This is very interesting. Craig L. Blomberg is an American New Testament scholar at the evangelical Denver Seminary in Colorado and he is explicitly motivated in his work as a conservative Evangelical to defend the inerrancy of the Bible (if he did not affirm the inerrancy of the Bible he could not keep his job). As such his work is not objective historically. BUT see his disarmingly honest comments in a video published yesterday about the comparative textual reliability of the Quran when compared with the New Testament. Blomberg refers to,
“a growing and sophisticated Muslim apologetics that builds its case from the fact the New Testament was not preserved as accurately as the Qur’an has been”
Dr Craig Blomberg talks about his new book, “The Historical Reliability of the New Testament.” The quote begins at -2:48.
Categories: Bart Ehrman, Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, Islam, Quran
Blogging Theology 
Can you post the link please.
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://www.facebook.com/BHAcademic/videos/689193041254750/
LikeLike
Williams
The critical method? Lol
In other words if it seems to line with the Islam=true. And if it contradicts Islam=false.
How convenient and intellectually honest…
LikeLike
You scoff because you do not appreciate or understand biblical scholarship
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the findings of the HCM correspond to Revelation from God, then of course that validates the findings.
LikeLike
Ta much!
LikeLike
Keeping something preserved doesn’t mean that it’s the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is true.
LikeLike
But not keeping something preserved means that it is even less likely to be the truth, in comparison with something else that WAS preserved.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Not when that allegedly preserved something can so blatantly and demonstrably false.
LikeLike
in your humble view lol
LikeLike
Is not can*
LikeLike
In any unbiased humble view.
LikeLike
Zelyts, what is the most blatantly and demonstrably false thing about the Quran?
LikeLike
Kmak
Doesn’t it say something about Jesus not being crucified and rising from the dead?
LikeLike
Zelyts,
You do realize that the earliest extent Canonized Gospel Mark does not document the resurrection either. According to you does that mean Mark is not the truth?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What follows was originally posted by Paul Williams on this Blog:
The distinguished Christian philosopher and believer in the crucifixion Rev Professor John Hick, was honest enough to admit (that in regard to Surat An-Nisā’ 4:155-157):
‘Historically it is very difficult to dispute the qur’anic verse since presumably it would not be possible for observers at the time to tell the difference between Jesus being crucified and his only appearing to be crucified – unless what is suggested is that someone else was crucified in his place.’
Religious Pluralism and Islam, Lecture delivered to the Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, Tehran, February 2005.
(The disputed historical question of the crucifixion of Jesus is really a very minor issue for Muslims as Jesus did not go around Galilee preaching that forgiveness of sins was made possible through his death but instead through simple repentance to God – without a mediator – which is what Islam teaches too, see Matthew 5-7 (the Sermon on the Mount) and passim).
LikeLiked by 4 people
zelda, nobody witnessed jesus leaving his tomb. mark, the earliest gospel has an angel say “he is going before you to galilee….”
why was it important for luke to add in words such as:
“Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6he is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7‘The son of man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8Then they remembered his words.
when his source left it like :
‘he is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.
the women don’t need to remember ANY words in mark because they aren’t going to speak.
why are angels singing church sermons in empty tombs?
why would the disciples risk their lives staying in jerusalem ?
they ran off all the way back to galilee and didn’t show their faces again in jerusalem
those disciples didn’t witness any crucifixion .
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6he is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7‘The son of man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8Then they remembered his words.”
makes one wonder why the writer of luke desperately needed to put in detail in the angels mouth when it would have been “common knowledge ” in his time.
LikeLike
No but something that is not preserved is definitely not the truth.
I’ll let that sink in…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ibn Issam
Mark records the crucifixion and death though. Things which the Quran wrongly denies.
LikeLike
thirstforknowledge
I guess that rules the Quran out then.
LikeLike
Irony just died…
LikeLike
thirstforknowledge
The Quran is not perfectly preserved my friend.
Google “26 Qurans”
LikeLike
Lol
LikeLike
“Mark records the crucifixion and death though. Things which the Quran wrongly denies.”
you mean mark NEEDS his “ransom” to die.
you mean luke needs his “martyr” to die
you mean matthew needs his “ransom” to die
you mean john NEEDS his “lamb” to die.
do you trust mark when he says jesus received a beating or do you trust that mark was using isaiah 53 and then luke went back to isaiah 53 and tried to find a martyr interpretation ?
but isaiah 53 has no piercing .
quote :
One important detail is the use of NAILS. Most paintings and sculptures of the crucifixion show Jesus as nailed to the cross, but the synoptic Gospels do not mention hammers, hammering, nails, or nailing. The synoptic gospels only say that Jesus was crucified, and crucifixion was often carried out by binding the victim to the cross, without using nails. The Gospel of John also does not mention hammers, hammering, nails, or nailing in the description of Jesus’ crucifixion.
However, in the story of Doubting Thomas, which is found ONLY in the Gospel of John, we are told that the risen Jesus had marks in his hands/wrists from nails. Since nails are mentioned ONLY in the Gospel of John and in the dubious story of Doubting Thomas which also occurs ONLY in the Gospel of John, the evidence for the use of nails in Jesus’ crucifixion is weak and questionable. (Note: The Doubting Thomas story says nothing about nail wounds in Jesus’ feet, only in his hands.)
If Jesus had been bound to the cross rather than nailed to the cross, then that would mean that instead of having a serious wound in each hand/wrist and in each foot/ankle, he would have had no serious wound in each hand/wrist and no serious wound in each foot/ankle, meaning that four of the serious wounds traditionally believed to have been inflicted on Jesus, might be fictional rather than factual. If Jesus had been bound rather than nailed to the cross, this would significantly reduce the probability that he would die after just a few hours of hanging on the cross.
hmmmmmm
interesting
“going before you to galilee….
interesting
LikeLike
clearly the crucifxion was getting contested , look at lukes desperation here
“Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6he is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7‘The son of man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8Then they remembered his words.”
forget galilee, this guy needs his jesus to appear in the same city .
not only that, but he needs to make sure the women open their closed mouths.
LikeLike
Zelyts,
The Bible is not preserved my friend. Stop reading Christian fundamentalist websites and Google, “New Testament Historical textual criticism.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jay Smith and David Woods ridiculous 26 Qur’ans theory has been refuted by Aqil Onque :
26 DIFFERENT ARABIC QUR’AN REFUTED IN 10 POINTS
LikeLiked by 5 people
Ibn Issam
The Christian message has been preserved my friend.
The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That’s the gospel.
LikeLike
That is not the gospel Jesus preached
LikeLiked by 3 people
Williams
I beg to differ.
What gospel do you propose Jesus preached. Please pray tell.
LikeLike
let me ask you this question: according to the gospel of Jesus how are we justified before God?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Williams
Through faith in His Son.
LikeLike
wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
do you believe jesus was a jew?
if yes, then did he preach in jewish religious places?
if yes, then did he invoke hebrew God directly ?
if yes , then did people hear him invoke hebrew God directly?
if yes, then did he give the impression everyone has direct access to hebrew God?
if yes , then do what jesus did .
LikeLike
Williams
No. not wrong.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
John 3:16
“When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.””
John 6:25-29
LikeLike
John is a late gospel which reflects the theology and beliefs of its author to a very high degree. I was referring to the earliest gospels of Matt, Mark and Luke.
LikeLike
Williams
Nice goal post shift there dude lol.
But sorry we believe ALL the gospels and epistles are divinely inspired.
LikeLike
Williams
Nice goalpost shift there lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you! I should have made clearer where the goal posts were lol.
So in historically more reliable synoptic gospels, what was the gospel message Jesus preached?
LikeLiked by 2 people
ALL of the gospels are divinely inspired to Christians. You can’t pick and choose.
Nice try.
LikeLike
But they do not claim to be inspired by God. So tell me according to Mark, what was the gospel Jesus preached?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Zelyts Suoiruf
December 22, 2016 • 1:36 pm
ALL of the gospels are divinely inspired to Christians. You can’t pick and choose.
Nice try.
I say;
Why did you pick and choose only one of the gospel for your answer? And not the others? Why did you pick and chose the gospel of Shepherd Hermas and epistle of Banabas out of the Bible?
Why did you pick and choose some gospels and CANONIZED them and threw some away?
You are doing a lot of pick and choose with your different gospels.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Williams
The same as all the other gospels, he preached about his death and resurrection.
“He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.”
Mark 8:31
LikeLike
Not quite. According to Jesus what must I do to be saved?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Williams
What do you mean not quite? Lol.
I just gave you the gospel of Mark with Jesus predicting his own death and resurrection.
As for your question, according to Jesus what must you do to be saved?
The answer is the same as he gave to the rich young ruler. Keeping the law is not enough. You must put your faith in Jesus and follow Him.
LikeLike
Where does Jesus say you must put your faith in him?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Williams
The problem the rich young ruler had was that he had too much faith in the material things of this world. Idolatry was what was holding him back.
Jesus was essentially telling him to give all that up and trust and follow Him, if he wants to be saved.
Now to give everything up and decide to follow someone requires a certain amount of faith wouldn’t you say?
LikeLike
Indeed it does. But that is not the same as Jesus saying you must have faith in him to be saved.
After Jesus told him he must obey the Jewish law to be saved and the man said he had done so since he was young, what was the ONE THING Jesus said he lacked to get eternal life?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Jesus was essentially telling him to give all that up and trust and follow Him, if he wants to be saved.”
he wasn’t telling him to trust him , because he said “no one is good but god alone”
so he was telling the man to trust gods commandment, not jesus.
if he obeys the law about giving to the poor and becoming poor himself and living a homeless life and “carrying his cross” or suffering on the streets, god would turn things around for him.
christians who are building their treasures on earth are idolatrous.
jesus wants you to keep your hands unwashed and live on the streets and sleep in card board boxes.
but you christians don’t even trust your jesus .
LikeLike
Williams
I just told you. The thing he lacked was to let go of his personal riches(idolatry) and follow Jesus.
To do that he would have to have faith in Jesus. Because obeying the law couldn’t save him.
LikeLike
“I just told you. The thing he lacked was to let go of his personal riches(idolatry) and follow Jesus.”
that’s two things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr Heathcliffe
Holding on to his personal riches was the ONE thing keeping him away from following Jesus. That’s the point.
LikeLike
You misread the passage. Following Jesus comes AFTER doing the one thing necessary for eternal life.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Holding on to his personal riches was the ONE thing keeping him away from following Jesus. That’s the point.”
his personal riches kept him disconnected with the god of jesus, if he let go of his personal riches he had eternal life and need not even follow jesus because “no one is good but god alone”
quote :
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
notice that “go sell everything you have…” is more important than “follow me”
once the guy has let go of his riches he would become homeless and in a sense he is “following” jesus by living on the streets, hands unwashed and scavenging .
quote:
28 Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!”
quote:
“no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age
it’s all about becoming homeless and keep hands unwashed and eat out of dustbin and sleep rough on the streets.
if anyone can do this, then god would reward abundantly.
LikeLike
Williams
No. letting go of his riches was the stumbling block to following Jesus for the rich man. which is what leads to eternal life.
We know this by corroborating all of scripture, not taking one or two isolated verses and ripping them out of context like you Muslims love to do.
Jesus pretty much confirms this in chapter Mark chapter 8:
“Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Fatherʼs glory with the holy angels.””
Mark 8:34-36, 38
☝️️ As you can see, the young ruler loved his riches too much to deny himself, take up his cross and follow Christ.
What does it profit and someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?
LikeLike
You refuse to read the passage in its narrative sequence. First Jesus was asked about getting eternal life: obey the Jewish law ( do you obey the law?) ; man says he has had done that.
Next Jesus says he lacked JUST ONE THING to get eternal life: give his wealth to the poor and he would have treasure in heaven, but because the man was rich he walked away. If he had accepted Jesus’s teaching he would have been saved. After getting eternal life in this way he should follow Jesus..,
LikeLike
Williams
Once again, Jesus says in chapter 8:
“Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Fatherʼs glory with the holy angels.””
Mark 8:34-38
LikeLike
” As you can see, the young ruler loved his riches too much to deny himself, take up his cross and follow Christ.”
you are missing the point. he lives a homeless life? yes
he suffers on the streets if he gives up his wealth? yes
where does giving up his wealth imply believing in jesus as a levitical animal
“sacrifice” for the atonement of sins?
you have to stretch imagination like a rubber band!
LikeLike
“Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Fatherʼs glory with the holy angels.””
how do you prevent the loss of your life? by becoming homeless and allow people to persecute you and allow people to run over you. if you are staying in your house and looking after yourself you are trying to save your life.
you need to make sacrifices in your life and give up the comfort of your own home .
LikeLike
Lets try again. According to the gospel of Jesus how am I justified before God?
LikeLike
Williams
Are you seriously suggesting that in order for YOU to be saved YOU have to go out and sell all that you have and give to the poor?
LikeLike
maybe. But for that particular man it was the key to salvation.
Now, you have not answered my question.
According to the gospel that Jesus preached,
how are we justified before God?
LikeLike
yes, that interpretation is 100 % a possibility
LikeLike
christians should be preparing to lose their life and go out and suffer, but nowadays they pretend to be persecuted and wear silver or gold crucifix’
LikeLiked by 1 person
Williams
I wanna ask you a question now. Why do you believe what Jesus said in Mark 10(at least your incorrect understanding of it) but not what he says in Mark 9:31?
“He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.””
LikeLike
by applying the historical critical method
LikeLike
Williams
“”But for that particular man it was the key to salvation.””
No. it was the key to following Christ which brings salvation.
I’ve gave you scripture. Jesus said if you deny Me I will deny you before my Father.
LikeLike
that’s from John
LikeLike
Williams
The critical method? Lol
In other words if it seems to line with the Islam=true. And if it contradicts Islam=false.
How convenient and intellectually honest…
Like
LikeLike
“He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.””
i think mark made this up. now it is possible to predict your death if you put yourself in dangerous places, but we note that jesus christ is always able to escape the grasp of the jews when they attempt to corner him and kill him.
how come jesus is the only one arrested and his friends allowed to run away?
ehrman thinks that jesus was caught off guard and later christians created the claim that jesus knew all along that he was going to be betrayed and handed over.
one thing about mark is that he does not have his women remember and speak the words relayed to them at the tomb . this gives me some kind of clue that the prediction about being handed over to the authorities was not important enough to convey, but the later writers found it very important to convey
just compare to two accounts
quote:
But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him, just as He told you
quote:
e is not here; He has risen! Remember how He told you while He was still in Galilee: 7‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’” 8Then they remembered His words.…
why the additional words ? why have the women remember when according to the first account they did not speak?
why did luke find it important to tell about being delivered, crucified …. and then relayed to the disciples ?
“then they remembered his words” is clearly missing important detail from the first account.
is it that the “just as he told you ” was simply
“i will be going ahead of you into galilee” was just what jesus really said and all the additional details even in luke and mark about being handed over, crucified and raised = inventions by later christians?
LikeLike
Williams
“”According to the gospel of Jesus how am I justified before God?””
——
To begin with by acknowledging that you’re a sinner.
LikeLike
And?????
LikeLike
Zelyts Suoiruf
December 24, 2016 • 10:18 am
Williams
“”According to the gospel of Jesus how am I justified before God?””
——
To begin with by acknowledging that you’re a sinner.
I say;
How can a baby or a mentally retarded acknowledge that they are sinners? How can a baby who did not sin acknowledge that he is a sinner?
I know Christians do a lot of sins like anyone else, did they not acknowledge they are sinners?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Williams
And accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour.
LikeLike
Jesus says that where?
LikeLike
Williams
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who so ever believes in Him shall perish but have eternal life.
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Matthew 26:28
“Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.”
Luke 2:11
It’s disgraceful how selective you Muslims are. You must take the bible as a whole. Not cherry pick a few verses here and there that on casual glance may appear to conform with your presupposition. That’s not an honest way to seek truth.
LikeLike
Poor chap. The music is awful.
LikeLike
He looks really bored. I’m sure his students fall asleep while listening to him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thing is, if you were one of his students of the Bible he would of necessity be very dull as you would know in advance what his all conclusions will be.
He is explicitly motivated in his work as a conservative Evangelical to defend the inerrancy of the Bible. No need for scholarship really. Just read off the pages of the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! Instead of attending his class at evangelical Denver Seminary, his students could save their money and take the same class for free at the local literalist Church down the street…..or just read a free Bible, that missionaries are always handing out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“a growing and sophisticated Muslim apologetics that builds its case from the fact the New Testament was not preserved as accurately as the Qur’an has been”
After Uthman burned all (or most all) the earlier evidence.
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailima). (I went to him) and found `Umar bin Al- Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), “`Umar has come to me and said:
“Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Qur’an by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.” I said to `Umar, “How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” `Umar said, “By Allah, that is a good project.” `Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which `Umar had realized.” Then Abu Bakr said (to me). ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ). So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it in one book.” By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, “How will you do something which Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) did not do?” Abu Bakr replied, “By Allah, it is a good project.” Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and `Umar. So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from (what was written on) palme stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is: ‘Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa’ (at-Tauba) (9.128-129). Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur’an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with `Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of `Umar.
حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ السَّبَّاقِ، أَنَّ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ أَرْسَلَ إِلَىَّ أَبُو بَكْرٍ مَقْتَلَ أَهْلِ الْيَمَامَةِ فَإِذَا عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ عِنْدَهُ قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ إِنَّ عُمَرَ أَتَانِي فَقَالَ إِنَّ الْقَتْلَ قَدِ اسْتَحَرَّ يَوْمَ الْيَمَامَةِ بِقُرَّاءِ الْقُرْآنِ وَإِنِّي أَخْشَى أَنْ يَسْتَحِرَّ الْقَتْلُ بِالْقُرَّاءِ بِالْمَوَاطِنِ، فَيَذْهَبَ كَثِيرٌ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ وَإِنِّي أَرَى أَنْ تَأْمُرَ بِجَمْعِ الْقُرْآنِ. قُلْتُ لِعُمَرَ كَيْفَ تَفْعَلُ شَيْئًا لَمْ يَفْعَلْهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ عُمَرُ هَذَا وَاللَّهِ خَيْرٌ. فَلَمْ يَزَلْ عُمَرُ يُرَاجِعُنِي حَتَّى شَرَحَ اللَّهُ صَدْرِي لِذَلِكَ، وَرَأَيْتُ فِي ذَلِكَ الَّذِي رَأَى عُمَرُ. قَالَ زَيْدٌ قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ إِنَّكَ رَجُلٌ شَابٌّ عَاقِلٌ لاَ نَتَّهِمُكَ، وَقَدْ كُنْتَ تَكْتُبُ الْوَحْىَ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَتَتَبَّعِ الْقُرْآنَ فَاجْمَعْهُ فَوَاللَّهِ لَوْ كَلَّفُونِي نَقْلَ جَبَلٍ مِنَ الْجِبَالِ مَا كَانَ أَثْقَلَ عَلَىَّ مِمَّا أَمَرَنِي مِنْ جَمْعِ الْقُرْآنِ قُلْتُ كَيْفَ تَفْعَلُونَ شَيْئًا لَمْ يَفْعَلْهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ هُوَ وَاللَّهِ خَيْرٌ فَلَمْ يَزَلْ أَبُو بَكْرٍ يُرَاجِعُنِي حَتَّى شَرَحَ اللَّهُ صَدْرِي لِلَّذِي شَرَحَ لَهُ صَدْرَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ فَتَتَبَّعْتُ الْقُرْآنَ أَجْمَعُهُ مِنَ الْعُسُبِ وَاللِّخَافِ وَصُدُورِ الرِّجَالِ حَتَّى وَجَدْتُ آخِرَ سُورَةِ التَّوْبَةِ مَعَ أَبِي خُزَيْمَةَ الأَنْصَارِيِّ لَمْ أَجِدْهَا مَعَ أَحَدٍ غَيْرَهُ {لَقَدْ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ عَزِيزٌ عَلَيْهِ مَا عَنِتُّمْ} حَتَّى خَاتِمَةِ بَرَاءَةَ، فَكَانَتِ الصُّحُفُ عِنْدَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ حَتَّى تَوَفَّاهُ اللَّهُ ثُمَّ عِنْدَ عُمَرَ حَيَاتَهُ ثُمَّ عِنْدَ حَفْصَةَ بِنْتِ عُمَرَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ.
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 4986
In-book reference : Book 66, Hadith 8
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 509
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to `Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So `Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to `Uthman. `Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, `Abdullah bin AzZubair, Sa`id bin Al-As and `AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. `Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had written many copies, `Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. `Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.
حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى، حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ شِهَابٍ، أَنَّ أَنَسَ بْنَ مَالِكٍ، حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّ حُذَيْفَةَ بْنَ الْيَمَانِ قَدِمَ عَلَى عُثْمَانَ وَكَانَ يُغَازِي أَهْلَ الشَّأْمِ فِي فَتْحِ إِرْمِينِيَةَ وَأَذْرَبِيجَانَ مَعَ أَهْلِ الْعِرَاقِ فَأَفْزَعَ حُذَيْفَةَ اخْتِلاَفُهُمْ فِي الْقِرَاءَةِ فَقَالَ حُذَيْفَةُ لِعُثْمَانَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَدْرِكْ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَخْتَلِفُوا فِي الْكِتَابِ اخْتِلاَفَ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى فَأَرْسَلَ عُثْمَانُ إِلَى حَفْصَةَ أَنْ أَرْسِلِي إِلَيْنَا بِالصُّحُفِ نَنْسَخُهَا فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ ثُمَّ نَرُدُّهَا إِلَيْكِ فَأَرْسَلَتْ بِهَا حَفْصَةُ إِلَى عُثْمَانَ فَأَمَرَ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ وَعَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ وَسَعِيدَ بْنَ الْعَاصِ وَعَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنَ الْحَارِثِ بْنِ هِشَامٍ فَنَسَخُوهَا فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ وَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ لِلرَّهْطِ الْقُرَشِيِّينَ الثَّلاَثَةِ إِذَا اخْتَلَفْتُمْ أَنْتُمْ وَزَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ فِي شَىْءٍ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ فَاكْتُبُوهُ بِلِسَانِ قُرَيْشٍ فَإِنَّمَا نَزَلَ بِلِسَانِهِمْ فَفَعَلُوا حَتَّى إِذَا نَسَخُوا الصُّحُفَ فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ رَدَّ عُثْمَانُ الصُّحُفَ إِلَى حَفْصَةَ وَأَرْسَلَ إِلَى كُلِّ أُفُقٍ بِمُصْحَفٍ مِمَّا نَسَخُوا وَأَمَرَ بِمَا سِوَاهُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ فِي كُلِّ صَحِيفَةٍ أَوْ مُصْحَفٍ أَنْ يُحْرَقَ.
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 4987
In-book reference : Book 66, Hadith 9
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 510
(bolding my emphasis)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“After Uthman burned all (or most all) the earlier evidence.”
where are the give away seams? where are two different traditions merging together in manuscript evidence?
LikeLike
Ken,
This is an old one. There’s a clip on YouTube of Dr Yasir Qadhi explaining the burning of he manuscripts. I’m out so can’t link to it – but please do seek it out.
Thanks
LikeLiked by 2 people
‘Uthman burned all the qurans so it’s not preserved’.Classic
LikeLike
I believe this is the link:
Why did Uthman burn the Qur’an, Yasir Qadhi answers:
Why did Usman(R.A) burn the manuscripts of Holy Quran.Deedat answers
LikeLiked by 3 people
There is something very wrong in the translation of the first hadith which ((we are proud of )) as authentic history of how Quran got compiled. This is not the first time I notice this, especially if the translation is from Sunnah.com.
“.. other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost”
Umar ( ra) did not say that !
What he said literally is ” I’m afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, then a large part of the Qur’an WOULD be lost.”
He was talking about something he afraid to happaen, YET it has not happened.
Come on christians! You dream about narrations like this for your bible which you have no idea who wrote it in the first place. Notice, we don’t talk about how your bible got complied , but who wrote it.
So imagine if that very history got transmitted & preserved by golden chains?
Not only do we have Quran preserved, but also the history of Quran got preserved!
The second hadith is as if I said to christians “Peter had done his best to deliver the pure message of Jesus for you” !
You wish to have a person like Utham who was the son in law of the prophet pbuh, he was the 4th of 4 men converting to Islam, and he migrated twice. He himself was memorizing Quran.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He is explicitly motivated in his work as a conservative Evangelical to defend the inerrancy of the Bible. No need for scholarship really. Just read off the pages of the Bible.
Same for Muslim believing scholars who truly believe in Islam and the Qur’an.
The Muslim scholars are explicitly motivated in their work as Muslims to defend the inerrancy of the Qur’an. No need for scholarship really. Just read off the pages of the Qur’an; and if they did do real scholarship and write about doubts about the Qur’an, they would loose their jobs, be put in prison, or killed, in the Muslim world.
The western, even believing scholars, are more open and honest about the history of our text and textual variants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ken: With your new posts I am now convinced that you are indeed insane. No sane ,rational person makes opinion about something without even trying to understand what he is commenting about. If u really want to comment about Quran, first understand what is Quran, how was it collected, where Muslim consensus lies, what are the evidences, what is basis of those evidences, how those evidences were collected, what modern scholarship of east and west says about the “evidence” and Quran itself, and so forth. Just quoting some random hadeeth or verses of Quran without understanding what it is an evidence of insanity. not much different than what ISIS does. Same methodology though different conclusions.
For example you quoted hadeeth in Arabic? can you even read it? if not then why quote it?
I often criticize similar Muslim attitude about Bible. One must maintain his integrity, honesty, rigorousness, before embarking on these subjects.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The main point about quoting those 2 Hadith passages is the massive difference between the history of the text of the NT – which was free, uncontrolled, under persecution; Romans burned many manuscripts; and there was no government power of the sword or force to enforce the text or canon; and yet it (the 27 books of the NT) survived those 312 years of persecution. Also they were written by about 9 different human authors in places all over the Roman Empire.
The great difference is that when Uthman ordered one text to be made from the efforts and collection, and burnt everything else, and enforced the text by the power of Caliphate government; it raises many questions and doubts about the earlier and more authentic materials.
Especially since, according to Hadith literature, there were differences between Ibn Masood and Zayd Ibn Thabit, and Ubai Ibn Kaab.
Also, the fact that in the search, first Zayd Ibn Thabit found the last 2 verses of Surah 9 (Surah 9:128-129) was with only one person (Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari) !
How do we know others were not found that was with only one person?
How do we know that other original verses of the Qur’an were not burnt when Uthman ordered all other Qur’anic materials to be burnt?
Hadith literature and Tafsirs, etc. indicate that other Qur’anic verses existed that are not in the Uthmanic Qur’an.
Also, 18 years later, after Zayd’s initial collection; they found another verse that was with only one person – Surah 33:23
Then there is the textual variant in Surah 33:6 that Yusuf Ali mentions in his translation of the Qur’an.
And also, there is the verse that was eaten by a goat that Aisha reported in Hadith, Sunan Ibn Majah, 1944, and is “hasan” (good).
A sane person looks at all this evidence and asks theses questions that are raised, and a thinking person would see the problems and doubts that arise.
LikeLike
The reason I have the Arabic also is because in order to get the reference at the end when I copied it from Sunnah.com is because the Arabic is in the middle, and I see nothing wrong, in fact, everything right with including the Arabic original.
I can read and understand SOME words; the ones we have in Farsi, and a few others I have learned.
LikeLike
” the massive difference between the history of the text of the NT – which was free, uncontrolled, under persecution; Romans burned many manuscripts”
Pleae! This argument which is related to James white is the most stupid argument I’ve ever heard with no offence . 🙂
It always makes me recall the story of the fox whose tail got cut when he tried to convince its friends it’s better to have no fluffy tail.
The translation of the first hadith is somehow implies that Sahabah lost Quran while that was not what Umar (ra) was saying.
If you notice that you qoute from our sources about Quran which means all these hadiths are well known for us, and we are proud of.
Also, all other objections you raised about “differences” in Quran go under either (abrogation concept) or( readings of Quran). Both are concepts which have been well known in Islam from the beginning, and Quran & Sunnah told us about them. Believe me, this card is against you. The only reason christians use these vapid arguments is because either they are ignorant which happens to be the dominant reason or it’s a sign of desperation.
Regarding christians’ scripture:
Neither Jesus nor his disciples had any idea about your “scripture” . You have no idea who wrote it with keeping in mind the fact that your scripture was gone under uncontrolled transmission!
The irony here is that you raised this question about Quran “it raises many questions and doubts about the earlier and more authentic materials” 🙂
In fact, you have no good reason to answer why the revelation got stop in your religion.
LikeLike
Dr. White’s argument is excellent and stumps you; as is obvious from your responses.
Revelation stopped with the death of the apostles – since Jesus said, “the Holy Spirit will lead you into ALL the truth” (John 14:26; John 16:12-13) and Jude 3 – “the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all time” – these truths revelation stopped with the NT and death of the apostles, by 96 or 100 AD.
LikeLike
“White’s argument is excellent and stumps you”
Whatever!
Don’t take my response personally. The argument is really stupid, and I don’t think any NT scholar would take it seriously. I mean it’s insane!
Let me put in this way, what James tries to say is like when a murderer tries to convince you that he is innocent because he is the only one there in the time of the crime while he is the only one who had a gun, and he had a good reason to kill that, yet the murderer tried to conceive you that because of all previous reasons he is innocent.
Regarding why the revelation got stopped,
I can’t see any evidence from what you quote. Was the holy spirit only for the disciples? Was Jesus talking about “scriptures” in the first place ?
Jude 3 as well, how could that have anything to do with the stopping of the revelation?
LikeLike
Bloomberg is a boring speaker. A lot of scholars tend to be boring speakers. Not all; but most do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Paul,
Due to a current discussion concerning THIS THREAD, just minutes before I read this post of yours, I had found (and read) the following germane online article:
Dated Texts Containing The Qur’an From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE
Providential ? …
Grace and peace,
David
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ken Temple
You said;
After Uthman burned all (or most all) the earlier evidence.
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailima). (I went to him) and found `Umar bin Al- Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), “`Umar has come to me and said:
“Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Qur’an by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.” I said to `Umar, “How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” `Umar said, “By Allah, that is a good project.” `Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which `Umar had realized.” Then Abu Bakr said (to me). ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ).
I say;
Othman did not burn a single Qurra who are the evidence. Othman did not force the whole Islamic world at his time to burn their copies which had their personal information and errors in them.
Unlike the Bible the Quran means recitation and the evidence or earlier evidences is recitation from angel Gabriel and that is it. Most Qurra were available, it is just a concern by the disciples not total lost of the Qurra(evidence)
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting. IIRC this is the gentleman who wrote the foreword for JPH and Nick Peters book arguing against Norm Geisler and his attacks on people for not believing in a traditionalist version of inerrancy. He too, I think, was attacked by Geisler so he has at least one belief that many evangelicals will find problematic.
I find it interesting that the number of books coming out by guys like Bloomberg and the “high Christology” brigade are all in response to critical scholarship in reality.
There’s a big divide between the conservatives and liberal scholars. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the conservatives in this field would be willing to openly espouse less conservative views if their evangelical organisations dispensed with their services for whatever reason.
These guys are being held over a barrel as they can only work in those institutes of the state they hold certain evangelical beliefs.
I truly wonder if he would be saying the same thing if his bread wasn’t being buttered by the evangelical orgs.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Leading evangelical scholar admits Qur’an is better preserved than New Testament ”
“a growing and sophisticated Muslim apologetics that builds its case from the fact the New Testament was not preserved as accurately as the Qur’an has been”
This is not a statement of what he “admits” but of the Muslim argument he is responding too. I look forward to reading this book and seeing what he actually believes about the Qur’an.
LikeLike
Not sure I find your spin at all convincing Samuel.
Dr Blomberg’s words:
“a growing and sophisticated Muslim apologetics that builds its case from the fact the New Testament was not preserved as accurately as the Qur’an has been”
He does not talk about the Muslim claim but about the fact the New Testament was not preserved as accurately as the Qur’an has been.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Sounds like a possible Freudian slip in which he stated what he really believes about what he describes as “the FACT the New Testament was not preserved as accurately as the Qur’an has been”
Whatever the case, it seems he did not mince his words.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Samuel Green, whats funny about Muslims promoting this and claiming some form of victory is that Christians do not claim “perfect preservation” as some how being a sign of the divine, like Muslims do.
But since Muslims make the claim of “perfect preservation” and some Muslims even go as far as saying if one letter is missing or wrong then the whole thing can not be trusted. Saying that the Quran is “better preserved than New Testament ” simply means that the quran is less corrupt than the NT but still corrupt none the less.
You could say if the NT has 10 corruptions the Quran only has 9 and this would mean that the quran is better preserved than the NT lol
LikeLike
Kmac
What a grand tu quoque!!
LikeLike
Ibn please explain how pointing out that saying the Quran is better preserved only means that it is less corrupt than the quran is a Tu quoque fallacy or the appeal to hypocrisy
LikeLike
Salaam Brothers: While it is ok to point out how an evangelical scholar has to struggle to defend “inerrancy” of Gospels, we shouldn’t get too excited about his statements. There is simply too much evidence and well “admitted” by virtually all branches of Christianity that it is essentially a lost cause even for evangelicals. Unless someone is “super stubborn” and has no “honesty” left in him, he can’t help but admit it as such. even Licona, WLK, Wallace, BMM etc etc [name any one] , all of them do admit to varying degrees.
As for Quran , we don’t need any evangelical scholar to admit its authenticity. West has been trying to undermine Quran since dawn on colonization and they haven’t succeeded and they will never do so.
LikeLiked by 4 people
RationalMuslim,
Well said, you are right as usual. Allah Hafiz.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What Mr. Blomberg has to believe
“NAE Statement of Faith
2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.”
Spot the contradiction
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please elaborate
LikeLike
There is one God necessarily.
God is necessarily three-personal.
Jesus is necessarily God.
Jesus is necessarily not three-personal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Zelyts
You claim according to the gospel of Jesus we justified before God “through faith in His Son.”
Yet right at the beginning of Marks Gospel Jesus is “proclaiming the good news of God” publicly. While he does not want anyone to know who he is. Only the demons know who he is.
Spot the contradiction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
burhanuddin, i quote :
Does it make any sense that jesus, as reported in the Gospels, who spent his whole life castigating the Bani Israel and warning them of their manipulation of God’s law for their own end, was sent to abrogate the sins of mankind through the crucifixion though during his life on earth, he never claimed such a thing? Where is the logical connection between Jesus’ teachings as exepmlified by his preaching and castigating the hypocrisy of the Pharisses thorugh his whole life with that taught by Paul and those who came afterwards? How does one make that jump?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How does one make that jump?”
There seems to be one escape route – “personal experience” …
dead end of any reasonable discussion though
LikeLike
quote:
The same as all the other gospels, he preached about his death and resurrection.
“He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.”
Mark 8:31
BUT THIS MESSAGE WAS NOT TOLD BY THE man in the tomb IN MARKS ACCOUNT
‘he is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.
since mark is not going to have the women speak, he has no need for them to REMEMBER 8:31
he omits the message in mark 8:31 because
1. he didn’t know of it
2. he was copying another account which did not know of 8:31
all writers who came later desperately need a meeting in jerusalem . why?
LikeLike
“The answer is the same as he gave to the rich young ruler. Keeping the law is not enough. You must put your faith in Jesus and follow Him.”
quote:
Remind those Christians that the original 12 apostles were Jewish, and therefore, what Jesus required of Jews was thus required of the Apostles? What did Jesus tell the Jews was the key to getting saved?
19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you
will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:19-20 NAU)
In context, it is clear that “your righteousness” (v. 20) cannot be anything other than “whoever keeps and teaches them” (v. 19. Therefore, Christians violate the cardinal rule of “immediate context” when they insist the righteousness in v. 20 is talking about the righteousness of Christ imputed to sinners through his death. His death is nowhere expressed or implied in the immediate or larger context, while the concept of obeying the law in one’s personal life is in v. 19.
The Christians will tell you that after Jesus died, the covenant was changed, and therefore the way of salvation taught by Jesus before the Cross, no longer applies.
That is false for a number of reasons:
1) Matthew was surely written only after Jesus died. Why did Matthew, writing long after Jesus died, chose to tell his readers what the gospel was like before Jesus died, if the gospel at that early point does not apply anymore? Wouldn’t that only tend to confuse the reader? This is all the more glaring in light of the fact that Matthew does not express or imply that the way of salvation in 5:19-20 somehow no longer applies, or was superseded by the Cross. Unless Christians wish to pretend that the cardinal rule of immediate context should not be applied to that verse, then they are stuck with a solid proof that the original gospel was the very sort of legalism most Christians now condemn.
2) the resurrected Jesus did not think his death on the Cross freed anybody from obligation to obey the Matthew 5:19-20 way of salvation; he tells the disciples require future Gentile believers to “obey” ALL of the things he had previously taught the disciples. Matthew 28:20.
You should point out to the Christians that although “grammar” and “context” are good examples of bible hermeneutics, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is denied by too many Christians and bible scholars to pretend that it should be exalted to the level of a rule of interpretation. For that reason, the mere fact that an interpretation of a bible verse conflicts with something the bible says elsewhere, does not function to prove that said interpretation is false.
quote:
in the mind of moses, righteousness could only be obtained by obeying all of God’s instructions (deu 6:25). in the mind of moses, the only way for a hebrew to avoid SERVING OTHERS gods, is to actually SERVE the one true God. YOU DO THAT BY OBEYING HIM.
LikeLike
quote:
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ‘ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’
22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (Matt. 5:17-22 NAU)
There is no expression or implication whatsoever, anywhere in the Sermon on the Mount, that the disciples were incapable of keeping the Law. Since there is nothing in the immediate context of v. 17 to suggest Jesus was going to fulfill the law for other people, (and the immediate context provided in v. 18-19 doesn’t make sense unless Jesus is asking his disciples to obey the law themselves), that verse means exactly what it looks like it means…Jesus was asserting that he would obey the Law to the full as a good Jew. The proper sense of “fulfill the law” is determined by the immediate context, not something the apostle Paul had to say about how Jesus’ death “fulfills the law”.
And if your friend believes in biblical inerrancy, then he or she has a problem: In Luke 1:6, there is no reason why God viewed Zacharias and Elizabeth as righteous, except their obedience to “all” of his commandments.
5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. (Lk. 1:5-6 NAU)
It doesn’t say they were righteous according to Law. It says they were righteous in God’s sight. So it is God who is drawing the conclusion that they are righteous. And the given reason is not “because Jesus was doing to die for them”, but
because they walked “blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.”
So Luke 1:6 refutes your friend who said Jesus demands perfection from us. They have a choice: Zach and Liz had achieved perfection and that’s why God viewed them as righteous, or, God was willing to view them as righteous without demanding that they be perfect.
Your friend did not deal very well with Jesus’ statement at Matthew 28:20. Obviously, Matthew would not have bothered providing the written gospel we have today, had he thought Jesus in that verse was only talking about teaching Gentiles to obey the stuff Jesus taught between his resurrection and ascension. Matthew includes many teachings of Jesus that were taught long before he died, and since 28:20 is not qualified, Jesus was demanding that future Gentiles obey all the teachings found in Matthew, and your friend is violating the context by attempting to limit the “all” to just the stuff Jesus taught between the resurrection and ascension.
Further, Jesus allegedly taught the disciples for 40 days between resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:3), he surely said much more than the trifling tidbit represented in Matthew’s resurrection narrative. Yet that narrative is so short, it clearly does not even provide a summary of any lessons that would have taken 40 days to teach. If we don’t interpret the “all things whatsoever I commanded you” in 28:20 to refer to all teachings of Christ anywhere in the gospel of Matthew, then Matthew failed to include in his gospel the specific teachings of Christ that your friend thinks are the most important.
For these reasons, your friend has failed to justify their reading Jesus through the lens of Paul, and they have created problems within their own beliefs by trying to restrict the “all” of 28:20 to just the teachings of Christ during the 40 days between resurrection and ascension. The Luke 1:6 problems ought to keep your friend busy. It does not say they were righteous according to the Law. It says they were righteous in God’s sight because they obeyed the Law. You could not ask for a clearer example of a legalistic statement.
LikeLike
I’d rather pick through a half spoiled salad than eat a fully preserved dog turd.
LikeLike
That’s because you are a fussy eater
LikeLiked by 1 person
. . . was sent to abrogate the sins of mankind through the crucifixion though during his life on earth, he never claimed such a thing?
Not “abrogate” but forgive, atone for, propitiate, be the ransom for:
Mark 10:45
“The son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Jesus’ ministry of serving and giving His life as a ransom points back to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12
The “ransom” also points to Genesis 22, which was a prophesy of the Messiah to come, the substitutionary sacrifice of an innocent victim for (in the place of) the guilty humans; that even the Qur’an affirms in Surah 37:107 – “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”
Matthew 20:28
same as Mark 10:45
Mark 14:24
“This is the blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many.”
Matthew 26:28
“for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Luke 22:19-20
Luke 24:25-27
Luke 24:32
Luke 24:44-49
LikeLike
Luke deleted Marks verse 10:45 because he did not think it was true
LikeLiked by 1 person
You write that all the time; but you have no proof. Just because Luke does not have that section, does not mean he “deleted” it and you don’t know that he didn’t think it was true, since other verses in Luke point to the meaning of the substitutionary nature of the cross – Luke 24:46-47; 22:19-20
Luke 18:31-34
Also, you are inconsistent, since you claim Mark all the time as the most historical of the gospels, but when there is something there that you don’t agree with; you just dismiss it and make up something, and think you can get inside Luke’s head and understand his reasons or motivations.
Your argument is ridiculous.
LikeLike
“The “ransom” also points to Genesis 22, which was a prophesy of the Messiah to come, the substitutionary sacrifice of an innocent victim for (in the place of) the guilty humans; that even the Qur’an affirms in Surah 37:107 – “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.””
so according to you the quran affirms that jesus was substituted for another?
you bombed on yourself ken.
LikeLike
The Qur’an affirms the substitutionary sacrifice teaching of Genesis 22 and the meaning of it in pointing to the Messiah come and fulfill that. The Qur’an could not help but have some remnants of truth, since it was relying on the previous 2 Monotheistic religions. The Qur’an could not escape from some of these truths, like calling Jesus the Al Masih عیسی المسیح and affirming the Injeel and that Jesus is “the Word of God” کلمه الله and that His nature is “a spirit from God” روح من الله
LikeLike
The Qur’an affirms substitutionary atonement
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/the-quran-affirms-substitutionary-atonement-in-surah-al-saffat-37107/
LikeLike
Lol silly
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why did Allah substitute an innocent animal in the place of Abraham’s son?
What is the true meaning of “Eid e Qorban” or “Eid al Adhar” ?
عید الاضحی
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/so-why-did-allah-substitute-an-innocent-animal-in-the-place-of-abrahams-son/
LikeLike
Many Hadiths also point to substitutionary atonement ideas:
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/islam-could-not-get-rid-of-the-concept-of-sacrifice-ransom-or-substitutionary-atonement/
LikeLike
who said to you that abrahams son wasn’t innocent?
LikeLiked by 1 person
that is the meaning of the whole OT Tanakh and the sacrificial system – Leviticus chapters 1-7, day of atonement, 16-17; Exodus 12-14 – Passover – the innocent, unblemished lambs, sheep, rams, goats, etc. are symbols of an innocent human Messiah who is to come in the future and be the substitute for sins. The High Priest of Israel laid his hands on the head of the animal and confessed the sins of the people showing transfer of sin to the animal and then the animal was slaughtered.
the true meaning of Eid Al Adha or Eid e Ghorban
معانی حقیقی عید قربان یا عید الاضحی
LikeLike
” …but to serve and to give His life a ransom for many.”
That’s what every prophet does. Giving 100% for others. Nothing special. Says nothing about dying or blood or believing in resurrection or being born again …
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, they don’t give their lives as a ransom. Only Al Masih, the Suffering Servant did that. Isaiah 52-53; Mark 10:45; Daniel 9:24-27
LikeLike
Yes Temple they give their lives as a ransom.
give your life to sth
to continue to have a close involvement in a particular thing for the whole of your life:
She gave her life to cancer research.
LikeLike
you must be one of those stubborn man worshippers. how many times have you repeated the same lies again and again?
LikeLike
this is an abuse of the blog to allow you to get away with posting the same lies again and again.
LikeLike
“Why did Allah substitute an innocent animal in the place of Abraham’s son?”
ken, where did the quran say that abrahams child was a sinner? he willingly submitted to give his life up. where did it say he was a sinner?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Qur’an did not say that; but that is the meaning, according to Exodus and Leviticus and the whole sacrificial system and Isaiah 53 and the whole NT.
You guys keep quoting the OT on Monotheism, but inconsistently ignore and avoid all the OT teaching on sin and sacrificial substitutionary atonement.
Even a Rabbi admitted that the Christian view of Jesus of Nazareth was like the sacrifices of the day of atonement in Leviticus 16-17.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/rabbi-admits-that-the-day-of-atonement-is-parallel-to-jesus-christ/
LikeLike
“The Qur’an did not say that; but that is the meaning, according to Exodus and Leviticus and the whole sacrificial system and Isaiah 53 and the whole NT.”
the quran considers your book corrupt so why would you use your pagan understanding and impose it on the quran?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“that is the meaning of the whole OT Tanakh and the sacrificial system – Leviticus chapters 1-7, day of atonement, 16-17; Exodus 12-14 – Passover – the innocent, unblemished lambs, sheep, rams, goats, etc. are symbols of an innocent human Messiah who is to come in the future and be the substitute for sins. The High Priest of Israel laid his hands on the head of the animal and confessed the sins of the people showing transfer of sin to the animal and then the animal was slaughtered.
the true meaning of Eid Al Adha or Eid e Ghorban”
was jesus an olah offering? abraham made jesus a burnt offering and yhwh liked barbecue /burning meat?
LikeLike
“that is the meaning of the whole OT Tanakh and the sacrificial system – Leviticus chapters 1-7, ”
where did it say anything about a human being fit for atoning sins?
where does it say that abraham saw the animal symbolic for human sacrifice or sacrifice of yhwh in the form of a human?
LikeLike
“the LORD smelled the soothing aroma”, etc. in OT =
That is anthropomorphic language for Yahweh’s anger against sin being satisfied; justice against sin was satisfied. Injustice and sin against Yahweh was dealt with.
LikeLike
“the LORD smelled the soothing aroma”, etc. in OT =
That is anthropomorphic language for Yahweh’s anger against sin being satisfied; justice against sin was satisfied. Injustice and sin against Yahweh was dealt with.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
that’s bs though. you made the bs up again. how many times did the author use “sooting aroma” for yhwh? more than 10 times.
what was yhwhs burning anger here :
13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram[a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14
nothing
an olah can give one victory
’ So Samuel took a sucking lamb and offered it
as a burnt-sacrifice [‘olah] to Yahweh; Samuel cried
out to Yahweh for Israel, and Yahweh answered
him. As Samuel was offering up the burnt-sacrifice
[‘olah], the Philistines drew near to attack Israel;
but Yahweh thundered with a mighty sound that
day against the Philistines and threw them into confusion;
and they were routed before Israel. And the
men of Israel went out of Mizpah and pursued the
Philistines, and struck them down as far as beyond
Beth-car
the smell goes up to yhwh and yhwh loves the smell.
LikeLike
yhwh eat it by inhaling it. people were not even allowed to eat it. was jesus symbolic for a burnt offering?
did yhwh inhale jesus?
LikeLike
“That is anthropomorphic language for Yahweh’s anger against sin being satisfied; justice against sin was satisfied. Injustice and sin against Yahweh was dealt with.”
the item is lit on fire and then the aroma goes up to yhwh to inhale.
so is it yhwhs act of smelling which atones or the act of burning the flesh?
LikeLike
Disagreement is not lying; and you guys also repeat your stuff so much, it is ridiculous.
We both agree that our side has the Truth ( Al Haqq; Haqiqeh الحق حقیقه
, so of course, there is going to be repetition; since truth never changes.
LikeLike
“The Qur’an did not say that; but that is the meaning, according to Exodus and Leviticus and the whole sacrificial system and Isaiah 53 and the whole NT.”
ken, where did the ot say that the son of abraham was a sinner before he was taken to be sacrificed?
sacrificed for what? an olah offering?
LikeLike
The rest of the OT, Exodus passover, Leviticus 1-7, 16-17, etc. ; the temple sacrifices in books of Kings, and Isaiah 52-53 and the NT teaches this.
LikeLike
Yahya, یحیی – John the Baptist:
“Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1:29
that great prophet, whom Islam affirms as a great prophet, shows the meaning of all the sacrificial system in the OT.
LikeLike
jesus was a burnt offering, right?
LikeLike
no; but He was a guilt and sin offering – Isaiah 53:10; Daniel 9:24-27
He fulfilled all the OT sacrificial system. Hebrews chapters 7, 8, 9, 10
John 1:29
Revelation chapter 5
LikeLike
indeed you are pathetic. you used olah offering and thought abraham had jesus in mind when he lit on fire the lamb, then you jump to different animal sacrifices which have nothing to do with the olah one. you are a joke .
LikeLike
The NT shows the OT passages about sacrifices (Genesis 22, Exodus 12; Leviticus 1-7, 16-17; temple in Kings and Chronicles, prophets, Isaiah 52-52, etc. – is all one main meaning – substitutionary ransom sacrifice.
LikeLike
when abraham set alight the animal did he think that setting the animal alight was symbolic for burning jesus on the cross?
did the smell appease yhwh or did the act of burning the animal appease yhwh?
LikeLike
The sacrifice – killing the animal by slitting the throat and bleeding to death, was symbol of the Messiah’s atonement – Isaiah 53; Daniel 9:24-27, all of NT.
LikeLike
but even the olah is seen as atoning for sins . when one is doing the act of giving up , he is simultaneously atoning for sins. was jesus a burnt offering ?
LikeLike
“He fulfilled all the OT sacrificial system”
so your god was gratitude and peace offering too?
LikeLike
abraham did not see jesus as a burnt offering or any offering .
jesus was a human , not a ram
the story would only fit if abraham killed his innocent son
the lord provided an animal, not jesus
LikeLike
Prophesy of Messiah and substitutionary atonement for sin.
“because you obeyed My voice, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed through you and your seed.” Genesis 22:18; Galatians 3:6-9; 14; 16; Revelation chapter 5)
Also, “your only son, the son of your love” – Genesis 22:2 is fullfilled in God the Father saying “this is My beloved Son, listen to Him”, etc. and “the only unique Son” or “only begotten Son” (properly understood) – John 3:16; Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5
LikeLike
Suffering Messiah Servant will be human who is sacrificed like an animal – Isaiah 53; Daniel 9:24-27
LikeLike
so jesus was a burnt offering right? jesus was set on fire and the deed of setting him on fire was a could and pleasing act, right?
LikeLike
see Genesis 22:10 -12 – knife, “took the knife to slay his son”; the angel said, “don’t do that”, etc.
“you have not withheld your ONLY UNIQUE Son”
LikeLike
“because you obeyed My voice, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed through you and your seed.”
this means that abraham obeyed god in burning god and then the smell went to god and pleasing aroma, right?
LikeLike
you are goofy and obtuse, and being deliberately stubborn and obstinate. (as you do most of the time)
LikeLike
goofy is such a goofy word
LikeLiked by 2 people
neither isaac or his father were going out to do a sin offering because as the text says abraham listened to his god.
LikeLike
Ken: Why do u like throwing wool at peoples eye. We have no dispute that Jesus ( and all messengers) take away the sin of the world. The dispute is “how”. did u bring any evidence from lips of Jesus or john the baptist that they wanted their followers to believe in death and resurrection of Jesus? are u committed to remain “insane” ? Well I am taking liberty with you with this word, but hope u don’t mind because it frustrates me that you are theologian , yet you don’t answer the question and can’t formulate coherent arguments?
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have no dispute that Jesus . . .
yes you do because you don’t accept Jesus as He truly is; the eternal Word and Son who became human and who died on the cross as the eternal sacrifice (ghorbani) and rose from the dead and ascended to heaven and is at the right hand of the Father praying for His people.
LikeLike
The main point about quoting those 2 Hadith passages is the massive difference between the history of the text of the NT – which was free, uncontrolled, under persecution; Romans burned many manuscripts; and there was no government power of the sword or force to enforce the text or canon; and yet it (the 27 books of the NT) survived those 312 years of persecution. Also they were written by about 9 different human authors in places all over the Roman Empire.
The great difference is that when Uthman ordered one text to be made from the efforts and collection, and burnt everything else, and enforced the text by the power of Caliphate government; it raises many questions and doubts about the earlier and more authentic materials.
Especially since, according to Hadith literature, there were differences between Ibn Masood and Zayd Ibn Thabit, and Ubai Ibn Kaab.
Also, the fact that in the search, first Zayd Ibn Thabit found the last 2 verses of Surah 9 (Surah 9:128-129) was with only one person (Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari) !
How do we know others were not found that was with only one person?
How do we know that other original verses of the Qur’an were not burnt when Uthman ordered all other Qur’anic materials to be burnt?
Hadith literature and Tafsirs, etc. indicate that other Qur’anic verses existed that are not in the Uthmanic Qur’an.
Also, 18 years later, after Zayd’s initial collection; they found another verse that was with only one person – Surah 33:23
Then there is the textual variant in Surah 33:6 that Yusuf Ali mentions in his translation of the Qur’an.
And also, there is the verse that was eaten by a goat that Aisha reported in Hadith, Sunan Ibn Majah, 1944, and is “hasan” (good).
A sane person looks at all this evidence and asks theses questions that are raised, and a thinking person would see the problems and doubts that arise.
LikeLike
“The sacrifice – killing the animal by slitting the throat and bleeding to death, was symbol of the Messiah’s atonement – Isaiah 53; Daniel 9:24-27, all of NT.”
you pagan, nobody slit jesus’ throat. abraham was gonna slit his sons throat.
your god got pierced and was left hanging.
the jew who cut his animals throat was doing a good act of giving his 1000 dollar meat. none of this is symbolic for jesus.
the only way out of it is for you to believe that jesus was a burnt offering and yhwh inhaled him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The NT shows the OT passages about sacrifices (Genesis 22, Exodus 12; Leviticus 1-7, 16-17; temple in Kings and Chronicles, prophets, Isaiah 52-52, etc. – is all one main meaning – substitutionary ransom sacrifice.”
how is an olah offering the same as the others? the one who brings the olah and BURNS it is doing an ACTION deed
in abrahams case god provided abraham with an animal, not jesus.
an olah is not consumed but inhaled by yhwh
how are they the same?
LikeLike
“– is all one main meaning – substitutionary ransom sacrifice.”
in abrahams case what sin was committed? abraham willingly listened to the test.
so “substitution “here would not imply sin offering.
LikeLike
The burnt offerings were burnt after the throat is slit and blood is drained.
you miss the main points of substitutionary atonement by your nit-picking over “burnt offering”.
You guys demand your own human words and demands and exact words and phrases – you are enslaved to your humanistic thinking.
Only God can open your heart.
LikeLike
“The burnt offerings were burnt after the throat is slit and blood is drained.”
so? your god wasn’t burnt and neither was he slit . he fails .
”
you miss the main points of substitutionary atonement by your nit-picking over “burnt offering”.
you miss the point. you pagans nit pick.
in abrahams case, he is obedient.
so what is really atoning is his deeds
act of slitting and burning lol
so there is good in man.
hahahah
what is worse is that the smell rises up to yhwh and he is pleased
“You guys demand your own human words and demands and exact words and phrases – you are enslaved to your humanistic thinking.”
abraham did not sacrifice his son you dolt. if he did then even that would not symbolise jesus’ “sacrifice”
why don’t you accept that the pagans who sacrificed their innocent children were symbolic for jesus’ “sacrifice” ?
”
Only God can open your heart.”
it is . that’s why i don’t worship a human being !
LikeLiked by 1 person
see Genesis 22:10 -12 – knife, “took the knife to slay his son”; the angel said, “don’t do that”, etc.
“you have not withheld your ONLY UNIQUE Son”
LikeLike
so you really think abraham thought he was about to run the knife on yhwhs throat only to run it on his unique animal?
LikeLike
you people are the nit pickers!
LikeLike
see Genesis 22:10 -12 – knife, “took the knife to slay his son”; the angel said, “don’t do that”, etc.
“you have not withheld your ONLY UNIQUE Son”
it’s addressed in the video and has nothing to do with jesus. “only son” does not mean foreshadowing of “begotten son”
time line 15:18
LikeLike
“You guys demand your own human words and demands and exact words and phrases – you are enslaved to your humanistic thinking.”
all i am asking a pagan like you is what the burning symbolises.
you can derive symbolic meaning from the knife
from the wood
but what about the matches?
since abraham tied the animal does that symbolise the tying of jesus which means that jesus was not nailed to the cross?
LikeLike
@Ken: Why do u like throwing wool at peoples eye. We have no dispute that Jesus ( and all messengers) take away the sin of the world. The dispute is “how”. did u bring any evidence from lips of Jesus or john the baptist that they wanted their followers to believe in death and resurrection of Jesus? are u committed to remain “insane” ? Well I am taking liberty with you with this word, but hope u don’t mind because it frustrates me that you are theologian , yet you don’t answer the question and can’t formulate coherent arguments?
LikeLike
ken has this belief that slitting of throat and letting the blood pour out appeases his god.
he thinks that the violent opening of flesh/shedding of blood has magical atoning powers in it.
why then does he not see the foreshadowing of his “innocent” gods murder in the willing sacrificial ritual of the pagans who gave up their children to their gods?
LikeLike
their entire aqeedah has violence right in the centre.
LikeLike
quote:
The main point about quoting those 2 Hadith passages is the massive difference between the history of the text of the NT – which was free, uncontrolled, under persecution; Romans burned many manuscripts; and there was no government power of the sword or force to enforce the text or canon; and yet it (the 27 books of the NT) survived those 312 years of persecution. Also they were written by about 9 different human authors in places all over the Roman Empire.
if there is no policing system then anyone could have made up anything and added to the text.
no government implies no educational institutes to protect the manuscripts from corruption
any scribe you deliberately corrupted the text in the early first century could easily get away with it because he was free to do so and no “big brother” watching
LikeLike
their entire aqeedah has violence right in the centre.
indeed . . .
a holy violence against sin.
LikeLike
“holy violence against sin” – by killing children and babies. See 1 Samuel 15
LikeLiked by 2 people
No; Christ willingly took the wrath of God against sin on the cross. He satisfied justice and the penalty for sin for us – people for all nations – Revelation 5:9 – some from every nation and people and tribe and tongue were redeemed by the blood of the lamb
LikeLike
it is all unholy since jesus became polluted with sin.
LikeLike
If God inspired the writings; and God is sovereign, which He is and you also believe in; then human governments cannot “police” it.
there is no need to “police” God. God is good and pure and holy.
Whereas you feel that need, since humans are sinners, yet you deny; and rely on one man’s vision and claim.
Whereas the 4 gospels confirm one another and the 9 human authors confirm one another – we have better witnesses in a court of law – 9 witnesses vs. your 1.
One man’s claim is suspicious and has no accountability.
9 witnesses that agree with one another is more powerful.
LikeLike
@Ken:u wrote “Whereas the 4 gospels confirm one another and the 9 human authors confirm one another – we have better witnesses in a court of law – 9 witnesses vs. your 1.”
That is called policing. But in your case you don’t know who wrote the Gospels? Do you? do you have life history of those authors? do you know if they met Jesus? How did they record it? Oral or written ? how? at what point of time did they write?do they even claim these to be world of god? and what are you going to do for the massive amount of contradiction ( that your scholars have put in front of the world) on virtually every story of the Gospels? and why not also accept other gospels which were written in about same time frame? and why not accept the “smaller” versions of gospels of Matthew that was in Aramaic? instead of larger one of Greek?
Ken you are wasting your time and everyone elses time. What I have written above is from the majority opinions of your scholars. If you disagree debate with them not with me/ other Muslims. Your “stubbornness” will not change anything. However what it will do for sure is that you will not have an argument before God almighty.
LikeLike
“If God inspired the writings; and God is sovereign, which He is and you also believe in; then human governments cannot “police” it.”
your god is not sovereign though. he became a finite man and couldn’t even convince people to pray for him
”
Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “are you asleep? Couldn’t you keep watch for one hour?”
sleep was more important than praying for “god”
“there is no need to “police” God. God is good and pure and holy.”
27 books , full of contradiction. just juxtapose the stories and see for yourself how badly they are contradictory. imagine how worse it was when they were passing the stories orally to one to another.
if you have no control any liar (peter) could make up even more lies and tell more tales.
when pete is bsing in jerusalem, steve is bsing in galilee and the truth tellers can’t be everywhere to stamp out the lies and made up stories.
for this reason a controlled system is much better and monitors who is saying what.
”
Whereas you feel that need, since humans are sinners, yet you deny; and rely on one man’s vision and claim.”
one mans? you rely on liars and deniers. you rely on solomon who commited idolatry
you rely on lot who boned his own daughters
you rely on moses who disobeyed god again and again
at least “one man” done a better job than “god on earth”
quote:
unless there is an extreme system in place to prevent that (basically you need an institutionalized and policed school system in charge of it or an assisting technology like meter and rhyme…and even then you can’t prevent distortion; a number of scholars don’t even trust the Mishnah–which was orally transmitted until around the same time the Gospels were written–to be completely reliable record of what was taught in
Jewish law schools in the early first century, and that had one of the most effective and policed school systems for memorizing a text then known), and there is not only no evidence of any such system in early Christianity, all the evidence we have tells us there wasn’t one (e.g. the Gospels are wildly contradictory, proving no policed tradition existed, and are contradictory precisely on points reflecting doctrinal disagreement and lack of policed control over innovation and speculation; the Epistles show no awareness of any memorizable tradition in the Gospels or indeed any interest in the kinds of stories that are in the Gospels, even the quoted words of Jesus there do not agree with the Gospels; and the Epistles explicitly attest to a lack of any control over the gospel at all, as numerous competing churches and sects diverged from each other beyond any centralized control; and where one would expect references in the Epistles to systems maintained to ensure memorization of an agreed dogma tradition, like funded schools or the constructing of ballads in meter and rhyme, we find none).
”
Whereas the 4 gospels confirm one another and the 9 human authors confirm one another – we have better witnesses in a court of law – 9 witnesses vs. your 1.”
”
One man’s claim is suspicious and has no accountability.”
atleast one man convinced the people to throw away idolatry of worshipping a man, 3 persons/gods, original sin etc etc
give the man some respect that he done a better job than your flesh god and convinced the people that idolatry is a disease.
LikeLike
quote:
If God inspired the writings; and God is sovereign, which He is and you also believe in; then human governments cannot “police” it.
there is no need to “police” God. God is good and pure and holy.
Whereas you feel that need, since humans are sinners, yet you deny; and rely on one man’s vision and claim.
end quote
can you show me where todays 21st century reconstructed bible existed anywhere in history?
why are scholars apply all sorts of textual criticism to recreate the bible?
why even today they are divided on what was it the bible really said?
LikeLike
” and there was no government power of the sword or force to enforce the text or canon; and yet it (the 27 books of the NT) survived those 312 years of persecution”
so are you saying force implies corruption ? but uncontrolled text with no policing implies free of corruption?
ken , did god give solomon government power?
if he did, then was torah controlled or uncontrolled in solomons time?
LikeLike
government force is weakness.
If the Word is true; it is powerful on its own; as the Bible is; without government force.
Islam is weak because it depends on government force, war, harshness (Sharia).
LikeLike
christians were fabricating and forging texts from 1st century all the way to the second century and your dysfunctional moronic thinking skills says “government force is weak”
you trust fabrications in your bible if they go to the first century while at same time rejecting anything from the church fathers which go contrary to your view.
you are trashing the theocratic torah rule of the ot since according to your thinking skills, yhwhs religion was clearly weak when it employed force.
“if the word is true”
you forget that the pagan “word” in your religion had to become a finite man .
when one has power one can protect the recitation from corruption .
today’s 21st century RECONSTRUCTED bible exists nowhere in history. it is a modern day creation
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bart November 25, 2014
If witnesses “correct” it, in what sense is it uncontrolled?
My view is that no one *could* control the tradition and that there was *zero* possibility of any authority correcting what people said about Jesus. How could apostles or anyone else make sure that what people said, for example, in the privacy of their homes in some foreign land?
quote:
“Second, the claim that Jesus and the disciples would have prevented error from accruing, which is a common evangelical argument, is disproved by the contents of the gospels themselves and contrary to what our expectations would be. In the gospels we’re told that Jesus himself couldn’t prevent listeners from telling tales he didn’t want told. The gospels tell us that false reports concerning Jesus circulated widely and in fact Jesus directed the disciples to not bother correcting them. Making up things was considered pious and acceptable in this culture. Gnostic teaching was accepted widely. Gospel reports indicate erroneous resurrection belief. John the Baptist was thought to be raised but this is a case of mistaken identity. This is proof that this error is easy to make. In the Gospel of John we’re told that Jesus did say he’d destroy the temple in 3 days, but John allegorizes the story. Mark and Matthew tell us that Jesus said no such thing and only false witnesses say he did. Luke says that Steven is reported to have said it. Look at every day experience. What preacher hasn’t been chagrined to learn what others have thought him to have said? Look at the fact that rabbis can’t keep straight who it is that supposedly uttered a statement, attributing the same wise saying to various sages. Why does Mt 10 tell us that Jesus wanted the gospel to go only to the Jews, Mt 28 says he wanted it spread far and wide, and yet at Acts 15 they’re debating whether the gospel should go to Gentiles as if they’ve never heard of the great commission?”
quote:
When you have power, you can create educational institutions according to your will and propagate correct teachings, without interference from outside influences
When you have political power, that entails that you cannot be persecuted for your beliefs, and you don’t have to go into hiding, and can openly proclaim the religion to all, enemies and friends alike.
LikeLike
Christians have always a problem with Mosaic law or Sharia ( Islamic law) , yet they are more than happy to be under pagan law such as their prophet Paul or under secular law such as we see today. The important thing for them is not to be under any divine law.
That gives us a reason why Jesus will say depart away from me oh lawless people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
i pray to God that this point sinks in to your brain
quote :
quote:
When you have power, you can create educational institutions according to your will and propagate correct teachings, without interference from outside influences
When you have political power, that entails that you cannot be persecuted for your beliefs, and you don’t have to go into hiding, and can openly proclaim the religion to all, enemies and friends alike.
LikeLike
“No; Christ willingly took the wrath of God against sin on the cross.”
is “christ” here divine logos or is it just meat?
can you tell me how “divine logos” could be subject to his own wrath?
while he is getting punished by his own wrath, does he have access to his own wrath?
how many persons are punishing him? 2 or 3?
god willingly took his own wrath on himself in the “divine logos” ?
almighty god willingly took his own almighty wrath ?
or was it almighty wrath being poured on 1 person , 2 natures?
how does it work exactly?
almighty god poured his wrath on 1 person who is fully almighty god and fully man while at the same time not all of almighty god is willingly receiving his own wrath?
you see, when you dig deep it starts to become obvious that it is foreign and pagan belief.
against sin?
how? god transferred adam sins this direction ———————>
then he came in time as “fully god and fully man” and brought all sins
in this direction
<———————————
he could do all this transferring but he couldn't forgive?
LikeLike
The law is good, holy, and righteous (just) – Romans 7:12
1 Timothy 1:8-11
8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
But not Islamic law – it is unjust, since it does not allow freedom of religion (evangelism and building of new churches) and it does not allow freedom to criticize Islam or Muhammad, the prophet and founder of Islam. It also calls for subjugation of others just because of their religion, Surah 9:29. It is unjust and not even God’s law. God’s law is in the Bible, the previous Scriptures to the Qur’an. Which the Qur’an actually affirms as true and not corrupted at the time of Muhammad. (Surah 5:47; 10:94)
Dhimmitude is unjust.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/dhimmi-%D8%B0%D9%85%D9%91%DB%8C-in-islam/
LikeLike
your white ancestors who used the bible to kill of different religions and cultures and languages within america and europe. they were using the bible. you are a stink bomb.
LikeLike
the secular and materialistic rulers who did wrong things were not true Christians. As today in the west, lots of leaders use a Bible verse in a speech, or say “God bless you”, etc. but their actions and policies say that they are not true believers.
LikeLike
government force is weakness.
If the Word is true; it is powerful on its own; as the Bible is; without government force.
Islam is weak (and fearful) because it depends on government force, war, harshness (Sharia).
Islamic countries prove their weakness and fear, because they are afraid of allowing people freedom to think and investigate Christianity, the Bible (or other books and religions) and choose their own religion.
LikeLike