Recently, somebody was using James White’s controlled/uncontrolled argument in favour of the New Testament (uncontrolled preservation) and arguing against Quranic preservation (controlled preservation).
This argument is flawed as it misrepresents/misunderstands Quranic preservation BUT is also inconsistent as it argues AGAINST the Old Testament as the OT was preserved in a controlled environment!!! [I hope those whom I was interacting with recently are taking note of the video]
So James White’s argument is inconsistent and unchristian as it throws mud at the Old Testament – what a blunder! It seems James White’s desperation to project an argument for the preservation of the NT leads him to the blunder of inconsistency – roll on the video!
James White kills his own argument, VS Bart Ehrman
Video description: James White shoots himself in the foot. He spent a few minutes trying to build an argument for the preservation of the NT, but during the Q&A period, he destroys his own argument in few seconds. (Video is by 1MoreMuslim)
Why is James White looking silly in 1MoreMuslim’s video?
Firstly, kudos to 1moreMuslim for the amazing video!
I advance the idea James White is looking ludicrously inconsistent, to the extent of “silly”, due to what he is working with. He is desperate to make a case for the New Testament, thus all levels of reasonable consistency and scholarship go out of the window.
Now, if James White is shown to be so whimsical in making argumentations for the preservation of the NT you must start asking yourself with regards to the reliability of the NT. Why is it this man is incapable of presenting a reasonable and consistent argument for the NT?
We have already seen, in the debate with Dr Bart Ehrman, Christians do struggle to present the NT as a reliable document. See footnote two for the link to the review.
A few further points
Preservation of the Quran
Sadly, James White has misunderstood Quranic preservation or communicated unclearly – or was simply being disingenuous. Uthman’s (ra) controlling of the text was carried out in agreement with (and alongside) the community (a community consisting of Prophetic companions). Sadly, White represents it as an “Uthmanic” act – if he looked into it further he would have realised, through Ali’s (ra) statement, that the actions of Uthman were indeed agreed upon by everyone [1]
In fariness, perhaps White is simply being unclear due to time constraints. However, there is no excuse for the illogical supporters of White who are influenced to present an illogical line of reasoning.
Facts for the logical, not for the illogical
Does the New Testament have those who sat down with Jesus (p) controlling the text? No - the text, which Jesus never saw nor sanctioned, was controlled by scribes (many of whom were poorly skilled and we KNOW some were dishonest to the extent of DELIBERATELY CHANGING the text!
Does the Quran have those who sat down with Muhammad (p) controlling the text? Yes - this was within a community of Muslim saints who had amonsgt them huffaz (people who had memorized the whole Quran). Oral transmission as well as written preservation of the Quran amongst the most trustworthy Muslims is obviously a better mode of preservation than leaving it in the hands of unknown "scribes" who we KNOW were unskilled and/or dishonest.
Only the most desperate (or illogical) would try to present the NT preservation as superior to the Quranic preservation. Sadly, I have encountered at least one commentator who was influenced by White's irrational thoughts - he was soon corrected!
Are they serious?
In addition, Muslims KNOW the contents of the Quran, whilst our Christian friends admitted they do not know the content of the NT for certain – they believe (faith conviction) they have the NT preserved in the manuscript tradition BUT when it comes to the variants the Christians are NOT certain as to which variant is from the original NT. [2]
Now, are Christians really serious in telling us their method of preservation is better because they have more “manuscripts” in an “uncontrolled” environment? Erm, the forgeries which were plucked out from the NT due to Von Tischendorf’s find in the 1800’s tell us James White and those Christians who espouse such “hopeful” argumentation are indeed on to a loser! [3]
The Holy spirit and the Bible?
James White says he knows Arabic, but does not...
Invitation to Islam
Would you like a relationship with your Creator? Would you like to worship the God of Jesus – the same God Jesus worshipped? Would you like to become a brother/sister of Jesus? If yes, come to Islam.
Bible: Muslims are blessed
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com (If you want to conatact the video maker please see here)
[1] Ibn Abi Dawud, al Masahif, p22; see also pp 12, 23 (sourced from Sheikh Al Azami, The History of the Quranic Text, UK Islamic Academy, 2003, p94
[2] See the debate review: Does the Bible misquote Jesus
[3] Dr Von Tischendorf discovered the Codex Sinaiticus (from Saint Catherine’s monsatery), this codex does NOT contain the last 12 verses in the gospel of Mark. These are believed to be forgeries. Sadder still, Christians, prior to this find believed those words to be faithful to the New Testament.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
I cannot believe the profound ignorance of the history of other faiths that Muslims seem to have.
There is no inconsistency here
White is not arguing that the Old Testament was preserved by the governing authorities like the Quran. He is only stating the obvious fact that the OT was sent to the nation of Israel while the NT was sent to the world.
Christian’s don’t accept the OT because it was preserved exactly like the NT we accept the OT because Christ and his Apostles did.
It is you who are being inconsistent here. You think that the Quran is scripture because you believe that it was approved by Muhammad but you reject the OT even though we know it was accepted by Jesus and his apostles. Amazing.
The exact history of the OT is necessarily different than the history on the NT in some respects but the method of preservation in the books of OT and NT have infinitely more in common with each other that they do with the government sanctioned process that we see with the Quran.
Ehrman’s admits as much in the quote you reproduced in the video.
In the Dead Sea Scrolls we have multiple hand written copies from multiple sources with all the variants that this process entails. We even have evidence of minor disagreements as to the extent of the cannon, just like we find with the NT
There is no evidence of a Hebrew Ultman burning copies that did not follow his state approved text.
God never relies on the government authority to preserve his word. That sort of method is more at home with the religion of the Pharaohs.
Peace
@FifthMonarchyMan
I'm asking you to look into the video - not the text.
Are you saying the video highlights no contradiction?
As for Jesus sanctioning your OT, says who?
You are using conjecture by assuming Jesus sanctioned everything in your OT. You don't have any proof of such.
As we have seen previously, on this blog, Dr Jerald Dirks highlighted Christian disagreement concerning what is part of the OT - hence the disagreements to this very day.
Care to explain? In addition please provide the reason why you believe the OT you have in your hands was fully sanctioned by Jesus.
BTW, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not count as evidence!
Now you have differentiated between government and the rabbis. What is the difference between a group of rabbis and a government with regards to preserving the text? A GROUP of people are STILL in charge of the text, in both instances
So the OT and the Quran were preserved in a controlled environemnt. The OT was controlled by the rabbis whilst the Quran was controlled by those who met and knew the Prophet Muhammad (p)
As for the NT, it was controlled by nobody but left to the devices of the "scribes". Anonymous scribes. Unskilled scribes. Dishonest scribes.
Now, if that is not enough for you to see the holes in your argumentation then I don't know whta will suffice.
You see, you have come with conspiracy theories, "government sanctioned process". Erm, the "government" consisted of those TRUSTED and SANCTIONED by Prophet muhammad (p).
Jesus never knew any of the NT scribes.
Moses never knew the group of "rabbis" - for some reason this group of rabbis escapes your conspiracy theory and you fail to see there control of the text would be akin to a government's control as they would govern the text!
Thanks for the conversation.
Iron sharpens iron, as one man sharpens another - Proverbs
You say,
As for Jesus sanctioning your OT, says who?
I say,
Um... Jesus, he quotes from it often even in those tiny periscopes that are accepted by the most radical of liberal scholars
You say,
You are using conjecture by assuming Jesus sanctioned everything in your OT. You don't have any proof of such.
I say
Sober observers don’t waist a lot of time trying to prove a negative.
What we have is tons of conclusive evidence that Jesus and his apostles accepted the OT and zero evidence that he rejected any of it despite the strong incentive for early heretics like Marcion to show that Jesus rejected parts of it.
For an observer not constrained by Islamic presuppositions this is not even an issue. It's a slam dunk
You say
Now you have differentiated between government and the rabbis. What is the difference between a group of rabbis and a government with regards to preserving the text?
I say,
I can’t believe you are even asking this question……
A rabbi can not demand that a competing manuscript be burned. He can’t round up dissidents and silence them. He can’t punish those whose texts disagree with his. He can't propagate an official story that makes him look good.
Rabbis can’t do this sort of stuff but governments do it all the time
You say,
Jesus never knew any of the NT scribes.
I say,
Again you are constrained by your own Islamic world view.
We Christians know that Jesus is not dead. He knows all of the people who preserved his word.
He does not need to rely on the government.
Only dead holy men need that kind of assistance
you say,
Thanks for the conversation.
I say,
You’re welcome but it would be more profitable for you if you would at least do a little research as to what Christians actually believe
Peace
MSNBC—A 20-year-old Saudi student has been charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and may have targeted former President George W. Bush, the Justice Department said Thursday.
FBI agents arrested Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, who was admitted into the United States in 2008 on a student visa, in Texas on Wednesday. The Justice Department accuses him of purchasing chemicals and equipment to make an improvised explosive device.
Aldawsari, a chemical engineering student at South Plains College near Lubbock, allegedly referred to Bush's Dallas home as a "tyrant's house" and may have contemplated using dolls and baby carriages to blow up dams, nuclear plants or the Bush home in Dallas, the Justice Department said.
"It is war ... until the infidels leave defeated," the student wrote in online postings.
Aldawsari entered the U.S. in October 2008 from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to study chemical engineering at Texas Tech University, then transferred earlier this year to nearby South Plains College.
The terrorism case against Aldawsari was significant because it demonstrated that radicalized foreigners can live quietly in the U.S. heartland without raising suspicions from neighbors, classmates, teachers or others. But it also showed how quickly U.S. law enforcement can move when tipped that a terrorist plot may be unfolding.
The White House said President Barack Obama was notified about the alleged plot before Aldawsari's arrest Wednesday. "This arrest once again underscores the necessity of remaining vigilant against terrorism here and abroad," White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said in a statement Thursday.
Aldawsari allegedly sent himself a series of emails identifying possible targets, including the homes of three U.S. military troops who had served at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and reservoir dams in Colorado and California.
An affidavit filed in support of the government's claims said Aldawsari appeared to be training himself how to create detonators and bombs using household items and commercially available scientific supplies.
Two searches of his apartment conducted by the FBI this month turned up "concentrated sulfuric and nitric acids; the beakers and flasks; wiring; Hazmat suit; and clocks," the DOJ statement said.
Agents also found a notebook believed to be Aldawsari's journal, in which he allegedly wrote that he'd been planning to commit an attack on U.S. soil for years and specifically sought out a certain scholarship because it would get him into the country and provide funds that would "help tremendously in providing me with the support I need for Jihad."
In the same entry describing his pursuit of the scholarship, which he did obtain, he allegedly wrote, "And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad."
The affidavit claims Aldawsari also created a blog where he posted radical messages. One post allegedly written by the Saudi said, "You who created mankind ... grant me martyrdom for Your sake and make jihad easy for me only in Your path."
Fifth Monarchy Man,
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, I would say that you misunderstood the point.
Dr White is arguing that scripture withing controlled institutions and limited area will inevitably make it "impossible" to defend it's preservation. That's James' reasoning, not mine ( I think it's false). Then he admits that the OT is transmitted inside a controlled and limited environment, and that is bad, according to Dr White.
I personally think that contro or without control has nothing to do with preservation, we look at copies at hand and we can know that corruption did occur, there is no reason to believe that before 100 AD, the NT has less corruption, or that the scribes are more honest, especially in a time when people didn't consider these materials to be the inerrant word of god.
@ Anonymous:
George Bush is not less criminal that the Saudi Student who tried to kill him.
Marouane:
You say,
I would say that you misunderstood the point.
I say,
No I don’t misunderstand the point I just find it invalid because of it’s ignorance of what Christians actually believe
You say,
Dr White is arguing that scripture withing controlled institutions and limited area will inevitably make it "impossible" to defend it's preservation.
I say,
You are equivocating on the word “controlled” In the case of the OT White means controlled as in “done with skill and discipline” not “carefully regulated” as was the case with the Quran.
I’m not sure why this is not obvious to you. He does not say the Rabbis controlled the transmission of the text.
What he says is.....
Quote:
The transmission is much more controlled “because it was within just the people of Israel”
end quote;
Do you see the difference????
The rabbis carefully copied and compared the OT text with maximum effort to insure no mistakes. On the other hand Christians quickly made their copies quickly to enable rapid distribution.
Unlike the Muslims neither of these groups were sanctioned by the governing authorities and backed by the power of the sword.
Peace
You said:
there is no reason to believe that before 100 AD, the NT has less corruption,
I say,
Actually we know that the NT is not corrupted because we have thousands of manuscripts from many different areas some dating to before 100 AD and we can compare them for ourselves. New manuscripts are constantly being found to add to the pile yet no doctrine of orthodox Christianity has ever been challenged by them.
Christians don’t fear these discoveries we footnote them in our Bibles and talk about them in our gatherings
On the other hand
When it Comes to the Quran we have only an official story propagated by the government with no supporting physical evidence to back up the claim because it was conveniently destroyed.
I mean no offence but apperently Allah's message is to weak to transcend the efforts of inept copyists and must instead rely on goverment help.
Peace
thanks for this tips 2218153698
@ Fifth Monarchy Man
loool
You have what ??? Manuscripts from before 100 AD !!! Wow , that is news. CAn you name some of these 1st century manuscripts? I know P52 , a fragment of John, the size of a credit card, and it's dated to 125 AD from conservatives.
@Fifth,
You have simply presented a conspiracy theory and claimed others don't study yet you have not enlightened the comment section.
Geza Vermes confirms the "controlled" nature ofthe OT and he also sheds light as to the confusion concerning what actually constitutes the OT.
Do you know Josephus presented the OT as consisting 22 books. ("among the Jews only 22 books enjoyed confidence" - Vermes)
Do you have 22 in your OT? Count them...
Vermes writes:
What constitues the Bible is nowhere strictly defined in the ancient literary sources of Judaism
Vermes goes on:
It was the privilege of the succesive religious authorities (Sadducee chief priests, Pharisee leaders and rabbis) to determine the list of books
FifthMonarchyMan, aside from empty insults and conspiracy theory you did state Jesus quoted from the OT.
Now, if I quote the Shema - does that mean I am sanctioning ALL the Torah?
If I quote one psalm, am I sanctioning ALL 150 psalms? (or in the case of one of your churches all 151 psalms!)
The fact is the ketavim (the writings) seem to be neglected in this regard. Have you got Jesus quoting from these writings?
I hope you can see, simply quoting from a book does not mean sanctioning all of it and all the books which fall into the 3 categories which comprise the OT - Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim.
In any case - it is obvious Christians are confused too -just look at the differences with regards to the OT canon amonsgt the different churches.
And what about the Samaritan Bible - it only consists of the Torah!
Going back to the rabbis - governemnt issue.
You are claiming a government has power to corrupt a text. True. A government does.
So too does a group of rabbis!
This is the point which I tried to make to you previously. Sadly you have persisted with your conspiracy theory of the government (consisting of our saints) changing the Quran BUT you refuse to be consistent and allow your mind to theorize the rabbis changing the OT as they had strict control over the OT.
Yours is a conspiracy theory, an inconsistent one at that.
Peace
Hey Yahya,
You said,
You have simply presented a conspiracy theory and claimed others don't study yet you have not enlightened the comment section.
I say,
Actually I have presented no theory at all when it come to your book. I could care less as to whether Ultman corrupted the Quran. The Quran could be 100 percent accurately preserved and I would still be obliged to reject it because it conflicts with the word of God.
I have only pointed out that unlike as is the case for the Bible the method by which the Quran was passed down has made it impossible to know for sure if it has been changed.
This is a fundamental and inherent aspect of your faith. You must trust that the people who controlled the government in earliest Islam were unlike every other human authority that has ever existed. That is just a bridge to far for Christians.
We can't trust our souls to men
You say,
What constitues the Bible is nowhere strictly defined in the ancient literary sources of Judaism
I say,
Exactly!!! This confirms that the preservation of OT was not controlled in the way that the Quran was. That is the whole point
You say:
BUT you refuse to be consistent and allow your mind to theorize the rabbis changing the OT as they had strict control over the OT.
I say,
Actually the method by which God preserved his word makes such theorizing unnecessary If I want to see if the OT I have was corrupted by a rabbi all I have to do is check it against competing sources like …… the Septuagint
…………….the Dead Sea Scrolls or
The Samaritan Pentateuch or I can check it against quotes from Jewish writers both orthodox and heretical.
Unlike in the case of the Quran the uncontrolled nature of preservation makes it easy for me to test theories like that one for myself.
Can you really not see the difference??
Peace
1 more muslim
You say,
You have what ??? Manuscripts from before 100 AD !!! Wow , that is news.
I say,
I guess I did not read Marouane's statement accurately I took it to mean within the first hundred years after Jesus but it actually said before 100 AD.
I hope you can understand why I read him incorrectly. A manuscript copy this early (within 40 years of the original document)is unheard of for ancient texts.
However we do have a few manuscripts that might satisfy this impossibly high standard
The date of 125 for P52 is only an scholarly estimate the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.
There is also the "Magdalen" papyrus which some scholars date to the latter third of the first century and also fragment 7Q5 from Qumran that is possibly a part of the gospel of Mark and dates to before AD 70.
We can agree or disagree with these dates. The point is that we have the ability to decide for ourselves due to the superiority of an open process. We don't have to accept the word of the athourities
That again is whole point
peace
Fifth Monarchy Man
Dr James White dates P52 to 125 AD, that is the most conservative dating. There is no earlier fragment of any NT fragment. You are relying on failed and abandoned theories. 7Q5 is not from the NT AT ALL. That exists only in your mind.
You say:
Whatever you want.
I say:
Stop deceiving us.
1 more muslim
you said:
Dr James White dates P52 to 125 AD, that is the most conservative dating.
I say:
check this out
http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
quote:
the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among critical scholars. The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a date somewhere between 125 and 160 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows for a range of dates that extends from before 100 CE to well into the second half of the second century.
end quote:
now care to retract your claim?
You say,
You are relying on failed and abandoned theories.
I say,
like I said you are free to disagree with Thiede's dating of the fragraments but the fact that there is evidence to argue about at all proves my point.
have a good day
Peace
@ Fifth Monarchy Man
What you are presenting is not evidence to argue for, you are presenting the lack of evidence. You made an assertion that SOME manuscripts are dated to prior 100 AD, is based on the wishful hope that the dating of scholars are wrong. So the one who should retreat his assertion is you.
The Irony, is that the tiny P52, with its few words presents missing words comparing to John's gospel.
Bottom line, there is no manuscripts DATED from prior 100 AD, few Faithful like you wish that the dating is wrong. I rely on scholars, you rely on the possible mistakes of scholars.
You say,
You made an assertion that SOME manuscripts are dated to prior 100 AD, is based on the wishful hope that the dating of scholars are wrong.
I say,
As I explained before my comment was based on my misreading of Marouane’s comment. I don’t hold that we have manuscripts before 100 AD but to within 100years of Jesus.
Such an early copy (less than 40 years after the original) is completely unprecedented in ancient texts. That’s all ancient texts even those preserved by the government. I merely pointed out that it’s possible that the textual evidence meets even this impossibly high standard.
In fact the reason that dates like those I mentioned are often discounted by the majority of scholars is not due to the weakness of the case but because the odds of such a thing being found are so tremendous . No one would dare to dream to find a manuscript that old for any text. So when such a claim is made extraordinary evidence is required.
The fact that scholars even entertain the possibility that some of our manuscripts are that old is proof of the strength of the method God used to preserve his word
I find it amazing that you are unable to discredit my actual argument about the merits of different preservation methods and are instead arguing about the dating of a fragment by plus or minus 25 years.
As if anyone’s rejection of the reliability of the NT is dependant of whether a fragment is dated to 100 or 125.
Talk about splitting hairs. Is that all you got?
Peace
Peace
To Fifth Monarchy Man:
"As if anyone’s rejection of the reliability of the NT is dependant of whether a fragment is dated to 100 or 125"
It's you, who made the reliability of the NT dependent on dating , that is your argument not mine. P52 shows that corruption did occur at early age.
Marouane:
you said,
It's you, who made the reliability of the NT dependent on dating ,
I say,
I'm not sure what you mean
The reliability of the NT is dependant on the power and promise of God through his spirit. The presence of so many early manuscripts simply allows us to verify for ourselves that the text was preserved. To test the spirits if you will.
We can’t do that with the Quran because Ultman destroyed the evidence so instead of relying on God's power you are forced to put your trust in the goverment.
You say,
P52 shows that corruption did occur at early age.
I say,
What are you talking about? P52 is the same gospel of John we have today. We know this because we can compare it’s text to the one we have. This is exactly what we would expect if God preserved his word as he promised he would do.
How does this show corruption?
If the text was corrupted at an early age we would expect to see somthing like a P52 that was missing the crucifixion or had Jesus pointing to Allah instead of himself as the source of truth.
but nothing like that has been found. Instead What we find is no matter haw far back we look or how far removed geographically the text is the same except for the kinds of minor copying variants that are always present when texts are reproduced by hand.
instead of showing corruption things like P52 gives us Christians confidence that God kept his promise.
Muslims on the other hand have no physical evidence that they can go to and instead must have faith that one particular government had none of the shortcomings that all others in history have had and you must do this based only on the word of that very same goverment.
Peace
To Fifth Monarchy Man :
All what you have from P52 is few words from John, and yet having missing words, compared with today's Gospel. I call missing words corruption. We should call a cat a cat.
It's you who brought up the argument of early dating as proof for reliability not me. A text can be early but a complete fantasy. The book of Harry Potter will be the same uncorrupted 2000 years from now, but it will always be fiction. The story of the roman Soldiers falling back when Jesus says "I am he" shows that John wants us to believe his theology about Jesus not the real story of Jesus. The Author of John thinks Jesus is claiming divinity, so he made the Soldiers react accordingly, making the story silly.
1 more muslim:
All what you have from P52 is few words from John, and yet having missing words, compared with today's Gospel.
I say,
What words are missing in the text we have? I'm not aware of any?
As I understand it scholars hypostasize that the manuscript from which P52 comes might be missing a repeated phrase but we don’t know this was the case.
you say,
The story of the roman Soldiers falling back when Jesus says "I am he" shows that John wants us to believe his theology about Jesus not the real story of Jesus.
Real story?
So you are saying that you reject this Gospel not because of corruption or late date but it does not agree with a story written hundreds of years after the events ?
Talk about being lead by your presuppositions instead of the evidence amazing
we were warned that folks like you would come along
quote:
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
(2 Timothy 4:3-4)
end quote:
peace
To Fifth Monarchy Man:
The link that have given me earlier about P52 speaks about the variant, missing words from the Gospel of John.
It's strange, I was saying that the story of the Soldiers doesn't make sense without the Christian supposition of the divinity of Jesus, and you blame me for presupposing. Try to reconstruct the story when Jesus was captured, and try to figure out why did the roman soldiers fall back on the ground. Go ahead and do it. And don't forget , you should place the scene where Judah betrayed Jesus by a kiss. So the Soldiers, knowing who is Jesus, fell to the ground when they were told " I am he".
The author of John PRESUPPOSE that Jesus is claiming divinity ( sort of) so he made Soldiers act according to his presupposed theology. Historically ( without presuppositions) the story is silly and obscure.
1more Muslim:
You say,
The link that have given me earlier about P52 speaks about the variant, missing words from the Gospel of John.
I say,
no it says
quote:
There appears insufficient room for the repeated phrase (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) in the second line of the verso
end quote:
IOW It looks like there might have been a minor variant in the copy that P52 comes from. This conclusion is merely educated speculation based on the spacing of the letters we have.
That is a far cry from saying this fragment is missing words.
you say,
I was saying that the story of the Soldiers doesn't make sense without the Christian supposition of the divinity of Jesus, and you blame me for presupposing.
I say,
You don’t need Christian presuppositions to come to the conclusion that John’s Gospel portrays Jesus as being divine. John lays that card on the table in the first chapter.
On the other hand you do need nonchristian presuppositions to reject John’s Gospel as "nonsense" for that reason.
What you have done is assume that God would not reveal that Jesus was divine and rejected God’s revelation based on that bias alone.
This is what I mean by presupposing
God is under no obligation to make his word correspond to your idea of rationality.
If God reveals somthing it's your duty to accept it even if you don’t comprehend it or it sounds a bit odd to you.
Peace
To Fifth Monarchy Man :
Why you put half the quote?
"There appears insufficient room for the repeated phrase(ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) in the second line of the verso, and it is suggested that these words were inadvertantly dropped through haplography."
So there are missing words, even James White agrees.
About the Gospel of John, again, I 'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Scroll up to my post, you will see that I conceded that the Author of John believes in the Divinity of Jesus, my point was that the reaction of the Roman soldiers are a projection of the Author's theology , rather than a historical record. The Author of John presupposes that Jesus is divine, he made the roman soldiers fall to the ground, while, if we look at the story (without John's presupposition) we see that there is no reason to make the soldiers fall, especially when they knew who Jesus is. It's you who is looking at the story with your Christian presupposition. God's ability to become a man or goat is not my point at all. Even if I would suppose that Jesus is GOD, still there is no reason to make ROMAN soldiers fall back.
I ll give you a second chance, give me the sequence of the events that occurred in Jesus' arrest after he was betrayed by Judah.
You say,
my point was that the reaction of the Roman soldiers are a projection of the Author's theology , rather than a historical record.
I say,
And you know this how? It seems to me that you are using your theology to determine just what you expect to see in the “historical record”.
Historically it’s a lot more reasonable to believe a story about some soldiers falling down than to believe that Gabriel appeared to a Arab trader hundreds of miles and hundreds of years away from away from God’s final revelation but then I don't have your presuppositions.
You say,
we see that there is no reason to make the soldiers fall, especially when they knew who Jesus is.
I say,
Unless Jesus was Divine in which case it would be perfectly reasonable for the soldiers to fall. When God chooses to reveal himself things tend to happen
You say,
Even if I would suppose that Jesus is GOD, still there is no reason to make ROMAN soldiers fall back.
I say,
Sure there is
God reveals a small portion of his majesty and people fall. It happens all the time in the scriptures for example Numbers 16:45.
Falling down is an especially common thing to happen to the enemies of Christ.
Quote:
When evildoers assail me to eat up my flesh, my adversaries and foes, it is they who stumble and fall.
(Psalms 27:2)
End quote:
Just a little later on Saul fell when Jesus revealed a portion of his majesty to him. This sort of thing is not unusual at all.
It’s only your presuppositions that keep you from seeing that Jesus was not compelled to go to the cross. He went willingly. The soldiers had no power over him.
He could have walked right past the soldiers just like he did the other times that folks tried to harm him.
Soldiers falling back at the power of Christ is just what we would expect if John’s account reflected the historical account of the Word becoming flesh.
You say,
I ll give you a second chance, give me the sequence of the events that occurred in Jesus' arrest after he was betrayed by Judah.
I say,
Why exactly is it that you guys can’t stay on topic? Is it because you are afraid to actually explore a topic in detail and prefer to just throw mud and hope something sticks?
You can read the story for yourself you can also read the many commentaries to explain anything you might find confusing.
The point is you are duty bound to accept the Word of God even if you find it a little difficult to follow.
Instead you act as judge over God’s revelation and reject it because you find the flow of the narrative a little hard to digest.
Pity
Peace
The Monarchy man:
"Soldiers falling back at the power of Christ is just what we would expect if John’s account"
That is exactly your presupposition, where does it speak about the power of anything, the soldiers fall back upon hearing " I am he" The power of Christ exists only in your mind and the mind of the author of John. duh !! Forget about it. I am speaking about the mindset of the Roman soldiers , and you keep speaking about God becoming flesh, which no Roman soldier, nor disciple witnessed. You proved my point.
You said,
and you keep speaking about God becoming flesh, which no Roman soldier, nor disciple witnessed.
I say,
and you know this because?
Simply because you have chosen to reject the revelation of God.
You begin with the mindset that what John records could not possibly be true and surprise you come to the conclusion that what John records is not true.
You have made yourself the Judge and jury as to God’s revelation, rejecting God’s sound teaching and instead embraced myths because they tickle your ears.
Talk about shirk
I'm not suprised it’s just the sort of thing that was prophesied would happen.
It’s sad however
Peace
To Fifth Monarchy Man.
You have a problem with following a logical reasoning. I didn't presuppose anything. I assume that God became Jesus, Where in the Gospel any Roman Soldier or disciple was there to see the phenomena of God becoming Jesus? It's an abstract event. You can see the birth of Jesus but you can't know it's incarnation. You can see Jesus dying on the cross, but you can't see Jesus dying for your sins. UNDERSTAND?
Third chance, give me the sequence of events when Jesus was arrested. You don't want to answer, we may ask why.
You say,
Where in the Gospel any Roman Soldier or disciple was there to see the phenomena of God becoming Jesus? It's an abstract event.
I say:
Oh contare
The Word becoming flesh is not an abstract event but a concrete description of Jesus’ entire life it is revealed to us by God. We know it because God reveals it. You seem to have a real problem with divine revelation.
you say:
You can see the birth of Jesus but you can't know it's incarnation. You can see Jesus dying on the cross, but you can't see Jesus dying for your sins. UNDERSTAND?
I say
To manifest something means to show it very clearly God can and does do such things. Just because he does not show it to you does not mean everyone is so handicaped
Quote
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
(John 1:14)
and
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us--
(1 John 1:1-2)
And
Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
(John 14:9)
and
This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.
(John 2:11)
End quote:
The Word made flesh was manifested by multiple signs of this type, signs seen by friend and foe alike, Soldiers falling down in his presence of is yet another sign of his divinity to those with eyes to see but to the hardhearted not so much.
Just because you have not experienced this manifestation does not mean that it is not a concrete reality
Quote:
Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
(John 12:37)
End quote:
you say,
Third chance, give me the sequence of events when Jesus was arrested. You don't want to answer, we may ask why.
I say,
Because we have yet to deal with the topic at hand which is.....
what gives you the authority to reject God’s word for no reason other than you don’t like what it says.
Once we agree on that subject I will be happy to discuss side issues like the harmony of the Gospels.
Peace
To Fifth Monarchy Man:
I concede, The Roman Soldiers saw God becoming Jesus, they were chanting John's Gospel every Saunday. Now, why did they fall on the ground when they hear Jesus saying " I am he"?
What you call side issue, was my main argument. You are making excuses to not answer my challenge which should be easy for you.
Over.
You say,
Now, why did they fall on the ground when they hear Jesus saying " I am he"?
I say,
Once again my best guesses are
1) Because when God is present things like that happen.
2) To show us that the enemies of Christ had no power or authority over him.
4) To serve as a sign of his divinity to those who believe.
The point is you are as a creature duty bound to accept the revelation of God even if you don’t understand why the soldiers fell when he spoke
Do you understand ?
you say
What you call side issue, was my main argument
I say,
asking questions is not an argument, at least where I'm from
You say,
You are making excuses to not answer my challenge which should be easy for you.
I say,
It would be very easy. All I would have to is cut and paste that particular section from any one of the many available Gospel harmonies.
Harmonizing John’s account with the others we have is the sort of thing we Christians learn to do in
Sunday school at about 12 years of age.
The reason I haven’t done that for you is because I’ve got a hunch that you are really not interested in knowing the order of events but actually are looking for another excuse to reject the Revelation of God.
What you need to know is that even if it was impossible for you to reconcile the Gospel accounts of this time period to your satisfaction you would still be duty bound to believe them because they are the revelation of God.
You are not the sovereign here. You don’t get to reject God’s message just because you don’t understand it.
Do you understand?
Peace
Seems the Folks at Liberty Listen to the Dividing Line....
03/04/2011 - James White
Last night Ergun Caner's endorsement was listed at http://www.adeadlymisunderstanding.com/endorsements.php. This afternoon we were just informed that it has been removed, and, it has. Of course, that hardly can impact the print editions that are still out there, but since I have heard of a second edition coming out, maybe it will disappear from there? I will be interested to see if Caner makes any kind of statement and, even more so, if he bothers to explain how he could be in the acknowledgements as having done editing work on the book. If he has removed his endorsement, why? We would all like to know.
Post a Comment