Either/Or

Professor Kreeft is a leading Roman Catholic apologist

Screen Shot 2016-08-07 at 00.03.53



Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, Philosophy

70 replies

  1. lol You’re trolling him 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Except all biblical scholars of repute recognise thatJesus was killed under Pontius Pilate and that his disciples really believed that he had risen again.

    In other words, that Islam is completely fabricated and historically inaccurate.

    Like

    • I agree with Paulus.

      Paul W

      I don’t know why you guys harp on about biblical authenticity when your own sources lack historical credibility.

      Your first historical accounts don’t appear until 200 years after mohammed’s death, your earliest hadith manuscripts date from no earlier than the 11th century, and your tafsir start cropping up in the 10th century.

      Worst still, none of your sources account for the awkward fact that according to the hard science of historical investigation – archaeology – the ancient city of Petra seems to have been the earliest centre of muslim worship. All the qibla’s from the first 100 or so years of islam point to Petra. Your sources have no explanation for this, which is a strong indication that they are heavily redacted or simply made up.

      The point here is that your sources have nowhere near the credibility of christian writings since they appear so late, the earliest extant manuscripts appear hundreds of years after the events they supposedly describe, and they are clearly derivative from earlier, jewish, christian and pagan apocrypha, fables, and fairy tales.

      So far, I have not seen a single credible answer to the problem of the early qibla’s facing petra.

      Like

    • Poor D. He has no idea what he’s talking about-simply repeating stuff he heard on Youtube.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Okay.

      So what is the earliest extant full bukhari or Muslim manuscript?

      Like

    • I don’t know. Can you enlighten me on what contemporary hadith scholarship says on this issue?

      Like

    • I already did – 11th century. Centuries after mihammed’s death.

      Like

    • At least cite a paper.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paulus, the Quran clearly states that it “appeared to them” that Jesus had been crucified. So one would expect history to record that he had.

      Like

    • Yes, and these same scholars also recognize that the Biblical Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who predicted that he would return within the lifetime of his disciples. Apparently, Jesus missed his appointment by 2,000 years.

      But of course, this is all based on the Gospels, which all Biblical scholars of repute recognize, are later sources on the life of Jesus and are often times completely fabricated. So where does that leave you, Lassie?

      Like

    • One could dismiss certain events found within the gospels but that wouldn’t matter because scholarship is agreed that Jesus really did die by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. And that simple fact on its own demonstrates that Muhammad was utterly wrong and therefore Islam is false. So by all means discuss or dismiss certain recorded events Faiz, but you still end up following a man who’s version of events is fraudulent.

      there is no evidence that it only appeared that way. All the evidence leads away from such a wild unhistorical speculation, Paul.

      Like

    • kmak

      cite a paper that states a well-known fact? The earliest complete bukhari dates from the 11th century, and the earliest histories don’t appear until centuries after mohammed died. For unbiased observers, the hadith are without historical credibility. And your earliest qurans are incomplete and contain thousands of differences to the modern quran.

      Like

    • evidence required D – not mere assertion

      Like

  3. Excellent point, brother Paul.

    The Quran does not deny that someone was crucified. It only states that people thought that Jesus (pbuh) had been crucified, when in reality, he had been raised up by God.

    Like

    • Your desperation is showing. Care to give us a paper or biblical scholar that believes this?

      ijaz Ahmed’s lecture notes from his talk in a mosque in Toronto doesn’t count, ok! Haha

      Like

  4. LOL, Lassie! One cannot simply “dismiss” certain events in the Gospels without also dismissing Christianity along with them. So, where does that leave you?

    Islam has provided the real historical Jesus, a prophet who worshipped God. It also does not deny a plot against his life. This is all in agreement with established history. In your desperation, you cling to the crucifixion as your last resort. But even the events surrounding the crucifixion are historically suspect. The only thing secular historians agree on is that Jesus was crucified. That’s it. The only place they disagree with the Quran is in their refusal to admit that God rescued Jesus from the cross. That’s not surprising. One would not expect these historians to believe in a miracle.

    In contrast, your Bible has been exposed as a fabricated account of Jesus’ life. Not only that, but your Bible actually makes Jesus look like a false prophet. Oh, Lassie, where will you go from here?

    Like

    • Fail

      “The only thing secular historians agree on is that Jesus was crucified. That’s it. The only place they disagree with the Quran is in their refusal to admit that God rescued Jesus from the cross. That’s not surprising. One would not expect these historians to believe in a miracle.”

      That’s inane even for you little britches.

      Secular historians refuse to accept jesus as god incarnate because of a priori dismissal of the existence of god. Even bart Ehrman has admitted that jesus claimed divinity – although he is kind of squirmy about it.

      That aside, the quran gives a lousy historical account of jesus and his life – I’ve tried to educate you on this before, but you continue to choose the path of wilful ignorance.

      The quran provids no historical context for jesus’ life whatsoever – where does the quran mention tiberius?
      Pontius Pilate?
      Bethlehem?
      Jesus’s disciples names?
      The number of jesus’ disciples?
      The places that jesus visited?
      The period of his lifetime?
      The time and place of his birth?
      The time and place of his death?
      The circumstances surrounding his death?
      Why are there no roman records affirming that jesus was a mere messenger?
      Why do roman records show that early christians worshipped jesus as a god?

      These are all factors that establish historicity and the men who made-up and wrote the quran had no idea about any of these.

      Stop embarrassing yourself little britches with these stupid claims of yours.

      Like

    • dont ask difficult questions D, you’ll only provoke him.

      Remember, this is a guy who thinks absence of evidence is evidence of absence. He thinks overwinded rhetoric will mask arguments ad stupidity (I made that fallacy up just for Faiz)

      Like

  5. First, your logic is terrible- your conclusions never follow from your premises.

    Second, the undeniable proof that Jesus did die, and that scholarship is united on this point, is enough to demonstrate that Islam is false. so feel free to attack the Bible or any other religious text. Your red herring is both fallacious and pointless to this discussion.

    Third, what exactly is “established history”? Go ahead, give it to me. I never realised I was conversing with a first century Jewish specialist. I apologise for my error. Because as far as I know, the canonical gospels are the primary historical documents scholars use to discuss “established history”. But then again, I bet you’ve never done an undergraduate or graduate course in early Christianity. Again, Ijaz Ahmed’s notes don’t count, ok? Cheerio

    Like

  6. Oh Lassie, you silly apologist! Did you notice that the post wad not even about the Islamic view of Jesus? So, the only red herring is the one from you, when you desperately tried to deflect from the topic at hand. You apologists do that alot when your Bible is under scrutiny.

    As for your “undeniable proof” that Jesus died, it is based largely on your Gospels which, as we have already seen, are themselves historically suspect.

    What you can’t seem to understand is that secular historians have to go by what is available from the observable evidence. They cannot observe a miracle that occurred 2000 years ago. As far as they are concerned, if the historical sources say that Jesus was crucified and died, they have no reason to think otherwise. As far as they are concerned, Jesus died, was buried and his body eventually decomposed. They don’t think that he was resurrected, ascended to heaven and will come back again.

    They also agree with the Gospels that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, whose prophecies failed to come true. There is undeniable proof from the Gospels to that effect.

    So where does that leave you? Don’t change the subject again, you silly apologist! It only exposes your desperation. 😉

    Chip, chip cheerio!

    Like

  7. Hey, give me a break Paul. I’m not British!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Faiz wrote:

    “They also agree with the Gospels that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, whose prophecies failed to come true. There is undeniable proof from the Gospels to that effect.”

    A.I think even the most skeptical scholars,except for Robert Price and Richard Carrier,who think Jesus never existed,

    agree the real,historical Jesus did predict his 2nd Coming “in this generation” to his disciples.

    It passes the criterion of embarassment,

    of multiple attestation,

    and in my opinion of early attestation(the Synoptics being written from 50-60 AD),

    of the Historical Method.

    B.That being a fact,the Quran calls Jesus a prophet and the Messiah.

    Since the historical Jesus said a momentous,enormous failed prophecy,regarding his 2nd Coming,

    he cannot be a real prophet nor the real Messiah,but a false prophet and Messiah,

    that means the Quran has an error.

    C.But I have read an explanation that says Jesus put a Condition for his 2nd Coming:

    The “this generation will not pass until all these things have happened” passage of the 2nd Coming is in:

    Mark 13:30

    Matthew 24:34

    Luke 21:32

    (for me ,this is the supreme example the scribes were faithful in copying)

    It is about the 2nd Coming of Jesus,he said the Temple of Jerusalem would be destroyed and he,Jesus,would return in glory in “this generation”.

    Q is a collection of 50 sayings of Jesus,found in Matthew and Luke,

    but absent in Mark,written around 50 AD.

    One of the sayings is a prophecy by Jesus:

    Luke 13:34-35/Matthew 23:37-38

    ““Jerusalem, Jerusalem!

    You kill the prophets and stone to death those who are sent to you. Many times I wanted to gather your people as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not let me.

    Now your house is left desolate(the Temple,in all probability).

    I (Jesus)

    tell you(Jerusalem),

    you(Jerusalem)

    will not see me(Jesus) until that time

    when you will say(Psalm 118:26), ‘God bless the One who comes in the name of the Lord.’””(in other words,accepts Jesus as Messiah)

    In the gospels Jesus also quotes from the same Psalm 118 but verse 22: “The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone.” and says it is about himself.

    He quotes it after saying the Parable of the Tenants(Matthew 21:28-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19)

    This parable is about the death of Jesus,the Messiah and:

    The landowner – represents God
    The vineyard – His Kingdom
    The tenants – specifically Israel’s religious leaders
    The servants – God’s prophets
    The beloved son – Jesus
    There are various ways to explain the “this generation” problem but the best one is this:

    a)In the Q saying quoted Jesus puts a CONDITION for his 2nd Coming:that he be accepted by Jerusalem as Messiah.

    b)The “this generation” prophecy is dependent on that condition.

    c)A generation in the Bible is 40 years:the number 40 appears more than 20 times in the Bible:40 days,40 years,40 lashes,etc.

    d)Jesus died in 30 AD. So 30 AD plus 40 years= 70 AD(the year the Temple was destroyed)

    Jesus gave Jerusalem 40 years time to accept him as the Messiah.

    e)A boy and girl became adults at age 14(or maybe 12) then,

    so “this generation” in Jesus’ prophecy was all from 14 years old and up.

    f)90% of people then were dead by age 40(this is in a book by John Dominic Crossan),but since an adult began at age 14,by 70 AD there would still be a few who would be 54.

    G.There is external evidence about this 40 year trial period of Jerusalem

    There are 2 Talmuds,the earlier Jerusalem Talmud,and the Babylon Talmud(the one used today).

    They were written late,the Jerusalem Talmud is from 400 AD(final redaction) and the Babylonian Talmud from 500 AD(final redaction).

    The Jewish rabbis had no reason to invent things that would favor Jesus.The most holy Jewish day is Yom Kippus”Day of Atonement”,

    when once a year the Hight Priest would make a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the Jewish people.

    The priests would use certain techniques to know if God approved or not the Yom Kippur sacrifice.

    And both Talmuds report that for 40 years before the destruction of the Temple,the signs were that God REJECTED the Yom Kippur sacrifice.

    http://www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm

    We read in the Jerusalem Talmud:

    Forty years before the destruction of the Temple,

    the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson,

    and the lot for the Lord ALWAYS came up in the left hand(sign God rejected the Yom Kippur sacrifice).

    They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open”

    (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157). [the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE]

    A similar passage in the Babylonian Talmud states:

    “Our rabbis taught:

    During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple

    the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand(sign God rejected the Yom Kippur sacrifice).;

    nor did the crimson-colored strap become white( ANOTHER sign God rejected the Yom Kippur sacrifice)

    nor did the western most light shine;

    and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves” (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).

    Like

  9. I forgot to emphasize,that in the Jerusalem Talmud:

    Forty years before the destruction of the Temple,

    the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson“,

    that the fact the crimson thread did NOT change color was also taken as a sign that God rejected the Yom Kippur sacrifice.

    Like

  10. Richard, why do you keep worrying about what the Quran says? If the Gospels record Jesus as falsely prophesying his return, what does the Quran have to do with it? You should be worried about the Gospels, not the Quran.

    It appears likely that Jesus would have predicted the destruction of the temple. The Q gospel, which you brought up, also mentions the “lament over Jerusalem”. So, it is likely that Jesus predicted this event accurately.

    But the rest of your claim is simply apologetic gymnastics after the fact. Since it is well known that Jesus never returned, apologists have tried in vain to reinterpret the prophecy about his return in light of the temple’s destruction. What else can they do?

    But we know for a fact that early Christians were expecting his return, since 2 Peter reflects that expectation and struggles to explain why it hadn’t happened yet. We also know that 2 Peter is a forgery and wad not written by Peter.

    Also, since you brought up the Q gospel, I’m sure you are aware that it contradicts the canonical Gospels in that it does not say anything about Jesus’ death or resurrection.

    Like

    • Hahaha what did I tell you- Ijaz’s masjid sermon notes aren’t scholarship!

      Of course the Q source does not say anything about Jesus’ death and resurrection. Do you know why? Because the Q source is a hypothetical (perhaps oral) source of Jesus’ sayings. Did you get that? Let me repeat it: It is Jesus’ sayings. Why would a source of Jesus earthlysayings memorised and transferred orally have historical details from after his death and resurrection?

      You just exposed your ignorance big time. How about you leave the computer for a while and actually enrol in a biblical studies course.

      Dawah level: epic fail

      Like

    • it is very significant that Q does not mention the resurrection. If it had been central to Jesus’ mission on earth surely he would have mentioned it. But he did not.

      Like

    • Paulus the missionary deceiver
      When topic Christianity: scholarly correctness, historicity, logically consistent …
      When topic Islam: trolling polemics foam at the mouth

      Liked by 1 person

    • Exactly correct Burhanuddin

      Like

    • Paul, are you admitting that Jesus does talk about his own resurrection in the canonical gospels?

      Like

    • Lol of course the gospels depict Jesus as saying that. However there good historical reasons for doubting the historical Jesus uttered any such predictions

      Like

  11. “Read the Gospel openly.” What Gospel? There were many “gospels” around in early Christianity.

    Paul the “apostles” gospel? One may very well conclude Paul invented HIS Gospel as he calls it? As he was in major conflict with Jesus’ disciples and family.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oh dear. Perhaps you should enrol with Faiz?

      For now though, read acts 15 to see how wrong you are.

      Like

    • Oh dear. Perhaps you should focus on saving your heretic brethren first?

      To look at the differing earliest Christianities without your fundamentalist spin doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

      Like

  12. Did anyone guess why I entitled this post Either/Or?

    Like

    • Because it is a title of one of Soren Kierkegaards books?

      Hopefully though it might be because the two volume work suggests the ascent of humanity begins from hedonism/aesthetics towards a ethically centered life due through an evolution of the mind. Also that the books themselves represent this through two characters? Is Peter Kreeft a type of hedonist?

      Like

    • Wow! I knew you would get it Patrice 🙂

      Like

    • its a gift 😉

      Like

  13. Hello Faiz:

    You said:

    “Richard, why do you keep worrying about what the Quran says? If the Gospels record Jesus as falsely prophesying his return, what does the Quran have to do with it? You should be worried about the Gospels, not the Quran.

    It appears likely that Jesus would have predicted the destruction of the temple. The Q gospel, which you brought up, also mentions the “lament over Jerusalem”. So, it is likely that Jesus predicted this event accurately.

    But the rest of your claim is simply apologetic gymnastics after the fact. Since it is well known that Jesus never returned, apologists have tried in vain to reinterpret the prophecy about his return in light of the temple’s destruction. What else can they do?”

    The Q sayings have Jesus literally specifying a condition for his return:

    “You(Jerusalem),will not see me again until…..”

    Gymnastics is if I were to make the text say something it doesn’t.

    What is written in the 2 Talmuds in no invention of friends of Jesus.

    A.Q is hypothetical,but was supposedly written down 20 years after Jesus’ death, which includes the saying of Jesus where he says Jerusalem won’t see him again until the Jews there accept him.

    Some had said that saying orally to others,and these to others, for 20 years.

    B.In 70 AD,when a Roman army was surrounding Jerusalem,the people still didn’t care about Jesus as Messiah.

    There is something few know about God in the Bible,they think people have no power to change events according to the Bible.

    Jesus in the Synoptics predicts the destruction of the Temple?

    Could it have been prevented? Yes.

    Can the coming of an Antichrist and a False Prophet be prevented? Yes.

    We know because Moses prevented the destruction of the Jews in Exodus 32,because they had created and worshiped a golden calf.

    Anybody else would have given up,and say,like they do today:”Nothing can be done,God has decided,he said an Antichrist will come,it can’t be prevented.”

    But Exodus 32 shows evil events are preventable,so the destruction of the Temple also was,if Jerusalem had accepted Jesus,even in 70 AD

    Exodus 32:9-14

    ” “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them.

    Then I will make you(Moses) into a great nation.”

    But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand?

    Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people.

    Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’”

    Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.”

    Like

    • Richard, you are ignoring the very next chapter of Matthew. Matthew 24 gives a detailed account of the temple’s destruction and the events that would follow. The “son of man” was supposed to come shortly after the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:30). Moreover, Jesus clearly stated that the present generation would not pass away until all of those events had happened (Matthew 24:34).

      Therefore, when read in the context of Matthew 24, Matthew 23:37-38 appears to be saying that Jesus would return in spite of the Jews’ refusal to accept him as the Messiah, since the temple was supposed to be destroyed anyway (Matthew 24:2).

      Like

  14. LOL Lassie! You just exposed your idiocy big time! If Jesus knew of his fate, that he would be crucified and resurrected (as your gospels claim), wouldn’t he have mentioned them in his teachings? Are you really that stupid, you silly missionary mutt? LO!!!

    As it stands, the Q gospel sayings completely lack any evidence that Jesus was aware that he would be crucified and then resurrected. This punches a huge hole in your resurrection nonsense. Without the resurrection, Christianity’s foundation is lost.

    Like

    • Your a fool. You dismiss the actual recorded historical testimony that we can literally see and read on the basis of a hypothetical source combined with a fallacious argument that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence.

      Let’s take your argument ad stupidity and apply it to Islam. Since Jesus in the Q source never said anything about Allah, Muhammad, tawheed I guess we can conclude that those things never existed or happened, cause surely Jesus being a good Muslims would have mentioned it.

      Your arguments are so dumb, naive and childish that it pains me to even have to spell it out.
      Try again princess.

      Dawah level: FAIL

      Like

  15. Here is some more interesting scholarly views on the Q gospel. This is taken from my blog article “Raymond Brown and the “Reality” of the Resurrection of Jesus”:

    …as Kloppenborg observes, the Q Gospel “…lacks any explicit description of Jesus’ death” (p. 65). So, it actually does not tell us much about his last days anyway.

    Moreover, Professor Daniel A. Smith of Huron University College explains that:

    “Assumption…was usually considered a bodily removal of a person from earth to heaven while still alive” (The Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q (New York: T&T Clark International, 2006), p.2)

    Smith, however, did argue that Jesus’ “assumption” occurred after he had died, basing this on “evidence from Graeco-Roman and Jewish sources that assumption language could be applied to someone who had died” (Ibid.). But it seems that Smith assumed Jesus’ “death” from the beginning, rather than determining this from the Q Gospel, which as we already pointed out, did not describe Jesus’ death at all. Furthermore, as Muslim scholar Shabir Ally observes, some scholars came to the conclusion that the Q Gospel implied that Jesus had been raised alive. Commenting on Daniel Smith’s claim that the assumption of Jesus occurred after his death, Ally states:

    “But whereas Smith insists that Jesus was taken up dead in the manner of Moses and Isaiah, his study also highlights the fact that the Q Gospel which served as a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not speak of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The German scholar Deiter Zeller argues on the basis of the Q Gospel, that the early belief entailed the assumption of Jesus alive, as was the case with Enoch and Elijah” (http://shabirally.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/did-jesus-physically-rise-from-the-dead/)

    http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/12/raymond-brown-and-resurrection-of-jesus.html#_edn44

    Like

    • Fail

      You can’t expect us to believe that muslim “NT scholars” have any credibility – their biases almost certainly are not conducive to objective research.

      Besides, what is the “Q gospel”? Could you pull up a copy for us from the interwebz? Maybe OSama Abdhalla has a copy for you to download?

      The “Q source” is hypothetical – so the entire field of NT study would be incredibly impressed if you could produce an actual “copy”. While you’re at it, why don’t you produce a full manuscript of Bukhari from before the 11th century, or provide a complete and full list of the manuscripts that were the source material that he used to compile his “history”.

      Like

  16. Ooh, Lassie is getting angry! LOL!!! Deflecting back to Islam AGAIN??? I guess whenever a missionary dog gets cornered, he has to change the subject to avoid the embarrassment. 😉

    How ironic that you were previously harping about “scholars of repute”, and yet are now trying to deny the historical reality of the Q gospel. Regardless of your childish and ignorant rants, the Q gospel is not “hypothetical”. Scholars know that it existed. As Burton L. Mack states:

    “…scholars discovered that both Matthew and Luke had used a collection of the sayings of Jesus as one of the ‘sources’ for their gospels, the other being the Gospel of Mark. Scholars have known for over 150 years that something like Q must have existed, but they took it for granted until recently” (Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco, HarperOne, 1995), pp. 47-48.).

    Even the famous Catholic scholar Raymond Brown acknowledged that this source existed.

    We also know that the existence of the Q gospel confirms the Islamic view of Jesus (pbuh), which is that he was a prophet of God. Your idiotic rants and attempts to deflect from the giant hole this creates in your asinine religion doesn’t change the facts. Sorry to burst your bubble, Lassie! Be a good boy and accept the facts. 🙂

    Like

    • No deflection, just using your favoured fallacy ‘argument Faiz ad stupidity’ and applying it to Islam to show everyone reading how dumb your comments really are. You make it so easy.

      “We also know that the existence of the Q gospel confirms the Islamic view of Jesus (pbuh), which is that he was a prophet of God.”

      What are you smoking? Or more likely, stop checking out the Egyptian beach volleyball team when you are trying to make comments. Because the conclusion here is about as likely as those same Muslim athletes sporting a bikini

      Like

    • Paulus’ HS is allergic

      Like

  17. LOL Fido! So Dieter Zeller was a Muslim? You are even dumber than I thought!

    Even if I did refer to Muslim scholars, so what? Instead of focusing on their religion, why wouldn’t you try to refute their arguments, instead of resorting to silly ad hominem attacks? Silly boy!

    It seems you and Lassie are part of the same pack of missionary dogs, the ones who thrive on ignorance rather than facts! The Q Gospel is “hypothetical”? LOL!!! No, Fido. It is not “hypothetical”. “Scholar of repute”, to use your canine buddy Lassie’s words, believe that the Q gospel was a historical source.

    Like

    • Fail

      Calm down little britches.

      I take it that you cannot produce a copy of this Q source? Or a full bukhari text from before the 11th century, or a complete body of manuscripts that comprise the full sources for the work from before that date?

      The Q source is hypothetical because it is only hypothesized to have existed – therefore we can only assume what might or might not have been in it.

      It isn’t hard mini-munchkin-man.

      Like

  18. Hello Faiz:

    You said:

    ”Richard, you are ignoring the very next chapter of Matthew. Matthew 24 gives a detailed account of the temple’s destruction and the events that would follow. The “son of man” was supposed to come shortly after the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:30). ”

    Let us see if we can agree on some détails:

    A.I think you would agree that the Son of Man phrase,when used in an apocalyptic sense,is referring to Daniel 7:13-14

    “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man( a human being), coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

    He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language served him.

    His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

    Obviously the historical Jesus got his inspiration from THERE.

    B.The historical Jesus seems to have known the OT well,he also read Zechariah:

    In Qmran there is an incomplete copy of Zechariah,(I think it is from before Jesus) and it has Zechariah 12:10, and the book of Zechariah talks about a great army attacking Jérusalem and suddenly Jérusalem sees:

    Zechariah 12:10

    ””And I(I,God) will pour out on the house of David

    and the inhabitants of Jérusalem a spirit of grace and supplication.

    They(Jérusalem)

    will look on me(on me,God),

    the one they have PIERCED,

    and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

    I think you would agree it coincides with Jesus getting pierced by Jerusalem.

    Like

    • The son of man in Daniel 7 cannot be referring to Jesus (pbuh) because the “little horn” is the Greek king Antiochus IV, who lived almost 2 centuries before Jesus.

      Zechariah 12 cannot be referring to Jesus (pbuh) because when read in context, we find that it has nothing to do with the Messiah being “pierced”. Of special interest are verses 7-9, which utterly refute any attempts to link Zechariah 12 with Jesus:

      “The Lord will save the dwellings of Judah first, so that the honor of the house of David and of Jerusalem’s inhabitants may not be greater than that of Judah. On that day the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord going before them. On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.”

      Clearly, this passage is not even remotely linked to Jesus. When did God “shield those who live in Jerusalem” in Jesus’ time? The reality is that within 40 years of Jesus’ ministry, Jerusalem was actually destroyed by the Roman army and the Jews were defeated and scattered. If Zechariah 12 was referring to the time of Jesus, then it was a false prophecy since Rome not only attacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, it actually succeeded in destroying it and was not the one to be destroyed as the prophecy states.

      Like

  19. Hello Faiz:

    You said:

    ”Richard, you are ignoring the very next chapter of Matthew. Matthew 24 gives a detailed account of the temple’s destruction and the events that would follow. The “son of man” was supposed to come shortly after the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:30). ”

    Let us see if we can agree on more details:

    C.The historical Jesus would have read Zechariah 14:3-4

    Here the battle to save Jérusalem continues,it says:

    ”Then the LORD(Yahweh) will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle.

    On that day HIS FEET feet(the feet of Yahweh) will

    STAND on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem,

    and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south.”

    Jesus was not a trained theologian.he was a carpenter,and I tink he came to a personal interpretation of the OT,he would have thought this phrase would mean God would come INCARNATE.

    D.Not only God I think Jesus would have interpreted Jeremiah as meaning the Messiah would be God Incarnate:

    Jeremiah 23:5-6

    ””The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch/netzer, a

    King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.

    In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: Yahweh Our Righteousness.”

    E.Yeshua or Jesus/Joshua,was a very common name then among Jews and by coincidence Jesus noticed the OT says the Name of the Messiah will be Joshua(Yeshua in Aramaic):

    So that made Jesus think he was the Messiah of the prophecy.

    Zechariah lived in 500 BC and netzer/branch is a title of the Messiah.

    At the time the name of the Jewish High Priest in the Temple of Jerusalem was Joshua.

    Here the name of the netzer,or Messiah,is told.

    Zechariah 3:8-9(God is talking to the High Priest Joshua)

    ” ‘Listen, Joshua, the high priest, and your friends who are sitting in front of you.

    They are symbols of what will happen.

    I am going to bring my servant the Branch. ”

    Zechariah 6:9-12

    Here the crown is the symbol of the king.

    ” The Lord spoke his word to me, saying,

    “Take silver and gold from Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who were captives in Babylon. Go that same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah, who came from Babylon.

    Make the silver and gold into a crown,

    and put it on the head of Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest.

    and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, the man(reference to Joshua,the High Priest)

    whose name(Joshua)

    is the Branch: for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord.”

    I am trying to put myself in the mind of a 1st century carpenter.

    Like

  20. Hello Faiz:

    You said:

    ”Therefore, when read in the context of Matthew 24, Matthew 23:37-38 appears to be saying that Jesus would return in spite of the Jews’ refusal to accept him as the Messiah, since the temple was supposed to be destroyed anyway (Matthew 24:2).”

    I am sure we both agree on this:

    a)In Matthew 24 Jesus is talking to his DISCIPLES

    Is Jesus Also Talking to his DISCIPLES in Matthew 23:37-38?

    By the context,yes,so his disciples heard about the House of Jerusalem being made desolate in Matthew 23,so by Matthew 24 they already knew about it,

    and in Matthew 23 Jesus says ”this generation” will be punished

    but Jesus doesnt say in Matthew 23:

    ”If you repent or not I will still Not Come” Matthew 23:1-39

    ”Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:

    “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. ………………(then he curses the pharisees(the ones who were planning to KILL him 7 times,each time starting with ”Woe to you”)

    “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

    “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.,etc,etc…………………..“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

    Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. ”

    Then Jesus says there will be punishent for ”this generation”:

    ”And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

    Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

    “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate.

    For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

    As for Q,it is a minimum of 50 sayings but since there is no copy one should not speculate and say it DID NOT have a saying about Jesus, death and crucifixion,it probably did.

    Like

  21. LOL, the missionary dogs of hell are getting desperate!

    Lassie, it seems you are getting distracted by women in bikinis. You naughty boy!

    Fido, still can’t provide an intelligent response?

    Here is some evidence from scholarly sources to embarrass you fools more. The following is from Daniel Wallace, a CHRISTIAN scholar no less and a favorite of the Evangelicals (he has debated Bart Ehrman). Speaking about the silly arguments about there being no manuscripts having been found, Wallace responds as follows:

    “A favorite argument against the existence of Q is simply that no manuscripts of Q have ever been discovered. No more than this bare assertion is usually made. But a little probing shows that this argument has some serious weaknesses to it. In particular, three come to mind: (1) If Matthew and Luke swallowed up Q in their writings, why would we expect to find any copies of Q? Or to put this another way, Luke says that he used more than one source, presumably more than one written source. If so, why haven’t we found it/them? The fact that we haven’t surely doesn’t mean that Luke was not shooting straight with us, does it? (2) Even the Gospel of Mark has few copies in the early centuries, yet it was endorsed as an official Gospel by Ireneaus. Yet this is a canonical Gospel, which apparently was regarded in some sense as authoritative before the end of the first century, or at the latest in the first decade or two of the second century, because of its association with Peter. Yet if there are only two copies of Mark in Greek before the fourth century still in existence (at least as far as what has been published to date), what chance do we have of finding a non-canonical gospel-source in the early centuries? And as the centuries roll on, the likelihood that such a document would continue to be copied becomes increasingly remote. (3) Apart from having the text of Q, as it has been reconstructed, what other criteria should scholars demand of such an alleged discovery? Do they expect the document to have a title such as “The Gospel according to Q”? That neologism won’t wash. Perhaps just such manuscripts have been discovered but were mislabeled. The burden of this short essay is to examine that possibility.”

    “Q can conceivably be found only in Luke rather than in Luke and Matthew. That there are 235 verses found in both Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark gives a solid basis for the existence of Q…”

    https://danielbwallace.com/2013/01/16/do-manuscripts-of-q-still-exist/

    LOL, the humiliation continues for the dogs of hell! Here we have a well-known Christian scholar accepting the fact that the Q gospel existed!

    And to add insult to injury, here is another Christian providing the evidence for the existence of the Q gospel:

    “Simply put, the majority of scholars maintain that the materials that are unique to the Matthean and Lukan traditions, but run parallel with one another were obtained via a separate source(s) apart from Mark; a source that the author of Mark did not have himself. The appeal to multiple sources is almost certain, given the opening of Luke’s Gospel which reads, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Lk 1:1-4, ESV). Note Luke’s words of “many have undertaken to compile a narrative” and his appeal to “eyewitnesses and ministers,” for this is where Q fits in. So what was Q? Paul Foster explains, “The Q document was not intended to be a systematic work of theology. Rather, it is a compendium of Jesus material—mainly sayings, but also narratives—that appear to be directed toward those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus.”

    “Finally, Patzia, quoting G.N. Stanton states the following about the supposed, Q, “We may now be reasonably certain that Q existed . . . its 230 or so sayings of Jesus were used and partly reinterpreted by both Matthew and Luke . . . Although clusters of traditions with related themes can be identified, Q contained such varied material that it is unwise to claim that it has one primary theological perspective or that it was used in the early church in any one specific way.””

    https://appliedapologetics.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/the-synoptic-problem-a-defense-of-the-two-sourcefour-source-approach/

    Ouch! Where will you go from here?

    MASSIVE missionary fail…LOL!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Poor fail

      You’re so stupid. Q is hypothetical until the manuscripts can be found – please learn to read munchkin-man. Better still, try to use your brain – I know it is hard for you. And where did I doubt the existence of a Q source?

      Until manuscripts are found, Q remains a hypothesis you hairy little midget. That’s hard for you to comprehend because of your islamic brainwashing that makes you gullible and conditioned to believe that just because someone says somethıng that you like, it must be true.

      And I’m still waiting for you to produce full complement of manuscript evidence for the source material that Bukhari drew from and any complete pre-11th century bukharis. We both know you cannot because the paper trail for your silly religion’s claim are practically non-existent and much ıf what you believe about your profit was made up centuries after his death by men who lived hundreds of miles away from the place where the events took place, and often passed down via people that we have no reason to trust.

      In the centuries between the death of momo and the writing down of his supposed life story, you would have had to trust that the people passing on the oral tradition weren’t making stuff up to elevate their own status – like those people who boast about having met Michael JAckson at the 7-11 one night because they think it makes them special.

      Like

    • Yes, he’s a little slow D since neither of us denied the Q source. But just like his argument ad stupidity, poor Fiaz now needs to rely upon straw men arguments.

      Now Fiaz, can you find Dan Wallace draw the conclusion you did earlier re Q source. Any scholar? Nup, didn’t think so.

      Dawah level: Fail

      Like

    • D we know people made stuff up with the Hadith- somewhere in the range of several
      Hundred thousand fake and fabricated so called ‘sayings’. Perhaps we could name this the FF SOURCE- the fabricated Faiz source haha. And then we might draw the conclusion that they teach the trinity and incarnation of Christ just to make Faiz’s childish arguments seem plausible.

      There you go Faiz- the FF source that Muslims rejected were only rejected because they taught Christian doctrine.

      Like

  22. Greetings Burhanuddin:

    You said:

    “”And so upon you will come all the righteous blood…”

    How come? No one can be righteous? Remember?”

    I think,I think,it means they were saved,since there is a similar expression regarding Abraham:

    Genesis 15:6

    “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.”

    Romans 4:2-4

    “For if Abraham was declared righteous by works, he has something to boast about—but not before God.

    For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.””

    Like

    • Creative answer. The quote in question doesn’t mention faith or Abraham at all. It’s about justice and the difference between the righteous and the wicked.

      “Both of them were RIGHTEOUS in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.” Luke 1

      “Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was RIGHTEOUS and devout.”

      Seems Jesus and “Luke” believed humans can be righteous unlike Paul of Tarsus.

      Like

  23. Hello Faiz:

    You quoted Raymond Brown and Shabir Ally:

    “Moreover, Professor Daniel A. Smith of Huron University College explains that:

    Assumption…was usually considered a bodily removal of a person from earth to heaven while still alive” (The Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q (New York: T&T Clark International, 2006), p.2)

    Smith, however, did argue that Jesus’ “assumption” occurred after he had died, basing this on “evidence from Graeco-Roman and Jewish sources that assumption language could be applied to someone who had died” (Ibid.).

    But it seems that Smith assumed Jesus’ “death” from the beginning, rather than determining this from the Q Gospel,

    which as we already pointed out, did not describe Jesus’ death at all.

    Furthermore, as Muslim scholar Shabir Ally observes, some scholars came to the conclusion that the Q Gospel implied that Jesus had been raised alive.

    Commenting on Daniel Smith’s claim that the assumption of Jesus occurred after his death, Ally states:

    “But whereas Smith insists that Jesus was taken up dead in the manner of Moses and Isaiah, his study also highlights the fact that the Q Gospel which served as a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not speak of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

    The German scholar Deiter Zeller argues on the basis of the Q Gospel, that the early belief entailed the assumption of Jesus alive, as was the case with Enoch and Elijah” (http://shabirally.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/did-jesus-physically-rise-from-the-dead/)”

    Though I personally think the Q collection would have logically had the Son of Man saying(which Jesus repeats 3 times on 3 different occasions,and which appear in Mark,Luke and Matthew) that goes:

    “The Son of Man will be killed and resurrect on the third day

    it is just a hunch,but impossible to tell,since we dont have a copy of Q.

    But in Q there is the Sign of Jonah saying.

    It really goes against the idea that there was a belief Jesus was taken up to heaven and not resurrected.

    Matthew 12:38-40

    “Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”

    He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

    For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish,

    so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in

    the heart of the earth. ”

    If you are inside the earth,its “heart”,you are definitely DEAD,buried.

    But Jonah returns Alive,after 3 days.

    Like

    • Except that Jonah was not DEAD while he was in the fish. He was ALIVE. Therefore, it follows that Jesus too was ALIVE.

      Furthermore, there is no way that Jesus was buried for 3 days and 3 nights. According to the Gospels, he was buried on Friday and resurrected on Sunday morning. That’s 3 days and 2 nights.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. The other Sign of Jonah saying in Matthew is:

    Matthew 16:4

    “A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.”

    Luke 11:29 says:

    “As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”

    Only Matthew has the expression “in the heart of the earth”,but reading Jonah you see Jonah died.

    In Hebrew the land of the dead is called SHEOL,to be there is to have died.

    Jonah 2:2

    “I called to the LORD in my distress, and He answered me. I cried out for help in the belly of Sheol; You heard my voice.”

    Like

  25. But notice Jonah still stayed here on earth,

    and went to Nineveh,the capital of the Assyrian empire,he was Not taken to heaven,dead or alive,in an assumption.

    Like

  26. Hello Faiz:

    You said:

    ”Furthermore, there is no way that Jesus was buried for 3 days and 3 nights. According to the Gospels, he was buried on Friday and resurrected on Sunday morning. That’s 3 days and 2 nights.”

    ”3 days and 3 nights” is an expression. It can mean the totality or a portion.

    The fact it is Matthew shows that the scribes copied faithfully,they certainly knew Jesus had not been there literally 3 days and nights.

    In this article a exact situation appears in the book of Esther:

    http://www.theologicalperspectives.com/three-days-and-three-nights

    ”A passage in the book of Esther is also used to support the belief that three days and three nights can mean portions of days and nights.

    Esther 4:16:

    “Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink

    for three days,

    night or day.

    I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.”

    Esther 5:1

    ”On the third day

    Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king’s hall. The king was sitting on his royal throne in the hall, facing the entrance. When he saw Queen Esther standing in the court, he was pleased with her and held out to her the gold scepter that was in his hand. So Esther approached and touched the tip of the scepter.”

    We see here that fasting was to be done for three days which is defined as night and day periods of time. The indication is that after these three periods of night and day Esther would approach the king. Yet we see Esther approaching the king on the third day. ”

    Like

    • The context in Esther is completely different. Plus, parts of a day or night could indeed be considered a day or night, respectively. But that is why there could not be 3 days and 3 nights from the crucifixion and the resurrection. There were 3 days and 2 nights.

      Like

  27. Hello Faiz:

    You also said:

    ”Except that Jonah was not DEAD while he was in the fish. He was ALIVE. Therefore, it follows that Jesus too was ALIVE.”

    The reason you say Jonah was alive is because you interpret the word sheol in a metaphorical way,like Zeller:

    ”the belly of sheol” in Jonah 2:2 where:

    belly= belly of the giant fish

    sheol= whale

    But I think it is more logical to say:

    belly of sheol=inside(like in the belly) of sheol(land of the dead)

    Like

    • Why would we think it is the “land of the dead” when the text clearly says that Jonah was thrown overboard and swallowed by a fish?

      And again, Elijah was taken up to heaven while he was still alive. Therefore, assumption while alive clearly has a Biblical precedent.

      Like

  28. LOL, the missionary dogs of hell still cannot refute the scholarly evidence presented! I have already provided the views of scholars that show that the Christian nonsense about the resurrection and redemptive death of Jesus were later inventions. From my article:

    “As shocking as it may be to Christians, it tells us nothing because the resurrection story is actually completely absent from this early source! In fact, even later sources like the Didache,[39] placed no importance on the resurrection and failed to even mention it, indicating a gradual development of the concept among Christians. As Russell Martin explains:

    “The Didache, the epistle of James, the Gospel of Thomas and Sayings Gospel Q represent a stage in Christianity when the crucifixion and resurrection had not yet achieved any importance. […] They show no significant interest in miracles as proof of Jesus’ divine status, and little influence of the Pauline teaching of justification by faith or the importance of the crucifixion or resurrection.”[40]

    So, Christianity developed the concept of the resurrection over time! The early Q community did not have such a concept. Rather, they emphasized the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the importance of attaining the “kingdom of God”.[41] As Mack explains:

    “Instead of people meeting to worship a risen Christ, as in the Pauline congregations, or worrying about what it meant to be a follower of a martyr, as in the Markan community, the people of Q were fully preoccupied with questions about the kingdom of God in the present and the behavior required if one took it seriously.”[42]”

    The humiliation continues for Fido and Lassie! All they can do is bark in frustration! LOL!! Poor, poor missionaries…

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: