The fundamentalist commonly identifies himself not as a fundamentalist but as an evangelical, and their evangelical identity is of great importance to them. It is of extreme importance to fundamentalists to defend the unitary authorship of the Book of Isaiah, the belief that the prophet Isaiah himself actually wrote the complete work. It is instructive to read what a distinguished evangelical biblical scholar said on this subject.
I reproduce below a quotation from Professor FF Bruce who was Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Manchester. He is very much admired by evangelicals. His first book, New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? was voted by the American evangelical magazine Christianity Today as one of the top 50 books “which had shaped evangelicals” (see here)
Bruce served as President of the Society for Old Testament Study, and also as President of the Society for New Testament Study. He is one of only a handful of scholars thus recognised by his peers in both fields. A remarkable achievement.
Bruce writes:
‘Some years ago I spoke to a group of theological students in a British university on the subject of their choice – the principles and methods of biblical criticism. Like myself, they belonged to the evangelical tradition. I illustrated part of my talk by dealing with the structures, date and authorship of one particular section of Scripture [the identification of Second Isaiah i.e. chapters 40-55 of the Book of Isaiah which comes from the time of the Babylonian Exile and not from the prophet Isaiah himself].
Some of them, I knew, had been brought up to regard as erroneous the conclusions to which, in my judgement, the relevant criteria pointed; yet these conclusions contradicted no biblical statement and could not be reasonably dismissed as arising from an unwillingness to admit the supernatural element in divine revelation; indeed, they involved the acceptance of miracle in general and predictive prophecy in particular. If, then, these were the conclusions to which the evidence led, I asked, what was the objection to them? They throughout the matter over and then one of them said:
‘What you say seems quite logical, but some of us feel that if we accepted these conclusions we should be lettering down the evangelist side.’
This, it seemed to me, was carrying loyalty to a tradition too far, but I could sympathise with them; I could only feel sorry that such a tradition should be called ‘evangelical’ and glad for my sake that I had been brought up to subordinate tradition to evidence.’
Quoted in Escaping from Fundamentalism by James Barr p. 156
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, Quotation
Blogging Theology 
Except Jesus and the NT writers quoted from Isaiah chapters 40-55 as if Isaiah himself wrote them.
John 12:38-40 is an example of this. The apostle John wrote that Isaiah the prophet said the things in both Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 6, showing the unity of the whole book.
F. F. Bruce was a good man and a great scholar, but not infallible, and if what Barr says is true, then Bruce was wrong on that issue.
LikeLike
John is just citing the traditional view of the authorship of Isaiah. John was not a critical scholar. You say very dismissively that Bruce wrong without engaging with the arguments and evidence.
LikeLike
In the quote that James Barr provides, F. F. Bruce gives no specific evidence of what convinced him. If you read Gleason Archer’s essay on Isaiah in “Survey of OT Introduction”, he gives solid answers for all the arguments against Isaiah being the author of all of Isaiah 1-66.
http://www.amazon.com/A-Survey-Old-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802484344
The apostle John was eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection, and inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he wrote. He is writing infallible and inerrant Scripture in the Gospel of John. It is God-breathed. 2 Tim. 3:16
LikeLike
Well, clearly some great evangelical scholars are convinced the book of Isaiah is a composite work. Virtually all scholars see the evidence clearly pointing this way.
The only reason you reject this is because of your fundamentalist presuppositions. It’s views like yours that push people away from faith.
Those that remain within evangelicalism often experience crisis of faith torn between their religion and the historical evidence.
LikeLike
Btw 2 Timothy is a forgery. And 3: 16 refers to the OT. I have demonstrated this to you before Ken. You are very slow to learn.
LikeLike
Ken Temple back to circular reasoning and preaching again …
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s what Ken does best!
LikeLike
2 Tim. 3:15 is about the OT, but the next verse, 3:16 expands it to “all Scripture”, since Paul quoted the Torah and gospel as “holy Scripture” together – 1 Tim. 5:18 and claimed his teaching was the word of God – 1 Thess. 2:13 , 1 Corinthians chapters 1-2, etc. – he is arguing for the “God-breathed” quality of all that is holy Scripture, not just the OT, and even what will come later in John and John’s letters, Hebrews, etc.
LikeLike
I demonstrated the truth of this before, but it is you who are slow to learn.
LikeLike
It’s very sad. So many good people lose their faith because they cannot with integrity hold on to their Christian fundamentalism whilst thinking intelligently and honestly about the Bible.
The irony here is that the greatest threat to your religion Ken is not Islam or the devil but being forced to believe things about the Bible that any reasonable person knows to be false through objective scholarship.
I know many people who have been lost to faith because of views like yours.
You seem to have survived so far. But at what cost Ken? Deep down do you suffer the agony of conflicting beliefs like so many intelligent Christians do?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple “I demonstrated the truth of this before, but it is you who are slow to learn.”
Don’t you think this life has a purpose, that God wants you to grow up eventually?
LikeLiked by 1 person
How do you know what is going on “deep down” in my heart?
You don’t.
That is what Jesus meant when He said, “Do not judge . . . ” (Matthew 7:1-6) and why the apostle Paul wrote: “do not judge . . . and wait until the Lord returns, then He will expose the secret motives of men’s hearts” – 1 Corinthians 4:5
I agree that some anti-intellectual Fundamentalists like King James Only people loose their faith because they were unwilling to look at the evidence objectively and they didn’t study hard enough. There are answers without anti-intellectual and without loosing one’s faith, as you and Bart Ehrman did.
I think Islam has a much bigger problem, since it just flat out denies real established history – the crucifixion of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leadership around 30 AD in Israel/Palestine.
There are other things going on people’s hearts that make them loose their faith, like your’s and Ehrman’s example. (But I don’t know them, unless you clearly say.)
I could try and psycho-analyze you, and seek to read and know motives also, for example, as to deeper heart reasons as to why you have changed your blog twice and left Islam for a few days and came back, but I don’t do that.
LikeLike
It remains a fact many people have been lost to faith because of views like yours Ken.
Fundamentalist views of the Bible cause not just intellectual confusion and doubt, they cause acute emotional and psychological distress. I have seen it many times.
You appear to have survived so far. But at what cost Ken? I notice you did not answer the question:
Deep down do you suffer the agony of conflicting beliefs like so many intelligent Christians do?
LikeLike
Ken can you tell me why you think the Gospel of John should be accepted as from John, and as authentic?
LikeLike
Dr. Dan Wallace has an excellent article defending the traditional view that the apostle John was the author of the Gospel of John. I agree with Dr. Wallace.
I include the first two paragraphs here. There is a lot more evidence at Dr. Wallace’s article.
https://bible.org/seriespage/4-gospel-john-introduction-argument-outline#_ftn2
There are three pieces of evidence to consider: title, external evidence, and internal evidence.
1. THE TITLE
As with the other gospels, no MSS which contain John’s Gospel1 affirm authorship by anyone other than John.2 Once again, as with the others, this is short of proof of Johannine authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition (or at least acknowledgment) of Johannine authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century. Indeed, John’s Gospel is unique among the evangelists for two early papyri (P66 and P75, dated c. 200) attest to Johannine authorship. Since these two MSS were not closely related to each other, this common tradition must precede them by at least three or four generations of copying. Further, although B and P75 are closely related, textual studies have demonstrated that P75 is not the ancestor of B—in fact, B’s ancestor was, in many respects, more primitive than P75.3 Hence, the combined testimony of B and P75 on Johannine authorship points to a textual tradition which must be at least two generations earlier than P75. All of this is to say that from the beginning of the second century, the fourth gospel was strongly attached to the apostle John.
2. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
Attestation of Johannine authorship is found as early as Irenaeus. Eusebius reports that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who in turn received it from the apostles directly. Although Irenaeus’ testimony has been assailed on critical grounds (since he received the information as a child, and may have been mistaken as to which John wrote the gospel), since all patristic writers after Irenaeus do not question apostolic authorship, criticism must give way to historical probability. The list of fathers include Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc. Further, the Muratorian Canon suggests that John was given the commission to write this gospel after Andrew received a vision indicating that he would do so. If one were to sift out the possible accretions in this statement, the bare fact of Johannine authorship is not disturbed. Finally, the anti-Marcionite Prologue also affirms Johannine authorship.
. . .
Dr. Dan Wallace
LikeLike
Very few scholars consider the apostle John actually wrote the fourth gospel. Some very conservative scholars think he did but they have their own religious bias deposing then to think that. The evidence for the apostles authorship is truly weak indeed.
LikeLike
Also the fourth gospel was quite slow to be accepted in the Eastern churches. Clearly there were doubts about it.
LikeLike
What do you mean by “suffering the agony of conflicting beliefs” ??
do you mean about that fact that different people believe different things thus resulting in conflict
or are you trying to say that I have conflicting beliefs deep down and that I am trying to squelch them?
LikeLike
Irenaeus (writing 180-202 AD) is famous for testifying of how he learned from Polycarp (martyred in 155 AD), who was a disciple of the apostle John and wrote the Gospel of John:
5. “For when I was a boy, I saw thee in lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in splendor in the royal court, and endeavoring to gain his approbation.
6. I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,’ Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures.” (E. H. Book V, xx, 5-6)
Papias 70-135 AD
Polycarp – 71- 155 AD
Irenaeus – writing 180- 202 AD
Justin Martyr – died in, by execution in 165 AD
Tatian – student of Justin who wrote the first harmony of the Gospels. (120-180 AD)
Theophilus of Antioch ( 181 AD)
Tertullian 220 AD
Cyprian 250
Origen 250
Clement of Alexandria 215
Athanasius 300-373 AD
Ambrose 395
Augustine 354-430 AD
John Chyrsostom 400
Jerome 400
All testify that the fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John.
These are solid early witnesses that John was the writer of the Fourth Gospel.
D. A. Carson:
“The internal evidence is very strong . . . that the beloved disciple is John, son of Zebedee.” (Page 75 commentary on John)
The east was slow in accepting the book of Revelation, but I never heard that it was “quite slow” in accepting the gospel of John.
LikeLike
Ken none of the fathers you quote had met John and it is laughable that you cite 5th century Christians like Jerome and Augustine who has no first hand knowledge of the authorship of a 1st century gospel.
Your Polycarp quote does not even mention the fourth gospel!
Is that all your ‘evidence’?
LikeLike
Even Richard Bauckham admits that the Fourth Gospel was written based on an eyewitness account.
LikeLike
Bauckam is quite rare amongst scholars for this view. Few of his colleagues would agree with him. And he says that the ‘I am’s in John were put into Jesus’ mouth.
Is Bauckham a liberal?
LikeLike
Ken Temple, I agree with Bart Ehrman – “God gave you a brain to think with. Apply reason, that’s why God made you a human being instead of a slug”
LikeLiked by 1 person
God gave you a brain to think with; that is why you should reject the Qur’an since it denies established history of all scholars that Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, was crucified around 30 AD and died – under Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leadership who instigated Pilate to carry out the crucifixion.
Use your brain – if the Qur’an was from God, He would know what the doctrine of the Trinity was that had been established for about 500 years and clearly written about and yet the Qur’an thought it was God, Jesus, and Mary !! (Surah 5:72-75; 5:116)
LikeLike
Ken, this is the worst kind of “tu quoque”, red herring and straw man in one.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Irenaeus is writing about Polycarp. Irenaeus mentions the Gospel of John by name in other places in his writings. Eusebius also testifies of this.
Irenaeus was discipled by Polycarp, who was discipled by John the apostle.
Papias (one of the earliest extant witnesses we have – 70-135 AD) also testifies of the apostle John and his gospel, and in fact, Papias mentions a tradition of Jesus confronting an adulterous woman, which is probably the story in John 8:1-11.
LikeLike
Ken, this guy just repeats what you have been saying. He is wrong when he says there is only one thing that supports Bart E.’s claim. As Paul Williams pointed out, very few scholars consider the apostle John actually wrote the fourth gospel. The points you make are all known by the vast majority of scholars who reject your claims. Why don’t you deal with their counter-arguments reasonably? Use your brain.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
God gave you a brain to think with; that is why you should reject the Qur’an since it denies established history of all scholars that Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, was crucified around 30 AD and died – under Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leadership who instigated Pilate to carry out the crucifixion.
Use your brain – if the Qur’an was from God, He would know what the doctrine of the Trinity was that had been established for about 500 years and clearly written about and yet the Qur’an thought it was God, Jesus, and Mary !! (Surah 5:72-75; 5:116)
I say;
You have to give us proof that the Quran defined Trinity.
The verse is below
Quran Chapter 5
5:72
Sahih International
They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.
5:73
They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.
5:74
So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
5:75
The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.
5:116
And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
Ken, the above verses only cursed those who say God is ” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” and ” Allah is the third of three.” and those who worship Mary but Jesus never said that but said this to the children of Israel “O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord.”
You can bring the original Arabic and tell us where the Quran defined Trinity. The Quran never defined the Trinity and so is the Bible but the Quran corrected the Trinity head on. Christians themselves are confused about the Trinity and hence their decision to define it outside the Bible but the Arians, Ebionites, Jehovah Witness, Unitarian Christians and many more Christians including the Trinitarians never understands Trinity. The Quran is not to tell you what the Trinity is but it just condemned it as simple as that and it says;
O People of the Book, exceed not the limits in your religion or speak anything about Allah, but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only a messenger of Allah and His word which He communicated to Mary and a mercy from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you. Allah is only one God. Far be it from His glory to have a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is Allah as having charge of affairs.
Ken it is only verse 4:171 that warns you not to say 3 and it appears it is the Trinitarians that says God is 3 persons in one without understanding it but the Bible itself did not understand Trinity because it is not in the Bible and had to be defined by men at some councils.
If the Bible did not understand the Trinity, then the Quran also will not define the Trinity but to warn those who defined Trinity never to say God is 3. Quran will not define your Trinity for you Mr. Ken. I am sorry. The Bible did not define Trinity either. The Quran warns desist and to not say God is 3.
With regards to Jesus’s death, the gospel accounts differs and does not know who are present and some say they are far away and some say they are close and all scholars who you said believed Jesus died is just a believe but they are not there and you cannot take their belief as proof. No one has proof Jesus died. If the writers of the gospels had well documented their gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John with their full names, place of birth and residence, their relationship with Jesus, when and where the gospel was written, the reason for the document(gospels) etc. that would have authenticated and verified their gospels but they did not but just wrote stories with different conclusions and it is not a credible document to believe about Jesus’s death.
Thanks
LikeLike
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
KT//you should reject the Qur’an since it denies established history of all scholars that Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, was crucified around 30 AD and died – under Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leadership who instigated Pilate to carry out the crucifixion.//
Temple demonstrates his inability to use his brain here.
The Qur’an never denies the historicity of crucifixion. What the Qur’an vehemently denies is that, Jesus (p), God slave and Messenger was killed during the event.
God SAVED him.
KT://Use your brain – if the Qur’an was from God, He would know what the doctrine of the Trinity was that had been established for about 500 years and clearly written about and yet the Qur’an thought it was God, Jesus, and Mary !! (Surah 5:72-75; 5:116) //
Again Temple demonstrates his inability to use his brain here.
Nowhere the Qur’an says that Trinity
it says:
Do not say “three”
Believing god manifest into three person one of which is human is in fact the most condemned part in the doctrine of three in unity
In fact the Qur’an itself condemns all sorts of shirk, i.e., associating partners with Allah. It would not matter if the Trinity was composed of any permutations and combinations of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit or the Mary or Martin Luther or Calvin or even Joseph Smith.
desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God.
Even to this day, the Catholic Christians consider Mary(P) as the Mother of God and prayers are sent to her.
LikeLike
Yes, Roman Catholics are wrong to exalt Mary so much with so much statuary and praying to her and praising her and, the EO with icons, etc. That is probably why Muhammad and the Qur’an got the Trinity wrong, because of the growing cult of Mary that had begun from 400s onward. “The Mother of God” phrase obviously communicates something very wrong to Muslims.
But even RCs and EO did not believe Mary was part of the Trinity, but the Qur’an did – Surah 5:116, “Did I say take me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?” – obviously the author of the Qur’an thought the Trinity was the Father, Mary, and Jesus, but even the early church did not believe that in the 400s, 500s, 600s AD – though they exalted Mary too much and prayed to her.
Protestants are more Biblical – we reject prayers to dead saints and Mary and statures and icons in a worship context. Praying to Mary and viewing her as another mediator is a direct contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:5 – there is only one God and one mediator . . .
The Qur’an denies real established history that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and dead and buried. Therefore, because of this grave mistake, and also it’s mistake on the Trinity, (and many other mistakes also), it is not a credible book, nor is it inspired by God.
LikeLike
Bart Ehrman admits that all the Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) all thought Jesus was God and that John 8:58 and 10:30 teach the Deity of Christ.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/bart-ehrman-admits-that-the-gospel-writers-thought-jesus-was-god/
LikeLike
Ken if you read Bart’s book you would realise that based on the best historical evidence Jesus was not God, did not claim to be God, and was not thought to be God by his followers.
That is Bart’s conclusion.
Now he says that concepts of deity were much more fluid in the ancient world than today, when men could become gods and visa versa.
Bart says that Jesus became divine at different times in different gospels. In Mark he became divine at his baptism. But he was still not Yahweh the God of Israel.
Read the book Ken. Educate yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
. . . and was not thought to be God by his followers.
In the debate Ehrman admits that gospel writers all thought Jesus was God. Ehrman admits that the followers DID think Jesus was God.
LikeLike
Ken do you believe, as Mark teaches, that Jesus became divine at his baptism?
LikeLike
You said;
But even RCs and EO did not believe Mary was part of the Trinity, but the Qur’an did – Surah 5:116, “Did I say take me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?” – obviously the author of the Qur’an thought the Trinity was the Father, Mary, and Jesus, but even the early church did not believe that in the 400s, 500s, 600s AD – though they exalted Mary too much and prayed to her.
I say;
This the verse;
5:116
And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?’” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
Ken, the above verse is not about Trinity but to those who worships Jesus and to those who worships Mary. There were some Christians sects who worship Mary as the Mother of God and verse applied to them as well as any other sects like the Roman Catholics and others. Then it applies to those who worships Jesus as well.
Find below the verse about Trinity;
4:171
O People of the Book, exceed not the limits in your religion or speak anything about Allah, but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only a messenger of Allah and His word which He communicated to Mary and a mercy from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you. Allah is only one God. Far be it from His glory to have a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is Allah as having charge of affairs
Mr. Ken, the Quran did not say the Trinity is composed of Father, Mary and Jesus. The Quran never mentioned “Father” as God in its entirety to avoid the shirk of Trinitarians and it never mentioned “Holy Spirit” but just warns about saying 3 persons or 3 beings as God because every person is being and every person is he and Yahweh Himself said in the Bible that He is the only He and He is One and Alone.
So, the Quran is just correcting the Trinity to conform to the Bible by not saying 3 which was implemented by men outside the Bible. But the Quran never defined Trinity as the Bible did not define Trinity. Quran is to correct but not to define what man has defined i.e. Trinity-defined by men.
If the Quran has defined Trinity, Christians would have said, the Trinity is true because the Quran has defined it, but fortunately, the Quran never defined Trinity.
Do you want the Quran not to warn those who worship Mary? of course not. So the Quran has to warn those who worship Mary.
Who is the Holy Spirit? No one knows the Holy Spirit and so the Quran is silent about the unknown Holy Spirit whom no one knows. The Bible did not know the Holy Spirit either by not defining the Trinity with the Holy Spirit.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Obviously no; Jesus was already divine from eternity past. (John 1:1-5; John 17:5; Philippians 2:5-8; John 8:56-59) Mark does not teach that Jesus “became” divine at His baptism. He already was divine; the Spirit coming upon Him shows the unity of the 3 persons of the Trinity and the anointing of the Holy Spirit for ministry as a man also. Jesus was both man and God.
Mark teaches that Jesus is the eternal Son of God and the Father out of heaven says, “this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Mark 1:11
LikeLike
Why obviously no? It is obvious that at the baptism Jesus is designated to be God’s “son”.
You have obviously not read Ehrman’s book. Get it and read it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr. Ken, the Quran did not say the Trinity is composed of Father, Mary and Jesus.
Yes it does and very very clearly and definitely. That is one of the clearest things in the Qur’an.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
. . . and was not thought to be God by his followers.
In the debate Ehrman admits that gospel writers all thought Jesus was God. Ehrman admits that the followers DID think Jesus was God.
I say;
Erhman says and believe the gospel writers are not the disciples of Jesus or Jesus followers but writers some years after Jesus. Ehrman did not believe Jesus disciples wrote the gospels and he argued the gospels had anonymous authors later added to the gospels.
When the Quran says the disciples/followers of Jesus who are the factions of the Children of Israel, the Quran like Erhman as well does not say they were Christians or the gospel writers who wrote the gospels years later after Jesus.
That is your wishful thinking.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Mr. Ken, the Quran did not say the Trinity is composed of Father, Mary and Jesus.
Yes it does and very very clearly and definitely. That is one of the clearest things in the Qur’an.
I say;
Provide us a verse as your proof where the Quran says;
Trinity is composed of the Father, Mary and Jesus Christ.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple you misrepresent the Quran, you misrepresent Bart Ehrman, you misrepresent the gospels. You subordinate evidence to tradition
LikeLiked by 1 person
Surah 5:116 says that. Obviously, it doesn’t use the word “Father” or “Trinity” (which also shows the Allah of the Qur’an doesn’t know what happened in history from 100 AD to 632 AD)
when it says “God” and “Me” (Jesus) and “My Mother” and also says in other places “say not three” (4:171 and 5:72-75) and that “jesus and Mary ate their daily food”(5:72-75), and “God does not beget” (Surah 112) and “how can God have a son when there is no wife for Him” (Surah 101:6), etc. – the Allah of the Qur’an obviously misunderstood what the doctrine of the Trinity is.
I have Ehrman’s book “when Jesus became God”, and also “when God became Jesus” (the response)
I have read some of it; not every word yet, but Ehrman is wrong.
LikeLike
Mark 1:11 does not say “designated” or “became”.
LikeLike
the Father says, “You are My Beloved Son, in whom I am will pleased” – already are – present tense. Not “now you have become My Son” or ” I now designate you my son”, etc.
the demand that everything be there in one verse or one book is ridiculous – like Ahmed Deedat’s stupid demand, “no where did Jesus say the exact words, “I am God, worship me”.
The Qur’an never says the exact words, “Muhammad is the final and last prophet”. It says “seal”, but we can demand the exact words, since you demand exact words for your wooden simplistic thinking.
Matthew and Luke give us the virgin birth; and john teaches us on the pre-existence of Jesus, so all 4 give the full picture, like 4 witnesses on a street corner, witnessing one event in history.
LikeLike
Ken no serious critical scholar thinks the 4 gospels were written by eyewitnesses. You are 200 years behind the times.
You’re like those members of the Flat Earth Society who still argue the earth is flat even after the rest of the world has woken up to reality.
Sad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken are you serious? You say:
‘I have Ehrman’s book “when Jesus became God”…I have read some of it; not every word yet, but Ehrman is wrong.’
A brilliant refutation.
lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are like those members of the Flat Earth society, since you think the Qur’an is inspired, when it denies history and reality, and claims the sun sets in mirky waters, and mixed up Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam, the sister of Aaron, and it gets the Trinity wrong, and quotes from Apocryphal gospels and legends like the cave of seven sleepers.
LikeLike
lol. Tu quoque
LikeLike
Ehrman, on page 238 of his book, demands that Mark has to mention the virgin birth and that he has to mention Jesus’ pre-existence, like in John chapter 1 and 17. The demand is unreasonable, since we have the other information in Matthew, Luke, and John.
Mark shows that Jesus did pre-exist, as He was with the ancient of Days in Daniel 7:13-14 – in Mark 14:6-64.
If detectives and police investigate, and each witness says exactly the same thing, then they know there was collusion. but if each witness agree and harmonize, and some leave out some details but nothing contradicts, then we know they are reliable witnesses. The four gospels are reliable witnesses, like one witness on each corner of a street viewing a car accident from different angles.
LikeLike
Ken to be frank:
you are uneducated when it comes to biblical scholarship. You promote an utterly discredited fundamentalism which doubtless has some appeal in some quarters of the USA.
Our presuppositions are so radically different as to make meaningful discussions on the Bible virtually impossible.
LikeLike
Paul,
You shoot your brains by being intelligent and educated, yet believe in a book that has so many errors and denies history and quotes legends and fables.
I am quite educated on Ehrman and Bultmann and Elaine Pagels and F. C. Bauer and Walter Bauer and Schleirmacher, and James Barr and other liberal scholars, such as William Barclay and Raymond Brown.
I read a lot of their stuff; and found it deficient. I did a seminary paper on Bultmann’s gospel of John.
LikeLike
Disagreeing with the conclusions of liberal scholars does not mean I am uneducated as to their content and argumentation. I understand their reasoning. I disagree.
LikeLike
Not so. You are anti-intellectual and reject ALL biblical scholarship. This myth of ‘liberal scholars’ is just a smokescreen for clinging to fundamentalism.
LikeLike
not so; you are anti-intellectual, since you believe in something that history has refuted.
LikeLike
Ken that very statement shows your ignorance of how historical enquiry actually works.
It deals in probabilities not certainties. Your binary worldview of cowboys and Indians, good and evil, belongs in Hollywood b movies not serious discussion.
There is a world of difference between fundamentalism and believing in fundamental doctrines. Don’t pretend they are the same.
LikeLike
I accept a ton of good Biblical scholarship.
there are two types of “fundmentalism”
one is just believing in the foundation doctrines and principles.
the other is the anti-intellectualism of the King James Only types. They are the ones who are anti-intellectual.
But you also are a fundamental Muslim, since you believe in all the fundamental doctrines and practices of Islam.
LikeLike
Islam is even more binary and wooden -Kufrs (unbelievers) vs. believers (muslims).
Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb = the territory of Islam vs. the territory of war – pretty binary to me.
LikeLike
You also believe in the certainty of the Qur’an, so you are binary and anti-intellectual.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;W
Surah 5:116 says that. Obviously, it doesn’t use the word “Father” or “Trinity” (which also shows the Allah of the Qur’an doesn’t know what happened in history from 100 AD to 632 AD)
when it says “God” and “Me” (Jesus) and “My Mother” and also says in other places “say not three” (4:171 and 5:72-75) and that “jesus and Mary ate their daily food”(5:72-75), and “God does not beget” (Surah 112) and “how can God have a son when there is no wife for Him” (Surah 101:6), etc. – the Allah of the Qur’an obviously misunderstood what the doctrine of the Trinity is.
I say
The above is not the evidence that the Quran said Trinity is Father, Mary and Jesus. What is composed of Trinity is not in the Bible or the Quran. That is why men defined the Trinity at some councils. Who is the Holy Spirit? It is only the Trinitarians who knew the Holy Spirit. Obviously the Quran knows Mary and Jesus and warns people to stop worshiping them. The Holy Spirit is the problem of the Trinitarians to deal with it because they created it in their Gods but not the Quran or any prophet of God.
You said;
when it says “God” and “Me” (Jesus) and “My Mother” and also says in other places “say not three” (4:171 and 5:72-75) and that “jesus and Mary ate their daily food”(5:72-75), and “God does not beget” (Surah 112) and “how can God have a son when there is no wife for Him” (Surah 101:6), etc. – the Allah of the Qur’an obviously misunderstood what the doctrine of the Trinity is.
I say;
The verse did not say;
when it says “God” and “Me” (Jesus) and “My Mother” as you put it but it says;
/////////////////////////
5:116
And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?’” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it
/////////////////////////
The above verse is talking about worshiping Jesus and his mother besides Allah but not Trinity at all because some people did worship Mary and are continuing to worship Mary. No prophet of God worshiped the Holy Spirit and the Quran has nothing to say or define about any Holy Spirit which no prophet talked about but to talk about only Mary and Jesus who are human beings and any one knows. No body knows or has seen the Holy Spirit and the Quran will not talk about something Allah has not mandated on people.
Ken, You did lied here for the Quran did not say this;
when it says “God” and “Me” (Jesus) and “My Mother” as you put it but it says; You are wrong Ken and urato repent by using your hand to write words and say it is a scripture for your desire.
Allah did say Mary and Jesus ate food and are human beings because some people worship them but stop short of saying they are Trinity because some people did worship them but not in Trinity. God does not beget and some people say God has begotten Son and they should stop that and again it does not say anything about Trinity in the verse.
Do not say 3 is obviously about Trinity but without any definition. Do you think you re the only Trinitarians? Rastafarians are also Trinitarians with Emperor Haile Selaisssie and there are other Trinitarians like the Mormons and more Trinitarians will arise in the future, since it is possible according to Trinitarians for God to become man so there is a possibility or more Trinitarians with different compositions and combinations, so it is divine intelligence to warn against saying 3 persons/beings of any permutations as God but not limit it to any one sect alone.
Thanks
Thanks
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ken Temple
You said;
You are like those members of the Flat Earth society, since you think the Qur’an is inspired, when it denies history and reality, and claims the sun sets in mirky waters, and mixed up Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam, the sister of Aaron, and it gets the Trinity wrong, and quotes from Apocryphal gospels and legends like the cave of seven sleepers.
I say;
If the Quran quotes from the Apocryphal and legends, then when it says people of the book, it does not refer to you alone but all the sects of Christians including the so called and labelled gnostic gospels.
Then it will be wise for you from now on to add the scriptures of the gnostic gospels when you argue that the Quran has recognised your gospels. So for now on your argument indicates there are other gospels apart from your Mark, Mathew, Luke and John because Quran says people of the gospels and you claim the Quran copied from other gospels apart from the canonical gospels who haw got their writers not write their full names, their city, their date of birth, their relationship with Jesus, their language, when and where they wrote their gospels etc. to make it verifiable, authenticated and authoritative.
The canonical gospels is no different from the gnostic gospels because all were not properly documented and makes the unacceptable.
The Quran takes the correct stories in them and said;
4:171
O People of the Book, exceed not the limits in your religion or speak anything about Allah, but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only a messenger of Allah and His word which He communicated to Mary and a mercy from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you. Allah is only one God. Far be it from His glory to have a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is Allah as having charge of affairs
Ken, if the Quran is copying from Christians and the Jews, why is it warning them? and the warning is in line with Yahweh when He clearly said;
“there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
“Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
“Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
“See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
“You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
The above from the Bible rejects the Trinity clearly by saying Yahweh is the only He and He is Alone and One and nothing besides him. That is what the Quran said, do not say 3. 3 persons s 3 Hes but the Bible said Yahweh is one He. Why can’t we believe the Quran which is correcting people and Dr. James White admits Islam has made a U-turn to the original faith of Abraham.
Dr. White
God is not Trinity
Thanks
LikeLike
With the name of Allah,
Cant resist to comment on Temple tu quoque responses
The Qur’an contradicts none of history and reality
Really? it does not what the Quran said nor what early muslims understood it
Mary mixed with Miriam?
I am surprised you believe that the mother of Isa (p) was even named “Mary”. it sounds English to me. The Qur’anic name is more accurate with hebrew Miryam מִרְיָם
You get the Qur’an wrong
Illogical to think that the Qur’an got the information from apocryphal and legend sources while the Qur’an made it clear one of its purposes that is to correct the people of the book in matters over which they dispute. (Q 5:48)
LikeLike