A Muslim Approach to the Gospels

Dr Shabir Ally outlines a helpful Muslim approach to understanding the four gospels in the New Testament. He outlines how the gospel writers modified earlier teaching about Jesus to heighten the status of Jesus, making him greater and more divine. Shabir’s analysis is widely shared in the academic study of the gospels in Western universities, a subject dominated by Christian scholars. However, few Christians in the pews have any idea what their own scholars are saying. Why this is so is another story..

screen-shot-2017-02-18-at-11-04-40

source

 

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, Islam

126 replies

  1. When Dr. Ally mentions this blog, does he mean your blog?

    Like

  2. None of this proves islam – no muslim sources even come close to a coherent and academic dismantling of christianity. Why is that?

    Why didn’t mohammed and allah provide muslims with scholarly critiques of christian books and doctrines? Why is allah reliant on the work of enlightenment and post-enlightenment scholars to provide coherent arguments against christian sources?

    Critiques of christian sources expose islam as well.

    Like

    • lol you are obsessed with Islam which has nothing to do with this post.

      So, are you familiar with the ways scholars have discovered the gospel writers present Jesus as greater and more divine than earlier sources? When I was a Christian I found such ideas to be terribly threatening. Do you?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Kev,paul’s writings aren’t the scripture Allah is referring to.The scripture is what was revealed to jesus by Allah.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Yes indeed. But Ken is running away from the subject of the post. As usual. He is running scared he seems

      Liked by 2 people

    • Hashim and Paul

      “Kev,paul’s writings aren’t the scripture Allah is referring to.The scripture is what was revealed to jesus by Allah.”

      Where in the quran does allah tell us all of this? Where does he make mention of the letters of Paul? Where does he mention by name the other books of the injeel?

      We all know you guys are reaching.

      Like

    • Here.

      And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.[Surah 5:46]

      [Jesus] said, “Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.[Surah 19:30]

      Unless you want to argue that jesus was given the letters of paul by God,the letters aren’t the injil given to jesus,nor were the 4 gospels given to jesus.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ‘We gave him the gospel’
      ‘He has given me the Scripture’

      Liked by 1 person

    • HAshim

      Which biblical scholars acknowledge the existence of a jesus gospel?

      Like

    • Nearly all I would imagine

      Liked by 2 people

    • Paul

      LOL!! No biblical scholar takes the quran seriously as a source for jesus’ life. None say there is a jesus gospel.

      Like

    • lol your compulsive need to bring in the Quran when we are discussing a completely different subject is noted.

      Mark 1:14:

      ‘Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God’

      What was this gospel Kev?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken, the arguments you used against Islam actually obliterates your false religion. Your scriptures are **badly copied**from the OT with additional changes cut and paste by unknown Pagan authors, written from sources that are not based upon eye-witnesses. Also the NT misquotes the Jewish scriptures proving the NT writers were not inspired by GOD. This is substantiated by modern scholarship. So the Jews were right in rejecting your false religion and books. The NT also has prove contradictions and false prophecies as well as textual corruptions proving its human origin.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Yet the earliest gospels also have the teaching about the substitutionary atonement for sin on the cross, the death of Christ, that Christ is the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 –

    Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 prove this.

    And all 4 gospels have whole chapters centered around the cross event and the resurrection, and chapters about Jesus predicting the whole series of events – the scribes, Pharisees, chief priests, elders of Israel having Him arrested, the trials, before the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, back to Pilate, etc.; the crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, appearances to eyewitnesses. The details are astounding. Each gospel is arguably about 1/3 of each of them these events.

    A contradiction to the Qur’an, Surah 4:157

    One little verse 600 years later compared to mounds of evidence much earlier; and confirmed by Roman and Jewish historians also. (Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius)

    This is proof the Bible is correct and the Qur’an is wrong.

    Like

    • Your comments completely bypass the subject of the post.

      Liked by 2 people

    • no they don’t because the whole argument that Shabir is making is to take the earliest gospels (mark and Matthew) and his argument is that they are more reliable and they allegedly don’t have the high Christology (Deity of Christ) of the Gospel of John, etc. But they have a high doctrine of substitutionary atonement on the cross, etc. so that also defeats Islamic arguments against the cross and atoning death of Al Masih المسیح (the Messiah).

      Like

    • And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a ‘criterion over it’. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.[Surah 5:48]

      Liked by 1 person

  4. All comments must be on the subject of this post – all
    Off topic comments will be deleted. Take note Ken

    Like

  5. seems you cannot handle quoting of Surah 5:47 and 10:94 – Quoting the Qur’an!!

    Like

  6. “The true Jesus of history has to be sought mainly in the earliest layers of the tradition.” Shabir Ally

    All scholars agree that the tradition of 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 is from the earliest tradition – within a few months after Jesus’ death, and the resurrection and ascension.

    James D. G. Dunn on the apostle Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:1-9 – “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as a tradition within months of Jesus’ death.” Jesus Remembered, page 855. (some online sources that are quoting this, say the page number is 825, but I have the electronic version of Jesus Remembered and it is on page 855.

    Interesting that Paul Williams’ favorite NT scholar affirms 1 Corinthians 15!

    1 Corinthians 15
    New American Standard Bible (NASB)
    The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection

    1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

    3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

    Like

    • “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”

      Where does it say in the Jewish scriotures that the messiah will be buried and rise on the third day?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Psalm 16:10
      For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol;
      Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.

      Like

    • Ken, I’ve said this exact argument many times before- we can exclude the gospels and still falsify Islam by the earliest oral creeds.

      As you see, Paul doesn’t actually deal with the scholarship on this issue, he just deflects to a different topic. Regardless of what Paul the apostle had in mind re scriptures, the historical oral creed affirms Christian and historical truth to within months of the event. Islam is false.

      “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as a tradition within months of Jesus’ death.” Dunn

      Hurtado says the same.

      Like

    • Paulus,

      Let’s see if this ‘tradition’ has got any legs to stand on.

      Where does it say in the Jewish scriptures that the messiah will be buried and rise on the third day?

      Come on be brave and actually answer the question! Lets see if your apostle Paul is making stuff up out of thin air – or if you can prove him right. Lets have the quote from the Torah which clearly says this.

      Over to you Paulus…

      Like

    • Paul

      More logical failures.

      Why does the jewish scriptures have to say that? False dichotomy. LOL.

      Like

    • are you following the discussion?

      Like

    • That is irrelevant. I already told you that. The apostle has cited an oral creed- he didn’t create it. It goes back to months after the resurrection which completely falsifies your faith.

      What the earliest witnesses had in mind by “according to the scriptures” is an interesting discussion but not part of the point Ken or I am making.

      So, do you care to actually engage with the academics on this? A conflated history theory re the death and resurrection of Jesus is impossible, and so is any hope of trusting Islam on this point.

      Islam is false

      Like

    • LOL Fail! So you admit that your apostle Paul made up his creed out of thin air? That he made false claims about the Bible to give spurious credibility to his man made religion!

      Like

  7. Also, Isaiah 52:13

    Behold, My servant will prosper,
    He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.

    (resurrection, ascension to heaven, session at the right hand of the Father)

    But you are deflecting from the main point about NT tradition – the earliest tradition was the gospel message of 1 Corinthians 15:1-11.

    The scholarly analysis of James D. G. Dunn – that tradition was from a few months after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

    Like

  8. Jonah 1:17 is also another one – a symbol of the Messiah being buried for 3 days, then when the great fish spits him up, that is a symbol of His resurrection.

    17 And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights.

    “3 days and 3 nights” was a Jewish idiom that includes some of each of the 3 periods of 24 hour days. Part of Friday, all of Sat. and part of Sunday. “on the 3rd day”

    Like

  9. Jesus Himself said that Jonah was a symbol and sign of Himself.

    38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
    39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
    40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (quoting Jonah 1:17)

    Matthew 12:38-40

    One of those early Synoptic gospel traditions!

    Like

    • Ken I’m not interested in what a late first century writer attributed to Jesus.

      My point is this: that your apostle Paul claimed that “the Messiah was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”

      according to the scriptures.

      Where does it say ANYWHERE in the Jewish scriptures that the messiah will be buried and rise on the third day?

      You have not cited any pertinent verses so far…

      Like

    • Was jesus ‘dead’ for 3 days and 3 nights?

      Like

    • part of Friday, all Saturday, and part of Sunday – the expression in Jonah 1:17 and Matthew 12:38-40 is a Jewish idiom for some parts of 3 solar 24-hour, day periods.

      Like

    • You basically want me to believe that an immortal God(who does not die) was sacrificed and killed,because his father(who is also God) wanted to forgive the world.How does any of this make sense?

      Like

    • Ken lol… thank you for the entertainment!.. lumping all those verses to make them mean as you want and as you go along lol… sensational!

      Liked by 1 person

  10. They are all a part of the OT Tanakh that the NT writers are referring to.

    Like

  11. Even so, the main point is that 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 gospel tradition is from the earliest stand of NT tradition around 33-35 AD – and Shabir Ally said you have to go by the earliest of the gospel tradition.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Jonah does not have to use the word “Messiah” for it to also be about the future Messiah. Most of the texts used by Jews today (like Rabbi Tovia Singer and others like him, whom Dr. Michael Brown has debated) about the Messiah do not have the word “Messiah” in them.

    Daniel 9:24-27 is another passage that speaks of the Messiah and His death and atonement for sins; and then the temple would be destroyed.

    Like

    • your apostle says it DOES:

      ‘For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures’

      But Paul is clearly a fraud, as no such passage exists in the scriptures. No wonder the Jews tried to kill him.

      There is nothing messianic about Jonah or in Jonah whatsoever.

      Like

    • Jesus the Messiah Himself said that Jonah 1:17 was about Him. Matthew 12:38-40

      Shabir Ally said you have to go with the earliest tradition – so combining 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 with scholarly opinion and Matthew 12:38-40 and Mark 10:45, Islam is proven false.

      Like

  13. Also, when the apostle Paul says “according to the Scriptures”, he may also be talking about Mark and Matthew where Jesus predicts His death, and resurrection, like in Mark 8, 9, and 10 and chapters 14-16 – they could have written down early in the 40s and 50s; 1 Cor. written in 55 AD.

    The main point of what you are questioning is that the death and resurrection are written about in the OT also.
    As in Luke 24:25-27, 32, 44-47

    Thus it is written:
    1. that the Messiah would suffer and die
    2. that the Messiah will rise from the dead
    3. That the message of repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached to all nations

    Like

    • the gospels were written long after Paul. And the NT did not exist in its current form till the 4th century. Every educated person knows that.

      How many times have I schooled you on this subject?

      Like

  14. Your “schooling” is not right. It is possible Mark and Matthew are written in the 40s and early 50s.
    Also, it is possible fragments and sections were already written before the final product later.

    What we have extant still could be 40s and 50s; but the oral traditions go back to a few months after Messiah rose from the dead, as the great scholar James D. G. Dunn said.

    What’s wrong? Why you don’t go with what Shabir Ally and great scholar James Dunn says?

    Like

  15. “The true Jesus of history has to be sought mainly in the earliest layers of the tradition.”
    Shabir Ally

    the earliest layers of the tradition are those that the scholars say existed earlier in oral form or fragment written form that are not extant today, but are later in the current extant gospels and NT books.

    Like

    • and both Dunn and your favourite Christian scholar professor Larry Hurtado agree that there is NO evidence in the earliest traditions that Jesus thought he was God.

      Ergo Christianity is false.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I realize that Dunn and Hurtado are not true believers because they deny the Deity of Christ, (and Dunn seems to deny the virgin birth, which I showed you before);

      BUT
      Dunn and Hurtado (I would assume) agree that
      the earliest first century traditions point to the
      crucifixion
      death
      burial
      resurrection
      of Jesus

      Since Shabir said, “we have to go with the earliest traditions”, then those traditions about the death and resurrection of the Messiah prove Islam is false.

      boom!!

      Like

  16. Some of the main verses modern Jews use for the Messiah don’t have the word “Messiah” in the passage!!

    Jeremiah 23:5-6

    Isaiah 11:1-9

    Isaiah 2:1-4

    Ezekiel 37:21- 28

    Like

    • So? you can make up anything with that reasoning.

      The point is that there is nothing whatsoever in the story of Jonah that is remotely messianic, whereas the books you list already contain material that is Messianic in character. So you are wrong.

      And you complain about Muslims seeing Muhammad in the Bible!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jesus Himself said Jonah 1:17 was about Him as the Messiah! (Matthew 12:38-40)

      you have to go with the earliest gospel traditions, per Shabir Ally.

      Like

    • FACT: Jonah does not mention a messiah (as Paul claims), or a messiah dying and rising from the dead in three days. Paul lied.

      Like

    • But Jesus Himself said that was about Him. Matthew 12:38-40, quoting Jonah 1:17

      Like

    • No he didn’t. You have an anonymous late first century document, written in a language Jesus did not speak, by an author who was not an eye-witnesses to Jesus’s life, who makes that claim about Jesus.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, Jesus spoke those words in the Gospel according to Matthew, one of the 12 disciples, eyewitness to His ministry and teaching, former tax-collector. And it was written in the 50s or early 60s AD, before 70 AD.

      Like

    • Even if the final copy of Matthew was written in the 80s AD, that is still a much earlier tradition that Muhammad’s claim, who came about 500-600 years later.

      Shabir is right that we must go with the earlier tradition.

      Like

    • Interesting how you turn against Matthew when he doesn’t fit your agenda. You use his gospel for Matthew 5:17-19 and chapter 23, but cannot handle 12:38-40 only because it contradicts your false religion that came about 600 years later and was ignorant of the Scriptures.

      Like

    • Ken Temple, you are a professional flip-flopper who is 1 hundred percent a Pagan Trinitarian Idolater. You parapharsed Shabbir

      “Shabbir is right we must go with he earlier tradition”

      Yes we must. So why do you reject Tertullians Trinity, which is earlier than the Nicene creed? His creed was that Jesus was a mere CREATED CREATURE AND NOT GOD. Sounds familiar? But you wont since you are a hypocrite. How about much earlier, all the way back to Jerusalem Church, who preached that salvation was in Torah observance not in faith alone. Yes, the original followers of Jesus, Ebionites. They were later declared heretical when the hellenistic pauline idolatry became dominant through force. But you are a hypocrite so who cares.

      Like

  17. Since Mark is early, (40s-50s AD), and we are to go by the earliest traditions (along with 1 Corinthians 15:1-11), Jesus Himself said He is the LORD (Yahweh) of the Sabbath Day in Mark 2:28; therefore Hurtado is wrong on that issue.

    Like

    • lol what exactly did Jesus say? I presume he did not speak English! Give me the actual words of Jesus please.

      Mark is better dated to the late 60s and Matt and Luke to the 80s.

      You better email Hurtado – he clearly does not know the Bible as well as you do.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jesus did say those words in Mark 2:27-28.

      “and He was saying to them”

      . . .
      “consequently the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath. (LORD = kurios = Yahweh, see Lxx of Psalm 110:1, also in Mark 12:35-37)

      Mark 12:35-37
      35 And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ (The Messiah) is the son of David?
      36 David himself said in the Holy Spirit,

      ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
      “Sit at My right hand,
      Until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.”’
      37 David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; so in what sense is He his son?” And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him.

      Boom!

      Like

    • lol you think Jesus was an Englishman who spoke English!

      Once more: Give me the actual words of Jesus please.

      Like

  18. Mark – 40s-50s
    Matthew 50-55
    Luke 61 AD – has to be, since the abrupt ending of Acts proves 62 AD.

    Like

  19. I wish to address the original post.

    Shabir and Paul need to understand the liberal scholars they are quoting. I will take EP Sanders as an example. His view of the history in the gospels is:
    1. There was a real event (most of the time) in Jesus’ life.
    2. The writers wrote up the events in terms of Israel’s redemptive/salvation history.
    Thus historical event > redemptive history. This is the development.

    Here are some examples:
    Jesus is born > Jesus is born of a virgin.
    Jesus is a great sage and teacher > Jesus is prophet and the Messiah.
    The disciples had an experience of Jesus after his death > Jesus ascended to God.

    The irony of this post is that the Qur’an assumes this “development” is correct. The Qur’an does believe that God acts in the world.

    There is no evidence for this concept of development and it apriori rules out God ever doing anything redemptive because any redemptive history must be development. That is, it is an atheistic view of history that Muslims don’t actually believe but are happy to use if they can use it to hammer Christians.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Samuel

      the post does not mention the Quran so that is irrelevant.

      Shabir’s description of Christological development in the gospels is not a “liberal” view but the result of discovering what is clearly going in the gospels themselves.

      To claim “There is no evidence for this concept of development” betrays a crass fundamentalism and an ignorance of mainstream critical NT studies as taught in mainstream Christian seminaries across the West (by which I mean Methodist, Church of England, Episcopalian, United Reformed Church, Roman Catholic Church etc)

      To get up to speed on scholarship I recommend you read this book by a world class NT scholar (and Christian):

      Christopher M. Tuckett is a British biblical scholar and Anglican priest. He is Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Oxford.

      Perhaps when you have read this work – or something similar – we can discuss the subject in an informed manner. Good luck!

      Liked by 1 person

  20. Ken said
    “One little verse 600 years later compared to mounds of evidence much earlier; and confirmed by Roman and Jewish historians also. (Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius)
    This is proof the Bible is correct and the Qur’an is wrong”

    Not at all!
    We can easily deal with this approach. For us, Allah is above all of these “evidences”.
    The matter of crucifixion is not a problem for us . I can understand the secular historians’ approach for this matter. Jesus is not here, and many said that he had been crucified. Their approach is about probability. Also, Quran itself read ولكن شبه لهم it was made to appear to them.

    However, muslims, christians, and jews know that Allah had rescued Jonah form the belly of a whale when he was inside it in the middle of a sea, yet he came out from that.
    Our approach as muslims should not be a problematic for you at all.
    Even if Jesus’ disciples believed that he was killed which I doubt, that by itself doesn’t mean anything. Many prophets of God got killed,and we still believe that they were prophets.
    However, It becomes a very problematic issue when we only give that incident a credal dimension related to salvation. Here’s the problem for you. Especially, that we know that creed got its shape by someone who has never met Jesus, nor has he talked with him. That person had issues with the original of Jesus’ disciples. Also, he had a vague view about Jesus’ resurrection.
    If you talk about 600 years later! Jews have been talking about more than 1500 years later about the most important thing in their religion given by authors whom christians don’t know who they were, so where is the comparison?

    Moreover, Dr Ally has presented a very plausible plot for the secular historians. I think it’s very good, especially that we look to your scripture with a critical eye. Also, he has argued that when we look critically in your scripture, we find that many passages of OT quoted about Jesus in the NT are about a person who was at the edge of death, yet he got rescued, especially passages in book of Psalms. Dr Ally presented that in his last debate with the crusader & the arrogant guy, Mike Licona.

    Finally, learn from Jesus how to glorify Allah, and any thing related to him
    In Sahih Bukhari
    The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Jesus, seeing a man stealing, asked him, ‘Did you steal?, He said, ‘No, by Allah, except Whom there is None who has the right to be worshipped’ Jesus said, ‘I believe in Allah and suspect my eyes.”

    Like

  21. Paul.

    > the post does not mention the Quran so that is irrelevant.

    It is completely relevant because if the Qur’an accepts this “development” that is, that Jesus was born of a virgin, did miracles, was the messiah, then as a Muslim so should you. Do you deny these “develops”?

    > Shabir’s description of Christological development in the gospels is not a “liberal” view but the result of discovering what is clearly going in the gospels themselves.

    It is not clear but completely assumed. You did not even engage with Sander’s historical method which is completely anti-theistic. That is, it assumes there is no God who acts in creation. If what you say is true then provide me with evidence that proves that Jesus’ virgin birth is a development of a true nature birth.

    > To claim “There is no evidence for this concept of development” betrays a crass fundamentalism and an ignorance of mainstream critical NT studies as taught in mainstream Christian seminaries across the West (by which I mean Methodist, Church of England, Episcopalian, United Reformed Church, Roman Catholic Church etc)

    I have outlined the historical approach of Sanders et al, and you have not engaged with it. Give me some evidence. Sanders writes on p. 85 that the clearest cases of invention are in the birth narratives. Do you accept or deny that Jesus was born of a virgin?

    I forgot to add in my previous post that the original post is entitled “A Muslim Approach to the Gospels”. What is amazing is that what the Qur’an says on this matter was not mentioned.

    Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. Q. 2:136

    Like

  22. Tuckett, page 217
    says the Son of Man sayings like Mark 10:45, the suffering son of man is part of the earliest strands of the tradition. (this is a summary of what he says; I found it on google books, but it won’t let me grab and paste, but you can see it for yourself with google.)

    So, since the scholars you are using and Shabir said “we have to go by the earliest traditions”, etc. – the earliest are about the death and resurrection of Christ, which Islam denies; so these scholars and the earliest traditions refute Islam also.

    good to see Samuel Green commenting here. I have enjoyed some of your debates Samuel with Muslims- the ones I watched were from a few years ago.

    Samuel is right – the scholars you (Paul Williams) are using deny the virgin conception and birth of Jesus and say it is a later development, but that also destroys the Qur’an and Islam’s belief in the virgin conception of Jesus Al Masih. (the Messiah) عیسی المسیح

    Like

  23. Dr. Ally refuted the christians’ objection about the scholarly studies in his debate with the other arrogant guy James White.
    At ( 1:11:39′), dr. ally answered the virgin birth objection

    Like

    • I watched the video and it proves my point. The same scholarship that rejects the virgin birth in Christianity rejects it in Islam. Are you trying to tell me that these scholars accept the virgin birth in Islam but not Christianity? Christians are not scared of liberal scholarship because they believe in an all powerful God who can do all the things liberal scholars say he cannot.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Are you trying to tell me that these scholars accept the virgin birth in Islam but not Christianity?”
      Then I recommend to watch it again.
      This point cannot be used to cancel the pig pic that your gospels got improved and modified from the earliest to the latest one. I’ve no idea why christians deny this fact.

      Like

    • Shabir never answered the issue of how does he knows the virgin conception and birth of Jesus the Messiah is historical.

      He obfuscated with a false claim that James White and others like me say, “be afraid of those liberal scholars”; and “boogy-man scholars” – we never say that!! Bring them on, we agree. What Dr. White says (and I do too) is that the presuppositions that they bring to the text to discount miracles and to discount that God speaks through prophets, sends prophets and apostles and inspires a written text – those scholars say that belief is just faith and not historical fact. Ultimately, we believe the 27 books of all the NT (and the 39 of the OT) are God-breathed and true, and historical, therefore over-ride any kind of skeptical anti-supernatural bias and presuppositions against them. The point Dr. White makes is that Muslims also believe in that principle for the Qur’an, and Shabir and other Muslims say to modern scholarship turned on the Qur’an, “so what?” Allah is bigger and greater and He said Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, etc. – Surah 3, 19. But the Muslims are using scholarship that denies Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 are historical. (sections on the virgin conception and birth of Jesus) Islam destroys all previous revelation about the virgin birth; Islamic polemical use of liberal scholarship, as Paul Williams and Shabir Ally do, destroys any evidence of previous earlier tradition about the virgin birth of Messiah. The qur’an comes 600 years later and says Jesus Al Masih was born of the virgin Mary. But they already destroyed the historical scholarship for it by destroying the earliest tradition. Yet Shabir said, “we have to go with the earliest of the tradition”.

      But God does inspire and send prophets and apostles and inspires written texts.
      Jesus spoke all those words in Matthew 12:38-40 and He Himself said that He was the fulfillment of Jonah 1:17. So God overrides anything Raymond Brown or Christopher Tuckett or James D. G. Dunn or Larry Hurtado or Bart Ehrman says. God is greater! الله اکتر

      Like

    • You don’t need to write all of this. Dr Ally answered the objection perfectly , IMO.
      It’s a simple question
      Do you agree that there’re improvement & modification in your gospels from the earliest to the latest one?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for bringing the conversation back to the post! Ken is desperately trying to avoid discussing it!

      Like

    • BTW, it’s الله أكبر

      Liked by 1 person

  24. If I was the devil as described by the scriptures of the Jews, Christians & Muslims and consistent with my mission to mislead and misguide people away from the one true God and into the hellfire as the true enemy of God, this is what I would do:

    Convince people that someone else died for all their sins (even the ones who died before Jesus was born), so they don’t have to worry about anything. Just continue as you are.

    Sign me up!

    Like

    • ” . . . so they don’t have to worry about anything. Just continue as you are.”

      Where do you get that from?

      True faith results in good works and fruit and change and deeper levels of spiritual growth and deeper levels of repentance.

      Romans chapter 6 refutes your idea.
      along with all the rest of the NT.

      Read 2 Peter chapters 1-2

      and the book of Hebrews

      Jesus:
      19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
      20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.

      21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
      22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
      23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

      Matthew 7:19-23

      Like

    • Ken Temple you are a perfect case for “True faith”, thank you but no thanks.

      Like

  25. oops, typo.

    الله أکبر

    you are correct, Abdullah!

    Like

  26. Do you agree that there’re improvement & modification in your gospels from the earliest to the latest one?

    The earliest traditions of the NT have the crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, empty tomb, etc.

    The gospel according to Mark affirms all of that. Mark 10:45 is one of the very early traditions and Shabir said you have to go with that, therefore Islam is wrong.

    1 Corinthians 15 – earliest traditions of the crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, witnesses of Jesus in His resurrection body, etc.

    Philippians 2:5-8 – among the earliest traditions of the Deity of Christ, who existed in eternity past, humbled Himself, became a human, etc.

    So, no, there is no deliberate development of humans adding more and more layers of more Deity, etc. from earliest to latest traditions, written or oral.

    And Shabir said, “We have to go with the earliest traditions” – that means 1 Cor. 15:1-11; Philippians 2:5-8(God in the flesh; embedded hymn from earlier than 62 AD, when Philippians probably written, so goes back earlier to 40s and 50s AD); Mark 2:28 (Jesus is Lord (Yahweh) of the Sabbath Day = creator and same God in Genesis chapters 1-2); Mark 14:6-64 (Messiah and Son of God), Mark chapter 15 (details of crucifixion and death), 16:1-8 (empty tomb).

    God breathed all of these truths and guided the apostles and NT writers to write them. 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:16

    Like

    • Ken all those references to Paul are totally irrelevant to the subject.

      Like

    • Since Shabir Ally is using the idea of earliest embedded stands of tradition within the gospels, it is relevant because there are earlier strands of tradition within both the Pauline corpus and the gospels corpus and since the scholarship you trust comes up with other hypothetical documents that do not really exist – like Q, etc. – then it is fair to use earliest traditions embedded in the Pauline corpus. Moreover, I have Dunn, Hurtado, and even Ehrman would agree these fragments of earlier tradition that are embedded in Paul (like 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 and Philippians 2:5-8) – they agree that they are among the earliest traditions; using their scholarship that you worship. Also, they all agree that Mark 10:45 is among the earliest traditions.

      Since Shabir Ally said we have to go with the earliest traditions; then Islam is proven wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Matthew 12:38-40 is 600 years earlier than Qur’an tradition; so since Shabir said we have to go with the earliest traditions, the Christian Scriptures win and Islam is proved false.

      Same for 1 Cor. 15 and Philippians 2:5-8. They are all earlier traditions that Qur’an that comes 600 years later and has layers of corruption of human ideas and traditions.

      Liked by 1 person

    • We have no problem with the crucifixion written about in these anonymous documents, and I think I’ve explained that.
      But how can you deny the clear improvement in the outlines in your gospels as we go to the latest one. I mean I don’t think anyone would consider your “argument” seriously if you deny this fact.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Since earlier gospel traditions say Jesus was crucified and dead, and buried and rose from the dead; and Shabir said we have to go with the earliest traditions; then Qur’an 4:157 is wrong, because it says that Jesus Al Masih “was not crucified, and was not killed, for sure یقیناً they did not kill him. But the earliest traditions that Shabir says we have to go with says that they did indeed crucify and kill Him. And also that he arose from the dead on the 3rd day,etc.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dr Shabir has explined how to look to this matter many times, especially in his debate with Mike without denying the improvement in your gospels. His thoghts are coherent.
      But you cannot deny that there’re improvements in your gospels just because of this story.
      BTW, even in the crucifixion account, there’s an improvement. Jesus was crying for God to remove this cup from him. Jesus didn’t appear to any of his disciples in the earliest gospel.

      Liked by 1 person

  27. Mark 10:45 is not Paul. It is among the earliest traditions of the NT.

    That alone, along with Mark chapters 14, 15, and 16:1-8 proves Islam is false.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. they are relevant since your favorite scholar, James D. G. Dunn, says 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 is among the earliest gospel traditions, going back to a few months after death of Christ.

    James D. G. Dunn on the apostle Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:1-9 –

    “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as a tradition within months of Jesus’ death.”

    James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, page 855. (some online sources that are quoting this, say the page number is 825, but I have the electronic version of Jesus Remembered and it is on page 855.

    Interesting that Paul B. Williams’ favorite NT scholar affirms 1 Corinthians 15!

    1 Corinthians 15:1-11

    15 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

    3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

    verse 11 – “Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” – “or they” – the other disciples/ apostles – Peter, “the twelve”, James the brother of Jesus, 500 brethren, etc.

    They all preached the same message early on.

    Shabir said go with the earliest tradition; you should take Shabir’s advice.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. @ Ken Temple

    “So God overrides anything Raymond Brown or Christopher Tuckett or James D. G. Dunn or Larry Hurtado or Bart Ehrman says. God is greater! الله اکتر”

    Lol Ken, you sound like a fundamentalist muslim.

    So science and scholarship counts for nothing if it contradicts your dogma?

    Like

    • I am only showing how inconsistent Paul Williams and Shabir Ally’s arguments are. We are not afraid of any of those scholars.

      In fact, those scholars all affirm the earliest gospel traditions about the crucifixion and death of Christ, which demonstrates the Qur’an is wrong in surah 4:157.

      Since they deny the historicity of the virgin conception and birth of Christ (they deny that Matthew chapters 1-2 and Luke chapters 1-2 are historical, and they claim those are later developments) but the Qur’an affirms the virgin conception and birth of Jesus in Surah 3 and 19. They just say, as Shabir did, his Islamic faith overcomes that particular scholarly evidence.

      But in reality, they gutted all the previous traditions that show the virgin conception and birth of Jesus is historical.

      Science – experimental science is about things we can observe and repeat in a laboratory, historical evidences are a different field.

      Like

    • Qur’an 4:157 is perfectly in line with what we know historically about the earliest belief in the elevated Christ.

      Liked by 2 people

    • The matter of crucifixion is something related to miracles. Miracles have a specific approach if we are gonna deal with them if the opponents are secular historians.
      Also, Quran’ translation reads ( it was made to appear to them.), so what would be the problem if some people thought that Jesus was crucified?! It goes with Quran perfectly.
      Let’s say that Jesus’ disciples thought that Jesus had been crucified, then Jesus came to them saying that he had been alive all the time. Then Jesus is ascended to heaven. His disciples preached about this by their idioms. So far, I cannot see anything which contradicts Quran.
      It only gets problematic when Paul gave that incident a creedal dimension. And we know that the authors of gospels at least were writing with Pauline influence somehow.

      Like

  30. Paul is very ambiguous and vague about the resurrection event. The whole chapter 1 Corinthians 15 can be interpreted in different ways. Paul allows the view that Jesus’ body itself was transformed into a glorified transcendent Cosmic body that is comparable to angels, no longer having to consume physical food. For this reason Paul knows nothing about earthly visitations to the Disciples in the same resurrected body, later the Gospels expand on the sarxist (fleshy, physical, materialistic) view that Jesus bodily resurrected in the flesh, leaving the empty tomb behind. It is significant that the empty tomb tradition (story and concept) is completely absent from Paul’s writings, suggesting the empty tomb was a later development to support a physical resurrection to counter the proto-Gnostics who denied it. Some early Christian groups believed Jesus had no bodily resurrection, he ascended to heaven in the spirit and appeared to the Disciples in a spiritual body. The Gospels were written to counter that claim, but originally God saved Jesus’ life (the function of his heart) and translated him to heaven. He shall ultimately die when he returns before Judgment Day. Paul implies the Disciples witnessed the “risen Christ” as a spiritual experience, it may be understood as a rare collective hallucination. This was probably caused by the grief and guilt, the nagging pain of forsaking Jesus at the garden. They were grieving and God showed them a vision to comfort them, so the original story was that the Disciples only experienced a vision. God assumed or translated Jesus into heaven from the grave in a swoon state, he was unconscious but alive. The Old Testament consistently describes how God delivers the Righteous One from death itself,the prophet Jonah (that is mentioned in the Gospels) is compared to Jesus. They both survived the ordeal and Jesus couldn’t be stressing only the time factor (Matt. 12:39). There is nothing miraculous about the time factor, If the empty tomb narrative is true that doesn’t mean Jesus actually rose on the third day, he could’ve escaped the day earlier or possibly even Friday night. Joseph of Arimathea placed Jesus in his own private garden and wrapped healing spices around his body. If the tomb story is true then Jesus was revived back to consciousness in the private chambers of the garden. Or possibly Joseph took Jesus’ body to another location and resuscitated him. The Talmud allows breaking the Sabbath to save someone’s life. Also, temporary burial is part of Jewish tradition, so Jesus was temporarily placed in the tomb and later moved, allowing a chance for resuscitation. The Bible itself seems to imply the women were looking for a living Jesus, the Gospel of Luke has the men saying: “Why do you seek the LIVING among the dead?” It is strange how Christians haven’t bothered to face the implications of that saying. Jesus was revived and adopted the gardeners’ clothing as a disguise to avoid detection, he completely avoided the public atmosphere because he survived the cross and didn’t want to get captured again. If Jesus was supernaturally raised from the dead he wouldn’t need to change into other clothing. If Jesus was resurrected he wouldn’t need to discard the burial clothing because the Resurrection body from heaven would’ve clothed them, making the old body transformed. Those who revived Jesus back to consciousness removed the clothes, they were bloodied from the scourging. If the Jews and Romans saw Jesus they would make doubly sure he was crucified this time around. He avoided the public atmosphere because he never died on the cross. The Romans doubted that Jesus was dead, they “saw he was dead already” and “broke not his legs” but suspiciously jabbed his side that produced no response.

    The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water John 19:31-32

    Why did the Romans doubt? Why did they need to pierce Jesus in the side to confirm his death? There is no evidence that Jesus’ pulse was examined. The Centurion only made a judgment while Jesus’ body was still hanging on the cross! He never brought down the body and examined it. Joseph brought down the body with Nicodemus, both knowing Jesus was alive. That is why they anointed his body with healing spices. By that time the Centurion was already a believer in Jesus, why would he want Jesus dead? The fact that Jesus’ legs weren’t broken (to hasten and accelerate death) is a powerful hint that he survived. They broke the legs to make it impossible to breathe. Even an unconscious body can give no response, the outpouring of blood and water demonstrates life. The Greek word used for “side” in the Fourth Gospel doesn’t mean heart (kardia), it was pointing to his rib section.

    http://www.reviewofreligions.org/11445/jesus-christ-did-not-die-on-the-cross-a-cardiologists-perspective-2/

    The Gospels conveniently make Jesus dead just before the Sabbath, a body cannot be left hanging in a suspended position over the Sabbath. They had to bury the body before sundown. How could Jesus suddenly die when the two thieves (all equally scourged) were still alive at that point? The Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus was already dead, it probably took a complete day. Based on Pilate’s judgment and doubt, it takes a COMPLETE DAY (not six hours) for a scourged-crucifixion. A whole week for a non-scourged crucifixion. Jesus and the thieves were scourged, the thieves were STILL ALIVE towards evening and would’ve SURVIVED to the next morning if the Romans did not break their legs. It is very convenient that the Gospels make Jesus “dead” at the right moment to avoid having his legs broken, fulfilling a nonexistent “prophecy” they pulled from the Old Testament. What caused Jesus to die? The answer is found in the Fourth Gospel, he immediately expired after drinking the vinegar. Was it really vinegar or something else? Why did Jesus immediately “die” (fall unconscious) after drinking it?

    A jar of sour wine was sitting there. So they soaked a sponge in the wine, put it on a stalk of hyssop, and lifted it to His mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished.” And bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit (John 19:30-31)

    Did the thieves have more strength? They survived but he perished when they were both equally scourged? Or did the Gospels deliberately make Jesus dead at that point? The Romans only SAW that he was “dead already”, they made a human judgment and doubted it. Water and blood DO NOT flow from a dead body, thus pointing to Jesus’ survival. We cannot forget the Pilate’s doubt. Many hints and clues support the Quranic view that Jesus never died. If Paul really believed in the empty tomb that would’ve been a powerful argument to silence the Corinthians who denied a physical resurrection. Paul countered the Corinthians by saying Jesus’ body was transformed into something else (a life giving spirit–contradicting Luke’s gospel where Jesus denied being a spirit!) and ascended to heaven simultaneously. There was no three-stage process of resurrection, appearance, and ascension 40 days later. There was no Easter appearances for Paul, only a singular event of the resurrection and ascension. They were one and the same event, later divided into separate events by the four gospels! Luke says Jesus ascended to heaven on the same day, the Acts contradictorily says Jesus ascended forty days later. Both cannot be right at the same time. Mark and Matthew follow the Galilee tradition and place the appearances in Galilee, it must’ve taken several days (almost a week) for the Disciples to travel from Jerusalem to the Galilee mountain. Some doubted they were seeing Jesus. Why did they doubt if Jesus beforehand said (as a prediction) that he would die and resurrect? Did the Disciples simply forget Jesus’ clear and unambiguous words? How could Jesus consistently predict he would die and resurrect and the Disciples claimed that was foolish nonsense (Luke 24:11)? This would demonstrate that Jesus never predicted it but the Evangelists put those statements into Jesus’ mouth.
    The Evangelists invented the predictions after the fact, making the Disciples deliberately confused and misunderstanding Jesus’ words as to explain their disbelief and puzzlement on the third day. Otherwise if the Evangelists made the Disciples cognizant and sharp-minded (grasping Jesus’ clear words) they would have to account for the Disciples behavior. They were deliberately portrayed as dimwitted as a means to boost the story, marking the climax with the ascension and foundation of the church. If the Hebrew Scripture clearly and unambiguously stated the Messiah would die and rise again, the Disciples would’ve expected it. The Jews had no expectation or concept of a suffering (atoning) messiah but Christians projected that back into the Hebrew Bible.This is creating prophecy after the fact, some gospel material is derived from the Old Testament. Paul had no reason not to mention the empty tomb, especially if he didn’t believe Jesus had a physical resurrection. Another possible view deduced from Paul is that Jesus’ body was abandoned to the grave and the soul was reclothed in a new body. He was instantaneously raised to heaven without any bodily appearances to the Disciples as reported in the later developed gospels, especially Luke and John that portrays Jesus in the most physical manner. John 21 was added later describing how Jesus was preparing food, adding to Luke’s story of the “risen Jesus” eating broiled fish and honeycomb! According to Luke 20:36 “Neither can they die anymore, they are like unto the angels”. This means the old human functions of eating and drinking will be obsolete, the male and female organs shall disappear. The resurrected body is comparable to the angels, like unto them, but Jesus was obviously NOTHING like the angels. He was the exact same person as before, eating solid physical food. Paul describes a supernatural risen body, a purely angelic being, but the Gospels describe a completely human being, a resuscitated body.

    Notice the contradiction:

    So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT. (1 Cor. 15:45)

    He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. IT IS I MYSELF! Touch me and see; a SPIRIT DOES NOT HAVE FLESH AND BONES, as you see I have.” (Luke 24:39)

    Paul said Jesus became a life-giving spirit, a transformed being having no access to the world again, directly ascending into heaven. The Gospel story is a later development, making Jesus a physically-resurrected being. He is clearly NOT a life-giving SPIRIT according to the Gospels, it is exactly the same person as before, revived and resuscitated. Once again, we don’t need the empty tomb because God saved Jesus’ life without human assistance. The empty tomb is not a proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead. Does a transformed and glorified body really need a stone rolled away? Why didn’t Jesus simply walk through the sepulcher? Does a powerful life-giving spirit need someone to roll away the heavy stone to come out? Here is the question: If Jesus really had the power to walk through walls he wouldn’t need the “angels” (or anyone) to roll away that stone. This must be later embellishment and enhancement, he never exercised this power. Likewise, the angels at the tomb are legendary, if Jesus really had that power he wouldn’t need angels. If Jesus had the power to vanish THROUGH concrete (as Luke and John portray) he would’ve just passed through the concrete. As the angels are fictitious characters in the story (as Licona admitted in his debate with Shabir) a human being must’ve rolled away the stone. The angels are later inventions, Jesus had no such power and ability. Who moved the stone? We believe it was Joseph and Arimathea.

    t
    If the empty tomb is historical there were fingerprints all over the scene. The rolled away stone is a powerful hint that somebody (not angels) moved away the stone, tampering with the sepulcher. A transformed angelic being doesn’t need it, assuming that Paul knew about the empty tomb narrative he must’ve rejected it because it challenged his view of a completely spiritual event. He differed slightly with the Corinthians who separated between the body and spirit. Paul imagined the “risen Christ” as comparable to the angels, but Jesus appears nothing like what Paul describes in his letter (1 Cor. 15:40-56). The “risen Jesus” of the Pauline account (supernatural) is different from the “risen Jesus” of the Gospels. Christians are projecting Paul’s descriptions into the Gospels and projecting the empty tomb back into Paul. The Gospels were written decades later, they must be read separately from Paul. That is why the Gospels are placed strategically before Paul (written first), to program the readers into reading Paul’s account through the Gospels’ eyes. If Jesus rose from the dead it would’ve been more convincing if he appeared to the PUBLIC and took everyone back to the SEALED AND SHUT sepulcher, convincing everyone that he resurrected. Instead we have a tampered sepulcher, a very suspicious scene, no witnesses, burial clothing left behind. He concealed himself, only showing himself to the Disciples.

    Like

  31. Correction: I meant to say:

    Paul had no reason not to mention the empty tomb, especially if he believed Jesus had a physical resurrection.

    Like

    • Everyone knows the stone was rolled away for the women and disciples to be able to go in and see the evidence of the empty tomb.

      Jesus passed through it already in His glorified body. (like he passed through doors in Luke 24 and John 20, etc.) So a big argument of your long article is refuted.

      Like

  32. Why does only Luke and John attribute this power to Jesus? The Fourth Gospel changed the Lukan account, the Gospel of Luke has Thomas among the Twelve, they see Jesus and get terrified, then he vanishes. The Fourth Gospel it has Jesus appearing in the room, omitting Thomas entirely to make a separate vision later. The Gospels want people to believe the angels moved it, but a human being (Mark) later transformed into an angel from heaven (Matthew) and later two angels (Luke) is present, they weren’t just adding what was omitted but making up details to support their own views. Jesus originally had no power to pass through walls, it must’ve been Joseph who moved the body.

    Like

    • The Fourth Gospel changed the Lukan account, the Gospel of Luke has Thomas among the Twelve, they see Jesus and get terrified, then he vanishes.

      According to the rules of logic, this is a non-sequiter. It just does not follow – you don’t know that John is changing the Lukan account. You cannot get into John’s mind and read it, nor do you have a video camera, nor do you have a document that the author of the 4th Gospel writes, “I am using Luke 24 before me, and changing and/or adding to it”, etc.

      It would not hold up in a court of law; because you cannot show beyond a reasonable doubt that is what John is doing. The Greek language and grammar are very different the two accounts.

      Like

    • Why is Qur’an 4:157 and it’s claim only one time in the Qur’an? and why does NO one comment on it in all the Hadith collections?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “It would not hold up in a court of law”

      But enough about the Trinity… 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

      Liked by 1 person

Trackbacks

  1. Earliest New Testament traditions confirm the Deity of Christ, the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Christ. | Apologetics and Agape

Please 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: