Islam vs. Christianity Part 1

[Walks_in_islam]

OOPS. I took advice and did some research on pagan practices. Here is a succinct summary of yours.

This is who you pray to, where you pray, when you pray, and how you pray:

This is who you pray to:

God, Gad, Gud are all interrelated names. God was a common Teutonic-Germanic word that was applied to superhuman beings of heathen mythologies. Later the word "God" was adopted by Christianity as the generic name for the Supreme Being. It has become the most popular translation for the Hebrew word "Elohim." As a result, most of Christendom believes that the Name for Elohim is "God" and does not know that the personal Name of the Father is YAHWEH. Gad was the Babylonian/Canaanite/Syrian deity of "Good Luck" or "Fortune," also called "Meni," the god of "Destiny" who was regarded as the "Lord Moon." The city of Gad was named after this deity. Gad was identified with Jupiter, the Sun-deity, and applied to Nimrod whose general character was that of a Sun-god or Sun-divinity. Gud was the Anglo-Saxon name for "good god" vs. an "evil god."

Muslims pray to Allah. The root word is El/Eloah/Elohim are the proper terms in the singular "El/Eloah" meaning "Mighty One"



This is who you are:

Christ/Christian come from the Greek word "Christos" meaning "anointed/anointed one," and was used in the pagan Greek and Roman religions to give reference to their Sun-god, "Helios." Roman Emperor Constantine worshipped "Christos Helios" which means "Christ-The-True-Sun." Christos originates from the Greek word "Chrestos" which means "good" and alludes to the Greek/Roman god "Chrestos." "Chrestos" can be seen on a Mithras (Roman cult) relief in the Vatican. "Chrestos" as reverenced by Greeks and Romans was none other than "Osiris," a Sun-diety of Egypt. Heretic Gnostics during the time of circulation of the New Testament scriptures also used the title of "Christos" for their purposes. Christian comes from the Greek word meaning "good men," but was derogatorily applied in mockery to Messianic believers because they worshipped "Mashiach/Messiah of Israel" or the "anointed one of Israel" and not the "anointed" Greek god "Chrestos.

This is where you pray:

Church comes from the Anglo-Saxon root word "circe," and stems from the Greek name of the goddess "Circe," the daughter of "Helios," the Roman Sun-god adopted from Greek mythology. Linked to this goddess in Celtic pagan worship is the name "Kirce." From her name comes the word "kirch" which pertained to the building dedicated to pagan Celtic worship and rituals.

These are your symbols:

Fish Symbol was used as a derogatory slur against "Messiah" in conjunction with using the word "christos" as a mockery of "Messiah." Originally used as a symbol for the Greek fish-deity "Dagon" labeled with the phrase that made up the mystical name of "ICTHUS" which was one of the names of the Greek/Roman Sun-god called "Bacchus/Dionysus/Tammuz," the symbol became a slur against Messianics and then found on synagogues and artifacts. The five Greek letters of "ICTHUS" mean "Iesous Christos Theou Uios Soter" translated as "Jesus Christ the Son of God the Savior" and reverenced by the Roman Catholic Church. "Iesous" is the name adapted from the name of the Greek goddess of healing "Iesos/Iaso," the daughter of Apollo, the Sun-deity linked to the Egyptian goddess "Isis" who had a son "Isu."

Cross was used as a symbol of the Babylonian/Chaldean Sun-god, the mystical "Tau." The original form of the "T" became the emblem of the Greek/Roman Sun-god "Tammuz."

[B]This is your book:[/B]

Bible comes from the Greek word "Biblos/Biblion" which refers to the Egyptian papyrus reed which the Greeks called "Byblos/Byblus." The papyrus reed was shipped from the Egyptian City "Biblis" named after its female Sun-deity. It was imported through the Greek seaport called "Byblos" named after its Phoenician Sun-deity "Byblis/Byblos" believed to be the granddaughter of Apollo, the Greek Sun-diety.

NOTE: The word "Bible" was first used in 400 AD

This is your replacement of the Sabbath:

Sunday was the day set aside in the Mithra (Roman) cult as its official day to assemble together to worship its Sun-deity. Roman Emperor Constantine legislated Sun-day as a day of rest dedicated to the Greek and Roman Sun-god, Helios. Constantine worshipped "Christos Helios" which means "Christ-The-True-Sun." The Roman Catholic Church venerates Sun-day as its Sabbath even today, and has handed it down to Christianity.

Hope that helps.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

my answer

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Jesus did not eat Pork because HE was Jewish.

And Jewish people did not eat pork because GOD's LAW forbid it so did Jesus not eat pork because "he was jewish" or did Jesus not eat pork because he was following God's law? I will now steal one of capn TP's 'colloquialisms' and add "eh?" (in deference to the Kanooks)

Jews kept the Law of Moses. Jesus being a Jew, kept the law. I am a Christian not a convert to Judaism. God said he would make a NEW covenant. You still aren't getting it
Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
Jer 31:32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jesus said

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Ok? There is a NEW covenant now.

Further, since you doubt the words of the Apostles

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

Jesus commissioned, taught and trained the Apostles. They were authorized to teach what Christ taught them

Paul did not reinterpret anything, The bible says in the Old Testament that God would make a NEW covenant with His people, not after the OLD.

Yet in the New Testament when the old laws are referenced "the writers were just quoting old testament teachings" but there is no purpose to those references right?

A reinterpretation is to take the same verse and interpret it or apply it differently than others did before. Otherwise please see above

Concerning Prayer and what Jesus said

Joh 14:13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Joh 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

Joh 14:10 (same discussion) The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds Comment on that part of the discussion or did you leave that out on purpose? Jesus credited God for his very words in that discussion.

You are missing the point. You can ask Jesus and He will do it. That is prayer

I apologize to you for accusing you of cutting and pasting bits and pieces of the Quran to make your points.
Your selective choices at least appear to be equal opportunity. You do it to the bible as well. At least you are fair about it. I went straight there without being sure but knowing your post was incomplete. You know why? The "Jesus is part of a trinity or part of "God" NEVER fits. There is not one point, place, or statement where Jesus said it and one has to string along different unrelated passages to make the point stick. Giving credit to God, praying to God, and submitting to the will and laws of God is consistant with all parts of the ministry of Jesus.

See you are still being combative, you started off saying you did not want to debate. You point fingers and say it's everyone else when in fact it's you. Further I said before that you did not have a clue who you were speaking to and your quip about Jesus being part of a Trinity proves it. I am not a Trinitarian. The problem here is that you don't understand the bible and don't want to understand.

Nobody here suggests not giving credit to God or praying to God. See that is how you started last time, with false assertions. Then you whine about how you get treated

Further, if Paul was wrong why did Peter validate Him? He was received by the other Apostles (Acts) and Peter confirmed that Paul was given wisdom from God.

There are (2) different versions of (just) Paul's conversion in the same book (Acts). Which is right?

No there are not. BTW you just resorted to a red herring argument. In other words you totally ignored my point

2Pe 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

That pretty much validates my own thoughts on those who follow teachings of Paul. Is Paul the only "apostle" specifically referenced whose words get twisted by ignorant and unstable followers?

Read this again. It says Paul was a brother, HE wrote according to the wisdom GIVEN TO HIM. Some of the things he writes are hard to grasp to the ignorant and unstable...as they do OTHER scriptures.

Peter calls him brother, says he was given wisdom and calls his words scripture.

Peter is an Apostle

My reply

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW why, in your view, did Jesus not rebuke others for calling him God and Lord?

You didn't answer this question

Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and examine my hands. Extend your hand and put it into my side. Do not continue in your unbelief, but believe."
Joh 20:28 Thomas replied to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed."

[Walks_in_islam]

Jews kept the Law of Moses. Jesus being a Jew, kept the law. I am a Christian not a convert to Judaism. God said he would make a NEW covenant. You still aren't getting it

Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
Jer 31:32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Which are you? The house of Isreal or the house of Judah? These are old testament discussions concerning people of Jewish faith. BTW, they still follow their original faith. Neither this time spoken of nor their messiah have yet come. With him will come peace over the entire earth. Same prophet said that.


Jesus said

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Ok? There is a NEW covenant now.

Further, since you doubt the words of the Apostles

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

Jesus commissioned, taught and trained the Apostles. They were authorized to teach what Christ taught them

Paul did not reinterpret anything, The bible says in the Old Testament that God would make a NEW covenant with His people, not after the OLD.

HIS people in the Old Testament when God stated that were JEWS and they are (yet) to receive their 'new covenant'

Yet in the New Testament when the old laws are referenced "the writers were just quoting old testament teachings" but there is no purpose to those references right?

A reinterpretation is to take the same verse and interpret it or apply it differently than others did before. Otherwise please see above

How can you take an identical verse "then interpret it differently than others did before?" I contend this is the problem with christianity from the beginning. The need for "commentators" and "re-interpretation" instead of the desire or will to just follow the written word.

Concerning Prayer and what Jesus said

Joh 14:13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Joh 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

Joh 14:10 (same discussion) The words that I say to you,

I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds stands for itself. Find another verse.

Comment on that part of the discussion or did you leave that out on purpose? Jesus credited God for his very words in that discussion.

You are missing the point. You can ask Jesus and He will do it. That is prayer.

Your words:

You can ask Jesus and He will do it. That is prayer.

The words of Jesus himself:
This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,

So which do you follow? The teachings of Jesus or your own way?

I apologize to you for accusing you of cutting and pasting bits and pieces of the Quran to make your points.
Your selective choices at least appear to be equal opportunity. You do it to the bible as well. At least you are fair about it. I went straight there without being sure but knowing your post was incomplete. You know why? The "Jesus is part of a trinity or part of "God" NEVER fits. There is not one point, place, or statement where Jesus said it and one has to string along different unrelated passages to make the point stick. Giving credit to God, praying to God, and submitting to the will and laws of God is consistant with all parts of the ministry of Jesus.

See you are still being combative, you started off saying you did not want to debate. You point fingers and say it's everyone else when in fact it's you. Further I said before that you did not have a clue who you were speaking to and your quip about Jesus being part of a Trinity proves it. I am not a Trinitarian. The problem here is that you don't understand the bible and don't want to understand.

I know you are not a trinitarian. I tossed that in for capn KJ. As to understanding the Bible - it is written very simply. What I do not want or need to understand are the illogical jumps between what is written and what is practiced, interpreted, re-interpreted, or what the "commentators" believe it means. The words are right there. It amazes me that I copy and post the words RIGHT HERE and you rarely if ever take them at face value. They always "actually mean something else"

Nobody here suggests not giving credit to God or praying to God. See that is how you started last time, with false assertions. Then you whine about how you get treated

I did not accuse anyone of suggesting it. I merely stated that throughout the ministry of Jesus he prayed, fasted, followed the laws of God, and gave God credit for his message (and) his miracles. Based on his words and actions we consider Jesus a holy messenger of God and follow his example.

Further, if Paul was wrong why did Peter validate Him? He was received by the other Apostles (Acts) and Peter confirmed that Paul was given wisdom from God.

There are (2) different versions of (just) Paul's conversion in the same book (Acts). Which is right?

No there are not. BTW you just resorted to a red herring argument. In other words you totally ignored my point

I took a cheap shot and then answered your point. What about all of Paul's teachings I asked about? Should women be silent in church? Should they cover their heads before they enter? Should they not be allowed to speak or teach? Are they inherently to be submissive and considered evil?

Paul taught these things - if his teachings are validated by the apostles why are they not practiced? Since they are not, is the apostle Paul valid or not? If you say he is, then you have to explain away why all of his teachings are ignored. If you say he is not, then that explains why you do not follow his teachings which makes most of your new testament invalid. If invalid, why is it there? See? Jesus and none of the prophets or messengers before Jesus never taught those things. They are uniquely apostle paul's words. Hence my cheap shots at his words. At least I don't teach from his writings on one hand and ignore them on the other. Please don't bother to explain "what he really meant". I already know and have made fun of those answers.

2Pe 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

That pretty much validates my own thoughts on those who follow teachings of Paul. Is Paul the only "apostle" specifically referenced whose words get twisted by ignorant and unstable followers?

Read this again. It says Paul was a brother, HE wrote according to the wisdom GIVEN TO HIM. Some of the things he writes are hard to grasp to the ignorant and unstable...as they do OTHER scriptures.

Re-read and incorporate his teachings then. Your wives and daughters will look like Muslim girls going to church. Hopefully when you get home you can explain what was taught to them better than you explain to me.

Peter calls him brother, says he was given wisdom and calls his words scripture.

Peter is an Apostle

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Which are you? The house of Isreal or the house of Judah? These are old testament discussions concerning people of Jewish faith. BTW, they still follow their original faith. Neither this time spoken of nor their messiah have yet come. With him will come peace over the entire earth. Same prophet said that.

Still avoiding the issue. God made a NEW covenant. You are trying to pin us to the OLD covenant when God made a new one. Jesus, whom you validated, said HE brought in the New Covenant.

HIS people in the Old Testament when God stated that were JEWS and they are (yet) to receive their 'new covenant'

you are ignoring what I just posted. Jesus brought in the New Covenant. God is the author of the New Covenant. If they want to enter into that covenant that is up to them.

How can you take an identical verse "then interpret it differently than others did before?" I contend this is the problem with christianity from the beginning. The need for "commentators" and "re-interpretation" instead of the desire or will to just follow the written word.

lol....you were the one saying Paul re-interpreted the OT. Prove it. I was simply defining what "reinterpret" means for you. Now you are introducing another red herring by ignoring the issue which was your assertion about Paul and changing it to something else. You consistently do that

I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds stands for itself. Find another verse.

This does not say anything about prayer.

You can ask Jesus and He will do it. That is prayer.

The words of Jesus himself:
This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,

Nobody is denying we are to pray to the Father.

So which do you follow? The teachings of Jesus or your own way?

I follow Jesus, I was quoting Jesus not my own way

I know you are not a trinitarian. I tossed that in for capn KJ. As to understanding the Bible - it is written very simply. What I do not want or need to understand are the illogical jumps between what is written and what is practiced, interpreted, re-interpreted, or what the "commentators" believe it means. The words are right there. It amazes me that I copy and post the words RIGHT HERE and you rarely if ever take them at face value. They always "actually mean something else"

I never once said they "actually mean something else", your posts are full of logical fallacies and this one is called a Strawman argument. Red herrings, strawmen arguments, ad hominems. That is what your posts are based on. I take these words at face value

I took a cheap shot and then answered your point.

No you did not answer my point. You often avoid my points, by introducing red herring arguments

What about all of Paul's teachings I asked about? Should women be silent in church? Should they cover their heads before they enter? Should they not be allowed to speak or teach? Are they inherently to be submissive and considered evil?

More Red Herring. You asserted Paul reinterpreted the OT with regards to keeping the Law, I have shown point blank that God gave us a New Covenant. The Apostles were the ones given the authority to spread the truth and Peter confirmed the teachings of Paul contrary to YOUR assertions.

Paul taught these things - if his teachings are validated by the apostles why are they not practiced? Since they are not, is the apostle Paul valid or not? If you say he is, then you have to explain away why all of his teachings are ignored. If you say he is not, then that explains why you do not follow his teachings which makes most of your new testament invalid. If invalid, why is it there? See? Jesus and none of the prophets or messengers before Jesus never taught those things. They are uniquely apostle paul's words. Hence my cheap shots at his words. At least I don't teach from his writings on one hand and ignore them on the other. Please don't bother to explain "what he really meant". I already know and have made fun of those answers.

Isn't that what you Muslims do? Tell us what the Quran REALLY meant? The simple truth is you do not understand the bible. You don't understand what it was written about, to whom and why.

Re-read and incorporate his teachings then. Your wives and daughters will look like Muslim girls going to church. Hopefully when you get home you can explain what was taught to them better than you explain to me.

You are still introducing red herring arguments. Your assertions about Paul are false.

Peter calls him brother, says he was given wisdom and calls his words scripture.

Peter is an Apostle

[Walks_in_islam]

OH I throw out "red herrings?" You never answer direct questions do you. Instead you divert away from the question, lately by calling attention to "red herrings".

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

What does this have to do with you or with "christianity"? Does it say with the house of Isreal and with the house of Judah and with the house of Prax? NO. It does not. When you take something from the old testament then add to it or re-interpret it or tie something from somewhere else to it then you change it's meaning by re-interpreting it for yourself to mean something other than what it specifically says.

Paul specifically taught about women and hair coverings. He said "cover it or shave it". He said they are to "be silent in churches". He said a woman should not 'teach' or be put into a position 'over a man'. Do you, your church, and your family follow these teachings? The best you will be able to tell me is that your church probably (you're pennycostal right?) teaches that women should have "uncut hair". Which is not what the passage says. So you or your church took this specific passage, interpreted it to mean something other than what it actually says, ignore the "silent" part, then you come on here and "validate the apostle paul".

Jesus did add teachings to the old law. What did christians do? First they "renamed him" after a Greek god then applied diety to him over the God that he specifically taught you to worship.

Jesus comes from the Greek name "Iesous/IHSOUS" and Latin "Iesus." "Iesous" is adapted from the name of the Greek goddess of healing "Iesos/Iaso," the daughter of Apollo, the Sun-deity. This goddess was linked to the Egyptian "Isis" who had a son named "Isu." During the era of Roman Emperors, there were numerous worshippers of "Isis." Many converted to Constantine's religion that mixed paganism with the Messianic faith that eventually became the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church continues to use the sunburst emblem known as the "Eucharist" which to this day contains the Greek letters "IHS" for "IHSOUS." Further research reveals that the name "Jesus" is also linked to the Greek Sun-god "Zeus" who was the Greek interpretation of the Egyptian Sun-god "Amen-Rah."

Yahshua/Yahushua/Yahoshua, is the correct Name for the Savior

As to prayer, I just cut and pasted Jesus' own words. Again, his words and teachings are written literally to be taken or left as one chooses.

My assertations about Paul are not false. I did not say "paul re-interpreted the old testament". I said the christian church does. Above is (1) example of that. About Paul I assert that the story of his conversion is unclear and that some of his teachings are followed, and some are not. That gives the appearance of picking and choosing here and there which teachings from the bible are and are not important or to be followed.

[Walks_in_islam]

Avoiding the issue?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Still avoiding the issue. God made a NEW covenant. You are trying to pin us to the OLD covenant when God made a new one. Jesus, whom you validated, said HE brought in the New Covenant.

God will make a NEW covenant with the "house of isreal and judah". You pinned yourself to that one.

you are ignoring what I just posted. Jesus brought in the New Covenant. God is the author of the New Covenant. If they want to enter into that covenant that is up to them.

lol....you were the one saying Paul re-interpreted the OT. Prove it. I was simply defining what "reinterpret" means for you. Now you are introducing another red herring by ignoring the issue which was your assertion about Paul and changing it to something else. You consistently do that

I said the christian church re-interprets the old testament. Paul referenced parts of it then christians say "oh that's the old testament". It happened on here just a few days ago when I asked about "set yourselves apart and touch not unclean things" from the new testament.

This does not say anything about prayer.

Nobody is denying we are to pray to the Father.

I follow Jesus, I was quoting Jesus not my own way

I never once said they "actually mean something else", your posts are full of logical fallacies and this one is called a Strawman argument. Red herrings, strawmen arguments, ad hominems. That is what your posts are based on. I take these words at face value


No you did not answer my point. You often avoid my points, by introducing red herring arguments

More Red Herring. You asserted Paul reinterpreted the OT with regards to keeping the Law, I have shown point blank that God gave us a New Covenant. The Apostles were the ones given the authority to spread the truth and Peter confirmed the teachings of Paul contrary to YOUR assertions.

My assertions are that YOU do not follow all of the teachings of Paul. I am waiting for YOU to validate all of his teachings then I have a few specific ones to ask you about.

Isn't that what you Muslims do? Tell us what the Quran REALLY meant? The simple truth is you do not understand the bible. You don't understand what it was written about, to whom and why.

I speak little about the Quran. At times an out-of-context passage is posted and I put the entire passage back in - I certainly do not take the words and "re-interpret" them. They are what they are. I saw in another discussion at least (1) passage about defense in the Quran get re-interpreted to offense.

You are still introducing red herring arguments. Your assertions about Paul are false.

See above.

Peter calls him brother, says he was given wisdom and calls his words scripture.

So tell me that every teaching of Paul is valid. We will then discuss a few.

Peter is an Apostle

[Thomas Trini]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Muhammed's illiteracy would start something more than just a doctrinal statement to be issued by your local Mosque.

Mohammed's illiteracy is a well-known and accepted historical fact. Mohammed's illiteracy is taught at the local mosque.

Perhaps. But it is funny to watch Muslims try and explain it. I recently ran across a book titled something like "101 Questions and Answers on Islam" that compared Mohammed's illiteracy as comaprable to Mary's virginity. Huh? That's a "wee bit of a stretch," as my Celtic forefathers might've said.

Yeah. Useful margin notes added to the actual text to support a whole doctrine are things of beauty to proponents of that doctrine. What "others seem to lack" in this context is inclusion of notes added to the margins 6 centuries after the original authors died. lol

News flash to Wii. The margin notes are there because, just like Mark 16:8-16 (while inserted into the texts), is consistent with other teachings found elsewhere. For example, the prooftext you cited earlier from 1st John in regards to the Trinity is simple if you bothered to read the entire Bible. The author of the Gospel of John and 1st John are the same person. In John 1:1-18, the author calls Jesus (The Son) THE WORD. Therefore, inserting "The Son" in place of "Word" would not be violating any huge hermeneutical rule of thumb. For example, the term "Firstborn" is rarely used today. A more proper (and understandable) term might be "Pre-Eminent." Because the term "firstborn," as used by the KJV, would be more relevant today to be "pre-eminent."
Unlike Mormojns, who taught from Nephi in The Book of Mormon that blacks and indians would become caucasians if they accepted Joseph Smith's revelation, they had to backtrack and change to words to "pure and delightsome," rather than "pure and white." Sooooo, this is not some embarassing slip, and if it was, you wouldn't be able to find it in the footnotes. This is also not the "oops" as it was when Bible Translators left out the word "not" in the 10 commandments, as in "thou shalt commit adultery," instead of the correct translation.

[Thomas Trini]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Jesus comes from the Greek name "Iesous/IHSOUS" and Latin "Iesus." "Iesous" is adapted from the name of the Greek goddess of healing "Iesos/Iaso," the daughter of Apollo, the Sun-deity. This goddess was linked to the Egyptian "Isis" who had a son named "Isu." During the era of Roman Emperors, there were numerous worshippers of "Isis." Many converted to Constantine's religion that mixed paganism with the Messianic faith that eventually became the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church continues to use the sunburst emblem known as the "Eucharist" which to this day contains the Greek letters "IHS" for "IHSOUS." Further research reveals that the name "Jesus" is also linked to the Greek Sun-god "Zeus" who was the Greek interpretation of the Egyptian Sun-god "Amen-Rah."

Yahshua/Yahushua/Yahoshua, is the correct Name for the Savior

Oh now you're just being silly.

As to all the other stuff, I've lost track of who you're addressing.

[Thomas Trini]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

This is your replacement of the Sabbath:

Sunday was the day set aside in the Mithra (Roman) cult as its official day to assemble together to worship its Sun-deity. Roman Emperor Constantine legislated Sun-day as a day of rest dedicated to the Greek and Roman Sun-god, Helios. Constantine worshipped "Christos Helios" which means "Christ-The-True-Sun." The Roman Catholic Church venerates Sun-day as its Sabbath even today, and has handed it down to Christianity.

Hope that helps.

Nope. Scripture teaches that after the Resurrection of Jesus, the disciples gathered on "the first day of the week." Note: Jesus was raised from the dead on a Sunday. Why not celebrate the day which happened to be the day which brought the disciples from being scared little chickens to bold evangelists? Scripture also teaches that we should not judge others in regards to "holy days."