The Achilles heal of Christianity

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 18.38.19

Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, God

6 replies

  1. Hi
    In the bible we can see Jesus speaking about him lifted up and uses the story of Moses and the brass serpent.

    Joh 3:14  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
    Joh 3:15  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

    Num 21:8  And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
    Num 21:9  And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

    We can see from the text that Moses lifted up the grass serpent up and everyone who looked at the serpent were healed.

    Likewise all those who look towards Jesus on the cross can be healed.

    You are quoting Bart Erhman’s book but he believes what the Koran says didn’t take place, he believes in the crucifixion which contradicts the Koran.

    Bart Erhman says…
    The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life.   Whenever anyone writes a book about the historical Jesus, it is really (really, really) important to see if what they say about his public ministry can make sense of his death


  2. How does Bart Ehrman account for Mark 10:45? That verse totally shows that his death had theological implications.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Why did Luke delete it then?


    • Just because Luke doesn’t have something that other gospels don’t, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. To say he ‘deleted’ it assumes that he knew about it. That’s impossible to know. Regardless, two out of the three synoptics have it so theres more going for it than against it, even from a historical view. What do you and Ehrman believe this verse means? Ehrman isn’t here but I want to know what you think it means?

      Liked by 1 person

    • The general consensus is that Luke used Mark in the writing of his gospel. That being the case Luke edited, added, abridged and changed Mark to make it fit his view of Jesus, and his life and death.

      Luke therefore deliberately eliminated Mark 10:45. This is highly significant. It suggests Luke did not view Jesus’ death as an atonement for sin. Muslims of course agree with Luke over against Matthew.

      As Muslims we do not regard the four Christian gospels are the Injil given to Jesus (according to the Quran).


    • I am aware that this is the general consensus but its only a hypothesis. But if its true you have to concede that they earliest Gospel preached this and it took a later writer to correct it. Well, correct part of it anyway because Luke has many things a muslim won’t agree with. I fail to see how this is anything but the criteria of convenience. I recommend that you come back to Christianity then you won’t have this problem. I’m also assuming that you concede that if this verse actually came from the lips of Jesus, Ehrmans thesis is wrong, and the Quran of course.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: