A Christian blogger (Hogan Elijah Hagbard) has produced a response to three “common” misconceptions amongst Muslims regarding Christianity.
1. Did the Apostles believe Jesus to be insane?
The Christian blogger writes:
The first relates to the personality of Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 3, verse 21:
'When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind"'
Some Muslims apologists have mistakenly been swayed toward the opinion, that Mark depicts Jesus as a mad personality
Muslim Response: I cannot recall any Muslim making such an argument so the appendage of “common misconceptions” is not entirely accurate as I’d imagine most Muslims have never heard of this argument - never mind espousing it!
I agree, Jesus (p) was NOT mad and nor was the unknown writer (named Mark) depicting Jesus as “insane”. HOWEVER it must be slightly worrying for the Christians to see those closest to Jesus (p) considering him to be out of his mind – especially considering our Christian friends believe Jesus (p) to be God incarnate!
Bible-believing Christians have some explaining to do – did Jesus’ family not consider him to be God? It certainly appears to be the case here which further strengthens the argument of Jesus (p) being developed into a “god-man” AFTER his departure from this world.
Of course, our Christian friend may claim Jesus had not told them he was "God" at that time. This leads to the question of why would God not tell people he is God and allow them to believe he is insane? You can see the problematic nature of this passage...
Muslims have the best approach to the Gospels and Jesus– Jesus is a Prophet and the Gospels are unreliable thus cannot be taken as “gospel” – pardon the pun – this saves the Muslim from the potentially faith-shattering difficulties our Christian friends have to contend with.
The Christian” explains” the problematic reference in a fashion which adds to the confusion:
Hence the 'He is out of his mind' utterence was not a specific reaction to Jesus as a person, but rather it records a blaze reference, to an occasion in which he set aside his physical need to minister to the people.
2. Did Jesus portray Christianity as a violent religion?
Our Christian blogger writes:
A second claim relates to the judgement of the nations; when Jesus in his second coming brings judgement upon his enemies.
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them her and kill them in front of me (Luke 19: 27).
Muslim apologists have ignorantly purported the passage to portray a violent Christianity
Muslim Response: Now, I have seen this claim banded about and it can certainly be described as “common”. Previously, I have seen the Christian explanation of it referring to a parable rather than it being an instruction:
The passage belongs to the parable of the 'Ten Minas', and does not reveal direct description of an event
I think the Christian explanation should be factored into account by Muslim apologists. However, there are other passages in the Gospel of Luke which are used to support war – by the theologian John MacArthur:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/12/john-macarthur-jesus-supports-war.html
3. Did Paul the Apostle encourage deception?
The Christian writes:
A third misconception is rooted in the Muslim failure to understand a Pauline saying in Philippians 1: 17-18:
'The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing they can stir up trouble for me, while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.'
Muslims Response: This is an argument which I have seen presented by Muslims countless times. I run a ministry on YouTube as well as on Blogger which helps call Christians to honesty (with regards to Islam) by show-casing their deceptive episodes – you can imagine folk sending me such a Biblical reference and appending words to the effect of "Christians are taught this by Paul".
I am glad to see our Christian writer does not take this verse as an instruction to deception:
Paul refers to certain individuals who preach the Gospel from a wrong motive; he is not describing deception or lies
However, he must understand how Muslims feel when we see characters such as Ergun Caner, Robert Morey, Walid Shoebat all utilizing clear deception despite holding credibility amongst Christian communities.
Moreover, here are some Christian deceptions our Christian blogger may be familiar with, see here and here.
What excuse do these folk, along with Ergun Caner et al have? They all claim to have the Holy Spirit within them whilst claiming to be furthering the Gospel…
In addition to these relatively recent liars within Christian evangelist communities we could point our Christian blogger to his evangelical predecessors whose lies about Islam were wide spread:
As Norman Daniel tell [sic] us in his work Islam and the West: “The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal…” (p. 267)” [From An Authoritative Exposition – part 1, by ‘Abdur-Raheem Green]
Christian missionaries: A dishonest past
I’m sure he can understand how and why this “misconception” is prevalent in Muslim communities. I hope he works with us to help nudge Christian ministries into the realm of honesty.
Learn more about Islam
The incarnation, do you believe in it?
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
GreekAsianPanda said...
Another one I've seen that falls under the third section is 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, which reads:
"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
Some Muslims contend that Paul is advocating the use of deception when preaching (DISGUISING oneself as a Jew, identifying oneself as a Jew, and infiltrating their synagogues to convert Jews to Christianity, for example), but the actual meaning is simply that we should change our manner of approach when preaching to different groups -- becoming "like" them.
When we preach to Hindus, we are supposed respect their customs and practices. The preacher, when eating with Hindus, must not offer them food or drink he has already bitten or sipped from, must not sip from a water container that will be used by others, and just not contaminate others' food, because purity of food is important in Hindu culture. Also, the preacher must not offer anything with the left hand, either, or walk into a Hindu shrine or a Hindu's house with their shoes on. Is doing all this deceptive? Certainly not. The preacher, by becoming "like" a Hindu, is simply making it easier for the Gospel to be received. Imagine if the preacher had started a conversation with a Hindu by putting out his left hand (which is considered impure) for a handshake. This would be taken as a subtle insult. You wouldn't start an important conversation with an insult, would you? As one can see, it is extremely important to be "like" the person to whom one is presenting the Gospel, because the Gospel is what saves the person. So it must be communicated clearly and without hostility, and doing that is not deceptive at all.
February 2, 2011 4:41 PM
salam alaikum
i just want to let you know that mr whites long awaited debate against Dr Ehrman is out now, it was posted on brother paul williams blog here http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/bart-ehrman-vs-james-white/#comment-1289 and having listened to it i must say that the review your friend gave on his youtube page (MB103 I think is his youtube name) is utterly false and shows once again how the holy spirit is not within them and if it is it is not truthful.i have provided a brief view of my first impression of the deabte on Pauls blog but i was wondering if you could give a more detailed one later on.
wasalam
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
First off well done to brother Yahya in his exchange with Hogan!
Next brother maratsafin I am planning to put this debate up some time soon with some detailed commentary insh'Allah. I agree with your statements on Paul's blog.
I also think that if you,Yahya or Paul wanted this debate on record the best thing you can do now is download it from youtube source before White's people have it pulled. (Wallahu 'alim)
http://www.acommonword.net/2009/11/apologist-james-white-admits-bible-is.html <This is a Christian account (KJV only Christian) who agrees with me that White was thrased in this debate.
I admit he (White) comes off as very polished and confident in his presentation, rebuttal and closing.
Yet during Q & A he was clearly out of his element to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
One quick note. It's interesting how White always cries and complains about inconsistency.
Yet, he attacks the Qur'an for the variant readings yet in his debate with White he believes that God "could have inspired the variants in the New Testament".
Even though we have numerous ahadith that testify to the 7ahruf (7 rules that as long as the Arabic sticks by these rules it can come down through many rawayit (7,10,14 or more).
Yet do you recall any such place in the New Testament stating that it would come down in various channels? Anything from early Church fathers that say the Holy Spirit inspired the variants? Not to my knowledge!
This is a glarring inconsistency if someone would but notice.
Why would any Christian be interested in rummaging through the church fathers for an ad hoc explanation of textual variants like that proferred above? That sort of thing is hardly impressive or desirable.
By the way, unless I misunderstood you, it looks like you are charging Dr. White with an inconsistency committed on the part of his opponent, which is hardly a basis for criticizing Dr. White's position or commitment to consistency.
@ maratsafin
Walaikmsalam,
Thanks for letting me know. followed the link back to YT and downlaoded all the parts - it has saved me from purchasing the debate from the aomin site.
I checked your review before going to bed last night and like TGV, I agree 100% with your summary.
Sadly, White and his supporters will not take heed of such reviews even though they came from folk who follow White closely - you seem to be following him closely - fair play to you as it adds more weight to any judgements you make on White.
He and his supporters will not see it as such though:(
I agree with TGV's summary of White just being out of his element in the Cross-examination (I think TGV meant cross-exmaination rather than QA).
InshaAllah, I will get a review up incorporating your review along with show-casing ANOTHER lie by Mr Wood soon.
I will try to look into MBI3030's review - sadly he seems to be influenced by Mr Shamoun.
@anonymous,
"Adhoc"? Are you for real?
The Quran was passed down via an oral culture as well as a written culture - the mushaf was used as an aid to memory.
As for the ahruf - they were mentioned by the PROPHET (p)!
Are all these variant NT MSS mentioned by Jesus? No.
Jesus never sanctioned the NT - he never knew or saw the NT as it was composed after him. You have all these variant readings and White confirms he does not know which one constitutes the Bible. Now that is faith shattering!
He has a faith conviction which dictates - somewhere in all these manuscripts the the actual NT exists.
You want to talk about adhoc, unconvincing and unrealistic then please discuss White's view of the Bible and the SCHOLARLY view of the Bible
Oh, feel free to rummage about in the writings of the church fathers as they will offer nothing substantial either - that is why your apologists do not do such - they know the church fathers offered NO sound explanation.
Feel free to comment using your google account - nobody will bite.
Anonymous commenting offers a shield from censure and safeguards the one behind such comments from genuine accountability. Those who are apologetically bankrupt do employ such tactics
In any case, I'm not entirely sure whether you are White or not. Perhaps you are over here to do a spot of damage control.
Anonymous commenting does get the mind boggling!
Take care
Peace
Hey Yahya,
you said; Jesus never sanctioned the NT -
I say:
Have you never read the NT? Off the top of my head I can think of at least two places it records Jesus’ sanctioning the NT.
check this out
quote:
I have given them (the Disciples) your word,and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
(John 17:14-21)
and:
Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.
(Revelation 1:19)
end quotes:
you said:
he never knew or saw the NT as it was composed after him.
I say,
What???
There is no "after" Jesus. He is right now on the throne and living in the hearts of his people so of course he saw (and sees) the NT.
you said,
You have all these variant readings and White confirms he does not know which one constitutes the Bible
I say:
You really need to understand what Christians believe about the preservation of God’s word.
Either you are extremely confused about White’s position or you are purposely trying to fit it into your Muslim presuppositions.
When you make statements like this it makes others question your sincerity.
You really need to make an effort to understand Christianity if you are going to attempt to engage it on the internet.
When you go on like this it makes you look foolish and makes it hard for Christians to take you seriously
I would love to discuss the Differences between our faiths with a Muslim who is willing to honestly look at the issues. What I’ve seen so far tells me that this is probably not going to happen on this site.
It’s a pity
peace
@Fifth Monarchy Man
Thanks for the comment using your Google account.
Firstly we need to stop with this poisoning the well and charged style of yours, you wrote:
You really need to make an effort to understand Christianity if you are going to attempt to engage it on the internet.
When you go on like this it makes you look foolish and makes it hard for Christians to take you seriously
I would love to discuss the Differences between our faiths with a Muslim who is willing to honestly look at the issues. What I’ve seen so far tells me that this is probably not going to happen on this site.
My response: Please stop with this attitude as it is not conducive to good dialogue. If you want to a slanging match, you will find me unwilling. I have no desire to be part of such a charged disucssion.
You also presented to bible verses to suggest Jesus sanctioned the NT.
Please look into this further as these verses do not support Paul nor do they support the Gospels.
John 17:14-21 - Ihad a look at my NIV and I could not see why you think Jesus is sanctioning the NT through such a practice. He is praying to God in this passage.
As for your Revelation reference. John has A VISION and asked to write to the seven churches. That is hardly a dardly a sanctioning of the NT.
As for White's view - show me where I have misunderstood rather than an empt rhetoric.
I can tell you I gained an insight into White's view in the debate with Ehrman - I maintain I'm correct. Show me where I have misunderstood if you genuinely believe I'm in error.
You said:
Firstly we need to stop with this poisoning the well and charged style of yours, you wrote:
And,
Please stop with this attitude as it is not conducive to good dialogue. If you want to a slanging match, you will find me unwilling. I have no desire to be part of such a charged disucssion.
I say,
I’m sorry that you believe my sharing of subjective impressions of what I believe to be your misrepresenting my beliefs to be poisoning the well and “slanging” .
It’s seems a tad bit hypocritical for you to feel this way given your response to those you believe to be misrepresenting Islam.
For For example I never once called you a liar or a Christophobe and I never suggested you had less than honorable intentions.
You said
John 17:14-21 - Ihad a look at my NIV and I could not see why you think Jesus is sanctioning the NT through such a practice. He is praying to God in this passage.
I say,
Lets see
Jesus tells the Father that he has given the word to the Disciples asks the father to assure the truthfulness of the Disciples and prays for those that believe when they receive the word from the disciples.
Sounds like a sanctioning to me. But then I’m not burdened by your presuppositions
you say,
As for your Revelation reference. John has A VISION and asked to write to the seven churches. That is hardly a dardly a sanctioning of the NT.
and
Please look into this further as these verses do not support Paul nor do they support the Gospels.
I say,
Now you are moving the goalposts instead of just Jesus sanctioning the NT you demand to see his sanction of each individual part as well as the compilation.
If I were to show you such a thing you would undoubtedly question wheather the words were those of Jesus himself.
This is the sort of thing is what Jesus called the leaven of the Pharisees.
By the way do we have a non Islamic record of Allah sanctioning the Quran? If not do you find such a thought faith shattering?
You said,
As for White's view - show me where I have misunderstood rather than an empt rhetoric.
I say,
I won’t spoon feed you.
You need to research for yourself but I’ll remind you that if we Christians believed that one of the manuscripts “constitutes” the Bible our scripture would forever be suspect to the same weakness and questionable reliability that the Quran is.
We would never be able to prove that it was not altered and changed by the governing authorities or that the true Bible was not possibly destroyed by some Christian Uthman.
Now that would trully be faith shattering
Peace
fifth monarchy man ,
From you :
'..You need to research for yourself but I’ll remind you that if we Christians believed that one of the manuscripts “constitutes” the Bible our scripture would forever be suspect to the same weakness and questionable reliability that the Quran is.
We would never be able to prove that it was not altered and changed by the governing authorities or that the true Bible was not possibly destroyed by some Christian Uthman..'
Actually it should be the other way around. The compilation , preservation and reliability of the bible when compared to the Quran is nowhere.
Lets do a simple comparison
(1) The 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'compiled by Caliph Uthman(ra) had 3 forms of check and balance (a) it is an exact copy of 'suhuf hafsah' (2) 2 independent sources of each verse from memory (3) 2 independent sources of each verse from documentation. This is not so with the bible. (Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13) - the definitions of Nicaea were drawn up with reference to Scripture; and the argument about whether phrase x or y was or was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument. (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-03/Npnf2-03-10.htm#P1098_224595)
(2) The compiled 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' was read to the public for another round of check and balance against the hafiz / hafizah. However in the case of the
bible , after its compilation which was shrouded in secrecy was just shoved to the masses.
This is just a simple comparison
(1) There was no definitive check and balance process in the compilation of the bible compared to the Quran.
(2) The original manuscripts of the Quran / bible no longer exist but from each historical sources we can confidently conclude that 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' is an exact copy of 'suhuf hafash' (which was the compilation of the documented recitation of Prophet Muhammad(saw) by his scribes and counter checked by the Prophet(saw) himself). However for the case of the bible , biblical scholars have confirmed there has been alteration. A good example is the ending of mark16. This is what you get when there has been 'no - zero - nada' recording / documentation of what jesus actually said. Well ... in reality ... the bible is not even the words of biblical jesus.
In short - don't dwell in the delusion that the bible has better compilation / preservation than the Quran. You need to wake up and face reality.
By the way , Caliph Uthman(ra) burned the personal copies. At that time 'suhuf hafsah' was already in existance. It was the official documented recitation of Prophet Muhammad(saw) and has been counter checked by the Prophet(saw) himself. The christian argument of 'oooh Uthman burned copies of the Quran' has no merit.
Hey Sam 1528,
I’m having a hard time understanding your post.
You seem to be saying that you believe that Uthman did not destroy the true Quran when he burned all those variants however you can’t produce thoes earlier copies so we can compare the “authorized” copy with in order to verify what you say.
I realize you want nothing more than to be able to be confident that you have the actual words of Allah but it seems that you whole case boils down to “I trust the governing authorities official story”.
Thankfully we Christians aren’t burdened with such a tentative evidence we have literally thousands of copies many dating to with in just a few years the original. We can compare the Bible we have today with those to verify that no important additions or subtractions have occurred.
We don’t have to take any man’s word for it.
This process is freely and publicly available to skeptics and critics as well. Despite your best efforts you were only able to come up with a few verses whose inclusion or lack thereof doesn’t alter any Christian doctrine at all.
That in itself is all the evidence an open-minded individual needs for the preservation of the Bible
What’s even better is we have the words of the founder of your religion to support this confidence. He told us to judge Islam by the Bible. No rational individual would have mandated such a thing if he did not have confidence that the text was reliable.
peace
fifth monarchy man ,
You are having a hard time understanding the post as you don't even know what you are talking about.
Its very glaring that you don't even know the history associated with the compilation of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'. What earlier copies? The compilation that has been checked by Prophet Muhammad(saw) was the 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' whereas the rest were incomplete copies and / or personal copies which were subsequently burned. Why should copies other than the 'suhuf Hafash(ra)' be used as a standard? You also seem to miss the process of cross checking with (a) 2 independent documented sources (b) 2 independent memorised sources.
The issue is not about 'trusting governing authorities offical story' but of transparency. The compiled 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' was then read to the public (hafiz / hafizah) for their approval. Your statement of 'trusting governing authorities official story' is accurate about the compilation of the bible. The bible was compiled in utter secrecy and then shoved into the faces of the christians. The christians then go around saying its the word of god. More likely its the church telling god what to say.
What 'thousands of copies' that the christians have? Its more like thousands of copies after copies after copies after copies ..... What 'few years after the originals'? You should know that the books of the NT came about between 30 - 50 yrs after the departure of biblical jesus. How can you logically claim that the bible is the word of the christian god?
You can verify the present bible to the one in antiquity? Lets compare the present bible to say - 'codex sinaiticus'. There is a mismatch of 2 books - barnabas / shepherd of hermas. Your claim of '..no important additions or subtractions have occurred..' has fizzled out.
The ending of mark16 doesn't alter any christian doctrine? Ok then , you should be able to 'drink poison' per mark16:18 if you are a true christian as mark16:16/17 states that '..Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned..' ; '..And these signs will accompany those who believe..'. How many christians over the period of 2000 years manage to follow / fulfill the said doctrine? Would you like to be the first?
Preservation of bible? We just compared the present day bible with 'codex sinaiticus'. At a glance , there is already a mismatch of 2 books of the NT. We have not yet talked about the different books of the catholic vs protestant vs coptic bibles.
Whaaaat??? Prophet Muhammad(saw) tells us to judge Islam by the bible? Awwww , come on - I really hope you are sober. If I were to utilise the criteria of 'isnads' for the bible , it would fail spectacularly.
Something for you to ponder , Quran2:79 '..Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby..'
hey Sam,
You said,
Its very glaring that you don't even know the history associated with the compilation of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'.
I say,
I understand that you believe you know the history of what Uthman did but your faith is ultimately based on trust in what the authorities tell you about it. You have no way to independently verify the things that you have been told. You can’t compare your scriptures with those that were destroyed because they don’t exist.
You say,
The bible was compiled in utter secrecy and then shoved into the faces of the christians. The christians then go around saying its the word of god. More likely its the church telling god what to say.
I say,
Let me give you a lesson in Christian belief
The Bible could not be compiled in secret because no group of men is qualified to do the compiling for others. That is the reason that there are more books in the Catholic Bible than in the Protestant one. The powers that be tried to add volumes but it did not stick.
This is a very different concept than you are used to in Islam. So it might be hard for you to grasp.
For the Christian The idea that a group of men would be able determine what is and what is not scripture is comical.
In Christianity the Bible is not compiled, the cannon is recognized by God’s people. This happens today just as it did in the second century. I have repeatedly witnessed this phenomena in others as well as myself
You say:
What 'thousands of copies' that the christians have?
I say,
There are presently 5686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament
You say,
You should know that the books of the NT came about between 30 - 50 yrs after the departure of biblical jesus.
I say
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand (the preservation on the scriptures). Once we agree that the Bible was preserved we can discuss whether it is better to learn about Jesus from a book written 30 years after his incarnation or one written hundreds of years later.
You say
Lets compare the present bible to say - 'codex sinaiticus'. There is a mismatch of 2 books - barnabas / shepherd of hermas.
I say,
What evidence do you have that those books were ever considered to be part of the cannon by anyone?
I have those books and others stored next to my Bible right now. They are precious to me and I read them often but that does not mean that I consider them scripture.
In the same way the fact that other books are found close to the scripture in this collection does not mean that they were ever considered scripture.
you say,
How many christians over the period of 2000 years manage to follow / fulfill the said doctrine?
I say,
Exactly, no Christians ever thought Mark 16:18 taught what you think it does. So oviously the inclusion or exclusion of the verse has no effect on Christian beliefs. Just as I said
Amazing how it works.
You say,
Whaaaat??? Prophet Muhammad(saw) tells us to judge Islam by the bible?
I say,
You seem to be informed about what is in your own book. I will try and help you out.
Surra 10:94A
So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you.
Surra 2:89a
And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming that which was with them (the Jews and Christians) -
That this passage is talking about the Bible is clear from the context for example 2:91
And when it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah has revealed," they say, "We believe [only] in what was revealed to us." And they disbelieve in what came after it, while it is the truth confirming that which is with them.
Thanks for the discussion
peace
fifth monarchy man ,
You are not engaging in the discussion. You keep on repeating about 'trusting the authorities' and 'no independent verification'. Looks like you are talking about christianity per the compilation methodology of the bible.
Lets engage our logic. 'Suhuf Hafsah(ra)' was a codex that has been counter checked by Prophet Muhammad(saw). Its logical that Caliph Uthman(ra) would use that as a basis for the compilation of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'. This together with 2 independent sources for each verse from documentation / memory serves as confirmation. The compiled book (mushaf Uthman(ra)) was then read to the public for approval. 1430 yrs ago , the compilation of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' surpassed the current ISO standards for documentation.
A simple question : why do we need to compare an official copy that has been checked by Prophet Muhammad(saw) against personal / incomplete copies?
Isn't the bible a collection of books? Who were the authors of the gospels according to mark / luke / matthew / john? There were others such as 'gospel of mary' , 'secret book of john' etc. These did not make it into the bible. What was the process of compilation for the NT? How transparent was the compilation process? Now you are telling me that there was no group of people determining what should be included in the bible (NT per say)? What did the church leaders do ~ 382ad at rome?
The mismatch of books between the catholic / protestant bibles is proof that christians are guilty of telling their god of what to say.
Are the 5686 greek manuscripts originals or copies after copies after copies after copies .... ? You actually don't have any idea what has been altered in the 5686 greek manuscripts.
Disagree. It has everything to do with the preservation of scripture. This shows that the words of biblical jesus has not been preserved. Its the words of unknowns and / or people who have not met / talked with biblical jesus. In essence the bible is not even the words of biblical jesus.
Simple question. Is codex sinaiticus considered the bible? If yes , why the mismatch of books? Who and on what authority the said books were added / taken off from the present day bible?
Mark16:18 is plain for all to see / read / understand. Why are you saying it is not what it is understood to be? First you have a problem of a later inclusion of text which forms a doctrine. Christians like you who believe in the inerrancy of the bible then say its not what it is. Explain what is the context of mark16:18.
Surah10:94? Refer to tafsir ibn kathir : http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2595&Itemid=65
Basically , the previous books attest to the truth of the Quran. Refer to verse 93 - its about Allah favour bestowed onto the israelites. This fact is attested by the torah. It doesn't say the Quran confirms the bible.
Surah2:89? Tafsir ibn Kathir : http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=347&Itemid=36
It is describing christians to a tee. Prophet Isa(as) came bringing the message of Allah. Some years later , you christians regard him as god and had your own man made books but claim its from god.
Hey sam,
you Said,
Its logical that Caliph Uthman(ra) would use that as a basis for the compilation of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'.
I say,
No it’s only logical that Uthman would propagate a story that would enhance his influence and prestige. It’s logical that he would claim that his master copy was checked by Mohammad and supress evidence that it was not.
That’s the sort of things Governing Authorities do.
You say,
A simple question : why do we need to compare an official copy that has been checked by Prophet Muhammad(saw) against personal / incomplete copies?
I say,
Because you have no proof whatsoever of your claim. What you have is a story that was passed down to you by the powers that be.
I understand your faith gives you choice but to trust this story. But don’t expect folks that are under no such compulsion to be so blindly trusting. The rest of us would like to see some evidence.
you say,
Who were the authors of the gospels according to mark / luke / matthew / john?
Luke was the author of the gospel of Luke which he based on eyewitness accounts. The authorship of the other three is not so clear but we have very strong evidence that the people of God ascribed then to Mathew Mark and John at an extremely early date.
you say,
There were others such as 'gospel of mary' , 'secret book of john' etc. These did not make it into the bible.
I say,
Exactly, simply claiming to be a book written by a biblical figure does not guarantee a place in the Bible.
you say,
What was the process of compilation for the NT? How transparent was the compilation process?
I’ve already said the NT was not complied.
What happened is the people of God then and now come to recognize the cannon.
It works something like this. Christians come in contact with a book that might be Scripture. They prayerfully consider whether it meets the criteria for this. If it does it’s accepted by them as the word of God if it does not it’s not. It’s that simple
You say,
Now you are telling me that there was no group of people determining what should be included in the bible (NT per say)? What did the church leaders do ~ 382ad at rome?
I say,
They were certainly not determining what would be in the Bible. No one ever claimed that they were until an obscure Jesuit came up with a “theory” 1,400 years after the fact.
you say,
You actually don't have any idea what has been altered in the 5686 greek manuscripts.
Sure we do.
Haven’t you ever heard of textual criticism? It’s the universally accepted method that scholars use to verify the contents of all ancient texts. The more manuscripts we have the more confidence we have of the integrity of the text.
The problem for Islam is that in order determine what has been altered to you need to have something to work with and the powers that be destroyed all the evidence in your case
you say,
This shows that the words of biblical jesus has not been preserved.
I say,
Why is that?
For example I remember lots of the words of my grandpa and he died almost that long ago. And I don’t even think he is Christ. If I can preserve the words of my grandpa for that long why couldn’t God do the same for Jesus' words?
you say,
Simple question. Is codex sinaiticus considered the bible?
I say,
Codex sinaiticus contains scripture, it also contains some books that are not scripture. Just like my bookshelf contains scripture and also other books.
This is not rocket science
you say,
Explain what is the context of mark16:18.
I say,
I'm not sure why it is that Muslims can't seem to do research for thenselves
Here is a commentary from John Gill a Christian commentator who expounds the text the way that Christians have always done it
quote:
And if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;……………… not that they were hereby warranted to drink poison, to show what power they had; but should they accidentally drink it, or rather should they be forced to it by their enemies in order to destroy them, they should find no hurt by it: and Papias (x) reports of Barsabas, surnamed Justus, who was put up with Matthias for the apostleship, Act_1:23, that he drank a poisonous draught, and by the grace of the Lord, received no hurt: and the Jews themselves report (y), that
"a son of R. Joshua ben Levi, swallowed something hurtful; and one came and whispered to him in the name of Jesus, the son of Pandira (so they call our Lord), and he did well.''
end quote:
you say,
Basically , the previous books attest to the truth of the Quran.
I say,
What books? I thought your claim was that we could not know what the books contain?
peace
fifth monarchy man ,
Why is it not logical? You only have empty claims that its a story propagated by Uthman(ra) . We have the hadith that attest to such compilation process - bukhari vol6 bk61 no510. We muslims have the historical attestation whereas you have nothing.
You have again disregarded historical evidence. The under text of the 'fogg palimsets' is pre Uthmanic as confirmed by muslim / non muslim scholars. We do have evidence from independent sources of no changes / alteration. You are arguing blind - again.
If we are to apply the same criteria of 'no changes' to the bible - it fails spectacularly. The bible does not even match up to your criteria.
Who is luke apart from the fact that he was an unknown.If his writing was based on the so called eye witness account , where is the confirmation of such? Where is the chain of narrators for every event luke narrated? If you don't have it , its just a story by the 'governing authorities'. Same goes for the other books by mark , matthew , john. If you apply your level of skepticism of the Quran to the bible , you should place it in safekeeping not touching it with a barge pole. How come you are hyper accepting when it comes to the bible?
TQ for acknowledging my point. How come the books of luke , mark , matthew , john made it to the bible whereas the rest were discarded? What was the methodology of compilation? Who were involved in the compilation process? Do you have the answers?
Ha ha , it just praying for a scripture to be accepted? Then there should not be any issues with the other discarded books as the communities using the said books also prayed. Does this mean that their prayers did not reach the christian god? The NT wasn't compiled? How did the NT come about? The group putting the NT together prayed and the NT suddenly appeared as a book?
You still insist that somehow or rather the NT appeared - after prayers. Ok then , what were the church leaders doing in rome ~ 382ad?
If you talk about textual criticism , most scholars agree that the 5686 manuscripts are copies after copies after copies ...etc with lots of mistakes / alterations between them. You use these as a basis for comparison with confidence? The best you have is 'chester beatty' ~ 200ce. In essence , you have nothing whereas we muslims have evidence of the ‘independent’ pre uthamanic text. We win you lose.
You can attest for the words of your grandpa - ie. you are part of the chain of narrators. Using the same criteria - give us the chain of narrators for every 'words' of biblical jesus. Do have that?
I repeat my question for the 2nd time. Is codex sinaiticus considered the bible? Yes or No?
fifth monarchy man,
Anybody can do the needful research. I want your opinion. You provided john gill commentary. 2 issues with it ;
(1) mark16:18 - '..when they drink deadly poison..' not when they accidentally / are forced to drink. The commentary by john gill do not address the verse.
(2) the son of r joshua ben levi had the name jesus whispered to him but he did not believe nor baptized per verse 16. In addition he swallowed something 'hurtful' not fatal like poison.
What books? Refer to your argument regarding Quran10:94 - if Prophet Muhammad(saw) was in doubt , then refer to the people of knowledge. Historically it is referring to the knowledgeable jews. The torah attest that the Israelites were recipient of favours from Allah , per Quran10:93. Therefore the torah confirm the truth of the Quran. The christian bible is not even in the picture.
By the way , Prophet Muhammad(saw) was never in doubt of the Quran.
Hey Sam
This is getting long I will try to be more concise so I apologize if I miss responding to something you view as important,
You say,
Why is it not logical? You only have empty claims that its a story propagated by Uthman(ra) . We have the hadith that attest to such compilation process
I say,
Because……..
1) If everyone knew Uthman’s copy was the standard and clearly matched the original he would not need burn the other copies.
2) Hadiths are absolutely no match for physical evidence. All they are is stories. They are completely dependant on the competence and honesty of each person in the chain
3) I’m not making any claims I’m only pointing out that your entire position is based on nothing but trust in the story you have been told.
You say,
The under text of the 'fogg palimsets' is pre Uthmanic
I say,
Exactly, when we are lucky enough to find a lone manuscript that escaped destruction of the government we see multiple variants in the text. This find only makes us think of all the evidence that went up in smoke
You said
Who is luke apart from the fact that he was an unknown.
I say,
He was a trusted companion of an Apostle as evidenced by the writings of that Apostle. You really need to do some research.
you say,
If his writing was based on the so called eye witness account , where is the confirmation of such? Where is the chain of narrators for every event luke narrated?
Luke was writing his account while living among the eye witnesses in question. The fact that his book was not contested by them is evidence of it’s accuracy.
As I said before a chain of narrators is not confirmation for anyone that is not constrained by Islamic presuppositions. I live in an area that is fascinated with the life of Jesse James I can’t tell you how many obviously legendary tells of the outlaw have been related to me as a chain of narrators. Most of them are obviously false on the face. People love to tell stories and often they relate how they heard it from a cousin’s nephew of the uncle of the best friend of Jesse James. Such a thing is only good for a laugh.
You say,
If you don't have it , its just a story by the 'governing authorities'
I say,
There is where you are wrong Luke is not Uthman. For the first 3 hundred years no Christian was a governing authority. They had no ability to suppress apposing narratives. If there were such a thing as an early Gospel that cast doubt on the Biblical story it would be available for all to see.
Do you see the difference?
More later
peace
you say,
What was the methodology of compilation? Who were involved in the compilation process? Do you have the answers?
you say,
Do you really not understand what I’m saying? The Bible was not compiled the cannon was recognized by God’s people.
There was no method of compilation. No one was involved in compiling the Bible because the bible was not compiled.
You need to spend some quality time trying to understand what the Christian position is. Here is a website I just goggled to help you get started from my quick overview it seems to accurately reflect what Christian's believe
http://www.ntcanon.org/
Please look into it with a view of understanding what others think once you do that we can move forward as it is we are at an impasse
you say,
By the way , Prophet Muhammad(saw) was never in doubt of the Quran.
I say,
The “Prophet” Joseph Smith was never in doubt about the book of Mormon either and he likewise claimed it was confirmed by the Bible. His followers also had to resort to the position that the Bible we have has been altered.
do you see a pattern?
peace
fifth monarchy man ,
No need to apologise , however you need to include the bible compilation / preservation and compare it with the Quran. You cannot be lopsided in your argument of the Quran while ignoring the bible.
(1) The hadith I provided stated clearly that 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' is an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'. It was later read to the public for their approval. The whole process has been very transparent. Its logical to conclude that the folks who memorised the Quran and the folks who had personal copies agreed with 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' and hence their consent of burning their own copies.
(2) You want 'physical evidence'? The 'fogg palimsets'. We now have 2 sets of evidence - (a) physical evidence (b) hadiths. The 'isnad' system is the best available to verify what has been said / done. Compare that to the transmission of the books of the bible. Using the 'isnad' system , the bible will fail. You criticise the 'isnad' system but you fail to realise the bible will fail if such system is used for its verification.
(3) Disagree. You asked for physical evidence. It has been provided along with verified attestation - hadiths. It cannot get any better then that. The bible will fail badly using your set of criteria. Are you now going to admit that the bible is not up to your required standard? If not , its double standards from you.
Then we are in agreement that (a) the physical evidence , the 'fogg palimsets' is proof that there has been no alteration in the compilation of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' (b) the public was in agreement with 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' as they collectively agree when it was read out to them hence them getting rid of their personal copies. Logical , isn't it? What is your argument? Can the bible boast of such transparent compilation process?
If luke wrote his account while living around eye witnesses , surely he could name who were the eye witnesses. However there is none mentioned by him. What is the process to determine what luke wrote was / is accurate? Was the bible , specifically the 'gospel according to luke' read to the public after it was compiled? Was it read to people who memorised the said gospel and / or people who had personal copies of the said gospel ? If this was not done , you can expect nobody contesting as they don't have anything for comparison.
The question is that do you have the verified chain of narrators that go all the way back to jessie james? If none , then its just stories without verification. The example of yours fail the methodology of 'isnads'.
You are again arguing blind. How can there by suppression as the compilation of the Quran had the criteria of (1) 2 independent sources from memory (2) 2 independent sources from documentation. The compiled 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' was then read to the public for their approval.
In comparison to the bible , per your claim that there was no authority for the first 200 years , therefore any alteration will go unnoticed. The books , eg. the gospel according to luke was written by an unknown ~ 40 years after the event from the so called eyewitnesses (no verification) who did not document anything. There has been no verification of their stories. Suddenly you call this (1) accurate (2) word of god. Your argument is that upon prayers , you suddenly recognize it to be a word of god. What happened to your criteria of ‘physical evidence’?
Until now you refuse to answer whether codex sinaiticus is the bible. Is there any problem?
fifth monarchy man ,
You keep on saying there was no authority in the compilation of the bible. Then you provided the weblink - http://www.ntcanon.org/. TQ , you just shot yourself in your foot. The link you provided gave the authority from ignatius of antioch up to didymus the blind and provided a table depicting what books they favoured and discarded.
So there was authority determining what books should be included in the compilation of the bible. My question again - what was the methodology they utilised for accepting / discarding the books for the bible. What is the basis of categorising books like 'gospel of truth' etc to be apocryphal?
If the bible was not compiled , why accept / discard certain books? You have not given any meaningful answer.
Can 'prophet smith' do miracles like Prophet Muhammad(saw) and the prophets before him? Ability to perform miracles by Allah permission is one of the criteria of prophethood. The muslim position is that the Quran corrects the torah / bible. The Quran does not confirm them.
I am interested to know why you consider Mormonism by ‘prophet smith’ biblically wrong. He had visions of so called god speaking to him. Same happened for paul. Why the double standards? You say he changed the bible? The protestants did the same by reducing the bible into having deutrocanonical books and discarding the said books in the later editions. Double standards again?
you say,
You keep on saying there was no authority in the compilation of the bible. Then you provided the weblink - http://www.ntcanon.org/. TQ , you just shot yourself in your foot. The link you provided gave the authority from ignatius of antioch up to didymus the blind and provided a table depicting what books they favoured and discarded.
I say,
This sentence makes it obvious that you have not yet made an attempt to understand the Christian position on the cannon.
If you did you would have at least noticed that the “authorities” in the table included heretics and even non human things like lists and manuscripts.
You simply read the word “authority” through your Muslim presuppositions. Please go back and look again this time trying to understand what others think
Until you do a little research we are at an impasse
Peace
fifth monarchy man ,
How do you expect me to understand the christian position? You have been repeating that there was no form or shape of any authority in the compilation of the bible but the weblink you provided provided the list of the so called authorities and also a table showing what books were accepted / rejected by them. I would like to know what was their process of acceptance / rejection.
Are you alluding to marcion being a heretic? He was declared a heretic on what basis? Biblical jesus never in his own admission said he was / is god. There is no such reference in the bible. Therefore marcion was not wrong in saying that biblical jesus was a messenger of god - joh17:3
Non human in the listing of the table? The non human are muratorian canon , codex sinaiticus , peshitta , vulgate. Apart from the muratorian canon , the rest are quite widely accepted. You argument don't make sense.
There is no presuppositions. I am calling it as is. You on the other hand is saying something but providing evidence which says the opposite.
I don't see it as an impasse. You don't seem to be able to back your claim.
I still would like to know what 'prophet smith' did which was biblically wrong.
Sam
Hey Sam,
I hope you are having a good day
If you don’t mind In order to make every effort to make this conversation profitable for you and me I will focus on one issue at a time and try to come to an understanding before we move on
You said,
How do you expect me to understand the christian position? You have been repeating that there was no form or shape of any authority in the compilation of the bible but the weblink you provided provided the list of the so called authorities and also a table showing what books were accepted / rejected by them.
I say,
I realize how hard it must be for you to get beyond your presuppositions. I was hoping that posting the link would get you there but apparently your worldview is making that especially difficult for you. Let me try and help.
When the website uses the word authority it only means in this sense
Authority……source of reliable information: a source of reliable information on a subject
If I was looking for an authority on the conversation we were having I could look to you or me. Both of us would be expected to be familiar with the content of what was being said. That is all this website means by athourity
Authority in this sense is not some right to be heard or something that must be obeyed.
As far as my Recognition of the cannon I could care less which books the names on the list accepted or rejected. They have no power at all over me. Many of them believed all kinds of weird things that I would disagree with. They often disagreed with themselves.
All the table shows is which books were recognized as scripture at a particular time in history. Every Christian must decide for themselves if they agree or not.
The site merely documents the near universal acceptance of the cannon long before it was officially documented. Nothing more is being said.
Here is how this worked
When I became serious about Christianity I like thousands before me in the history of the church looked at each of the books in the cannon as well as many others to see if they met the criteria to be called the word of God. After much study I concluded they did it’s that simple
The criteria that the people of God have used through out the ages are complex and difficult to express to unbelievers but they boil down to something like .
(1) The character of these writings as apostolic (There was to be apostolic authority to these writings. The apostles were regarded as men who had established and guided the early church by the teachings of Jesus.)
(2) The conformity of these writings to the rule of faith (There was to be conformity between the document and the Christian tradition that was recognized as normative in the churches.)
(3) The continuous use of these writings by churches everywhere (There was a large swath of churches that recognized these writings as authoritative; that is, there was a witness of the Spirit in the total Christian community.)
I’ll wait and see if you grasp what I’m saying before I go on.
Peace
fifth monarchy man ,
Same to you , hope you have a super day / weekend.
From you : '..Authority……source of reliable information: a source of reliable information on a subject..'.
My question is simple : what was the process of accepting / rejecting the books to be included in the bible? The link you provided confirmed that there were more than 4 gospels at that period of time. What makes such information 'reliable' hence it being addressed as authority?
If you agree that every christian must decide for themselves whether they agree or not with regards to the scriptures , then you should not have said 'prophet joseph smith' was a false prophet from your christian viewpoint. He was looking at things from a different perspective. Same goes for marcion. What is your stand?
The universal acceptance of the canon was by whom or what? Was there a referendum involving the whole of christianity or just a select group of christian leaders? Things don't just happen. Someone of something must have put in effort to make it happen.
I can understand people chose to believe hinged upon their experience. Push comes to shove , there need to be something tangible for one to believe. I find it hard to believe a person becomes a christian thru dreams of seeing crosses around him.
(1) If apostolic authority is one of the criteria , you should disregard most books of the NT. The gospels were not written by the 'apostles'. Paul never met / walked / talked with biblical jesus. In addition there has been no verification of what has been written that can be traced back to the 'authority' of the apostles.
(2) You are trying to tie christian tradition to the scripture? Lets take the concept of trinity. In the traditional sense , most christians believe in the triune god (ie. trinity). There is no explicit concept of trinity in the bible. There is already a mismatch between christian tradition and scripture.
(3) This again comes back to my question. The church continuously use these writings. What was the process the church utilised to accept these writings to be the canon of the christianity?
Your explanation has raised more questions than clarification.
Sam,
It looks like we might be finally getting somewhere. My hope for this dialogue is that at least for this one subject you will understand the Christian position. You seem to be getting a little closer. I’ll try and address your concerns but I apologize if I miss something I’m trying my best to be clear yet concise.
You say,
My question is simple : what was the process of accepting / rejecting the books to be included in the bible?
I say
The process I laid out. Examine the books to see if they meet the criteria for inclusion in the cannon.
It is the same process that Christians throughout history have went through it was true of the first Christians as well as the Reformers as well as Christians today. Individual Christians will exhibit more or less effort in this process depending on many factors.
As time goes on it is easier for each generation to work through the issues of the cannon because they can choose to rely of the scholarship of those who came before them. We can read about past discussions and weigh the arguments pro and con.
You say,
The link you provided confirmed that there were more than 4 gospels at that period of time. What makes such information 'reliable' hence it being addressed as authority?
I say,
Yes there were more than for gospels in circulation but these other gospels don't meet the criteria and were never accepted by the people of God as scripture
We know that because the Christians whose writings we have did not accept them. That is the point of the table.
You say,
If you agree that every christian must decide for themselves whether they agree or not with regards to the scriptures , then you should not have said 'prophet joseph smith' was a false prophet from your christian viewpoint.
Joseph smith was a false prophet because his teachings did not correspond to scripture. When a person (or book) goes beyond apostolic teaching it is rejected by Christians. This has been going on since the beginning.
When Marcion claimed that the maker of the universe was evil he was rejected by Christians and his movement eventually died out. The same thing has happened over and over in history.
In fact the scripture predicts this sort of thing and explains why it occurs
Quote:
for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
(1 Corinthians 11:19)
End quote:
Islam on the other because of it’s connection to government does not allow this winnowing process. We have no idea who are the genuine Muslims are or even if they still exist.
You say,
The universal acceptance of the canon was by whom or what? Was there a referendum involving the whole of christianity or just a select group of christian leaders?
I say,
If you do some research you will see how the process unfolded. That is why I linked to the table. Click on each of the links you will see what folks were saying about each book pro and con.
You say,
Things don't just happen. Someone of something must have put in effort to make it happen.
I say,
It’s called the work of the Holy Spirit. I realize it is something that you are unfamiliar with. Here is how it works the Holy Spirit moves the people of God to accept or reject certain books. It is that simple
You say,
I can understand people chose to believe hinged upon their experience. Push comes to shove , there need to be something tangible for one to believe.
I say,
Here is probably the biggest differences between us. The Holy Spirit is tangible. We Christians have come to experience the power of God in our lives we will never accept the substitutes of councils or the decrees of the powers that be.
You say,
I find it hard to believe a person becomes a christian thru dreams of seeing crosses around him.
I say,
Who said that is how it happens?
Quote,
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
(Romans 10:17)
End quote,
You say,
If apostolic authority is one of the criteria , you should disregard most books of the NT. The gospels were not written by the 'apostles'.
I say,
The evidence shows that each of the gospels is associated with an apostle. I realize that some liberal scholars disagree but I find the evidence to be conclusive.
Please do some independent research find out what the first readers of those gospels were saying about them for yourself.
You say,
Paul never met / walked / talked with biblical jesus.
You say,
I’m not sure what you mean by the “biblical Jesus” but that Paul was an apostle and talked with Jesus was accepted by everyone in first century Christianity including the other apostles.
You say,
In addition there has been no verification of what has been written that can be traced back to the 'authority' of the apostles.
I say,
The verification is the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the people of God as I have been saying all along.
You say,
There is no explicit concept of trinity in the bible. There is already a mismatch between christian tradition and scripture.
I say,
This proves to me that you have not spent a lot of time reading the scripture.
I’d love to have this discussion with you. First things first.
I’ll wait and see if you understand before I go on
Peace
fifth monarchy man ,
I made 2 points :
(1) the gospels were not written by the 'apostles'
(2) there has been no verification what has been written in the gospels can be traced to the 'apostles' confirming its veracity.
You only answered (1) but fail to provide the 'physical evidence' and / or attestation that the gospels can be verified to what the apostles actually (a) witnessed (b) heard as the exact words of biblical jesus.
It doesn't matter who were the so called first readers. The question is that how do you determine the veracity of , say the gospels? What process do you have to confidently say that such was the action / sayings of biblical jesus as narrated by the apostles? Basically the bible is like the hadith. However we have the system of 'isnad' which is tangible. You only depend on the guidance of the 'holy spirit'. It is not tangible.
Paul talked with biblical jesus? When / where did they met in person? In your previous post you stressed to examine the scripture for evidence. Now you are saying to accept what the first century christians accepted. How many percent of the first century christians accepted what paul wrote was the word of god?
The verification is the testimony of the 'holy spirit'? What has happen to your demand of 'physical evidence'? If you say its the guidance and testimony of the 'holy spirit' you should be able to meet the challenge of mark16:18.
Show me a verse that explicitly state about the trinity or its concept. 1joh5:7 don't count as it has been expunged from the later editions.
fifth monarchy man ,
The process you laid out did not answer the question but raise more issues. Safe to say , such process did not even meet the minimum requirement of verification.
If that same process has been adhered to throughout the christian history , I am not surprise to see the different versions of bibles. These having different number of books in addition to the alteration been made. This is a fact that you have been struggling to explain.
The table per your weblink just show the books accepted / rejected by the various people. The said table do not provide an explanation of why so. If you are saying the said books were accepted / rejected based on your 3 criteria , you have a problem. In the end , your only defense is that christians are guided by the 'holy spirit'. However you demand 'physical evidence' (which has been provided) in the case of the Quran. Why the inconsistency?
Can you elaborate why 'prophet smith' was biblically wrong? You keep on talking about 'apostolic teaching' but you avoid discussion on mark16:18 about drinking poison.
Marcion could have interpreted the following verse and made his conclusion. 2sam12:11 '..This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you..'. If the biblical god brings calamity , then it is an evil god. Marcion was in line with your criteria of '..character of these writings as apostolic..' (as it refers to biblical nathan / david). The movement fizzled out as they were suppressed by the church who were non marcionites. That is a historical fact.
You quote 1 cor11:19 - how do you know trinitrians are the genuine ones? For the lack of the concept of trinity in the bible , I can say unitarians are biblically correct.
We muslims have a very simple concept. The true muslims are the ones following the Quran / sunnah. Do you actually follow the bible? I repeat my 2 issues
(1) there is no concept of trinity in the bible therefore a mismatch between tradition / scripture
(2) biblical jesus never referred himself as god and has never preached himself of being deity
You are drifting from the point. The link you gave shows the table of the church leaders accepting / rejecting the books. I am asking whether
(1) what role , if any , did the christian (public) play in the compilation of the bible? Anyone consulted for scripture verification?
(2) Was the compiled bible read to the public for their approval in the sense that it was in accordance to what they memorised or / and against their personal scripture?
If not , then it is right to conclude that the bible was compiled in secrecy and then forced on to the population.
The core of your argument is that the 'holy spirit' guides you. You are now telling me you don't need to know what 'biblical jesus' said / teach as a person who writes ~ 50 yrs after the event is correct as they were guided by the 'holy spirit'. That means in the future another person comes along and alters the bible , he is correct as he is guided by the 'holy spirit'.
Explain how is the 'holy spirit' tangible? When catholics burnt the so called heretics , is that the work of the 'holy spirit'. When calvin burnt servetus is that the work of the 'holy spirit'? I find irrational.
Gee whizz , why don't you ask nabeel qureshi (the co owner of acts 17) what he saw in his dreams prior of him becoming a christian. By the way , he wasn't a muslim to begin with. Dunno why he keeps on saying he was a muslim.
Hey Sam,
Because I feel that bridging the epistemological gap between us is important I’ll try again to help you. At some point we will have to accept that because of our different worldviews we’ve done all we can do.
You say,
It doesn't matter who were the so called first readers. The question is that how do you determine the veracity of , say the gospels?
I say,
We look at all the evidence. Evidence includes lots of things including the testimony of the recipients of the books. It also includes things like date of origin, internal evidence like we have for Luke/Acts, characteristic terminology etc.
We use the same method we use to determine that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, Plato wrote the Republic and Josephus wrote Wars of the Jews.
Scholars never rely on the sort of “I heard it from Jim who heard it from Bill” silliness that you seem to value for determining authorship.
You said,
Paul talked with biblical jesus? When / where did they met in person?
I say,
The first time was on the road to Damascus in AD 33.
You said,
How many percent of the first century christians accepted what paul wrote was the word of god?
I say,
I won't spoon feed you To determine that sort of thing you need to do research that is the point of the link I gave you
You say,
The verification is the testimony of the 'holy spirit'? What has happen to your demand of 'physical evidence'?
The two statements are not contradictory. I am led by the Holy Spirit as I consider the physical evidence.
You say,
Show me a verse that explicitly state about the trinity or its concept
I say,
First things first. Show me that you understand the Christian process for recognizing the cannon and we can move to other things.
You say
If that same process has been adhered to throughout the christian history , I am not surprise to see the different versions of bibles. These having different number of books in addition to the alteration been made. This is a fact that you have been struggling to explain
I say,
You are getting close to understanding. This is why different sects have more or less books. Alterations are another issue altogether.
You say:
In the end , your only defense is that christians are guided by the 'holy spirit'. However you demand 'physical evidence' (which has been provided) in the case of the Quran. Why the inconsistency?
I say,
No incontinency here,
1) The physical evidence was destroyed by Ultman
2) The Quran does not meet the criteria for inclusion into the cannon
3) The Holy Spirit does not testify in it’s favor as witnessed by the rejection of the people of God
end of story
you say,
You quote 1 cor11:19 - how do you know trinitrians are the genuine ones?
I say,
Because they follow the teaching of the apostles (1st John 4:6). And because the other groups have always died out proving that they did not have the favor of God.
We can talk more about the Trinity once you demonstrate you understand the topic at hand.
You say,
(1) what role , if any , did the christian (public) play in the compilation of the bible?
I say,
As Ive been saying they play the critical role that is the point of the table.
The table provides evidence of the universal acceptance of cannon by the Christian public long before it was documented.
You say,
(2) Was the compiled bible read to the public for their approval in the sense that it was in accordance to what they memorised or / and against their personal scripture?
I say,
Yes, that is what happens every time the Bible is read in our gatherings.
You say,
Explain how is the 'holy spirit' tangible?
I say,
It’s impossible for me to explain what site is like to a blind man. I can only tell him that my site does not conflict with the evidence you can sense. It only verifies and clarifies.
You say,
When catholics burnt the so called heretics , is that the work of the 'holy spirit'. When calvin burnt servetus is that the work of the 'holy spirit'? I find irrational.
I say,
Not at all. Christians are often not led by the Holy Spirit that is why there are factions among us.
Just because someone chooses to close their eyes does not mean that site does not exist.
You say,
why don't you ask nabeel qureshi (the co owner of acts 17) what he saw in his dreams prior of him becoming a christian.
I say,
I believe Nabeel heard the gospel long before he had a dream.
You say,
By the way , he wasn't a muslim to begin with.
I say,
How do you know his sect was not the genuine one.
Because of Islam’s connection with the government we will never know if it is or not.
Peace
oops I missed one
You said,
you say,
The movement fizzled out as they were suppressed by the church who were non marcionites. That is a historical fact.
I say,
Marcion set up his sect in 144 AD Christians had no power to suppress anyone until the middle of the third century. I think you need to brush up on your history.
peace
fifth monarchy man ,
I doubt we are bridging the 'epistemological gap'. You have not given any concrete answers.
What is your evidence? The earliest manuscripts available is about 100 - 200 years after the books have been written. The internal evidence? Its gets worse. Its the consensus of scholars that the books of matthew / luke used mark as a basis. Ha ha , one book is a copycat version of an earlier one.
The works of shakespeare survived. The early biblical manuscripts we have are copies many times over making it making it a prime candidate for changes along the way. How do you know there has not been any alteration? All scholarship indicated / confirm there has been alteration / changes. You are just guessing and hoping of no changes to the biblical manuscripts. You don't have anything or any system to determine the veracity except proclaiming works of the 'holy spirit'.
Paul met biblical jesus on the road to damascus? The biblical texts :- acts9:1-7 , acts22:5-10 , acts26:12-18. 3 major problems
(1) comparing the 3 passages , there are differences / contradiction in his testimonies
(2) He only saw a bright light
(3) Before any introduction by 'the voice' , paul already addressed it as 'my lord'.
You claim paul met biblical jesus?
You won't spoon feed me or you don't know? The truth is that nobody knows. The ebionites ~ 2nd century rejected paul. The people of galatia rejected him.
You claiming guidance by the 'holy spirit' when considering the evidence. The evidence we have is the mismatch in the books of codex sinaiticus and the present day bible. The 'holy spirit' in you tells you that ... 'hey no problem'?
You brought up the issue of tradition matching against scripture. The concept trinity don't match the biblical scripture. I view this as a refusal to answer / explain your own point.
You are admitting that there are different brands of christianity with different doctrines. If the bible of one christian sect is different compared with another , it is an alteration to the bible.
You are not answering the inconsistency issue. I have no issues of comparing the Quran and bible.
(1) We have gone thru the process of compilation / preservation of the Quran 3 times. You have no counter argument except '..physical evidence was destroyed by Ultman..'. What about the 'fogg palimsets'?
(2) The Quran is the canon as its the recitation of Prophet Muhammad(saw) and was documented on an immediate basis and committed to memory of the early muslims (a tradition that is still ongoing). Any christians over the span of 2000 yrs memorised the bible?
(3) We muslims don't need the 'holy spirit' to testify. Its the testimony of the 'holy spirit' that you now have different versions of the bible. In short , the testimony of the 'holy spirit' is an excuse for christians to do what they like as 'its the holy spirit guiding them'
Who was the apostle that say biblical jesus was / is god? In the books of acts , biblical jesus was referred to as man not god. Muslims don't believe Prophet Isa(as) is god. We still survive and have surpassed catholics in numbers. Christians are reverting to Islam.
The table only show the various church leaders with their opinions regarding the different books to be included in the present day bible. It doesn't not show the public opinion. You keep on saying the public played a critical role but you have no evidence.
The bible reading at your gathering is 2000yrs too late. Was the compiled bible read to the public for comparison against (a) memory (2) personal documents. If not , my point still stand. The bible was compiled in secrecy and forced onto the christian population.
fifth monarchy man ,
If you cannot explain what makes the 'holy spirit' tangible then you don't have a tangible means to verify the authenticity of the bible by depending on the so called guidance of the 'holy spirit'.
Ok then , according to you - catholics who burnt heretics don't have the guidance of the 'holy spirit'. Protestants whose founder burnt servetus don't have the guidance of the 'holy spirit'. Which denomination of christianity is guided by the 'holy spirit'? Therefore the versions of the catholic / protestant bibles are wrong as its not guided by the 'holy spirit'.
If you listen to his conversion story , nabeel saw crosses in his dream. That prompted him to believe in christianity. Wow!!
Mirza gulam pretended he was a prophet of Allah. '..`I am a prophet according to Allah's orders. If I deny this I am sinful. And If Allah calls me thus how can I deny it. I will stand by this claim until my death' (Letter to Akhbar Am by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad written three days before his death and published on his date of death i.e., 26 May 1908)..'
How can anyone regard him a prophet whereas it is clearly stated in Quran33:40 that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was the final prophet.
Can you now explain why you regard 'prophet smith' to be biblically wrong?
We can provide evidence from the Quran that Mirza Gulam was wrong. Not depending on the government yeah.
fifth monarchy man,
What do you mean that christians had no power to suppress marcion and his followers? Marcion was excommunicated. Yes?
Tertullian wrote 5 books against marcion and the church went on a propaganda blitz against them. Isn't that a form of suppression?
Its just that the dominant church at that time had the backing of government. So now we actually do have government connection in the suppression of others , mainly the non trinitrians.
Ironic isn't it?
@Fifth Monarchy Man
I just want to let you know White does believe the Bible is somewhere within all those manuscripts but is not sure what the Bible is - thus he does not know hwere the bible is nor wha the bible is!
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/02/muslim-reviews-bart-ehrman-vs-james.html
In addition I just want to let you know the argument of the Quran being preserved in a controlled environment and the Bible being preserved in an uncontrolled environment is a bogus one.
ultimately what matters is whether you have the book preserved or not and whther you actually know where it is and what it is. Christians do not know where the Bible is and nor do they know what the Bible is.
Perhaps it would have aided the preservation of the Bible if it was carried out in a controlled environment where nefarious and error-prone scribes could have been rebuked and punished.
Muslims know what the Quran is and what it isChjristians cannot say the same for their respective book - give me a controlled environment any day of the week.
It is so sad to see folk simply regurgitate White's argument - an argument which is bogus
hey sam,
You said,
How can anyone regard him a prophet whereas it is clearly stated in Quran33:40 that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was the final prophet.
I say,
At least that is what we see in the copy that was officially authorized by Ultman. His destroying of the evidence means we will never know for sure what the real Quran had to say about it.
You say,
What do you mean that christians had no power to suppress marcion and his followers? Marcion was excommunicated. Yes?
I say,
Excommunication is not suppression unless you saying that you are actively suppressing the Ahmadis and can therefore not say for sure if they are the genuine Muslims.
Peace
Hey Yahya,
You say,
In addition I just want to let you know the argument of the Quran being preserved in a controlled environment and the Bible being preserved in an uncontrolled environment is a bogus one.
and
give me a controlled environment any day of the week.
I say,
Thank you for bringing this discussion into a clear focus.
Your statement seems to show that you understand that when we get down to brass tacks this discussion is not about the number of variants or disagreements about an odd book or two. It’s about which method is the best for preserving God’s word.
Hopefully It is now clear that arguments about cannon and vairiants are based on a misunderstanding as to the Christian process of recognizing and preservation of scripture.
To put it simply we believe God used the dispersal of the Church and abundant coping to insure no one individual or group could corrupt or suppress the text.
I think I’ve shown that acourding to the system that Christians believe that God used to preserve his word textual variants and minor disagreements about certain books are not deficiencies but necessary byproducts. The number of variants are simply a reflection of the large number of manuscripts available and the disagreements are evidence that no single group was responsible for the transmission of the scripture.
Instead of what Muslims keep bringing up these are the sorts of things that would count as evidence against the Christian position....
1. Evidence of the ability of the Church hierarchy to suppress rival scriptures before the production of the vulgate.
2. The existence of credible sources that predate the writings we have and contradict them on important doctrinal issues.
3. Evidence of a lack of continuity of critical doctrine of the earliest congregations before the production of the vulgate.
4. Evidence that books that were considered Scripture by the first congregations have been lost.
5. The acceptance of books that contradict critical doctrinal positions
6. Variant readings that affect doctrine
Muslim’s on the other hand since have relied on government authorities to safeguard their scripture
The things that would count as negative evidence for this system would include things like
1. Textual variants
2. Disagreements among early Muslims as to what was to be included in the Quran
3. Moral shortcomings in the leadership of the community.
4. Loss destruction or alteration of earlier writings you consider to be inspired.
5. Conflicting claims as to who qualifies as having the genuine governing authority of the community
Perhaps this discussion will prompt you all to actually make relevant arguments in this area instead of continuing to critique Christianity from a perspective that is foreign to it.
If you would give it a try do it would go a long way in showing that you understand the issues involved.
It's been a good discussion. next time maybe well talk about the Trinity ;-)
Peace
fifth monarchy man ,
You are already stumped. Your standard answer '..copy that was officially authorized by Ultman. His destroying of the evidence..'. Then what is the use of the compilation process of confirming every verse with 2 independent sources from memory and documentation? You have not used logic in your argument but regurgitate the misleading christian line. This is very poor.
Lets examine what the non muslim scholars have to say. Angelika Neuwirth '..new findings of Qur'anic text fragments , moreover , can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Qur'an as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have..' (pg 100 , The Cambridge companion to the Quran ; http://books.google.com.my/books?id=F2oLiXT_66EC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=angelika+neuwirth+cambridge+companion+of+quran&source=bl&ots=kMl9YxragT&sig=rRXDIVLQB6Y76FD0jYvAz23PNzM&hl=en&ei=B8ZYTbKSJs2srAeqm42MBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=angelika%20neuwirth%20cambridge%20companion%20of%20quran&f=false).
You again only answer 1 of my 2 points. Excommunication is a form of suppression. In addition to that marcionites fizzled in the 4th to 5th century corresponding to the trinitrian denomination coming to power in the 3rd century.
You still have not explain why 'prophet smith' , according to you was bibically wrong. No answers?
How can we suppress ahmadis whereas they are not muslims to begin with.
Post a Comment