Sam Shamoun Affirms Islamic View of the New Testament

We are often told by our Christian friends that none of the Bible’s manuscripts contain variants that change any beliefs. However Sam Shamoun is doing a great service to Islam by affirming that one of the earliest New Testament codices, Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century CE contains many heresies, to the point he agrees (though I respectfully disagree) it is suited for the trash.

cc-2018-ss-sinaiticustrash

What a shocking, but useful confession from Sam. I will make sure to highlight is new beliefs in the classes and videos to come.

and God knows best.

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, Islam, Missionaries

Tags: , , , , , ,

129 replies

  1. Ijaz, Ijaz, Ijaz,

    You fail to distinguish between texts commonly received by the historic apostolic churches that have come down through the succession of bishops and texts of unknown provenance. Ireneus, Tertullian and Gauis from the second century provide independent testimony of groups altering biblical texts which had a profound impact on theological positions. – Case in point – Marcions redaction of luke and Ten letters of Paul represented a text that had major changes in theological positions.

    So we are well aware of texts that alter biblical doctrines- this is no secret

    In the case of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, you cannot establish the provenance of these texts, who authored them, what’s groups they belonged too – yet Jerome’s Vulgate (We know who he was, We know he based his translation on early Greek manuscripts, so that is fourth century or earlier, they were publically read in the churches of the west, and Augustine even commended Jerome on his Gospel Translation after Augustine compared it against the Greek manuscripts he had access too.

    We also know the type of text used by Chrysostom who presided over the church of Antioch that was read to the congregations and throughout the Greek Orthodox World, and is the oldest Greek Church going back to the apostle Peter –

    The Vulgate, and Chrysostom text which were both 4th century, do not look like Vaticanus and Sinaticus and let’s be honest, the texts that have come down from the official Greek Churches don’t look like Vaticanus and Sinaticus which includes the official church of Alexandria – Whether the text is good, bad or indifferent, it wasn’t the type of text that was copied by the official Greek Churches.

    The only difference between Marcions Text and Vaticanus/Sinaticus is at least we have a good idea where marcions text came from and why he would have redacted those passages from his text – Yet, Marcions Text, Vaticanus, and Sinaticus was not the type of text that were copied and ecclesiastically transmitted through the Official Apostolic Churches.

    The Independent texts commonly received by the Latin, Greek and Aramiac all witness against Vaticanus and Sinaticus. Erasmus rejected the readings from Vaticanus, and the Official Greek Churches Text (1904) Patriarchal Text also rejected the critical editions of the late 19th century

    So why should we reject the texts received by the Apostolic churches for texts of unknown provenance?

    Ijaz, instead of going to modern scholarship, why not just read what the historical churches said who were actually witnesses and guardians of the text?

    Remember Ijaz, Christianity didn’t have a Calief like uthman who could burn all these bad texts like Islam did.

    God Bless

    Jonathan S

    Like

    • LOL, except that the church DID destroy many texts, especially those of “heretical” sects! Not only that, but the church scribes also solved theological problems by simply editing the manuscripts. By doing this, they didn’t have to burn the documents.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Quranandbibleblog

      Are you going to provide documentary evidence from the ancient world to support this assertion “but the church scribes also solved theological problems by simply editing the manuscripts. By doing this, they didn’t have to burn the documents” Otherwise this statement is from never never land.

      Quaran, can you give me the names of the scribes that were doing this, and where they did it (What church) and when they did it, and how they got these changes throughout the independent texts of the Latin, West and Greek East”

      See, when I cite the revision done under Uthman – I’m actually citing a historical document (Bukhari) – so now I’m asking you to provide a historical document from the ancient world that talks about a major revision occurring within the official churches…

      While we were well aware of varients, and attempts to alter the texts outside the official churches like in the example of Marcion in the second century – There is no record of what your talking about.

      Do your history homework

      Like

    • O boooooyy shamoun’s pet dog is here!

      “Christianity didn’t have a Calief like uthman who could burn all these bad texts like Islam did.”

      Repeating yourself again with garbage cus you got nothing else to say against Islam?
      Uthman ordered to destroy the other manuscripts that differed cus of the Ahruf.

      “You fail to distinguish between texts commonly received by the historic apostolic churches…”
      There he goes again with his apostolic potatoes! NO ONE takes that seriously!

      Like

    • Atlas,

      I see your unable to answer my arguments and fail to understand the Polity of the Apostolic Churches. Go to any Greek, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Aramaic, Syrian or Coptic Church and they can provide you the lists that go all the way back – Ireneus, Tertullian and Eusbius all document in their writings this polity – they took it seriously, and all you have to do is go to anyone of those churches to verify for yourselves – So when you state “NO One takes that seriously” you forgot to mention the official apostolic churches and these fathers. lol

      Any by the way Atlas, Shabir Ally in his debate with Sam Shamoun admitted that Uthman burned the other texts, because they were corrupted with variants – Shabir actually said, the people tried to preserve it, but failed. lol

      Once again, I am not surprised by the lack of scholarship – where are your sources from the ancient world?

      Like

    • “I see your unable to answer my arguments”
      You don’t have any! Get over it already! Actual evidence (material evidence of manuscripts that we can look at today) just LAUGHS at your apostolic potato tradition. And please can you post the “debate” you had with Ehrman somewhere or mail it cus I haven’t had a good laugh in a LONG time?

      I know your pathetic sly tactics. Let me repost what I said:
      “Repeating yourself again with garbage cus you got nothing else to say against Islam?
      Uthman ordered to destroy the other manuscripts that differed cus of the Ahruf.”

      Show me where in that hadith Uthman ordered the other manuscripts to be burned because they were “bad”. I never said that there never existed very few manuscripts that didn’t have mistakes in them. So don’t try to put words in my mouth while doing that.

      Like

    • Well Atlas,

      At least Dr Ehrman understood what I was referring to when I appealed to the Apostolic Polity of the churches, and didn’t deny how the churches were organized and set up to preserve the text. He didn’t refer to it as a apostolic potato tradition – then again he’s at least a real scholar who is educated in the field. lol

      Since your such a big fan of my videos – and need a good laugh, you’ll see how funny it was that Dr Ehrman had no answer to the historical evidence I presented to him in our defacto debate. I’m like the little kid in the crowd shouting out that the emperor has no clothes.

      Part 1: https://youtu.be/gxf_EhjZd5Y
      Part 2: https://youtu.be/ci6kYFkZCYM

      Also, I noticed Atlas you didn’t attack Shabir Ally for saying that Uthman burned the other Korans because of variants and corruptions in those Korans – He said the people failed to preserve the text, so Uthman stepped in. Was Shabir wrong? – at least he is honest enough to admit what is plainly clear from the testimony of Bukhari.

      Like

    • Dan Wallace on 1 John 5:7 says enough of what kinda potato book we’re dealing with:

      Liked by 1 person

    • I think Shabir Ally is a great scholar but that doesn’t mean I agree with him on everything.
      And btw this is attaking strawman. I asked you to show where UTHMAN said to destroy the other “versions” because they were corrupt.

      “at least he is honest enough to admit what is plainly clear from the testimony of Bukhari.”
      And till this day you have failed to prove that. Just saying it is clear doesn’t make it so. Uthman doesn’t say such a thing in that hadith.

      “Since your such a big fan of my videos”
      I asked for the “debate” you had with Ehrman. The one that you had in private?
      Not your childish cartoons.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Johnnie boy has to appeal to a conspiracy theory involving Uthman (ra) because he has nothing else to go by.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. What exactly are the heretical statements in Codex Siniaticus?

    What other full NT manuscript in Greek exists that is the oldest that is part of the Textus Receptus / Ecclesiastical text view?

    Like

  3. Jerome’s Latin translation of the Greek metanoeo / μετανοεω was a mistake. The Latin was “do penance” and developed into doing external deeds that the priest said, like crawl up steps and say 100 hail Mary’s or give money to the poor or the church for forgiveness. That is wrong. “Repent” is an internal turning from sin to God that includes a godly sorrow that leads to change and salvation.

    Also, Jerome’s translation from Greek into the Latin word for justification was wrong also. (the Greek is: “the count righteous / just / right” but the Latin had more the idea of “to make righteous / just / right”. These 2 mistakes in translation and relying upon them (rather than the original Greek) for centuries is just one of the problems of what later became the Roman Catholic Church.

    This is a good explanation:

    Actually, “TheDen,” you omitted a very important little word, and in fact, by adding that word, Jerome did change the sense of the entire passage. Here’s a link to A Concise Dictionary to the Vulgate New Testament with an introduction by G.C. Richards who lists, on page 16, some of the same effects on the text that McGrath noted. Specifically, the words paenitentiam agere which “inevitably suggested ‘acts’ and that it no doubt led to the development of the penitential system, by which ‘penance’ became something [to be] done.”

    He gives other examples that you can read for yourself, and the inevitable conclusion is: “thus the language of the Vulgate affected in no small degree the life of the Church”.

    Diarmaid MacCulloch in his History of the Reformation also summarizes the effects of the Latin Vulgate on the church:
    An examination of the New Testament [of Jerome’s mistranslations in the Vulgate] had even more profound consequences [than his mistranslations of the Old Testament]: Jerome had chosen certain Latin words in his translation of the original Greek, which formed a rather shaky foundation for very considerable theological constructions by the later Western Church.

    It was not simply that Jerome gave misleading impressions of the Greek text: the mere fact that for a thousand years the Latin Church had based its authority on a translation [with many errors in it] was significant when scholars heard for the first time the unmediated urgency of the angular street-Greek poured out by … Paul of Tarsus as he wrestled with the problem of how Jesus represented God. The struggle sounded so much less decorous in the original than in Latin: the shock was bound to stir up new movements in the Church and suggest that it was not so authoritative or normative an interpreter of Scripture as it claimed.(82-83)
    Again, regarding the translation of “metanoiea”:
    Most notorious was Erasmus’s retranslation of Gospel passages (especially Matthew 3.2Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) [and and also 4:17]) where John the Baptist [and Jesus] is presented in the Greek as crying out to his listeners in the wilderness: “metanoeite”. Jerome had translated this as “poenitentiam agite,” “do penance”, and the medieval Church had pointed to the Baptist’s cry as biblical support for its theology of the sacrament of penance. Erasmus said that what John had told his listeners to do was to come to their senses, or repent, and he translated the command into Latin as “resipiscite.” Much turned on one word.(99-100)
    Craig Keener has provided an excellent study of what the word “repentance” meant in the New Testament-era literature, and says (primary source references omitted):
    “Repentance” in the Gospels recalls not the “change of mind” earlier etymological interpreters sometimes supposed, but the biblical concept of “turning” or “returning” to God (Is 31:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 45:22Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 55:7Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Jer 3:7Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 10Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 22Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 4:1Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 8:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 18:11Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 24:7Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 25:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 26:3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 35:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 36:7Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 44:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Lam 3:40Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Ezek 13:22Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 14:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 18:23Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 30Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 33:9Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 11Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Hos 11:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 12:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); 14:1-2Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Joel 2:12-13Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Zech 1:3-4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Mal 3:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).

    [I’ve listed all these Scriptural citations to show that the idea of “repentance” espoused here did have a great deal of consistency through the OT.]

    The idea of repentance as returning to God was pervasive in early Judaism but foreign to Greek religion. Sages extolled repentance, some later rabbis even claiming its preexistence or its association with the Messiah’s mission. It is efficacious, though in rabbinic tradition it merely suspends judgment until the Day of Atonement may remove it (and beyond a certain limit it is not efficacious for the person who premeditates sin in hopes of repenting afterward [Sounds a lot like Roman Catholics who think it’s ok to sin, because you can then just go to confession]).

    Yet John’s call is more radical; his “repentance” refers not to a regular turning from sin after a specific act, but to a once-for-all repentance, the kind of turning from an old way of life to a new that Judaism associated with Gentiles converting to Judaism, here in view of the impending day of judgment (cf. MT 4:17; 11:20; 12:41; Acts 17:30-31Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Rom 2:4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). His call to repentance recalls a familiar summons in the biblical prophets. In various ways John warns his hearers against depending on the special privileges of their heritage. Craig Keener (“The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary” Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge, UK, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ©2009, pg 120)

    From this article by John Bugay:
    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/words-mean-things-1.html

    Like

  4. No party is complete without Kenny!

    Like

  5. Ignatius of Antioch defended the Deity of Christ around 110 AD without the 1 John 5:7 comma johannine.
    Tertullian formulated the oneness of God (Unitas) and threeness ( Trinitas) of the 3 hypostasis (persona) around 190-210 AD.
    Origen wrote about and defended the Trinity in the 250s. AD
    Athanasius defended the Doctrine of the Trinity, based on the Bible, without the verse either. (325-373 AD)

    Like

    • LOL, so why didn’t Ignatius mention the trinity?

      It’s not a shock that many early Christians believed Jesus was divine. The Romans tell us as much (Pliny the Younger). But why did it take your leaders 200 years to formulate the trinity doctrine? Why didn’t Paul greet his readers in the name of father, son and holy spirit, instead of leaving the holy spirit out? Why did the Nicene creed have to be “updated” 80 years after the original? These are all questions which have never been answered by Christians. In short, they show that the trinity was invented and refined over centuries. Jesus and the disciples certainly did not know anything about it.

      Like

    • The doctrine of the Deity of Christ automatically leds to the Trinity; when you look at all the relevant verses, because John 1:1 has two principles that relate to the Trinity and Deity of Christ:

      “In the beginning the Word was” = in eternity past

      The Word was with God = 2 in personal relationship – the Word and the Father or the Son and the Father. (see also John 17:5)
      “and the Word was God” = the Word was God by nature, substance/ essence

      At the end of 2 Cor. 13:14, Paul writes:
      May the Love of God (The Father), the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (The Son, the Word), and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

      In harmony with Matthew 28:19
      Trinitarian

      Like

    • Typical. You didn’t answer my questions and went on a rant based on your preconceived assumptions. If it was so obvious, then why did it take 300 years for your trinity to be fully explained? Why are Christians so full of crap?

      Like

    • I answered your questions in a way that understands the concept of the doctrine of the Trinity was developed based on Scripture. Theological development happened as heretics arose and new questions were asked.

      the heresies and questions forced the early church to study all the relevant texts and the result was the doctrine of the Trinity (Trinitas Unitas = three in one, which Theophilus of Antioch around 180 and Tertullian in 190 AD wrote in Latin, based on the many verses of the triad – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (3 persons), but also they many verses that there is only one God.

      Like

    • Rubbish! You answered nothing and just made a bunch of irrelevant statements like a robot.

      Why did the theological controversies arise in the first place? I mean come on. We are not even talking about one or two controversies. Christianity has had like 50. It’s ridiculous! The reason is due to the lack of consistency in the NT. Contradictions, inconsistencies, vague verses etc. all contributed to the confusion. That’s why no one mentions “trinity” until more than a century after Jesus!

      Like

    • Jesus mentioned the doctrine in seed form in Matthew 28:19 and John chapters 14, 15, 16 (14:26, 15:26; 16:7-15)

      Like

    • Yeah, like Islam did not have controversies? Massive wars and killing each other – hacking up Uthman as he was praying, killing Omar, wars, Shiite vs. Sunni, Yazid hacking up Hossein, Hassan’s wife poisoning him, 300 years of Jihad wars against the Persians and subjugating them.

      Yours is force and aggression.
      Christianity grew under persecution and did not do what Islam did. Opposite.

      Like

    • 1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

      Romans 1:1-4
      God the Father
      The Lord Jesus Christ
      The Spirit of Holiness = the Holy Spirit

      Like

    • To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:7)
      “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2-3).
      “To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 1:1-2).
      “To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:2-3).
      “To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:1-2).
      “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:1-2).
      “To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Colossians 1:2).
      “To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 1:1).
      “To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thessalonians 1:1-2).
      “To Timothy, a true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Timothy 1:2)
      “To Timothy, a beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Timothy 2.:2).
      “To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior” (Titus 1:4).
      “To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer…and to the church in your house: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philemon 1-3).
      “James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings” (James 1:1).
      “To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Peter 1:1-2).
      “That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3).
      “To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth…Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love” (2 John 1-3).
      “To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ: Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you” (Jude 1).

      Hmmm, oh where, oh where has the holy spirit gone?

      Like

    • You have to keep reading the whole thing. Theologians call the Holy Spirit – “the shy member of the Holy Trinity” – He works behind the scenes and His emphasis is glorifying Christ, not Himself.

      2 Cor. 13:14 certainly has Him; as does the Romans 1:1-4 passage that I gave you that you ignored.

      Like

    • Only in Christianity you can have God who has a god.
      Just amazing how people can believe in that. How? How is that possible?
      Dear Lord have mercy.

      Like

    • “June 13, 2018 • 1:44 pm
      You have to keep reading the whole thing. Theologians call the Holy Spirit – “the shy member of the Holy Trinity” – He works behind the scenes and His emphasis is glorifying Christ, not Himself.

      2 Cor. 13:14 certainly has Him; as does the Romans 1:1-4 passage that I gave you that you ignored.”

      LOL!! Well, how convenient! Your “theologians” were simply straining for an explanation. More often than not, Paul neglected the holy spirit. You have no explanation for this. Poor crybaby…

      Like

    • you are just Shamoun type angry Muslim who uses the same kind of snark and bombast and name-calling and bellicose crap / sin that he does. You so full of sin.
      Mark 9:48
      Luke 13:1-5

      Like

    • Wa, wa, wa, cry all you want crybaby. You’ve been exposed as a hypocrite multiple times.

      Like

    • “Yours is force and aggression.
      Christianity grew under persecution and did not do what Islam did. Opposite.”

      Buahahahha! Your potato religion has caused more harm and killings than any other religion on the planet.

      The “controversies” like Uthman, Shia&Sunni etc were mostly due to political reasons.

      Like

  6. Typo
    (the Greek is: “the count righteous / just / right” but the Latin

    should have been

    (the Greek is: “to count righteous / just / right” but the Latin

    Like

  7. Christians were never under any obligation to formulate or explain the trinity in creedal form. The NT does not demand this. We believe the trinity in the way in which it is asserted in the NT.

    The idea that we need a creed before we can believe in the trinity is an absurd unitarian construction.

    Like

    • Hahaha, what baloney! The trinity was not even fully articulated until the Nicene creed, and even then, it needed an “update” 80 years later! Until then, there were different and contradictory versions of what Christians were even supposed to believe.

      Like

  8. Let the goat eat Sinaiticus, providence rejected it and we don’t need it 🙂

    Like

  9. “there were different and contradictory versions of what Christians were even supposed to believe.”

    No, it is there in black and white, the bible.

    Like

    • Uh no. You just pretend it is because you have several preconceived notions. It clearly is not “black and white”. If it was, then Christians wouldn’t have had to contend with so many “heresies”.

      Like

  10. I don’t need any human explanations to believe the trinity in the form in which it is asserted in the sacred script.

    Like

    • “I don’t need any human explanations to believe the trinity”
      There aren’t any to begin with cus it’s a logical self contradiction and hence cannot have an explanation since an explanation is based on logical statements.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. All the easier to believe then.

    Like

    • BUAHAHAHA!
      So you just literally admitted it’s a self contradiction and you still wanna believe in it?!!!

      WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW! Okeeeeeyyy buddy!

      O and one more thing! You cannot believe in a self contradiction. Everything we do in life, EVERYTHING is based on the laws of logic. Hence it is not possible to hold a position or to adhere to a statement which is a self contradiction/paradox.
      Believing is something that is wrong is one thing but there is no such thing as believing in something AND its inverse at the same time.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. I believe in the trinity in the form in which it is asserted in the NT.

    “O and one more thing! You cannot believe in a self contradiction.”

    Yes I can.

    John 1 v 1 is a self contradiction in human terms: The Word is with God and the Word was God.

    I believe it.

    Like

    • Woow! Okey!
      Actually I respect you for at least admitting it’s a self contradiction.

      “John 1 v 1 is a self contradiction in human terms”
      It’s a self contradiction in logical terms! No need to insert the word ‘human’ to make it seem as if it’s not an error.

      [[[
      O and one more thing! You cannot believe in a self contradiction.”

      Yes I can.
      ]]]

      No you cannot!
      Not really. Because like I said everything you do is based on laws of logic! So if the logical laws get broken then your belief is meaningless.

      You surely believe that the Qur’an contains mistakes. So If I told you “weeeellll they are mistakes but they are NOT at the same time!’ So the Qur’an is inerrant and errant at the same time. You wouldn’t have a problem with the Muslim claim that it’s the Perfect word of God then, since logical self contradictions pose no problem for you to believe in something?

      Liked by 1 person

    • It is not a contradiction.

      One is about nature / substance / essence (the Word was God)

      The other is about 2 persons in eternal personal relationship. (the Word was with God)

      Like

    • Father is Yahweh, Son is Yahweh, HS is Yahweh. All three of them are distinctive.

      Contradiction.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

    1 John 2:22-23

    You cannot know God without the Son.

    And the Holy Spirit works invisibly and secretly behind the scenes in His role and work. (John 14, 15, 16)

    Like

  14. This is a very fair article on the issue of Mark 16:9-20.

    except for 2 things, IMO.

    1. Colin Smith writes:

    There is a Latin translation of Irenaeus’ work Adversus Haereses that supposedly quotes Mark 16:19, lending support to the existence of this passage at the end of the second century. Also, the previously mentioned passages from Eusebius and Jerome may be cited as evidence of their knowledge of these verses in at least some manuscripts.

    I would say that Irenaeus work Against Heresies 3:10:5 definitely does quote Mark 16:19.

    Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;”

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xi.html

    Notice at the beginning of Against Heresies 3:10:5, he quotes from Mark 1:1

    2. In his conclusion,

    ” . . . then it should not stand at the end of the canonical text of Mark, even with parentheses and footnotes. ”

    I disagree with that; I would rather it be there with parentheses and footnotes and the information so that we can do what the kind of thinking and research that he also did in his article. (same with John 7:53-John 8:11)
    There should be no fear of the information.

    Like

  15. Uthman ordered to destroy the other manuscripts that differed cus of the Ahruf.

    ‘Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, 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.

    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.”

    from Sahih Al Bukhari 6:509-510

    It was much more than Ahruf (recitation), since different dialects pronounce and recite the written text differently, but use the same text.

    Like

    • Aaan you just proved exactly NOTHING!
      Having a fear that it might be lost doesn’t mean it’s lost!

      Like

    • Then why did Uthman do what he did?
      You have no answer, because they also were afraid of “being like the Christians and Jews”, who in their ignorant minds, thought there was contradiction in our Scripture.

      Like

    • Because Uthman had the wisdom and foresight to see that if he did nothing, there could be problems in the future. Maybe if you Christians had his wisdom, you could have preserved your Bible alot better!

      Like

    • Your own text of Hadith proves my point.

      Like

    • No, it just proves that you’re desperate.

      Like

    • “When you and Zayd ibn Thabit disagree about any of the Qur’an, write it in the dialect of Quraysh. It was revealed in their language.”

      According to Uthman’s OWN statement: the disagreements were in the dialect. They already had the dialect of the Quraysh cus why else would he say to write in that dialect.

      The reason of them being afraid of becoming like xtians and jews is that the people of sham and Iraq were new converts and they started to recite according to their own dialects and started arguing that their ‘version’ was better than the others. Eventually this would lead to chaos and go against what the prophet taught which is that all ahrufs are revealed by God. They would go so far as to say that the others had corrupted Qur’ans. Which is what the jews and xtians do to each other.

      Btw I thought xtians always claimed that the earliest Muslim believed the jewish/xtian scriptures were intact and preserved. This hadith (among MANY others) shred to potato statement to pieces.

      Like

    • The problem with all of that is – all Arabic speakers, according to what I have had them tell me, they read the same printed text; but pronouce things differently. I have had Saudis, Iraqis, Lebanese, and Moroccans say to me, “You are speaking Egyptian to me” when I use a little Arabic. ( I don’t know much, just a few greetings and polite phrases) But they told me they use the same printed newspaper and texts.

      Like

  16. the fuller quote, with 6:507 also, because it is relevant:

    Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.507, 509-510:

    (The Caliph ‘Uthman ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Said bin Al-As, ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair and ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham to write the Qur’an in the form of a book (Mushafs) and said to them, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit (Al-Ansari) regarding any dialectic Arabic utterance of the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, for the Qur’an was revealed in this dialect.” So they did it.

    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 Musailama). (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 Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, 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 Apostle. 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 Apostle 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) palmed 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.
    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, Said bin Al-As and ‘Abdur-Rahman 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. Said bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ ” (33.23)

    Like

  17. Comments by Dr. White on this:

    Here we have the traditional Islamic statement of the Uthmanic Revision, that point in time where Uthman, prompted, according to this form of the tradition, by others, and by the death of a number of the Qurra (those who knew the Quran by heart), gathered up the Qur’an from various sources and compiled an “authoritative” version. Note that part of the concern was so that the Muslims would not argue over the text of the Qur’an “as Jews and the Christians did before.” This is vitally important (I have often made reference to the same concept in KJV Onlyism: exchanging truth for certainty, an issue I will address in the upcoming series on textual criticism). But note especially the destruction by fire of “all other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies.” Given the reference to differing recitations based, clearly, upon different readings in the collections that had already come into existence, we have here evidence of textual variation in the pre-Uthmanic Qur’anic manuscripts. Uthman’s action, then, destroys the very means that could have been used to arrive at a far clearer picture of the original compilation and reading of the Qur’an.
    However, in 1972, fragments of what may well be a pre-Uthmanic compilation of the Qur’an were found in Sana’a, Yemen. The picture above comes from the same manuscript find, specifically, from what is today Surah 5, with part of ayah 60, 61, and part of 62.
    So when you hear someone speaking of the “Uthmanic Revision,” this is what they are referring to. Of course, there is much discussion concerning just how accurate this tradition itself is, and what truly prompted Uthman’s actions, etc. But even from the most conservative Islamic perspective, there is clear evidence of pre-Uthmanic textual variation in the text of the Qur’an.

    from here:
    https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2007/01/27/quran-101-the-uthmanic-revision/

    Like

  18. Father is Yahweh, Son is Yahweh, HS is Yahweh.

    By nature /substance / essence
    one God

    All three of them are distinctive.
    By person / hypostasis / personal relation to one other

    So there is no contraction

    Like

    • That’s like saying I’m a person, you’re a person, Q&B is a person. We are all three different person but yet we are all human! Here you turn “human” into a category.

      Is Yahweh a category? Last time I checked he isn’t.

      “All three of them are distinctive.”
      If they are distinctive then the Yahwehs are distinctive as well cus each one of them is different. And there goes your One god claim.
      If they are distinctive then they aren’t equal to the same God. End of story!

      And btw the copy paste you did above has been refuted TO many times. The Uthman burning proves NOTHING! Go watch the debate between Bassam Zawadi and Nabeel Qureshi and enjoy the glory of spanking that Nabeel got from Bassam.
      He addresses everything in that debate.

      Like

  19. LOL, remember when the crybaby Kenny ran away over the weekend, citing “other things” he had to do, and now he is ranting and spamming the blog with rapid fire posts? Hmmm…

    Like

    • Yea what happened to being busy with life, work, family, etc etc?

      Like

    • When there is time; there is time.

      Like

    • So now that you have time, go back and defend your Bible’s talking snake and other absurdities.

      Like

    • Satan coming in the form of a snake – I just don’t have a problem with at all; and it is obvious who it is, even if Genesis does not say who it is. The Book of Job understands Satan as the adversary / accuser, and it, along with Genesis, are the two oldest books of the Bible. Plus, many verses in the NT tell us who the snake is.

      Like

    • Great then how about you go back to the previous post and try and defend your book since you failed big time in doing it a few days ago.

      Like

    • “Satan coming in the form of a snake – I just don’t have a problem with at all; and it is obvious who it is, even if Genesis does not say who it is. The Book of Job understands Satan as the adversary / accuser, and it, along with Genesis, are the two oldest books of the Bible. Plus, many verses in the NT tell us who the snake is.”

      Except that Genesis does not say that it was Satan. You are just inserting your own opinions into the text. The snake is described as one of the animals in the garden. God even curses the snake and forces it to slither on its belly instead of using legs. This all describes an animal, not a fallen “angel” like Satan.

      Like

  20. “No you cannot!
    Not really. Because like I said everything you do is based on laws of logic! So if the logical laws get broken then your belief is meaningless.”

    OK so according to you my understanding of John 1 v 1 is illogical and meaningless but strangely I still believe it, along with many others I assume, but I could be the only one. Doesnt bother me actually.

    Like

    • “strangely I still believe it”
      No what you believe is one side of the coin. Not both. But the trinity/godman concept requires you to believe in both side of the coins and this is impossible. Your mind automatically picks ONE option. Both are logically impossible.

      Like

  21. “You surely believe that the Qur’an contains mistakes. So If I told you “weeeellll they are mistakes but they are NOT at the same time!’ So the Qur’an is inerrant and errant at the same time. You wouldn’t have a problem with the Muslim claim that it’s the Perfect word of God then, since logical self contradictions pose no problem for you to believe in something?”

    I am assuming that the contradiction is not in the being of God itself but only in my perception of it, which is finite.

    Like

  22. “No what you believe is one side of the coin. Not both. But the trinity/godman concept requires you to believe in both side of the coins and this is impossible.”

    I dont understand what you are saying.

    Like

  23. Can you explain in concrete terms? Instead of figures of speech.

    Like

  24. x is with A would normally imply that x is not A but in the case of John 1 v 1 this is not the case. x is with A does not imply that x is not A, the reverse is true. x is affirmed to be A.

    This is the contradiction that I believe and live with.

    Perhaps there are some who don’t see this as a logical contradiction. Maybe it is some other kind of contradiction or no contradiction at all. OK, I can live with that too.

    Like

  25. Except that Genesis does not say that it was Satan. You are just inserting your own opinions into the text. The snake is described as one of the animals in the garden. God even curses the snake and forces it to slither on its belly instead of using legs. This all describes an animal, not a fallen “angel” like Satan.

    That is why he is called a serpent and a dragon (Revelation 12, 20) – some kind of animal with legs. After judgment, he lost his legs. Genesis is not required to tell us; because other Hebrew books in the Canon of the Jews tell us about Satan as the adversary / accuser / tempter.

    Job chapters 1-2
    1 Chronicles 24
    Zechariah chapter 3

    Like

    • Pathetic! Your eisegesis is riddled with presumptions. Satan is not “some kind of animal with legs”. Satan was supposedly a fallen “angel”. He had wings! Why doesn’t Genesis tell us that he lost his wings too? Satan is not mentioned in the Pentateuch at all. He makes a brief appearance in Job and a few other places and that is it.

      Like

    • Apparently, he was taking the form of a serpent/ dragon, etc.

      Like

    • Why did God then curse him to live on earth without legs? Is Satan missing his legs?

      Like

    • Satan is a spirit / demon / fallen angel.

      the form that he took in the garden, in the form of a serpent / dragon – was what lost its legs – but that did not affect the demonic spirit – namely Satan.

      Like

    • Good lord, opinions and nothing but opinions. Genesis does not describe a cherub! It describes an animal, one of the many animals that were in the garden!

      “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.”

      It says it was one of the “beasts of the field”. This is not a cherub. It is an animal. Give it up already.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Satan came in the form of one serpent.

      Like

    • “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

      15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

      Hmm, nothing here about a cherub. The snake is described as an animal, a beast of the field.

      Liked by 1 person

    • the spirit inside the serpent was a spirit / demon/ fallen cherub

      Like

    • You just cannot be honest for once. None of your opinions can be substantiated by the text. The snake was an animal, not a cherub/demon/spirit in animal form.

      Like

    • “the text” is the entire Bible – the 66 books of OT and NT; and how both Christians and Jews have always understood “the text”. The other books give us information on how to interpret it properly; just like you would use Surah Al Ankaboot and information in it to interpret information in other Surahs that did not have the info; just as you (or Atlas) used other Hadith and Tafsir to help you interpret a strange Hadith. (that did not have enough information, it seems)

      Like

    • You can say “I disagree”; but you cannot accuse of dishonesty when the Christian understanding of the text in Genesis 3 also includes the relevant passages in the 66 books of the Bible.

      You don’t obey the Qur’an in Surah 29:46 – to argue with good / beautiful methods and arguments.

      You don’t obey your book; and you don’t know how to argue in a civilized and respectful manner.

      Like

    • You presume that all the authers of the bible are in agreement with one another. We have ONE prophet who brought the Qur’an and hadith. So going to another chapter or hadith is like going from one verse in ONE book of the bible to another verse in the SAME book as the bible.

      Like

    • You’re just full of crap. Face it. The excuses you make for your scripture would never be extended to the scriptures of other religions. Christians aren’t exactly the most consistent people around.

      You appeal to the Jewish interpretation when it suits your purpose, but when it doesn’t, you discard it. I showed you that Josephus described the snake as just that…a snake. Not Satan. This was the Jewish understanding in the 1st century.

      Rashi’s commentary also shows this interpretation. For example, in his commentary on verse 14, Rashi refers to the “gestation period” of snakes. He is obviously not referring to Satan!

      Satan is not the same figure in Judaism as he is in Christianity. That is why he is a relatively unimportant character in the Tanakh.

      Liked by 1 person

  26. Ezekiel chapter 28 is clear that the evil spirit behind the king of Tyre was Satan, who was in the garden of Eden and was a wise and beautiful creature; and so was a fallen angel (or cherub, a kind of angel)

    Ezekiel 28:13
    “You were in Eden, the garden of God;
    Every precious stone was your covering:

    14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers,
    And I placed you there.
    You were on the holy mountain of God;
    You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.

    15 “You were blameless in your ways
    From the day you were created
    Until unrighteousness was found in you.
    16 “By the abundance of your trade
    You were internally filled with violence,
    And you sinned;
    Therefore I have cast you as profane
    From the mountain of God.
    And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub,
    From the midst of the stones of fire.
    17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
    You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor.
    I cast you to the ground;

    Ezekiel 28:13, 14-17

    see also the attitude of the king of Tyre earlier in the chapter, his pride and thinking he was a god in his heart, etc.

    “Because your heart is lifted up
    And you have said, ‘I am a god,
    I sit in the seat of gods
    In the heart of the seas’;

    Read the whole chapter.

    The attitude of the king of Tyre (and the same prideful attitude of the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14 ( I will, etc. and the name Lucifer comes from the Latin for ‘Shining one”, etc.

    What this all shows is that the prideful attitude behind evil dictators like these 2 kings is the spirit of Satan.

    the King of Tyre could not have literally been in the Garden of God, Eden, nor a cherub; so this is talking about the prideful evil spirit of Satan that is behind his pride and injustice and oppression as a political leader.

    The ultimate manifestation of Satan is in unjust political leaders.

    Like

    • More eisegesis…where does it say Satan was there as a snake? The cherubs were there to guard the garden. If one of them decided to take the form of a snake, then why did Genesis describe it just one of the animals instead of one of the cherubs? As I said, you are inserting your own presumptions into the text.

      Liked by 1 person

  27. cause the cherub took the form of a serpent / dragon.

    Like

  28. No surprise there. It’s clear that the authors of the new testament made changes to their scripture. One famous example is the story of the adulterous woman in John 7:52-8:11. This story doesn’t appear in any of the early manuscripts, yet it’s still found in the bible today.

    Like

  29. Ummm, thread poster draws attention to Manuscripts that impact on teaching.
    So, how many manuscripts of the Injeel are there?

    Like

    • “The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 AD, the P-52 papyrus, oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century.” (from the Wikipedia article, I use it for convenience)

      See also this lecture, “The Reliability of the New Testament Text” by James White

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/reliability-of-the-new-testament/

      Like

    • Thanks for that Ken. I’m simply drawing attention to the irony of Muslims who make a song and dance if there are manuscript variants in the New Testament manuscript tradition which may or may not impact on doctrine, but don’t bat an eyelid over the fact that the Islamic Injeel is completely and utterly lost.

      Like

    • Ummm, thread commenter tries to draw attention away from the lack of Manuscripts for his book and the lack of a consistent text by deflecting to the Injeel. Let the Christian fallacies begin! Fallacy #1 – red herring…

      Liked by 1 person

  30. Oh, there is a difference between the Injeel vs. the Islamic Injeel. The Islamic Injeel does not exist and there are zero manuscripts.

    I thought you were asking about the true Injeel – the NT.

    Like

    • Right, now isn’t it ironic that they quibble over variants we have in the thousands of manuscripts but yet they don’t have a single manuscript of their Islamic Injeel?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “… there are zero manuscripts.”
      With the church’s track record of their crusade against any so called heretical groups what else can we expect? Ibn Abbaas (a companion of the Prophet) was well aware of that and had this to say:

      Narrated by Sa’eed ibn Juabair: Ibn Abbaas said: The kings after the time of Jesus the son of Mary peace be upon him substituted the Torah and Gospel and there used to be amongst them believers who were reading the Torah. It was said to the kings: We do not find an insult greater than the insult of those that read “And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers” and their recitation of these similar kind of verses which they shame us with in our daily activities. So tell them to read just as what we read and let them believe just as we believe.’ So the king summoned them and gathered them together. He proposed either death to them or that they leave the recitation of the Torah and Gospel except what they substitute in place of it. [(Sunan Al Nisaa’i, hadith no. 5305)

      Al-Hakim related in Al-Mustadrak the following Hadith…

      Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Abdullah As-Saffar told us: Ahmad Ibn Mahdi Ibn Rustum Al-Asfahani told us: Mu’azh Ibn Hisham Ad-Distwani told us: my father told me: Al-Qasim Ibn ‘Awf Ash-Shaybani told me: Mu’azh Ibn Jabal – radiya Allahu ‘anhu – told us that he went to Sham and saw the Christians prostrate to their Bishops and priests and saw the Jews prostrate to their Rabbis and scholars. He said, “Why do you do this?” they answered, “This is the greeting of Prophets (peace be upon him)”. I said, “We better do this to our Prophet”. Allah’s Prophet – salla Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam – said, “They lied about their Prophets just as they DISTORTED THEIR BOOK. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone, I would command woman to prostrate to her husband for his great right upon her. No woman will taste the sweetness of Faith till she does her husband’s rights even if he asks herself while she is on a Qutub” (Al-Hakim commented, “This hadith is authentic according to standards of Al-Bukhari and Muslim, but they did not relate it”)

      We “quibble” over variants of the NT cus this is Bloggingtheology.net and Ijaz Ahmed studies them. If you don’t like it then you’re free to go somewhere else where you don’t have to be outside your comfort zone and your religion getting exposed over and over again. Just as you Westeners/warmongers/occupiers/regime changers/recourse grabbers say ‘Go back to your own country’, well I say to you now “Go back to your own evangelic sites”! And stay there!

      Liked by 1 person

    • LOL, except that the “true Injeel” has ZERO 1st-century manuscripts as well. So, where does that leave us? Your so-called “true Injeel” has only later manuscripts. Not very impressive, I’m afraid…

      Like

  31. Er no. Dont try to claim that the new testament manuscripts are sourced in the islamic injeel. Go find your own documents. Let me know when youve found at least one 🙂

    Like

    • Er well, since your own gospels say that Jesus preached the “Gospel” verbally, it is possible that some of those teachings eventually made their way into the New Testament. Also, given that there were no gospels until at least 30 years after Jesus, it stands to reason that his teachings were mostly spread by word of mouth, or maybe have been written down in limited form (Q gospel).

      Like

    • Oh and let me know if you’ve found at least one 1st-century manuscript of your gospels. 🙂

      I’ve challenged your brethren before, and they have yet to provide one example.

      Like

  32. Nice deflection. To answer your question, to the best of my knowledge, we not have 1st century manuscripts in our current possession. It’s funny though how you can think its a huge problem for us if the oldest surviving manuscripts come from the first cemtury yet you have no surving manuscripts of ANY CENTURY.

    Now, why is it that while we have thousands of new testament manuscripts, there is not a single surviving manuscript of the islamic injeel?

    If Jesus was a muslim and his followers were muslims, then why blame Christians for loss or corruption? You should have your own collections without having to dig into our materials.

    If you’re going to use oral transmission as an excuse then youre only demonstrating to me that oral transmission is unreliable.

    According to Surah 10:64, it is Allah’s greatest triumph that noone can change His words. Are you telling me that Allah’s greatest triumph was a miserable failure?

    How are you going to obey surah 4:136 and believe Allahs books if you dont know what they teach?

    Like

    • Q 10:64 does NOT refer to revelation but to the DECREE of God. This shit is getting old to refute. Find something new already!
      To believe in his Books means to believe that they were the revelations revealed to Moses, David, Isa and Muhammad.

      FAIL!

      Liked by 1 person

    • You’re still not getting it. Your NT manuscripts are useless because they are all late. You don’t have any manuscripts from the 1st century. Most are from after the 9th century, with only a handful from before.

      We know that Jesus’ teachings were primarily spread orally. Even your gospels agree on this point. We also know that these teachings predated the gospels. The true teachings of the Injeel would very well have been among these oral traditions. We don’t know if it was written down or not. At this point, it doesn’t really matter though.

      Like

  33. “You’re still not getting it. Your NT manuscripts are useless because they are all late. You don’t have any manuscripts from the 1st century. Most are from after the 9th century, with only a handful from before.”

    The manuscripts are useless to me too because I don’t read greek. Fortunately the originals were copied and translated in to english. So I have my kjv.

    Like

  34. You still haven’t given any compelling reason as to why any nt manuscripts from the 1st century must have survived to this day.

    Like

    • That’s because you live in a fantasy world with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed. I actually showed that manuscripts from that time period have survived to the present day. You just don’t like that because it makes your NT look bad.

      Like

  35. Perhaps another muslim conspiracy theory in the offing?

    Faiz said: “Uh no. You just pretend it is because you have several preconceived notions. It clearly is not “black and white”. If it was, then Christians wouldn’t have had to contend with so many “heresies”.”

    The trinity is not one of them given the numbers of heretics who don’t believe it. Both rc and non rc communions are united on this.

    Continuously harping back to ancient history is not going to help you here.

    Like

    • Lol, Ignoramus is ignorant of his own history! There were MANY Christian sects you idiot. After the Nicene council, the beliefs of the churches became more or less consistent, although other controversies would still arise. But before the council, there were many competing beliefs, not all of which were trinitarian. Actually, not even the original Nicene creed was a confirmation of the trinity. The holy spirit was originally not included in the creed. These are facts Ignoramus. Harping about your preconceived opinions will not help you.

      Like

  36. “Ken Temple
    June 13, 2018 • 2:02 pm
    Why?

    What exactly are the heretical statements in Codex Siniaticus?

    Erasmus, are you KJ only?”

    Yes, I am.

    I recommend Robert Paul Wieland’s video, for example:

    Like

  37. “That’s because you live in a fantasy world with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed. I actually showed that manuscripts from that time period have survived to the present day. You just don’t like that because it makes your NT look bad.”

    Actually this is all speculation, not hard proof.

    You just quoted someones claims, nothing more.

    Like

    • LOL, so Ignoramus basically thinks that experts’ views don’t count for anything. Hmm, I guess Ignoramus’ views outweigh everyone else, huh? Funny, because I see this attitude from other man-worshipers too. What a coincidence, huh?

      Until you give evidence to the contrary, the fact remains that there are 1st century manuscripts that have survived. That doesn’t bode well for your NT.

      Like

  38. “Actually, not even the original Nicene creed was a confirmation of the trinity. The holy spirit was originally not included in the creed. These are facts Ignoramus. Harping about your preconceived opinions will not help you.”

    Mainstream Christianity has never dissociated itself from the Nicene Creed so your obession with history is irrelevant.

    Like

    • I think I know why you are so afraid of history. It makes your religion look REALLY bad! This also explains why you pompously maintain your own opinions, without proof, and discount the mainstream and authoritative views of scholars. You’re pathetic. Just a desperate trinitarian trying to cling to your mangod idol.

      Like

  39. I think I know why you are so afraid of history.

    says the guy whose entire religion is based on a god who suppossed inspired a book that denies established history (Surah 4:157), the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

    Like

    • Kenny, why don’t you just admit that you’re an idiot? You’ve been refuted on this many, many, many times. Historians will naturally deny a miraculous event occurred at the crucifixion. The Quran does not deny that it occurred. It says that a miracle also occurred though and Jesus was saved. Thus, it is not a problem for Islam at all.

      The problem for you is that your pagan religion went through a centuries long process of development. This is historical fact and it exposes your religion as a man-made pagan religion. That and the fact that your savior was a sinner means that you are royally screwed.

      Like

    • No because it was Jesus Christ of Nazareth Himself that was crucified and killed. ” For sure they did kill Him” is history. “For sure they did not kill Him” is false and a lie.

      Anyone can come a long later (600 years later !!!) and claim it was a deception by Allah to trick others to make them think they killed Him, but that it really was not Him, etc.

      So you are the one who is not thinking clearly and comes up with fancy stuff to try and defend your religion; because your 600 old late false religion cannot handle established and proven history. That one fact takes all of Islam down in only one verse, which is so obvious that it is not true.

      Like

    • “established history”
      O boy here we go again!!!
      Kenny is on warpath AGAIN! Grab your popcorn brother!

      How about you give me ONE eyewitness account that says that he was crucified and then we’ll talk!

      “Anyone can come a long later (600 years later !!!) and claim …”
      Who cares if it’s 600 years later? If a prophet of God makes a claims then it doesn’t matter if it’s 6 years, 60 years, 600 years or even 6000 years later because divine revelation is not subordinate to that.
      Is this supposed to be a refutation? Seriously!
      So if we make claims like that about anyone else: anyone can come along later and claim they had a vision from Jesus and claim the Law was done away with!
      Does this remind you of anyone?

      “That one fact takes all of Islam down in only one verse, which is so obvious that it is not true.”
      O poor Kenny! Except it doesn’t!
      If it’s so obvious that it’s not true then you would have proven it by now which you haven’t. You have nothing but unknown potatoes making a bunch of claims!

      Like

    • Problem is your book (The Qur’an) is not even Divine, nor revelation from God; it was just Muhammad’s own creation from his own mind and false assumptions from what he could humanly understand, and being illiterate, about the Jews and Christians and other heretical groups on the greater Caravan trading area. He could not read the Old Testament, and had no access to the New Testament in that area.

      Like

    • The Qur’an is not revelation from God; it is just a human book. Therefore established history proves it wrong, since it denies history.

      Like

    • “Problem is your book (The Qur’an) is not even Divine, nor …”
      Yada yada yada. This coming from a guy who couldn’t defend his book a la Emmanuelle. If you want to jump to whether the Qur’an being divine or not then let’s go back to the precious post and let’s continue our talk. You know the one where you run away from while being busy with “life”!
      Your say so means NOTHING here! Get it through your thick skull already!
      “He didn’t know this or he thought that, …” yada yada yada. Your NT is a JOKE! A bunch of unknown ‘gospels’ (yea right!) written by unknown potatoes, forgeries, a deceiver writing “LETTERS” which became word of god (LOL!!!) and this is the word of God???? Are you kidding me?
      Your own xtian scholars are ripping your bible to pieces and showing that THAT book is just a human invention! We don’t even know who’s invention it is (for the most part). How sad!

      “Therefore established history proves …”
      Still waiting for that evidence which ESTABLISHES history. Give me some really evidence! Not your potato book which is a lie!

      Like

    • “says the guy whose entire religion is based on …”
      Except it’s not!
      Get off your high horse! You xtians like to think so highly of yourselves with your NT lies. Surah 4:157 is ONE verse which denies the lies written in your book which has ZERO eyewitness accounts!
      That’s it! All the rest of the Qur’an doesn’t even mention anything about the crucifiction!

      Like

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: