It means that good deeds are always tainted by some motive of selfishness or pride; it does not mean they only do evil deeds like murder, adulteries, stealing, cheating, lying, etc. – it means even very good deeds are tainted by internal motives of selfishness and pride.
it does not say that at all. It is clearly saying that only Christians can do good deeds and non Christians can only do evil deeds – which is outrageous Calvinist nonsense.
You don’t understand what William Perkins meant. A tweet cannot explain the whole theology of the human heart and sin. I am surprised you did not study that. What you are saying is not what Calvinists mean by “evil”. Pride and arrogance and evil motives and evil thoughts (lusts, desires for revenge and spite), sinful anger, sinful fear, selfishness, failing to love God with all your heart – all of these things are “evil”; but they are not what most people think of when they think of the word “evil”.
You have a very shallow understanding of how Calvinists understand sin.
“– it means even very good deeds are tainted by internal motives of selfishness and pride.”
that’s all christian bullshit. how would you feel if the religious leaders told jesus that his good deeds were tainted?
you are once again accusing your god of making your heart tainted.
you are only saying that to make your man god myth the only sinless one.
you cannot believe that even your torah said that the prophets of god did stuff which impressed your god so much that if he would send his wrath and noah, daniel and job were in it’s midst they would save themselves. no jesus required.
Jesus was perfect all His deeds were totally righteous, because He had a pure and righteousness nature – He never sinned nor lied nor had an evil motive or thought; Jesus was perfect.
Unlike you, you sinner who curses and uses dirty language.
“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask him!” Matthew 7:11
“No one is able to come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:44, 65
“You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.” John 15:16
20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
Mark 7:20-23
27 “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” Matthew 11:27
You are missing the point Ken with your mega cut and paste jobs. The offensive Calvinist view is that we non Calvinists can ONLY do evil. This is childish, silly and against all common sense.
Jesus said all evil comes from inside, in the heart, from evil motives, thoughts, desires. (Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30 – anger and hatred are roots of murder; and lust is root of adultery)
Do you deny that those verses teach that?
William Perkins was a Puritan-Calvinist, and I know what he means and I have explained it to you, but you are not listening.
“evil” means that good deeds are always tainted by some motive of selfishness or pride; it does not mean they only do evil deeds like murder, adulteries, stealing, cheating, lying, etc. – it means even very good deeds are tainted by internal motives of selfishness and pride.
Jesus said that also to the people and disciples in Matthew 7:11 – “if you then, being evil know how to give good gifts to your children . . . – Jesus is saying that human fathers can do good deeds like giving their children good gifts; but their hearts are still by nature evil.
Jesus is talking about our human sinful nature – it is selfish and prideful and we have internal evil motives of selfishness and pride and lusts and jealousies, greed, etc. –
Hardly a “mega cut and paste job” – I know all of those verses in my heart and typed most of them out word by word. I typed the first 3 out from memory; and the Mark 7:20-23 and Matthew 11:27, in order to save time, I cut and pasted them, but I am very familiar with the content. “cut and paste” is a great time saver.
You do it also with your wikipedia rant against Luther, and other times, I have noticed.
Do you realize that evil to a Calvinist is any evil thought or motive of pride or selfishness or anger, secret thoughts of lust and greed and jealousy ?
A Calvinist does not think of “evil” as only big stuff like murder and stealing and physical adultery. You should have known that.
Who the heck is Calvin? God? Prophet like Moses and the rest? to tell us what evil is? Evil is what it means. It means wicked, bad, etc. and that is what it means but not what John Calvin wants it to mean.
e·vil
/ˈēvəl/
adjective
adjective: evil
1. profoundly immoral and malevolent.
“his evil deeds”
The above is what evil means and any changing of meaning means the changer is a liar or wants to twist theology to his wishful thinking.
Christians change begotten to begotten not made
Changed son to Son with capital letter but it means the same to gave birth either literal or metaphorical and all do not befit God.
God is not metaphorical or literal Son/son to anyone. Anyone who is Son/son is not God and cannot be God and so Jesus is not God.
Christians change “death” to |”not death” but the Bible said whatever death is God do not die but Christians want to die with these lies.
Bart Erhman recent debate on Unbelievable forced a Christian historian to accept that Christians keep changing the message of Jesus for their whims and caprice.
They change eternal to beginning, immortal to mortal, infinite to finite being, etc.
Christians hardly say “Jesus said”, “God said”, “Moses, Abraham or the rest of the prophets said” but instead they say “Paul said”, “Church Fathers said”, “John Calvin said”, “bLuther said”, “This council and that council said” etc. and all these are man-made religion but not God.
Ken, repent today and be free other wise God will not be happy with you.
I know the theology of William Perkins. He means that all people have free will to do whatever they want, but even what they want is tainted by some level of selfish motive or pride or lust or greed, etc.
Every good deed has a selfish motive, unless one is born-again and the will is freed.
The unregenerate means they don’t have the Holy Spirit, their wills are still bound in sin.
It does not mean that regenerate persons (who are born-again) don’t have selfish motives. It means that it is only possible after one is a truly regenerate/born again person – the will is freed then to repent and believe and do good things, think pure thoughts. But it is never completely perfect; Calvinists do not claim that.
“The Lord opened Lydia’s heart to respond to the things that Paul (the apostle) was preaching. Acts 16:14
“The Lord opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” Luke 24:45
People hear the words of truth, but the Spirit of God has to internally free the mind and will in order to then do good things.
Ken, “But it is never completely perfect; Calvinists do not claim that.” But what’s the point of being born again? You cannot stand imperfect before a perfect God, remember? Same as it ever was …
“You cannot stand imperfect before a perfect God, remember? Same as it ever was ”
the only difference is gods focus has been shifted to his human sacrificial ritual allowing christians to stand in imperfection before their god.
still in polluted state and exercising polluted state from monday to friday and then telling muslims:
“good deeds done with selfish motives or prideful motives are evil.”
is that why james white told abdullah kunde “even my repentance is not good enough” ?
white is seeing cracks in his repentance. but not to worry, he has his bloody go between paying for insincere repentance thereby filling in the cracks.
By the way Paul Williams – Dr. White was sent a video of you at speaker’s corner engaging some Christians – and Dr. White said, (basically) – if you are willing to go to speaker’s corner and debate those Christians and use those arguments on them, why not be willing to debate him on May 13. See his Dividing Line program from yesterday:
He is not desperate Paul, he just noticed and watched the video that has you making arguments with Christians that he would like to debate you on, and he is coming to England in May, and he is open to do it. You should take that opportunity.
Anyway, he analyzes your arguments with those guys at speaker’s corner on the video of you, and takes your arguments apart and demolishes them. Your arguments get nuked, as they have been here also.
My arguments are just me repeating what Jesus is reported to have said in the gospels. If White wishes to refute Jesus that is his business.
Ken you do not follow the religion of Jesus but a later religion that has only a slight connection to Jesus’s teaching as I have demonstrated time and again.
But sadly your heart is hard and will not be changed by Jesus’s words. Jesus was a Muslim and as you hate Islam you must hate him too.
All very sad.
Perhaps White should come to Speakers Corner. I know Muslims there who would eat him alive.
Jesus was not a Muslim and there is no such thing as a Muslim until 610-632 AD; 500-600 years later and yours is totally unconnected to anything in the God-breathed true Gospel of the 27 books of the NT was is “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” Jude 3. That was by 96 AD. Your false religion came 600 years too late and has corrupted the truth.
”
anything in the God-breathed true Gospel of the 27 books of the NT was is “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” Jude 3. That was by 96 AD. ”
firstly, can you prove that jesus approved of 27 books?
“Anyway, he analyzes your arguments with those guys at speaker’s corner on the video of you, and takes your arguments apart and demolishes them. Your arguments get nuked, as they have been here also.”
look at the words used
“demolishes them”
are these words from a humble and repentful heart?
this is simply boast
this is boast, boast and boast.
24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
2 Timothy 2:24-26
See the will was bound in sin by the devil before the Lord granted repentance on the inside. God has to sovereignly awaken the heart and open the mind.
Muslims say the same thing: “Inshallah Allah will open His chest (heart) for such and such”. The Qur’an and Hadith also have those kinds of statements.
Ephesians 2:1-3 – unbelievers/unregenerate are bound in sin – they are held captive by Satan and sinful thoughts.
Ephesians 2:4-9 – But God’s love and grace and mercy causes a person to be made alive (born again)
Grace has to come into the heart and make it alive and the person believes – “you are saved by grace through faith alone”
Ephesians 2:10 – then one can do good works, after repentance and faith in Christ.
the christian is left in a polluted sinful nature and at the same time telling himself that he is free from divine consequences. still soaked in sin. but telling himself that beating his sins on jesus from mon-frid and rubbing it in his gods face has avoided divine consequences.
after all he will repeat that his god gave him stained and tainted heart so indirectly he is blaming his god.
i don’t understand this “jesus was perfect” argument?
according to who? two or 3 weeks stories about him which have been developed from one gospel all the way to the heretical gospels?
did ken temple monitor jesus’ heart and mind when jesus was in a room alone?
did ken temple monitor jesus’ heart when he was poked by satan for 40 days? how does he know it didn’t cause him to sin like everyone does?
if according to his theology god cannot save adam from sin and adam is created parentless, how is it possible that his god was saved from sinning?
what other than theology and “divine revelation” does he have?
“Jesus was perfect all His deeds were totally righteous, because He had a pure and righteousness nature – He never sinned nor lied nor had an evil motive or thought; Jesus was perfect.”
HOW does he know this? since the pharisees were seeing the external deeds of this guy and they could have said that he was boasting .
“Jesus said all evil comes from inside, in the heart, from evil motives, thoughts, desires. (Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30 – anger and hatred are roots of murder; and lust is root of adultery)”
this forcefully applies to jesus.
because if jesus wants to measure deeds “through the heart” than how does ken temple know that his god did not have sexual thoughts have mary m oiled him?
or when he was alone in private?
or when he called people fools and dogs he didn’t not have anger and hatred within him?
“Jesus said all evil comes from inside, in the heart, from evil motives, thoughts, desires. (Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30 – anger and hatred are roots of murder; and lust is root of adultery)”
one needs to understand marks jesus’ modus operandi
why has mark singled out peter in mark 7:20-23?
according to mark , peter is:
1. liar
2. denier
3. has weak faith
4.will forsake jesus
marks jesus is not saying that righteous prophets and righteous people have evil hearts, the attack is clearly on peter the liar and denier.
why would his jesus give him an ear load in a house? why single this guy out?
look at it from the author who writes the text.
the disiples have heart hearts
peter asks for clarification when they are away from the pharisees
peter is a liar and denier
peter and the disiples forsook jesus
mark is writing after knowing this information he got from his unknown sources
mark than is writing against these evil disciples
the attack is not on righteous prophets or righteous people
the attack is specifically on pharisees and the disiples
he can’t be talking about “all human” hearts
otherwise he would have shot himself and the righteous people like john the baptist, noah, elijah and job.
the last 3 according to the torah can save themselves even if god brings his wrath to a city.
If I had any respect for White’s views and anti Muslim propaganda I would give him the time of day. But I don’t. I left Christian fundamentalism a long time ago. White has no excuse.
Ken it was a joke dude…truly my depravity knows no bounds!
btw why do you keep talking about folks being nuked? Is this an example of what someone with a will free of sin would say 😉
Actually, it’s goofy to think that a monotheist Jew would claim to be God. It’s equally goofy to think that all the previous monotheist prophets were actually trinitarians. Oh you goofy Christians, when will you learn?
In contrast, to be a Muslim is to submit to God. Jesus did that that.
we are the ones who are the true “submitters” to God – take up your cross daily – Luke 9:23 means give up your rights, complaining, whining, totally submit to God.
ken, if you have a savings accounts, then aren’t you worrying about your future?
ken, do you ever report muslims to the police? then how are you turning the other cheek?
ken, did your jesus encourage victim hood?
All of these verses are from the Gospel of “John”, which is a different Gospel altogether from the Synoptics! Ironically, that same Gospel quotes Jesus as saying that he was ascending to his “God”!
The gospel according to John = God-breathed Scripture ( 2 Timothy 3:16), as is all other 27 books of NT – all from one mind – The true God, the Triune God.
that is your spin on the verse – not what Paul actually says.
Paul says of Jesus the anointed one that his Head is God. No mention of trinity. If he believed in trinity he would have said each person is god and co-equal. He does not.
Surah 9:29 says “fight the people of the book who don’t believe in Allah nor forbid what Allah forbids”, etc.
You say, “it means “self-defense” and go to Surah 2:190-192.
but it doesn’t say that in context of surah 9:29 – it says fight the Christians and Jews because of what they believe, and because of what they do not forbid (like pork, wine, calling Jesus God and “son of God”, etc.)
Um, the historical context of the verse tells us that it was revealed in the aftermath of Byzantine’s aggression against the Muslims.
And no, it does not say “fight the people of the book…” you dolt. Here is what it says:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Yusuf Ali).
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (Shakir).
“Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low” (Pickthal).
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled” (Saheeh International).
So, the verse says to fight some among the “people of the book”. This is referring to the Byzantines. Moreoever, the Quran says:
“Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.” (60:8-9).
I thought they were co-equal? But if God the father is head of the Son then doesn’t that make him superior? Sounds alot like Arianism to me. So either way your still in a pickle Mr Temple.
Is God the father superior to God the son if he is described as the head?
that is an example of the Father’s role as Father – there is a heirarchy in roles. Father is greater than Son, in role and what is commonly known as the “economic Trinity”.
Just like men and women are equal in dignity, rights, as humans; but have different roles. 1 Cor. 11 is all about roles and heirarchy of roles.
What BS. The Father is worshiped by Jesus, so it is not simply a matter of “hierarchy of roles”. If Jesus was “coequal” with God in “nature/substance”, he would not have been worshiping Him. If he was merely inferior in terms of his “role”, but still “coequal” in nature/substance, there is no reason to be worshiping the Father.
John 17:5
5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Isaiah 48:11 “For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.
Since John 17:5 and John 1:1-5 show Jesus the Son shared in the glory with God from eternity past and was God by substance/nature and eternal with the Father; and Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11 speak of God / Yahweh / the LORD not giving His glory to another; it means what the Son and the Father (and the H.S) are one God and the three persons are within the One God, who does not share His glory with another “god”.
Also, you are quoting from John 20:17, and affirming it; so you have to affirm everything else in the Gospel of John as true and as the Injeel, along with Matthew, Mark, Luke and rest of NT.
I don’t have to adopt an “all or nothing” mentality when it comes to the Bible. I will freely reject the nonsensical parts, the silly parts, the sexually explicit parts, the contradictory parts…well, you get the idea.
Same for Qur’an and Hadith – I reject the stupid things and violent Jihad stuff and sexually explicit parts in Hadith (lots of it and more than Bible) and contradictions to itself and to history. Just a man-made concoction of his own ideas trying to stick them to general ideas of OT, monotheism, punishment laws and harshness, and judgement day. But confirms the Injeel and that NT was never corrupted – the text of the true Injeel was never corrupted – Surah 5:47; 10:94; 2:136; 29:46; 5:68
jesus is Al Masih – good
Jesus is pure – Surah 19:19 – good
Jesus was born from the virgin Mary – good.
Qur’an affirms some kind of substitutionary atonement – Surah 37:107 – good
“We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.” – good
LOL, your silliness and stupidity are getting worse by the second. The Bible is a concoction of many different authors and their own stupid ideas and sexually perverted minds. The Quran and Ahadith provide practical guidelines on how to live one’s life. The Bible, on the other hand, is a hodge-podge of bad ideas, mixed in with good and authentic ideas that are from God.
Ken attacking the hadith is not going to help you get away from the reality that the Bible is a complex web of different texts with diverse opinions on Jesus’ identity. However every single letter of the NT has a distinction between God and Jesus or between Father and Son. One being superior to the other.
The bible also contains violent texts. I reject them also for that reason. Consistency is important in these discussions
All Scripture is God-breathed.
The Gospel according to John is Scripture.
Therefore John is also God-breathed. (inspired, “sent down” from God; divine revelation)
wrong; most of them were written before 2 Timothy. (67 AD) Most NT books were written from 45-68 AD)
A few were written afterward. The NT existed in 96 AD, as individual scrolls – each book, letter was individual scroll until the invention of the codex. (leaves stacked and tied together – mid second to third century.)
It is self-authenticating, because of it’s content, doctrine, internal qualities, and confirmed by earliest early church fathers. Gospel of John was never questioned until liberalism and enlightenment in 17, 18, 19 centuries.
“Self-authenticating”? So, in other words, the best you can do is offer a circular argument. Thank you. Point proving. Christian logic strikes again! Boom!
Papias, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Ignatius, Ireneaus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Origen all testify that you are wrong. (all 100s-200s AD)
Boom!
LOL, getting desperate are we, Ken? Only 2nd century Church “fathers” mention the Gospel of John. Exactly. Thank you for proving my point! Boom!
“The external evidence fixes the terminus ad quem for the Gospel of John. Irenaeus of Lyons made use of John (c. 180), and Tatian included the Gospel of John in his harmony (c. 170). The Gospel of John is also mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (c. 170-200). Justin Martyr (c. 150-160) and the Epistula Apostolorum (c. 140-150) may have made use of the Gospel of John. But the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles. These include the Naassene Fragment quoted by Hippolytus Ref. 5.7.2-9 (c. 120-140), the Valentinian texts cited in Clement of Alexandria’s Excerpta ex Theodotou (c. 140-160), a Valentinian Exposition to the Prologue of the Gospel of John quoted in Irenaeus’ Adv. Haer. 1.8.5-6 (c. 140-160), and the commentary of Heracleon on John (c. 150-180, quoted in Origen’s own commentary). The oldest fragment of the New Testament, known as p52 or the John Rylands fragment, attests to canonical John and is dated paleographically c. 120-130 CE” (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html).
how do you deal with ehrmans argument that in 2nd peters time pauls writing were considered as scripture but when paul wrote them, no way they could have been considered as scripture. ehrman says 2nd peter assumes that pauls letters were “on par with ot scripture…”
how do you deal with ehrmans argument?
he says that later christians and jews called rome “babylon” and this was used as a code word.
why isn’t this code word found in the synoptics but is found in writing of 1st peter?
#
Why are you demanding that “Babylon” (for Rome ) has to be used in the Synoptics?
The setting of the Synoptics is Jesus life in Palestine/Israel, Jerusalem and surrounding areas.
They had nothing to do with Rome in Italy.
1 Peter was written to Christians undergoing persecution in Asia Minor, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Galatia (all in present day Turkey)
Was talking about Empire wide persecution during Nero’s time, especially in and around Rome, and was spreading to the churches in Asia (today’s Turkey).
okay forget synoptics . scholars give many reasons why 2 pter = forgery and one reason among them =
babylon = code word for the city that was the enemy of god… which also DESTROYED the temple
where in pauline writings is this word used and how come it appears in 2nd peter?
“Babylon” is used in 1 Peter 5:13, probably a code word for Rome. (or “the enemy of God” / persecutors of God’s people – since Babylon was one the great enemies of God and God’s people in the OT.)
But in Revelation chapters 17-19, many argue that the code of “Babylon” there is code for Jerusalem and is about the Jewish people who should be with God and Christ, but because they have rejected Jesus as Messiah, they are apostate and therefore enemies of God, therefore “Babylon”, and it is about God’s judgment on Jerusalem coming in 70 AD. But many others believe that “Babylon” in Rev. 17-19 is also about Rome, as in 1 Peter 5:13.
“Babylon” is used in 1 Peter 5:13, probably a code word for Rome. (or “the enemy of God” / persecutors of God’s people – since Babylon was one the great enemies of God and God’s people in the OT.)
1. how do you know that the writer is using it because “since babylon was one the great enemies of god…” ?
2. what evidence do you have that BEFORE THE END of the first century the christians and jews were using it as a code word for ROME?
3. HOW many scholars agree with your “probably” ?
4.why would such code words start appearing within the text when such code words were KNOWN BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST century?
“The setting of the Synoptics is Jesus life in Palestine/Israel, Jerusalem and surrounding areas.
They had nothing to do with Rome in Italy.”
the author does not go beyond pre-destruction stories because he just wants to talk about the stuff up to post resurrection.
even if he knew the temple destruction he would not mention it .
quote :
“If Mark’s audience was primarily Gentile, the question that must be asked is what interest did Gentile Christians have in the Jewish Temple? That the evangelist devotes a major section of the gospel to the Jewish Temple and its future suggests that his Gentile readers must have had some interest in it. But such an interest stands in stark contrast with the evidence we see throughout the New Testament. In Paul’s undisputed letters, which are without question our best window into the interests and concerns of early Gentile Christianity, we see no interest in or concern for the Jerusalem Temple. In fact, the only “temple” that Paul refers to is the church itself, which he identifies as God’s temple. But even in such an identification, the Jerusalem Temple plays virtually no role. Paul never makes a case that the Jerusalem Temple is corrupt and thus needs to be replaced by the people of God. He never even uses language of “newness” when describing the church as the God’s temple, i.e., the church is the “new” temple of God. In identifying the church as God’s temple, Paul never presents the church as taking on the cultic functions of the temple. It seems that the Jerusalem Temple played virtually no role in Paul’s missional and pastoral work among Gentile churches, even in instances in which Paul identifies those churches with God’s temple. And while the value of the book of Acts for reconstructing Paul’s missionary work is debated, it is noteworthy that the temple plays no role in Acts’ depiction of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles (particularly given the fact that the temple seems to play a prominent role in other parts of the book of Acts). Thus, all the existing evidence that we have portrays an early Gentile Christian church that has no interest in the Jerusalem Temple.”
why then are americans funding israel and dreaming of rebuilding a new temple when christianities main man did not give a damn about it?
Sorry, but a baseless legend doesn’t prove anything. Furthermore, it would not have made sense for Peter to explain to Christians why Jesus had not yet returned. The expectations would have been more intense later, when the first century was nearing an end. Thus, when Christians were left confused as to why their savior hadn’t returned, a Christian decided to forge a letter to explain it.
Another reason 2 Peter could not have been written by Peter before 67 CE is because in order for the second coming to occur, the temple had to be destroyed and the “abomination that causes desolation” had to stand in its place, as per Matthew 24:15. The temple was not destroyed until 70 CE, at least 3 years after Peter’s alleged martyrdom. Hence, there was no reason for Christians to start questioning why the second coming had not yet occurred. All the signs had yet to come!
“Peter probably dictated it orally to Jude, and then Jude wrote it down. That may explain why some of Jude is similar to 2 Peter in content and words.”
who should be believed ? your “some”
or ehrmans “so NUMEROUS” ?
ehrman says that the parallels are so numerous that scholars are virtually unified in thinking that the author has taken judes message and simply edited it a bit to incorporate it into his book
1 Timothy 5:18
18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” [Deut. 24:15] and “The laborer is worthy of his wages [Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7].”
calls both law / torah and gospels “Scripture” and 1 Timothy was written before 2 Tim. 3:16, therefore 2 Tim. 3:16 includes NT books.
Faiz,
Wrong. Hippolytus (200s), Clement of Alexandria (215 AD), and Irenaeus (180-202 AD) are all explaining Gnostic mis-usage (abuse), but they themselves are orthodox fathers. Mis-use and abuse and quoting of John by the Gnostics means John already existed.
The dates your source gives (140-160 AD) is the same time as Justin Martyr (165) and Polycarp (155 AD), who clearly knew John and affirmed his gospel. Papias does also (Papias lived 70-135 AD)
extant testimony does not mean the early church was not already using John as canonical. Gnostics could not have affirmed the whole Gospel of John, since it says Jesus became tired and thirsty (John 4) and that He became flesh (John 1:14).
All we have of the earliest “father” in your little group (Papias) are fragments mentioned in other sources. The rest, like Justin Martyr and Polycarp, are much later.
Another absurd Christian legend is that Polycarp knew John, yet when we read his letters, there is no indication of any such relationship. In the “Epistle of Polycarp”, John is not even mentioned by name!
“I exhort you all therefore to be obedient unto the word of righteousness and to practice all endurance, which also ye saw with your own eyes in the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus, yea and in others also who came from among yourselves, as well as in Paul himself and the rest of the Apostles” (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html).
Information about Polycarp is much more than just his own letter. Irenaeus and Eusebius tell us about him and that the apostle John discipled him in the faith. You need to study up on that.
Both of them are later sources. What don’t you get about that? Why is it that Polycarp himself showed no indication of knowing John? You want us to ignore Polycarp’s own letters for information about his alleged relationship with John and instead listen to the baseless claims of other people? Christian logic strikes yet again!
“Both of them are later sources. What don’t you get about that? Why is it that Polycarp himself showed no indication of knowing John?”
Speaking of late sources, most of what the prophet is supposed to have said and done comes from materials written centuries after his death. This makes it reasonable to presume that his “wisdom” was nothing more than the work of unscrupulous men who wanted to mislead ignorant desert nomads for their own empowerment.
How do you reconcile your dismissal of late christian man-made sources with your blind and unquestioning acceptance of islam’s own?
James, your pathetic attempt at comparing the overwhelming documentary evidence for Islam to the scant evidence for Christianity just shows how ignorant you really are, while pretending that you aren’t. I love it when atheists try to take sides in a debate between religious people!
The fact is that there is considerable evidence that the Ahadith were not simply written down later or were the “work of unscrupulous men”. We have many compilations that precede the works of Imams Muslim and Bukhari, such as the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih, who was a student of Abu Hurayrah (ra), the companion of Muhammad (pbuh). This compilation is from the 1st century of the Islamic calendar! To educate yourself, I suggest you see the following: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html
Also, the German scholar Harold Motzki has published extensive studies on the reliability of the ahadith compilations, including the early Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq. In his critique of earlier western scholars, Motzki showed the reliability of the ahadith. For example, in his critique of Joseph Schacht, Motzki states:
“Schacht held that the traditions ascribed to the Prophet and to his Companions are to be regarded as generally fictive, and the traditions of the Successors largely inauthentic. My study of `Abd Ar-Razzaq’s Musannaf shows, however, that all three types of traditions circulated already at the turn of the first century and that some of them can be dated even earlier. This is only one of several new insights into the development of Islamic traditions. My results are based on reconstructions of the most important sources used by `Abd Ar-Razzaq for his compilation, and on reconstructions of the sources of `Abd Ar-Razzaq’s sources. Isnads and texts (Matns) of the traditions are the basis of these reconstructions” (http://en.alukah.net/World_Muslims/0/2028/).
I know that, but Irenaeus (180) is reliable on Polycarp (150) and only about 30 years later. Lots of ancient information is like that; Hadith and Sunna has lots of info like that also.
Don’t try to change the subject to the Ahadith when you get cornered. The question remains as to why Polycarp had nothing to say about his relationship with John and then along comes Irenaeus 30 years later and…boom…all of suddent Polycarp knew John! Sounds like another Christian legend.
Your inconsistency is embarrassing. The hadiths were compiled centuries after mohammed’s death and therefore have very little historical value. This means that you know almost nothing about your profit and what you do know is probably made up.
Your ignorance is embarrassing. Go educate yourself first. Then you can comment on the reliability of the Ahadith. Until then, you are just another ignoramus troll who tries to interject in conversations he has no business being in. 😉
Faiz,
there is a lot of historical evidence that survives in later works. Like Papias wrote 5 volumes of material, but only fragments survive.
Polycarp could have written much more than what we have. We only have one letter from him to the church in Philippi. (which you quoted from – 9:1) He mentions Paul because Paul wrote an inspired letter to the Philippians, and visited before – “before your eyes . . . ” John did not go to Philippi, so the reason he didn’t mention John in that letter is because John did not go to the city of Philippi.
“. . . such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles.
John did not go there. Polycarp does not have to mention John just because you demand it. The information about Polycarp has been confirmed from Irenaeus and Eusebius, and there is not good reason to doubt that information.
A lot of ancient history survives/comes to us today from books written centuries later about that person or translations or copies of the original.
Irenaeus wrote in Greek originally, but his Greek text did not survive. What we have is his Latin translation and some fragments.
Another pathetic reply, Ken. You must be really getting desperate.
Your response is littered with assumptions, and assumptions do not count as historical evidence. There are plenty of reasons to doubt the baseless claims of later sources. The main one is simply that they are lying. We know that Christians were known for forgeries, so Irenaeus and others could simply have been blowing hot air. The fact remains that in Polycarp’s letter, John is not even mentioned by name despite the fact he:
1. He was Jesus’ disciple and an actual “eyewitness”.
2. He was Polycarp’s teacher.
Your special pleading has not proven anything except that your are extremely desperate.
Lots of history comes to us today from later sources, because the originals are completely rotted and disintegrated, but they were copied down and written down in other sources and later sources survived. Letters are letters to specific individuals, not whole biographies. You have no right to demand that Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians HAS to have information about John the apostle. John never went to Philippi, and so it make sense in Polycarp Philippians 1:9 that he mentions Paul and Ignatius and others who were “before your eyes”, etc.
When the Hadith collectors spent their time in collecting and collating them all, they had to do the same things.
Some Hadith writings are no longer extant. (but survive in later editions; and many of the six collections are compile from sources 100-200 years earlier.)
Your response is a pathetic ignoring of basic rules of how history is done.
LOL. Who cares if John never went to Phillipi? Wouldn’t the Phillipians have known who he was? And Polycarp knew him, then wouldn’t it make sense to refer to his authority in teaching the Philippians? You are pathetic, Ken. Your false religion has very scant evidence to support it. Get over it and grow up.
By the way, I have already refuted your nonsense regarding the Ahadith in my response to James. Besides, changing the subject doesn’t save your false religion. 😉
Your false religion has very scant evidence to support it at all. Especially that is denies established history that even a skeptic like Bart Ehrman and liberals like John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, John P. Meier, and Robert Funk agreed was historical truth – the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth under Pontius Pilate and Anas and Caiaphas.
Nope. No Christian made forgeries. the forgeries were made by heretics, Gnostics, and other heretics like Marcion, etc. They were not Christians. Heretics are not Christians.
The web-site you are using, “early Christian writings” appears to the Gnostic and is trying to promote Gnostic gospels and writings and denigrate the canonical writings. the datings are a joke. They claim for example that the Gospel of Thomas is first century (site says 50-140 AD), but is not, clearly second century. (140-160 AD)
There are plenty of reasons to doubt the baseless claims of later sources
Indeed, like the baseless claim of the Qur’an, that comes 600 years later and tries to claim stuff out of thin air, while confirming the NT, but oops; later when they actually read the NT, after they unjustly killed the Byzantine men and Persian men and took their women as concubines and slaves and wives, they realized too late that they had to come up with the doctrine of Tahreef. تحریف
Yasir Qadhi admitted most of the Abbasids and Uthmaniye (Ottomans) are descendants of the sex-slaves/concubines, captives of wars, “whom your right hand possesses”.
Do you have any evidence that any of these “witnesses” of mohammed’s life actually lived? Do you have census records giving their names, birthdates and place of birth? Sorry, but you guys have no evidence if this chain of narration is real, made up, or a combination of both.
Worse still, I believe the earliest Bukhari manuscript we have is not from his lifetime and probably did not stabilize until centuries after his death. And don’t get me started on the quran – no one knows who wrote it and your own sources say that it is incomplete. So your scriptures consist of an incomplete book that is nonsensical as often as it is coherent, all backed up by hadiths which are a collection of he said, she said anecdotes that have no way of being corroborated.
There is plenty of evidence, such as many Arabic inscriptions (see below). We also have early manuscripts, such as the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih. No serious scholar believes that the hadith narrators never existed. That is just silly.
ISlamic awareness is not an objective source I’m afraid.
The problem is that you have some guy – Bukhari in this case – investigating anecdotes about someone who lived 2 hundred years before, from a distant geographical location, who might (and only might) have had access to written sources from the time (itself a crapshoot since the science of manuscript dating was hundreds of years away from being developed and so he had no way of knowing that whatever manuscripts he was recording were authentic), or, some oral tradition that you expect people to believe had lines of transmission accurately recorded (by other oral traditions no doubt) and memorized over 2 centuries.
Sorry, it sounds absurd. Think of it this way – Abraham Lincoln lived only a century and a half ago, and we know a lot about him because of written documentation from the time. We also have individual memories of average people who lived at the time and would probably have told their family and friends about what they saw – yet, the transmission of their memories is probably so corrupted over the decades that the actual events are lost and no historian would seriously look to the descendents of people who met Lincoln for historically reliable information about him. The same holds true for the hadith and the quran .
If you are familiar with the work of bart Ehrman I would suggest you study him – he helped to rid me of my delusions about religion. If you applied his work to the study of the quran and hadith, you would probably find yourself feeling a little bit silly that you fell for the whole heap of nonsense.
Quran preservation is both memory and written from the time of our prophet till today. I can produce a white guy who converted to Islam, study Islam and memorised the whole Quran and the hadith. His name is John Ederer. We have thousands to millions of them from the time of our prophet till today.
We also recite the Quran in daily prayers 5 times a day from the time of our prophet till today. We keep reading the whole Quran either in memory or from the written book from time to time as the Angel use to do it to our prophet and our prophet and his followers to read the Quran to preserve it.
Buari did not write hadith and its chain but collected and compile them from place to place as he travel to get the source from written and memory and through learning from scholars.
That’s what I’m saying about Bukhari – you haven’t really addressed the problem.
He went from place to place supposedly retrieving sources from mostly oral traditions. This means that he allegedly spoke to people who never knew any of the companions or prophet personally, who supposedly conveyed accurate historical information passed down over a period of two centuries.
Again, I ask you to think about it. If modern-day historians went from place to place throughout America hunting down descendants of people who claim to have had personal acquaintance with Abraham Lincoln and they gathered these stories, there would be literally no way to tell if what these guys were saying was historically accurate. No historian would take this process seriously.
Even if it aligned with known historical facts about Lincoln, whatever details were told via this memory and oral tradition has no way of being corroborated. The same holds true for the hadith. It is an a-historical set of documents. Even the earliest full Bukhari manuscript dates from well after his death, so we can’t even be sure if what he wrote and compiled is the same as what we have.
That is a very disingenuous response, littered with inconsistencies and ridiculous assumptions.
You asked for evidence that the narrators of the ahadith actually existed. When I showed you this evidence, you questioned the “objectivity” of the website (more on that shortly) and then changed gears and continued your obsession with Bukhari.
First of all, the owner of the Islamic-Awareness website is a PhD scholar. How many PhD’s do you have? None, I bet. Second, whatever the “objectivity” the website owner may allegedly be lacking has no bearing on the significance of the evidence I presented to you. If you had bothered to actually study the evidence, instead of dismissing it, you would realize that your initial question has been answered. There is plenty of evidence that the narrators of the ahadith traditions did indeed exist. Your silly response regarding the “objectivity” of the website is simply an ad hominem.
Your obsession with Bukhari exposes another aspect of your ignorance. Many of the traditions found in Bukhari’s compilation are found in earlier sources, such as the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih. Modern scholars such as Harald Motzki have studies the Ahadith traditions and found them to be historically reliable. Your appeal to Bart Ehrman (whom I am familiar with) is silly since Ehrman is an expert on the Bible and specifically the New Testament. He is not an expert on the complicated history of the ahadith. Consider the words of another western scholar, Nabia Abbott:
“… the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission” (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html).
She also states:
“Once it is realised that the isnad did, indeed, initiate a chain reaction that resulted in an explosive increase in the number of traditions, the huge numbers that are credited to Ibn Hanbal, Muslim and Bukhari seem not so fantastic after all.”
Finally, Jonathan Brown states:
“I have never been more impressed with anybody in history in my life than with Muslim ḥadīth scholars. I mean, when I first started studying ḥadīth I was very skeptical, I though it was all made-up and bogus but the more you study it the more you just appreciate the intense brain power of these people. I mean they memorized thousands and thousands of books and then they were able to recall all the different versions of ḥadīth from these books, and then they were able to analyze them and put them all together and figure-out where they all connect and make judgments about the authenticity of these ḥadīth. I mean even nowadays with electronic databases, and computers and word processing, I have hard time following even their discussions of the ḥadīth – let alone their original mastering that they were drawing on. It’s almost unbelievable… It’s almost unbelievable, and if you didn’t have the books in front of you that they wrote, I wouldn’t believe it personally….” (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/brown.html).
So, when we do an actual “objective” study of the ahadith traditions, we find that they are by and large completely reliable, meeting the standards of the modern historical method. You need to do more studying on the subject, rather than base your views on silly assumptions. Until then, the only “heap of nonsense” is the one coming from you.
Didn’t mean to come across as changing the subject – I just did not really see how the link you provided showed with any degree of reliability that these witnesses existed. I’m not trying to be difficult, I just don’t see how that link establishes historicity.
On another note – what is the earliest manuscript for the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih? I believe (and I could be wrong) that the earliest is from around the 12th century and there are question marks over whether he even authored the presumed originals – is there a way to tell? Ehrman calls this kind of false attribution to earlier scribes a forgery.
All of that aside, you still have to make some major presumptions about authenticity. He died in 719 and we don’t know when he allegedly began his collection – it could have been 5 years before his death or 50. We don’t even know when he was born. Either way, many of the companions would have been dead – and there were apparently boatloads of companions – or old.
So some of his collection might already have been transmitted via several people who never actually knew the companion and who may well have themselves overheard it in some casual conversation and used the opportunity to elevate their own status. How would Hammam have known? If the work was completed later, then the problem gets worse.
Johnathan Brown seems to be arguing in a circle. He’s presuming that these works were memorized accurately – Ehrman’s latest work addresses claims of the accuracy of oral transmission and finds it wanting.
you have brought up some interesting points. if muslims use ehrmans book they must be ready to take the bite from the viper.
“On another note – what is the earliest manuscript for the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih? I believe (and I could be wrong) that the earliest is from around the 12th century and there are question marks over whether he even authored the presumed originals – is there a way to tell? Ehrman calls this kind of false attribution to earlier scribes a forgery.”
what research have you done that the earliest could be from around 12th century?
other than anti-islamic website which academic study can you link to hear which dates the copy to 12th century?
i don’t know the answers thats why i am asking.
You initially asked whether there was any proof that the narrators existed. I showed you archaeological evidence that they did. For example, there is an Arabic inscription from the 1st century of the Islamic calendar which mentiones Uthman ibn Affan and also his murder. There is another inscription which mentions Umar ibn Al-Khattab. Both of them were hadith narrators. Do you acknowledge that there is evidence that these narrators did indeed exist and that it was not some elaborate conspiracy, where all of these individuals were simply made up later on?
Regarding the Sahifah, as far as I know, the manuscripts are not from the 1st century. However, there is internal evidence that has led most scholars to conclude that it is a genuine document. As Essam Ayyad states in his article “Early Transmission of Hadith: Incentives and Challenges”:
“While 98 of the Ṣaḥīfah’s 138 ḥadīths are found in the two Ṣaḥīḥs of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, 136 of these ḥadīths are included in the Musnad of Aḥmad. This means that canonical books of Ḥadīth only digested what was regarded as authentic according to the standards of their compilers. The fact that not all of the Ṣaḥīfah’s ḥadīths, in spite of their authenticity, were selected by al-Bukhārī and Muslim implies that both subjected the ḥadīths they collected to a high degree of examination. Having compared the ḥadīths of the Ṣaḥīfah with the 1500 variant readings of the same ḥadīths in the 3rd/9rd century compilations (including those of Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Bukhārī and Muslim), Speight (2010a) concludes that the common texts are nearly identical. Thus, this ṣaḥīfah, which is believed to have been written around the mid-first/seventh century, evidences the early writing of Ḥadīth (Arabic Literature, 1983).” (Journal of Islamic and Human Advanced Research, Vol. 3, Issue 11, November 2013, 762-782).
Your continued appeals to Ehrman do not refute the historical reliability of the Ahadith literature. As I said before, Ehrman is an expert on Christian history, not Arabic or Islamic history. Scholars in the latter field have largely accepted the historical reliability of the ahadith as well as the efforts of Muslim scholars to preserve them. Just because you find it hard to believe, does not mean it didn’t happen. As Brown stated:
“It’s almost unbelievable, and if you didn’t have the books in front of you that they wrote, I wouldn’t believe it personally….”
So, you need to actually read the books in order to understand how the scholars of Islam preserved the ahadith, first through oral transmission and then written transmission.
True religion and true science go hand in hand. Science uses observations to come to a conclusion. So, for example, one can look at nature and conclude that it the handiwork of a higher power.
Christianity is just a religion. When scrutinized rationally, it can be very easily debunked.
Blogging Theology 
It means that good deeds are always tainted by some motive of selfishness or pride; it does not mean they only do evil deeds like murder, adulteries, stealing, cheating, lying, etc. – it means even very good deeds are tainted by internal motives of selfishness and pride.
LikeLike
it does not say that at all. It is clearly saying that only Christians can do good deeds and non Christians can only do evil deeds – which is outrageous Calvinist nonsense.
LikeLike
You don’t understand what William Perkins meant. A tweet cannot explain the whole theology of the human heart and sin. I am surprised you did not study that. What you are saying is not what Calvinists mean by “evil”. Pride and arrogance and evil motives and evil thoughts (lusts, desires for revenge and spite), sinful anger, sinful fear, selfishness, failing to love God with all your heart – all of these things are “evil”; but they are not what most people think of when they think of the word “evil”.
You have a very shallow understanding of how Calvinists understand sin.
LikeLike
It clearly says:
non christians can do “only that which is evil”.
This is demonstrable rubbish. Don’t try and whitewash it like you did with your evil hero Martin Luther who advocated the genocide of the Jews.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“– it means even very good deeds are tainted by internal motives of selfishness and pride.”
that’s all christian bullshit. how would you feel if the religious leaders told jesus that his good deeds were tainted?
you are once again accusing your god of making your heart tainted.
you are only saying that to make your man god myth the only sinless one.
you cannot believe that even your torah said that the prophets of god did stuff which impressed your god so much that if he would send his wrath and noah, daniel and job were in it’s midst they would save themselves. no jesus required.
LikeLike
Jesus was perfect all His deeds were totally righteous, because He had a pure and righteousness nature – He never sinned nor lied nor had an evil motive or thought; Jesus was perfect.
Unlike you, you sinner who curses and uses dirty language.
LikeLike
You sinner who condemns everyone to hell just because they don’t follow your absurd ideology
LikeLike
Jesus was not a Calvinist.
LikeLike
Jesus said,
“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask him!” Matthew 7:11
“No one is able to come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:44, 65
“You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.” John 15:16
20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
Mark 7:20-23
27 “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” Matthew 11:27
LikeLike
You are missing the point Ken with your mega cut and paste jobs. The offensive Calvinist view is that we non Calvinists can ONLY do evil. This is childish, silly and against all common sense.
Try and address the issue at hand.
LikeLike
Jesus said all evil comes from inside, in the heart, from evil motives, thoughts, desires. (Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30 – anger and hatred are roots of murder; and lust is root of adultery)
Do you deny that those verses teach that?
William Perkins was a Puritan-Calvinist, and I know what he means and I have explained it to you, but you are not listening.
“evil” means that good deeds are always tainted by some motive of selfishness or pride; it does not mean they only do evil deeds like murder, adulteries, stealing, cheating, lying, etc. – it means even very good deeds are tainted by internal motives of selfishness and pride.
Jesus said that also to the people and disciples in Matthew 7:11 – “if you then, being evil know how to give good gifts to your children . . . – Jesus is saying that human fathers can do good deeds like giving their children good gifts; but their hearts are still by nature evil.
Jesus is talking about our human sinful nature – it is selfish and prideful and we have internal evil motives of selfishness and pride and lusts and jealousies, greed, etc. –
LikeLike
Ken Temple “and we have internal evil motives of selfishness and pride and lusts and jealousies, greed, etc. – …”
Thank you for revealing the true motives behind your urge to convert Muslims
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol Ken thinks because he is a Calvinist he is free of the evil motives of the rest of mankind
LikeLike
Hardly a “mega cut and paste job” – I know all of those verses in my heart and typed most of them out word by word. I typed the first 3 out from memory; and the Mark 7:20-23 and Matthew 11:27, in order to save time, I cut and pasted them, but I am very familiar with the content. “cut and paste” is a great time saver.
You do it also with your wikipedia rant against Luther, and other times, I have noticed.
LikeLike
Do you realize that evil to a Calvinist is any evil thought or motive of pride or selfishness or anger, secret thoughts of lust and greed and jealousy ?
A Calvinist does not think of “evil” as only big stuff like murder and stealing and physical adultery. You should have known that.
I am surprised at your shallow understanding.
LikeLike
Who the heck is Calvin? God? Prophet like Moses and the rest? to tell us what evil is? Evil is what it means. It means wicked, bad, etc. and that is what it means but not what John Calvin wants it to mean.
e·vil
/ˈēvəl/
adjective
adjective: evil
1. profoundly immoral and malevolent.
“his evil deeds”
synonyms: wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious; malevolent, sinister, demonic, devilish, diabolical, fiendish, dark; monstrous, shocking, despicable, atrocious, heinous, odious, contemptible, horrible, execrable; informal lowdown, dirty
“an evil deed”
noun
noun: evil
1. profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.
“the world is stalked by relentless evil”
synonyms: wickedness, bad, badness, wrongdoing, sin, ill, immorality, vice, iniquity, degeneracy, corruption, depravity, villainy, nefariousness, malevolence; devil; formalturpitude
“the evil in our midst”
Source:https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=4ccZV-ywAoWN8QfWvLS4Aw&gws_rd=ssl#q=what+is+evil
The above is what evil means and any changing of meaning means the changer is a liar or wants to twist theology to his wishful thinking.
Christians change begotten to begotten not made
Changed son to Son with capital letter but it means the same to gave birth either literal or metaphorical and all do not befit God.
God is not metaphorical or literal Son/son to anyone. Anyone who is Son/son is not God and cannot be God and so Jesus is not God.
Christians change “death” to |”not death” but the Bible said whatever death is God do not die but Christians want to die with these lies.
Bart Erhman recent debate on Unbelievable forced a Christian historian to accept that Christians keep changing the message of Jesus for their whims and caprice.
They change eternal to beginning, immortal to mortal, infinite to finite being, etc.
Christians hardly say “Jesus said”, “God said”, “Moses, Abraham or the rest of the prophets said” but instead they say “Paul said”, “Church Fathers said”, “John Calvin said”, “bLuther said”, “This council and that council said” etc. and all these are man-made religion but not God.
Ken, repent today and be free other wise God will not be happy with you.
Thanks.
LikeLike
good deeds done with selfish motives or prideful motives are evil.
LikeLike
Can you ask him to clarify because the literal reading of his tweet is problematic..
LikeLike
I know the theology of William Perkins. He means that all people have free will to do whatever they want, but even what they want is tainted by some level of selfish motive or pride or lust or greed, etc.
Every good deed has a selfish motive, unless one is born-again and the will is freed.
The unregenerate means they don’t have the Holy Spirit, their wills are still bound in sin.
LikeLike
Makes no sense. When you sin as a “regenerate”, you do that without bad motives? Come on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s theological make believe
LikeLike
It does not mean that regenerate persons (who are born-again) don’t have selfish motives. It means that it is only possible after one is a truly regenerate/born again person – the will is freed then to repent and believe and do good things, think pure thoughts. But it is never completely perfect; Calvinists do not claim that.
“The Lord opened Lydia’s heart to respond to the things that Paul (the apostle) was preaching. Acts 16:14
“The Lord opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” Luke 24:45
People hear the words of truth, but the Spirit of God has to internally free the mind and will in order to then do good things.
LikeLike
Ken, “But it is never completely perfect; Calvinists do not claim that.” But what’s the point of being born again? You cannot stand imperfect before a perfect God, remember? Same as it ever was …
LikeLike
“You cannot stand imperfect before a perfect God, remember? Same as it ever was ”
the only difference is gods focus has been shifted to his human sacrificial ritual allowing christians to stand in imperfection before their god.
still in polluted state and exercising polluted state from monday to friday and then telling muslims:
“good deeds done with selfish motives or prideful motives are evil.”
is that why james white told abdullah kunde “even my repentance is not good enough” ?
white is seeing cracks in his repentance. but not to worry, he has his bloody go between paying for insincere repentance thereby filling in the cracks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yep. But the “bloody go between” isn’t even bloody. What a mess …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Calvinist Christians wills are bound by sin. I know I have seen it in many Christians
LikeLike
Maybe someone already informed you of this:
By the way Paul Williams – Dr. White was sent a video of you at speaker’s corner engaging some Christians – and Dr. White said, (basically) – if you are willing to go to speaker’s corner and debate those Christians and use those arguments on them, why not be willing to debate him on May 13. See his Dividing Line program from yesterday:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2016/04/21/western-rush-moral-anarchy-paul-williams-speakers-corner/
LikeLike
Boy, White must be desperate if he is still trying to get me to debate him even though I have made it crystal clear that I will not.
LikeLike
it is called arrogance mate. do you ever hear white wanting to debate robert m price? you know why not? robert m priced biblically demolished white.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dr. White already debated Robert Price.
He is not desperate Paul, he just noticed and watched the video that has you making arguments with Christians that he would like to debate you on, and he is coming to England in May, and he is open to do it. You should take that opportunity.
Anyway, he analyzes your arguments with those guys at speaker’s corner on the video of you, and takes your arguments apart and demolishes them. Your arguments get nuked, as they have been here also.
LikeLike
My arguments are just me repeating what Jesus is reported to have said in the gospels. If White wishes to refute Jesus that is his business.
Ken you do not follow the religion of Jesus but a later religion that has only a slight connection to Jesus’s teaching as I have demonstrated time and again.
But sadly your heart is hard and will not be changed by Jesus’s words. Jesus was a Muslim and as you hate Islam you must hate him too.
All very sad.
Perhaps White should come to Speakers Corner. I know Muslims there who would eat him alive.
LikeLike
now look at mr williams response
did anyone see “nuked ” or “demolished” in mr Williams responses?
these christians man
lol
they think they are “born again”
LikeLike
“Perhaps White should come to Speakers Corner. I know Muslims there who would eat him alive.”
i didn’t notice this lol
i think mr williams is speaking in parables.
LikeLike
Well now you know.
LikeLike
Jesus was not a Muslim and there is no such thing as a Muslim until 610-632 AD; 500-600 years later and yours is totally unconnected to anything in the God-breathed true Gospel of the 27 books of the NT was is “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” Jude 3. That was by 96 AD. Your false religion came 600 years too late and has corrupted the truth.
LikeLike
Of course Jesus was a Muslim – he submitted himself to God. That’s what the word means.
LikeLike
”
anything in the God-breathed true Gospel of the 27 books of the NT was is “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” Jude 3. That was by 96 AD. ”
firstly, can you prove that jesus approved of 27 books?
how do you know there wasn’t 15 originally?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Btw many scholars, even conservative Christian ones, admit the NT contains forgeries.
LikeLike
“Anyway, he analyzes your arguments with those guys at speaker’s corner on the video of you, and takes your arguments apart and demolishes them. Your arguments get nuked, as they have been here also.”
look at the words used
“demolishes them”
are these words from a humble and repentful heart?
this is simply boast
this is boast, boast and boast.
“nuked”
lol, this is humble heart
?
LikeLiked by 1 person
He’s just a right wing American fundy. That’s how they deal with other people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Dr. White already debated Robert Price.”
who got nuked?
LikeLike
Price was nuked.
LikeLike
i think price gave white such a beating in this debate that james white still hasn’t recovered
LikeLike
that back and forth about anachronism was good . will surely do further investigation.
LikeLike
i always thought that a guy who said
“it is not right to take the childrens bread and cast it to the dogs”
would give bogus rebuttals .
many times when i read jesus’ responses to the pharisees , i too am thinking to myself , “man… that don’t make any sense”
must purchase a book on jesus debates with his opponents
are these really historical or debates invented by christians for other christians
must do research
LikeLike
24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
2 Timothy 2:24-26
See the will was bound in sin by the devil before the Lord granted repentance on the inside. God has to sovereignly awaken the heart and open the mind.
Muslims say the same thing: “Inshallah Allah will open His chest (heart) for such and such”. The Qur’an and Hadith also have those kinds of statements.
LikeLike
Ephesians 2:1-10 says the same thing.
Ephesians 2:1-3 – unbelievers/unregenerate are bound in sin – they are held captive by Satan and sinful thoughts.
Ephesians 2:4-9 – But God’s love and grace and mercy causes a person to be made alive (born again)
Grace has to come into the heart and make it alive and the person believes – “you are saved by grace through faith alone”
Ephesians 2:10 – then one can do good works, after repentance and faith in Christ.
LikeLike
Ken, you are made alive by God’s love and grace (born again).
But you still have sinful thoughts, you are held captive by Satan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So tragic. The promise of freedom from sin but in reality they sin just like other people
LikeLiked by 2 people
the christian is left in a polluted sinful nature and at the same time telling himself that he is free from divine consequences. still soaked in sin. but telling himself that beating his sins on jesus from mon-frid and rubbing it in his gods face has avoided divine consequences.
after all he will repeat that his god gave him stained and tainted heart so indirectly he is blaming his god.
LikeLike
test
LikeLike
You passed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i don’t understand this “jesus was perfect” argument?
according to who? two or 3 weeks stories about him which have been developed from one gospel all the way to the heretical gospels?
did ken temple monitor jesus’ heart and mind when jesus was in a room alone?
did ken temple monitor jesus’ heart when he was poked by satan for 40 days? how does he know it didn’t cause him to sin like everyone does?
if according to his theology god cannot save adam from sin and adam is created parentless, how is it possible that his god was saved from sinning?
what other than theology and “divine revelation” does he have?
“Jesus was perfect all His deeds were totally righteous, because He had a pure and righteousness nature – He never sinned nor lied nor had an evil motive or thought; Jesus was perfect.”
HOW does he know this? since the pharisees were seeing the external deeds of this guy and they could have said that he was boasting .
“Jesus said all evil comes from inside, in the heart, from evil motives, thoughts, desires. (Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30 – anger and hatred are roots of murder; and lust is root of adultery)”
this forcefully applies to jesus.
because if jesus wants to measure deeds “through the heart” than how does ken temple know that his god did not have sexual thoughts have mary m oiled him?
or when he was alone in private?
or when he called people fools and dogs he didn’t not have anger and hatred within him?
LikeLike
“Jesus said all evil comes from inside, in the heart, from evil motives, thoughts, desires. (Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30 – anger and hatred are roots of murder; and lust is root of adultery)”
one needs to understand marks jesus’ modus operandi
why has mark singled out peter in mark 7:20-23?
according to mark , peter is:
1. liar
2. denier
3. has weak faith
4.will forsake jesus
marks jesus is not saying that righteous prophets and righteous people have evil hearts, the attack is clearly on peter the liar and denier.
why would his jesus give him an ear load in a house? why single this guy out?
think about it.
LikeLike
Where did you get the idea that Jesus is singling out Peter ??
He is talking about all human hearts – all human hearts are full of sin and evil motives and selfish and prideful thoughts.
LikeLike
look at it from the author who writes the text.
the disiples have heart hearts
peter asks for clarification when they are away from the pharisees
peter is a liar and denier
peter and the disiples forsook jesus
mark is writing after knowing this information he got from his unknown sources
mark than is writing against these evil disciples
the attack is not on righteous prophets or righteous people
the attack is specifically on pharisees and the disiples
it is your christians who are generalizing
LikeLike
he can’t be talking about “all human” hearts
otherwise he would have shot himself and the righteous people like john the baptist, noah, elijah and job.
the last 3 according to the torah can save themselves even if god brings his wrath to a city.
john the baptist doesn’t have a sin to his name.
LikeLike
Paul maybe you should ask james for royalties for using your name and likeness without permission?
Give to Ceasar and all that 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good idea
LikeLike
the videos are up in public on the internet; interacting with it, and quoting from it is fair use.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I had any respect for White’s views and anti Muslim propaganda I would give him the time of day. But I don’t. I left Christian fundamentalism a long time ago. White has no excuse.
LikeLike
Ken it was a joke dude…truly my depravity knows no bounds!
btw why do you keep talking about folks being nuked? Is this an example of what someone with a will free of sin would say 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
His arguments are “nuked”
LikeLike
Now you are a Fundamentalist of a different religion.
LikeLike
Just as Jesus was
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is really goofy to claim that jesus was a Muslim when there is no such thing until 610-632 AD.
LikeLike
Of course he was a Muslim. The Quran tells us that Abraham was a Muslim too.
LikeLike
no; neither one were Muslims. Qur’an is wrong.
LikeLike
So neither Abraham nor Jesus submitted to God? The Bible refuter you by saying they were.
LikeLike
but neither did the terminologies in the nt exist in jesus’ time . LOL
LikeLike
Actually, it’s goofy to think that a monotheist Jew would claim to be God. It’s equally goofy to think that all the previous monotheist prophets were actually trinitarians. Oh you goofy Christians, when will you learn?
In contrast, to be a Muslim is to submit to God. Jesus did that that.
LikeLike
But it is not goofy since the writers of the NT were all Jews except Luke and quoted extensively from the OT.
The Qur’an has no full quotes, neither of OT nor of NT. (only a few allusions (hints) – NEVER one full quote.
the NT is full of that though – “thus is is written”, etc.
LikeLike
Full of quotes from the Septuagint, which isn’t your Bible. Your Jesus had another God than you and had another Bible
LikeLike
Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek.
done by jews from 280 BC – 150 BC.
Not a problem.
LikeLike
Megafail. More books than your Bible. Major textual differences. Not your Bible, not your God.
LikeLike
actually is is a problem. There are major differences between the two. Which one is the Word of God?
LikeLike
“But it is not goofy since the writers of the NT were all Jews except Luke and quoted extensively from the OT.”
jews never embraced pagan beliefs before jesus or in jesus’ time?
LikeLike
“the NT is full of that though – “thus is is written”, etc.”
so when nt writers tell us their source they say it is from the ot
LikeLike
we are the ones who are the true “submitters” to God – take up your cross daily – Luke 9:23 means give up your rights, complaining, whining, totally submit to God.
LikeLike
give up your rights?
ken, do you live in a card board box?
do you have a bank account? if yes, can you western union all the cash to the poor?
do you turn the other cheek and let thief take your jewellery?
ken, do you ever use 911 service? if yes , then aren’t you not giving up your rights?
LikeLike
ken, if you have a savings accounts, then aren’t you worrying about your future?
ken, do you ever report muslims to the police? then how are you turning the other cheek?
ken, did your jesus encourage victim hood?
LikeLiked by 1 person
But Ken you are constantly whining on his blog. You are no submitter/Muslim
LikeLiked by 1 person
Never done any whining.
Christians are the true submitters to the will of God.
Romans 12:1-2
LikeLike
Trinitarians are Monotheists.
Jesus was a monotheist and claimed He was God in the flesh.
I and the Father are one.
If you have seen the Father, you have seen Me.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Boom.
LikeLike
Jesus’ God was a one-person being, the Father alone. Your God is a three person being.
Boomshackalacka
LikeLike
I am ascending your father and my father, to my God and your God.
Boom.
LikeLike
All of these verses are from the Gospel of “John”, which is a different Gospel altogether from the Synoptics! Ironically, that same Gospel quotes Jesus as saying that he was ascending to his “God”!
Epic fail, Ken.
Boom. Boom.
LikeLike
LOL
LikeLike
The gospel according to John = God-breathed Scripture ( 2 Timothy 3:16), as is all other 27 books of NT – all from one mind – The true God, the Triune God.
LikeLike
Lol, where does 2 Timothy state that the Gospel of John is God-breathed? Nice try at a circular argument, you goofy Christian!
Therefore, yet another epic fail by Ken! Boom, boom, boom, boom! Oh wait, that’s four booms. One too many for a Trinitarian. 😉
LikeLike
therefore, epic fail by Faiz. boom boom, boom!! 🙂
LikeLike
LikeLike
lol
LikeLike
And I noticed you ignored Jesus’ statement that he was ascending to his God. Yet another epic fail by Ken! Boom, boom, boom! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
God the Father is still God. while Jesus was on earth, He is speaking out of His incarnation and earthly ministry.
boom!
LikeLike
and here is Paul speaking about Jesus post-ascension:
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ.
1 Cor 11
Jesus still has God as his God now in heaven.
LikeLike
means “God the Father is the head of Christ the Son”
boom!
LikeLike
that is your spin on the verse – not what Paul actually says.
Paul says of Jesus the anointed one that his Head is God. No mention of trinity. If he believed in trinity he would have said each person is god and co-equal. He does not.
LikeLike
Surah 9:29 says “fight the people of the book who don’t believe in Allah nor forbid what Allah forbids”, etc.
You say, “it means “self-defense” and go to Surah 2:190-192.
but it doesn’t say that in context of surah 9:29 – it says fight the Christians and Jews because of what they believe, and because of what they do not forbid (like pork, wine, calling Jesus God and “son of God”, etc.)
LikeLike
Um, the historical context of the verse tells us that it was revealed in the aftermath of Byzantine’s aggression against the Muslims.
And no, it does not say “fight the people of the book…” you dolt. Here is what it says:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Yusuf Ali).
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (Shakir).
“Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low” (Pickthal).
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled” (Saheeh International).
So, the verse says to fight some among the “people of the book”. This is referring to the Byzantines. Moreoever, the Quran says:
“Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.” (60:8-9).
Boom!
LikeLike
I thought they were co-equal? But if God the father is head of the Son then doesn’t that make him superior? Sounds alot like Arianism to me. So either way your still in a pickle Mr Temple.
Is God the father superior to God the son if he is described as the head?
LikeLike
the are co-equal by nature/substance, but different by roles.
LikeLike
Where does the Bible teach that God is three co-equal persons each of whom is God yet there is one God?
LikeLike
So then they are NOT “coequal”, even if it is in their “roles”.
But the fact that Jesus prayed to God and referred to Him as his “God”, that means they are also NOT “coequal by nature/substance” either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John has Jesus say ‘the father is greater than I’ – not co-equal
LikeLike
that is an example of the Father’s role as Father – there is a heirarchy in roles. Father is greater than Son, in role and what is commonly known as the “economic Trinity”.
Just like men and women are equal in dignity, rights, as humans; but have different roles. 1 Cor. 11 is all about roles and heirarchy of roles.
LikeLike
What BS. The Father is worshiped by Jesus, so it is not simply a matter of “hierarchy of roles”. If Jesus was “coequal” with God in “nature/substance”, he would not have been worshiping Him. If he was merely inferior in terms of his “role”, but still “coequal” in nature/substance, there is no reason to be worshiping the Father.
LikeLike
John 17:5
5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Isaiah 48:11 “For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.
Since John 17:5 and John 1:1-5 show Jesus the Son shared in the glory with God from eternity past and was God by substance/nature and eternal with the Father; and Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11 speak of God / Yahweh / the LORD not giving His glory to another; it means what the Son and the Father (and the H.S) are one God and the three persons are within the One God, who does not share His glory with another “god”.
LikeLike
if god the father is STILL god , what is jesus?
LikeLiked by 1 person
if god the father is STILL god then who and what is jesus?
LikeLiked by 1 person
check mate!
LikeLike
God the Son !!
checkmate on 3rd level ( Spock to Kirk)
LikeLike
I am Spock and you are Charlie X.
LikeLike
3 dimensional Chess.
God is One God in three persons.
LikeLike
dude you have badly lost when you use a fictitious character playing a fictitious game to prove your point.
LikeLike
that was for fun.
But the serious part is answering Robert2016’s question:
“if god the father is STILL god then who and what is jesus?”
Who is Jesus?
God the Son !!
John 17:5
John 1:1-5
LikeLike
when jesus said “your father and my father” that means god the son is going back to his father who is STILL god?
but god the son is still god the son
so god the son said he was going back to god the father who is ONLY god.
what????????????
LikeLike
Typical Christian mumbo-jumbo. So Jesus worships himself? Christian logic strikes again! Boom!
LikeLike
Also, you are quoting from John 20:17, and affirming it; so you have to affirm everything else in the Gospel of John as true and as the Injeel, along with Matthew, Mark, Luke and rest of NT.
LikeLike
lol what a silly comment.
LikeLike
LOL, more pathetic Christian logic…
I don’t have to adopt an “all or nothing” mentality when it comes to the Bible. I will freely reject the nonsensical parts, the silly parts, the sexually explicit parts, the contradictory parts…well, you get the idea.
LikeLike
Same for Qur’an and Hadith – I reject the stupid things and violent Jihad stuff and sexually explicit parts in Hadith (lots of it and more than Bible) and contradictions to itself and to history. Just a man-made concoction of his own ideas trying to stick them to general ideas of OT, monotheism, punishment laws and harshness, and judgement day. But confirms the Injeel and that NT was never corrupted – the text of the true Injeel was never corrupted – Surah 5:47; 10:94; 2:136; 29:46; 5:68
jesus is Al Masih – good
Jesus is pure – Surah 19:19 – good
Jesus was born from the virgin Mary – good.
Qur’an affirms some kind of substitutionary atonement – Surah 37:107 – good
“We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.” – good
LikeLike
LOL, your silliness and stupidity are getting worse by the second. The Bible is a concoction of many different authors and their own stupid ideas and sexually perverted minds. The Quran and Ahadith provide practical guidelines on how to live one’s life. The Bible, on the other hand, is a hodge-podge of bad ideas, mixed in with good and authentic ideas that are from God.
Now, back to John 20:17. Jesus had a God. – Good
Boom!
LikeLike
Ken attacking the hadith is not going to help you get away from the reality that the Bible is a complex web of different texts with diverse opinions on Jesus’ identity. However every single letter of the NT has a distinction between God and Jesus or between Father and Son. One being superior to the other.
The bible also contains violent texts. I reject them also for that reason. Consistency is important in these discussions
LikeLiked by 1 person
very well said Patrice
LikeLike
All Scripture is God-breathed.
The Gospel according to John is Scripture.
Therefore John is also God-breathed. (inspired, “sent down” from God; divine revelation)
LikeLike
‘All Scripture is God-breathed.’ So says Paul about the OT. I’ve schooled you about this numerous times. When will you learn?
LikeLike
More circular reasoning? Is that the best you can do? Christian logic strikes yet again. Boom!
LikeLike
verse 15 is about the OT
Verse 16 expands it to all – meaning the NT
1 Timothy 5:18 quotes Deut. and gospels as Scripture
2 Timothy last letter written by Paul.
so includes all of his writings and others that were written after 2 Tim; but no more than those 27.
“the faith was once for all time delivered to the saints” – Jude 3
I have schooled you many times about this; when will YOU learn?
LikeLike
Verse 16 can only refer to the OT as the NT did not exist for centuries. Fail!
LikeLike
wrong; most of them were written before 2 Timothy. (67 AD) Most NT books were written from 45-68 AD)
A few were written afterward. The NT existed in 96 AD, as individual scrolls – each book, letter was individual scroll until the invention of the codex. (leaves stacked and tied together – mid second to third century.)
LikeLike
And then it was edited and re-edited. What’s your point? Boom!
Also, where is your proof that Paul knew the Gospel of John? Does he quote from it?
LikeLike
I did not say that.
LikeLike
So how do you know that it was “scripture”? Circular reasoning? Boom!
LikeLike
It is self-authenticating, because of it’s content, doctrine, internal qualities, and confirmed by earliest early church fathers. Gospel of John was never questioned until liberalism and enlightenment in 17, 18, 19 centuries.
LikeLike
“Self-authenticating”? So, in other words, the best you can do is offer a circular argument. Thank you. Point proving. Christian logic strikes again! Boom!
LikeLike
*Point proven.
LikeLike
Papias, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Ignatius, Ireneaus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Origen all testify that you are wrong. (all 100s-200s AD)
Boom!
LikeLike
LOL, getting desperate are we, Ken? Only 2nd century Church “fathers” mention the Gospel of John. Exactly. Thank you for proving my point! Boom!
“The external evidence fixes the terminus ad quem for the Gospel of John. Irenaeus of Lyons made use of John (c. 180), and Tatian included the Gospel of John in his harmony (c. 170). The Gospel of John is also mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (c. 170-200). Justin Martyr (c. 150-160) and the Epistula Apostolorum (c. 140-150) may have made use of the Gospel of John. But the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles. These include the Naassene Fragment quoted by Hippolytus Ref. 5.7.2-9 (c. 120-140), the Valentinian texts cited in Clement of Alexandria’s Excerpta ex Theodotou (c. 140-160), a Valentinian Exposition to the Prologue of the Gospel of John quoted in Irenaeus’ Adv. Haer. 1.8.5-6 (c. 140-160), and the commentary of Heracleon on John (c. 150-180, quoted in Origen’s own commentary). The oldest fragment of the New Testament, known as p52 or the John Rylands fragment, attests to canonical John and is dated paleographically c. 120-130 CE” (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html).
LikeLike
how do you deal with ehrmans argument that in 2nd peters time pauls writing were considered as scripture but when paul wrote them, no way they could have been considered as scripture. ehrman says 2nd peter assumes that pauls letters were “on par with ot scripture…”
LikeLike
how do you deal with ehrmans argument?
he says that later christians and jews called rome “babylon” and this was used as a code word.
why isn’t this code word found in the synoptics but is found in writing of 1st peter?
#
LikeLike
Why are you demanding that “Babylon” (for Rome ) has to be used in the Synoptics?
The setting of the Synoptics is Jesus life in Palestine/Israel, Jerusalem and surrounding areas.
They had nothing to do with Rome in Italy.
1 Peter was written to Christians undergoing persecution in Asia Minor, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Galatia (all in present day Turkey)
Was talking about Empire wide persecution during Nero’s time, especially in and around Rome, and was spreading to the churches in Asia (today’s Turkey).
LikeLike
Paul’s letters were considered authoritative Scripture as soon as he wrote them to the churches.
I Thessalonians chapter 1 – you received it as it really is, the Word of God.
1 Corinthians chapters 1-2
his preaching is “the word of God”, and then as he wrote it down, it is also considered the word of God.
LikeLike
paul preaches the torah, writes down a letter and then says the letter is as holy as the torah ?
LikeLike
“The setting of the Synoptics is Jesus life in Palestine/Israel, Jerusalem and surrounding areas.
They had nothing to do with Rome in Italy.”
babylon = code word for the city that was the enemy of god… which also DESTROYED the temple
LikeLike
okay forget synoptics . scholars give many reasons why 2 pter = forgery and one reason among them =
babylon = code word for the city that was the enemy of god… which also DESTROYED the temple
where in pauline writings is this word used and how come it appears in 2nd peter?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Why are you demanding that “Babylon” (for Rome ) has to be used in the Synoptics?”
tradition says mark was written in rome
“The setting of the Synoptics is Jesus life in Palestine/Israel, Jerusalem and surrounding areas.
They had nothing to do with Rome in Italy.”
i thought peter was beloved of mark?
lol
didn’t they ever talk code word “babylon”
?
“1 Peter was written to Christians undergoing persecution in Asia Minor, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Galatia (all in present day Turkey)”
does it matter? how is it possible that a code word like babylon goes off radar in synoptics when jews and christians were discussing it ?
LikeLike
“Babylon” is used in 1 Peter 5:13, probably a code word for Rome. (or “the enemy of God” / persecutors of God’s people – since Babylon was one the great enemies of God and God’s people in the OT.)
But in Revelation chapters 17-19, many argue that the code of “Babylon” there is code for Jerusalem and is about the Jewish people who should be with God and Christ, but because they have rejected Jesus as Messiah, they are apostate and therefore enemies of God, therefore “Babylon”, and it is about God’s judgment on Jerusalem coming in 70 AD. But many others believe that “Babylon” in Rev. 17-19 is also about Rome, as in 1 Peter 5:13.
It is not used in 2 Peter.
LikeLike
“Babylon” is used in 1 Peter 5:13, probably a code word for Rome. (or “the enemy of God” / persecutors of God’s people – since Babylon was one the great enemies of God and God’s people in the OT.)
1. how do you know that the writer is using it because “since babylon was one the great enemies of god…” ?
2. what evidence do you have that BEFORE THE END of the first century the christians and jews were using it as a code word for ROME?
3. HOW many scholars agree with your “probably” ?
4.why would such code words start appearing within the text when such code words were KNOWN BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST century?
LikeLike
“The setting of the Synoptics is Jesus life in Palestine/Israel, Jerusalem and surrounding areas.
They had nothing to do with Rome in Italy.”
the author does not go beyond pre-destruction stories because he just wants to talk about the stuff up to post resurrection.
even if he knew the temple destruction he would not mention it .
quote :
“If Mark’s audience was primarily Gentile, the question that must be asked is what interest did Gentile Christians have in the Jewish Temple? That the evangelist devotes a major section of the gospel to the Jewish Temple and its future suggests that his Gentile readers must have had some interest in it. But such an interest stands in stark contrast with the evidence we see throughout the New Testament. In Paul’s undisputed letters, which are without question our best window into the interests and concerns of early Gentile Christianity, we see no interest in or concern for the Jerusalem Temple. In fact, the only “temple” that Paul refers to is the church itself, which he identifies as God’s temple. But even in such an identification, the Jerusalem Temple plays virtually no role. Paul never makes a case that the Jerusalem Temple is corrupt and thus needs to be replaced by the people of God. He never even uses language of “newness” when describing the church as the God’s temple, i.e., the church is the “new” temple of God. In identifying the church as God’s temple, Paul never presents the church as taking on the cultic functions of the temple. It seems that the Jerusalem Temple played virtually no role in Paul’s missional and pastoral work among Gentile churches, even in instances in which Paul identifies those churches with God’s temple. And while the value of the book of Acts for reconstructing Paul’s missionary work is debated, it is noteworthy that the temple plays no role in Acts’ depiction of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles (particularly given the fact that the temple seems to play a prominent role in other parts of the book of Acts). Thus, all the existing evidence that we have portrays an early Gentile Christian church that has no interest in the Jerusalem Temple.”
why then are americans funding israel and dreaming of rebuilding a new temple when christianities main man did not give a damn about it?
LikeLike
Also, 2 Peter was probably written in the 2nd century and was definitely a forgery. Boom!
LikeLike
No, 2 Peter written around 67 AD, before Peter is executed by Nero.
Peter probably dictated it orally to Jude, and then Jude wrote it down. That may explain why some of Jude is similar to 2 Peter in content and words.
LikeLike
don’t bs to yourself. even richard baukman says 2 peter could not come from the mind of peter and neither did he orally dictate it.
LikeLike
Sorry, but a baseless legend doesn’t prove anything. Furthermore, it would not have made sense for Peter to explain to Christians why Jesus had not yet returned. The expectations would have been more intense later, when the first century was nearing an end. Thus, when Christians were left confused as to why their savior hadn’t returned, a Christian decided to forge a letter to explain it.
Boom!
LikeLike
Another reason 2 Peter could not have been written by Peter before 67 CE is because in order for the second coming to occur, the temple had to be destroyed and the “abomination that causes desolation” had to stand in its place, as per Matthew 24:15. The temple was not destroyed until 70 CE, at least 3 years after Peter’s alleged martyrdom. Hence, there was no reason for Christians to start questioning why the second coming had not yet occurred. All the signs had yet to come!
LikeLike
it seem that in the time of 2nd peter christians were pissed off with each other calling each other heretics lol
LikeLike
no; a heretic means that they are NOT Christians.
LikeLike
“Peter probably dictated it orally to Jude, and then Jude wrote it down. That may explain why some of Jude is similar to 2 Peter in content and words.”
who should be believed ? your “some”
or ehrmans “so NUMEROUS” ?
ehrman says that the parallels are so numerous that scholars are virtually unified in thinking that the author has taken judes message and simply edited it a bit to incorporate it into his book
LikeLike
1 Timothy 5:18
18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” [Deut. 24:15] and “The laborer is worthy of his wages [Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7].”
calls both law / torah and gospels “Scripture” and 1 Timothy was written before 2 Tim. 3:16, therefore 2 Tim. 3:16 includes NT books.
LikeLike
Faiz,
Wrong. Hippolytus (200s), Clement of Alexandria (215 AD), and Irenaeus (180-202 AD) are all explaining Gnostic mis-usage (abuse), but they themselves are orthodox fathers. Mis-use and abuse and quoting of John by the Gnostics means John already existed.
The dates your source gives (140-160 AD) is the same time as Justin Martyr (165) and Polycarp (155 AD), who clearly knew John and affirmed his gospel. Papias does also (Papias lived 70-135 AD)
extant testimony does not mean the early church was not already using John as canonical. Gnostics could not have affirmed the whole Gospel of John, since it says Jesus became tired and thirsty (John 4) and that He became flesh (John 1:14).
LikeLike
All we have of the earliest “father” in your little group (Papias) are fragments mentioned in other sources. The rest, like Justin Martyr and Polycarp, are much later.
Another absurd Christian legend is that Polycarp knew John, yet when we read his letters, there is no indication of any such relationship. In the “Epistle of Polycarp”, John is not even mentioned by name!
“I exhort you all therefore to be obedient unto the word of righteousness and to practice all endurance, which also ye saw with your own eyes in the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus, yea and in others also who came from among yourselves, as well as in Paul himself and the rest of the Apostles” (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html).
LikeLike
Information about Polycarp is much more than just his own letter. Irenaeus and Eusebius tell us about him and that the apostle John discipled him in the faith. You need to study up on that.
LikeLike
Both of them are later sources. What don’t you get about that? Why is it that Polycarp himself showed no indication of knowing John? You want us to ignore Polycarp’s own letters for information about his alleged relationship with John and instead listen to the baseless claims of other people? Christian logic strikes yet again!
LikeLike
“Both of them are later sources. What don’t you get about that? Why is it that Polycarp himself showed no indication of knowing John?”
Speaking of late sources, most of what the prophet is supposed to have said and done comes from materials written centuries after his death. This makes it reasonable to presume that his “wisdom” was nothing more than the work of unscrupulous men who wanted to mislead ignorant desert nomads for their own empowerment.
How do you reconcile your dismissal of late christian man-made sources with your blind and unquestioning acceptance of islam’s own?
LikeLike
James, your pathetic attempt at comparing the overwhelming documentary evidence for Islam to the scant evidence for Christianity just shows how ignorant you really are, while pretending that you aren’t. I love it when atheists try to take sides in a debate between religious people!
The fact is that there is considerable evidence that the Ahadith were not simply written down later or were the “work of unscrupulous men”. We have many compilations that precede the works of Imams Muslim and Bukhari, such as the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih, who was a student of Abu Hurayrah (ra), the companion of Muhammad (pbuh). This compilation is from the 1st century of the Islamic calendar! To educate yourself, I suggest you see the following: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html
Also, the German scholar Harold Motzki has published extensive studies on the reliability of the ahadith compilations, including the early Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq. In his critique of earlier western scholars, Motzki showed the reliability of the ahadith. For example, in his critique of Joseph Schacht, Motzki states:
“Schacht held that the traditions ascribed to the Prophet and to his Companions are to be regarded as generally fictive, and the traditions of the Successors largely inauthentic. My study of `Abd Ar-Razzaq’s Musannaf shows, however, that all three types of traditions circulated already at the turn of the first century and that some of them can be dated even earlier. This is only one of several new insights into the development of Islamic traditions. My results are based on reconstructions of the most important sources used by `Abd Ar-Razzaq for his compilation, and on reconstructions of the sources of `Abd Ar-Razzaq’s sources. Isnads and texts (Matns) of the traditions are the basis of these reconstructions” (http://en.alukah.net/World_Muslims/0/2028/).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know that, but Irenaeus (180) is reliable on Polycarp (150) and only about 30 years later. Lots of ancient information is like that; Hadith and Sunna has lots of info like that also.
LikeLike
Don’t try to change the subject to the Ahadith when you get cornered. The question remains as to why Polycarp had nothing to say about his relationship with John and then along comes Irenaeus 30 years later and…boom…all of suddent Polycarp knew John! Sounds like another Christian legend.
LikeLike
Faiz
Your inconsistency is embarrassing. The hadiths were compiled centuries after mohammed’s death and therefore have very little historical value. This means that you know almost nothing about your profit and what you do know is probably made up.
LikeLike
James,
Your ignorance is embarrassing. Go educate yourself first. Then you can comment on the reliability of the Ahadith. Until then, you are just another ignoramus troll who tries to interject in conversations he has no business being in. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
James is banned. He has no respect and is just a troll.
LikeLike
in hadeeth study one learn about the narrator and whether it was possible for the narrator to receive his information from his source.
we have books
knowledge of the localities and domicile of hadith narrators.
even the narrators names are examined in knowledge of the look alike but different names and genealogires
” The hadiths were compiled centuries after mohammed’s death and therefore have very little historical value. ”
all those scholars who done there research on transmission of hadeeth were examining fictional narrators with fictional names?
where do bums like john come from?
LikeLike
Faiz,
there is a lot of historical evidence that survives in later works. Like Papias wrote 5 volumes of material, but only fragments survive.
Polycarp could have written much more than what we have. We only have one letter from him to the church in Philippi. (which you quoted from – 9:1) He mentions Paul because Paul wrote an inspired letter to the Philippians, and visited before – “before your eyes . . . ” John did not go to Philippi, so the reason he didn’t mention John in that letter is because John did not go to the city of Philippi.
“. . . such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.ix.html
John did not go there. Polycarp does not have to mention John just because you demand it. The information about Polycarp has been confirmed from Irenaeus and Eusebius, and there is not good reason to doubt that information.
A lot of ancient history survives/comes to us today from books written centuries later about that person or translations or copies of the original.
Irenaeus wrote in Greek originally, but his Greek text did not survive. What we have is his Latin translation and some fragments.
LikeLike
Another pathetic reply, Ken. You must be really getting desperate.
Your response is littered with assumptions, and assumptions do not count as historical evidence. There are plenty of reasons to doubt the baseless claims of later sources. The main one is simply that they are lying. We know that Christians were known for forgeries, so Irenaeus and others could simply have been blowing hot air. The fact remains that in Polycarp’s letter, John is not even mentioned by name despite the fact he:
1. He was Jesus’ disciple and an actual “eyewitness”.
2. He was Polycarp’s teacher.
Your special pleading has not proven anything except that your are extremely desperate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, your reply is pathetic.
Lots of history comes to us today from later sources, because the originals are completely rotted and disintegrated, but they were copied down and written down in other sources and later sources survived. Letters are letters to specific individuals, not whole biographies. You have no right to demand that Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians HAS to have information about John the apostle. John never went to Philippi, and so it make sense in Polycarp Philippians 1:9 that he mentions Paul and Ignatius and others who were “before your eyes”, etc.
When the Hadith collectors spent their time in collecting and collating them all, they had to do the same things.
Some Hadith writings are no longer extant. (but survive in later editions; and many of the six collections are compile from sources 100-200 years earlier.)
Your response is a pathetic ignoring of basic rules of how history is done.
LikeLike
LOL. Who cares if John never went to Phillipi? Wouldn’t the Phillipians have known who he was? And Polycarp knew him, then wouldn’t it make sense to refer to his authority in teaching the Philippians? You are pathetic, Ken. Your false religion has very scant evidence to support it. Get over it and grow up.
By the way, I have already refuted your nonsense regarding the Ahadith in my response to James. Besides, changing the subject doesn’t save your false religion. 😉
LikeLike
Your false religion has very scant evidence to support it at all. Especially that is denies established history that even a skeptic like Bart Ehrman and liberals like John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, John P. Meier, and Robert Funk agreed was historical truth – the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth under Pontius Pilate and Anas and Caiaphas.
You did not refute anything; I refuted you.
LikeLike
Lol, yeah keep telling yourself that. You sound like a stubborn mule.
LikeLike
Nope. No Christian made forgeries. the forgeries were made by heretics, Gnostics, and other heretics like Marcion, etc. They were not Christians. Heretics are not Christians.
The web-site you are using, “early Christian writings” appears to the Gnostic and is trying to promote Gnostic gospels and writings and denigrate the canonical writings. the datings are a joke. They claim for example that the Gospel of Thomas is first century (site says 50-140 AD), but is not, clearly second century. (140-160 AD)
LikeLike
Another pathetic response. Everyone knows that Christians were prolific forgerers. Case in point: 2 Peter.
Another example is how Christians tried to change Josephus’ words to “testify” for Jesus!
Boom!
LikeLike
There are plenty of reasons to doubt the baseless claims of later sources
Indeed, like the baseless claim of the Qur’an, that comes 600 years later and tries to claim stuff out of thin air, while confirming the NT, but oops; later when they actually read the NT, after they unjustly killed the Byzantine men and Persian men and took their women as concubines and slaves and wives, they realized too late that they had to come up with the doctrine of Tahreef. تحریف
LikeLike
Yasir Qadhi admitted most of the Abbasids and Uthmaniye (Ottomans) are descendants of the sex-slaves/concubines, captives of wars, “whom your right hand possesses”.
LikeLike
Lol, Ken keeps getting desperate and changes the topic when he gets cornered.
By the way, since Jesus was the alleged descendant of David who had many concubines, could it be that he was descended from concubines? 😉
LikeLike
Robert
Do you have any evidence that any of these “witnesses” of mohammed’s life actually lived? Do you have census records giving their names, birthdates and place of birth? Sorry, but you guys have no evidence if this chain of narration is real, made up, or a combination of both.
Worse still, I believe the earliest Bukhari manuscript we have is not from his lifetime and probably did not stabilize until centuries after his death. And don’t get me started on the quran – no one knows who wrote it and your own sources say that it is incomplete. So your scriptures consist of an incomplete book that is nonsensical as often as it is coherent, all backed up by hadiths which are a collection of he said, she said anecdotes that have no way of being corroborated.
LikeLike
Galotte,
There are many western scholars who would disagree with you, such as Harald Motzki! Guess whose opinion counts more?
LikeLike
Faiz
So you do have external evidence that the “witnesses” who narrate the hadith existed and that this can be found where?
LikeLike
Galotte,
There is plenty of evidence, such as many Arabic inscriptions (see below). We also have early manuscripts, such as the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih. No serious scholar believes that the hadith narrators never existed. That is just silly.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlyislam.html
LikeLike
ISlamic awareness is not an objective source I’m afraid.
The problem is that you have some guy – Bukhari in this case – investigating anecdotes about someone who lived 2 hundred years before, from a distant geographical location, who might (and only might) have had access to written sources from the time (itself a crapshoot since the science of manuscript dating was hundreds of years away from being developed and so he had no way of knowing that whatever manuscripts he was recording were authentic), or, some oral tradition that you expect people to believe had lines of transmission accurately recorded (by other oral traditions no doubt) and memorized over 2 centuries.
Sorry, it sounds absurd. Think of it this way – Abraham Lincoln lived only a century and a half ago, and we know a lot about him because of written documentation from the time. We also have individual memories of average people who lived at the time and would probably have told their family and friends about what they saw – yet, the transmission of their memories is probably so corrupted over the decades that the actual events are lost and no historian would seriously look to the descendents of people who met Lincoln for historically reliable information about him. The same holds true for the hadith and the quran .
If you are familiar with the work of bart Ehrman I would suggest you study him – he helped to rid me of my delusions about religion. If you applied his work to the study of the quran and hadith, you would probably find yourself feeling a little bit silly that you fell for the whole heap of nonsense.
LikeLike
Quran preservation is both memory and written from the time of our prophet till today. I can produce a white guy who converted to Islam, study Islam and memorised the whole Quran and the hadith. His name is John Ederer. We have thousands to millions of them from the time of our prophet till today.
We also recite the Quran in daily prayers 5 times a day from the time of our prophet till today. We keep reading the whole Quran either in memory or from the written book from time to time as the Angel use to do it to our prophet and our prophet and his followers to read the Quran to preserve it.
Buari did not write hadith and its chain but collected and compile them from place to place as he travel to get the source from written and memory and through learning from scholars.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Intellect
That’s what I’m saying about Bukhari – you haven’t really addressed the problem.
He went from place to place supposedly retrieving sources from mostly oral traditions. This means that he allegedly spoke to people who never knew any of the companions or prophet personally, who supposedly conveyed accurate historical information passed down over a period of two centuries.
Again, I ask you to think about it. If modern-day historians went from place to place throughout America hunting down descendants of people who claim to have had personal acquaintance with Abraham Lincoln and they gathered these stories, there would be literally no way to tell if what these guys were saying was historically accurate. No historian would take this process seriously.
Even if it aligned with known historical facts about Lincoln, whatever details were told via this memory and oral tradition has no way of being corroborated. The same holds true for the hadith. It is an a-historical set of documents. Even the earliest full Bukhari manuscript dates from well after his death, so we can’t even be sure if what he wrote and compiled is the same as what we have.
LikeLike
Galotte,
That is a very disingenuous response, littered with inconsistencies and ridiculous assumptions.
You asked for evidence that the narrators of the ahadith actually existed. When I showed you this evidence, you questioned the “objectivity” of the website (more on that shortly) and then changed gears and continued your obsession with Bukhari.
First of all, the owner of the Islamic-Awareness website is a PhD scholar. How many PhD’s do you have? None, I bet. Second, whatever the “objectivity” the website owner may allegedly be lacking has no bearing on the significance of the evidence I presented to you. If you had bothered to actually study the evidence, instead of dismissing it, you would realize that your initial question has been answered. There is plenty of evidence that the narrators of the ahadith traditions did indeed exist. Your silly response regarding the “objectivity” of the website is simply an ad hominem.
Your obsession with Bukhari exposes another aspect of your ignorance. Many of the traditions found in Bukhari’s compilation are found in earlier sources, such as the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih. Modern scholars such as Harald Motzki have studies the Ahadith traditions and found them to be historically reliable. Your appeal to Bart Ehrman (whom I am familiar with) is silly since Ehrman is an expert on the Bible and specifically the New Testament. He is not an expert on the complicated history of the ahadith. Consider the words of another western scholar, Nabia Abbott:
“… the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission” (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html).
She also states:
“Once it is realised that the isnad did, indeed, initiate a chain reaction that resulted in an explosive increase in the number of traditions, the huge numbers that are credited to Ibn Hanbal, Muslim and Bukhari seem not so fantastic after all.”
Finally, Jonathan Brown states:
“I have never been more impressed with anybody in history in my life than with Muslim ḥadīth scholars. I mean, when I first started studying ḥadīth I was very skeptical, I though it was all made-up and bogus but the more you study it the more you just appreciate the intense brain power of these people. I mean they memorized thousands and thousands of books and then they were able to recall all the different versions of ḥadīth from these books, and then they were able to analyze them and put them all together and figure-out where they all connect and make judgments about the authenticity of these ḥadīth. I mean even nowadays with electronic databases, and computers and word processing, I have hard time following even their discussions of the ḥadīth – let alone their original mastering that they were drawing on. It’s almost unbelievable… It’s almost unbelievable, and if you didn’t have the books in front of you that they wrote, I wouldn’t believe it personally….” (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/brown.html).
So, when we do an actual “objective” study of the ahadith traditions, we find that they are by and large completely reliable, meeting the standards of the modern historical method. You need to do more studying on the subject, rather than base your views on silly assumptions. Until then, the only “heap of nonsense” is the one coming from you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
wow
LikeLike
“Many of the traditions found in Bukhari’s compilation are found in earlier sources, such as the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih.”
a very short chain. i wonder what story this guy will cook up for the sahifah
LikeLike
Faiz
Didn’t mean to come across as changing the subject – I just did not really see how the link you provided showed with any degree of reliability that these witnesses existed. I’m not trying to be difficult, I just don’t see how that link establishes historicity.
On another note – what is the earliest manuscript for the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih? I believe (and I could be wrong) that the earliest is from around the 12th century and there are question marks over whether he even authored the presumed originals – is there a way to tell? Ehrman calls this kind of false attribution to earlier scribes a forgery.
All of that aside, you still have to make some major presumptions about authenticity. He died in 719 and we don’t know when he allegedly began his collection – it could have been 5 years before his death or 50. We don’t even know when he was born. Either way, many of the companions would have been dead – and there were apparently boatloads of companions – or old.
So some of his collection might already have been transmitted via several people who never actually knew the companion and who may well have themselves overheard it in some casual conversation and used the opportunity to elevate their own status. How would Hammam have known? If the work was completed later, then the problem gets worse.
Johnathan Brown seems to be arguing in a circle. He’s presuming that these works were memorized accurately – Ehrman’s latest work addresses claims of the accuracy of oral transmission and finds it wanting.
LikeLike
you have brought up some interesting points. if muslims use ehrmans book they must be ready to take the bite from the viper.
“On another note – what is the earliest manuscript for the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih? I believe (and I could be wrong) that the earliest is from around the 12th century and there are question marks over whether he even authored the presumed originals – is there a way to tell? Ehrman calls this kind of false attribution to earlier scribes a forgery.”
what research have you done that the earliest could be from around 12th century?
other than anti-islamic website which academic study can you link to hear which dates the copy to 12th century?
i don’t know the answers thats why i am asking.
LikeLike
Galotte,
You initially asked whether there was any proof that the narrators existed. I showed you archaeological evidence that they did. For example, there is an Arabic inscription from the 1st century of the Islamic calendar which mentiones Uthman ibn Affan and also his murder. There is another inscription which mentions Umar ibn Al-Khattab. Both of them were hadith narrators. Do you acknowledge that there is evidence that these narrators did indeed exist and that it was not some elaborate conspiracy, where all of these individuals were simply made up later on?
Regarding the Sahifah, as far as I know, the manuscripts are not from the 1st century. However, there is internal evidence that has led most scholars to conclude that it is a genuine document. As Essam Ayyad states in his article “Early Transmission of Hadith: Incentives and Challenges”:
“While 98 of the Ṣaḥīfah’s 138 ḥadīths are found in the two Ṣaḥīḥs of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, 136 of these ḥadīths are included in the Musnad of Aḥmad. This means that canonical books of Ḥadīth only digested what was regarded as authentic according to the standards of their compilers. The fact that not all of the Ṣaḥīfah’s ḥadīths, in spite of their authenticity, were selected by al-Bukhārī and Muslim implies that both subjected the ḥadīths they collected to a high degree of examination. Having compared the ḥadīths of the Ṣaḥīfah with the 1500 variant readings of the same ḥadīths in the 3rd/9rd century compilations (including those of Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Bukhārī and Muslim), Speight (2010a) concludes that the common texts are nearly identical. Thus, this ṣaḥīfah, which is believed to have been written around the mid-first/seventh century, evidences the early writing of Ḥadīth (Arabic Literature, 1983).” (Journal of Islamic and Human Advanced Research, Vol. 3, Issue 11, November 2013, 762-782).
Your continued appeals to Ehrman do not refute the historical reliability of the Ahadith literature. As I said before, Ehrman is an expert on Christian history, not Arabic or Islamic history. Scholars in the latter field have largely accepted the historical reliability of the ahadith as well as the efforts of Muslim scholars to preserve them. Just because you find it hard to believe, does not mean it didn’t happen. As Brown stated:
“It’s almost unbelievable, and if you didn’t have the books in front of you that they wrote, I wouldn’t believe it personally….”
So, you need to actually read the books in order to understand how the scholars of Islam preserved the ahadith, first through oral transmission and then written transmission.
LikeLike
You still need a leap of faith to believe that what is written either in the Koran or Hadith is the truth.
LikeLike
Perhaps Islam is a science instead of a religion and we thought it was just a religion. Woops.
Or perhaps it’s both.
LikeLike
True religion and true science go hand in hand. Science uses observations to come to a conclusion. So, for example, one can look at nature and conclude that it the handiwork of a higher power.
Christianity is just a religion. When scrutinized rationally, it can be very easily debunked.
LikeLike