in many pagan religions. Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu are the Trinitarian godhead in Indian religions. In Egypt there was the triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus; in Babylon, Ishtar, Sin, Shamash; in Arabia, Al-Laat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. The Encyclopedia Britannica (1975) gives a critical piece of information:
"Trinity, the doctrine of God taught by Christians that asserts that God is one in essence but three in 'person,' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4)"
This information on Trinity contradicts the faith of most Christians. They believe that Matthew 28:19 and John1:1 and some other verses clearly provide a basis for the doctrine of Trinity. However, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967 edition, Vol: 14, p. 306) acknowledges that the Trinity doctrine does not exist in the Old Testament, and that it was formulated three centuries after Jesus.
Three centuries after Christ
It is unanimously accepted that the doctrine of Trinity is the product of the Nicene Conference (325 AD). Huw Parri Owen, a former professor of Christian Doctrine at King's College, University of London acknowledges this fact:
". . . the early Church formulated the doctrine of The Incarnation. Here the two main landmarks are the council of Nicaea in 325 and the council of Chalcedon in 451. Throughout the centuries christology has been determined, directly or indirectly, by the formulae that these two councils produced. . . . After Nicaea, then, there was no doubt in orthodox circles that Christ was divine." (Christian Theism, T&T. Clark, Edinburg, 1984, p. 38-39).
However, this information is enough to create a lot of doubt about the divine source of the Trinity in intellectual circles. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible in the article "Deity of Christ" suggests the same fact:
"The clearest and fullest expression of the deity of Christ is found in the Nicene Creed which was originally presented at the Council of Nicea, AD 325. In the English Book of Common Prayer the translation appears as follows: '. . . one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made.' " (Vol. 2, second ed., 1977, p. 88)
Reading this, one has to ask oneself why it was that Jesus himself, in his teachings, did not express the doctrine of the trinity "as fully and clearly" as the Nicene Council did 300 years after his departure.
A divine mystery?
Questions such as, "How could the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be totally different and yet participate in the one undivided nature of God?" have given Christian scholars a hard time for centuries. To explain the nature of the Trinity, they have written volumes of books full of interpretations and speculations ending up with a divine paradox, or a divine mystery. So, it would not be worthwhile to question the meaning of Trinity further as the answer, ultimately, will be that it is a divine mystery which cannot be understood. Instead, we will question the compatibility of the doctrine with the Bible.
If we truly believe...
Christian clergymen have enthusiastically praised the Trinity for centuries. They have employed impressive language to defend this fictitious concept. Let's read E. J. Fortman's glorification:
"If we truly believe that 'the ground of reality is not the nuclear composition of matter but the Trinity,' not the division of the infinitely small but distinction at the heart of the infinitely great, we cannot but dedicate all the resources of our logic, all the energies of our mind, all the fire of our heart to the loving study of the Father, his Word and their Spirit." (The Christian Trinity in History, J. Fortman, St. Bede's Publication, 1982, Introduction).
Fortman tries to hide the plain contradiction between the Trinity and Unity by using gobbledygook and inflated language, starting with a big "if". This is one of the common defense strategies of priests when they encounter a difficult problem regarding their teachings. William Lutz, a professor in the English Department at Rutgers University has a clear definition of this attitude:
"A third kind of doublespeak is gobbledygook or bureaucratese. Basically, such doublespeak is simply a matter of piling on words, of overwhelming the audience with words, the bigger the words and the longer the sentences the better. . . . The fourth kind of doublespeak is inflated language that is designed to make the ordinary seem extraordinary; to make everyday things seem impressive; . . . to make the simple seem complex." (Doublespeak, William Lutz, Harper Perennial, New York, 1990, p 5).
A Copernican revolution
As a matter of fact, modern studies on the historical development of the doctrine of Trinity lead many researchers to the same conclusion that the Trinity is a deviation from the original teachings of Jesus.
"Returning, then to the theme of the exaltation of the human being to divine status, the understanding of Jesus which eventually became orthodox Christian dogma sees him as God the Son incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity living a human life. As such he was, in the words of the Nicene creed, 'the only-begotten Son of God, . . ." (The Myth of God Incarnate, John Hick, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1977, p. 171).
In this book, John Hick suggests a "Copernican revolution" in the theology of religions, consisting in a paradigm shift from a Christianity-centered or Jesus-centered to a God-centered model of universe of faiths.
In answer to John Hick, Huw Parry Owen, the author of "Christian Theism", tries to defend the doctrine of incarnation. After making a distinction between the irrational and supra-rational, he asserts that the doctrine of incarnation is supra-rational, not irrational as claimed by J. Hick.
"We cannot understand how God became man. We cannot explain it through any concept drawn from our experience. This is inevitable. If God himself is incomprehensible his act in becoming man must also be so." (Christian Theism, Huw Parry Owen T&T. Clark, Edinburg, 1984, p. 30).
There is another thing that we don't understand: the source of this "incomprehensible" paradox which is INCOMPATIBLE with the clearest verses of the Bible.
Although there are distortions in the existing Bible, the overall message of the Bible can be heard clearly: there is no God besides God; do not worship any except Him.
In order to expose the contradiction between the main theme of the Bible and the doctrine of the Trinity, we will ask some simple questions concerning the Bible.
1. Why is the Trinity not taught in thirty nine books of the Old Testament? Is it not an important principle of faith? Why didn't Noah, Abraham, Moses, David etc. preach that doctrine? Why did they preach just the opposite (Deuteronomy 4:39; 6:4; 32:39. Exodus 20: 2-3. 1 Samuel 2:2. 1 Kings 8:60, Isaiah 42:8; 45:5-6)?
2. According to the Bible, are we not all children of God? (Matthew 5:9; 6:14, Luke 20:36; John 8:47, 1 John 5:18,19)
3. What about Mark 10:18-19?: "Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good!" Do these two verses not clearly state that Jesus was not God?
4. If Jesus is God, what does Mark 13:32 mean?: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor I myself, but, only the Father." If Jesus was Lord, how could he not know the future?
5. What about Mark 12:29: "Jesus replied, 'The one that says, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only God. And you must love him with all your heart and soul and mind and strength.'" What about Matthew 4:10; 6:24, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19?
6. Matthew 12:17-18 quoting from the Old Testament, states that Jesus was the Servant of God. Is there not any difference between the Servant of God and God?
7. Why do you ignore the verses expressing that Jesus was a "messenger of God" (Matthew 21:11,46; Luke 7:16; 24:19; John 4:19; 6:14)?
8. Why does John 1:18 have a different text in different versions? Did Jesus see God or not?
9. Why are all the verses used to justify the Trinity questionable? For instance, many Christian scholars acknowledge that the crucial word "begotten" in John 1:14,18 and 3:16,18 does not exist in the original manuscripts. Why, is the phrase "son of God" changed into "the only begotten Son of God"?
so Bible has been altered many times and it doesn't say the whole truth and I think it was Quran the last religion from god and the right way to heaven ! coz Bible doesn't say the whole truth as I said to you it has been altered many times and written by normal men !
- 1 decade ago
I am not sure what you are asking? I know for one and several of my Christian friends only use the Bible! Those who do not use the Bible or add to it are not Christians! They may call themselves that, but that is only out of foolishness and/or ignorance!
- JohnLv 61 decade ago
Christians did not change the Bible.
The major doctrines of the Bible are evident in the oldest manuscripts.
- 1 decade ago
I think you're a little too concerned about christianity. Yes, its a moral guide, but in the end its just between you and your maker, reguardless. I dont think its a debate when it will be irrelevent what happens when you die to everyone but you.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No christians didnt change anything they arent gonna go to hell
- yahoohooLv 61 decade ago
Just relax and take a few deep breaths.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Do you pull your meat with one hand and type the question with the other?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
WHAT DO YOU SPEAK OF ,YOU ARE CRAZY,MAN,READ BIBLE BOOK AND LEARN,YOU,NO,COME ON HERE WHEN CRAZY,DEVIL WILL COME TO YOU,YOU CRAZY