Page 5 of 8

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:31 pm
by Fernando
SAM wrote:You are blind to reviewing the story that the man died of an infection due to a scratch on his neck, caused by his own iron helmet, a few days after the famous battle of Uhud. Ubayy ibn Khalaf wore a full body covering the iron shield including the head and face covering the helmet. He attacked Muhammad to kill him. The horse jumped. He fell and returned to Mecca. He got an infection from a scratch on his neck and hallucinated because of the infection, and said that Muhammad took a spear from one of his followers and defended himself with it, and that Muhammad was able to kill him by spitting on him. He meant that he was afraid of how Muhammad looked. There is another story about what happened by saying that al-Hasrith ibn al-Simmah was injured and taken from the battle before Ubayy Ibn Khalaf's attack.
Well, they say that stories get embroidered with detail as they are passed down and get further away from the truth. How long did it take to make up this amount of detail, I wonder?

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:52 am
by Hombre
Hombre wrote:(btw some of those big nosed actors are descendants of those Jews who were expelled from Spain in 1492 and converted to Islam. :lotpot: )

SAM wrote:The true Israelites with crooked noses. It is believed that some Palestinians are true Israelites.
You may be right. In fact there few Palestinian-Muslim families in Hebron who claim to light candles on Fridays w/o knowing why. Some Israelis think they are the descendants of Jews who have been living there since Roman times and never left the city.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:58 am
by SAM
manfred wrote:You seem to never tire of ripping lines from texts and changing their meanings to suit your purpose...
But in the Bible 1 John 5: 7 clearly states, the name of Jesus is not mentioned in the Trinity.

“For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.”


So have a look what John says what or rather who this "word" is:

John explains what he means in detail right at the start of his writing, as if he knew you would come along and deliberately misunderstand him....

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.


And the daftest comment is this one:

In the N.T, Matthew 21:11 clearly says, "This is Jesus, the prophet Nazareth in Galilee." Not the son of God


So not only do you rip little snippets from texts, but also draw conclusions from what it does NOT say. :thumbdown:

Who actually said the sentence you quoted, according to Matthew? Hmmm?


And who Jesus is was presented in the synoptic gospels in a rather subtle way, per that is over your head... Jesus heals, raises the dead, forgives sins, is "Lord of the Sabbath"... When Jesus said this, there were some scribes nearby, and they took issue with these words because only God can forgive sins. As a result, they recognized that Jesus was acting in the place of God, so they accused him of blasphemy.

In response, Jesus didn’t try to argue that he was not in fact usurping the place of God. Instead, he simply said that he would heal the man in order to prove that he really could forgive sins, and then he did just that. With this reply, Jesus showed that he accepted the basis of the scribes’ argument. He did something that only God can do. He didn’t challenge the premise that only God can do it.

And there is this:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)


Matthew was not "in your face" in his teachings about Jesus. Instead he made a case and left it for the reader to decide.

John, on the other hand, was much more direct.
Greek was the native language of New Testament. The authenticity of this passage 1 John 5 has been questioned for at least centuries, not found in Greek texts. The doctrine of the Trinity, 1 John 5: 7 is the only most explicit verse in the NT that supports the trinity dogma.

Although baptism in Matthew 28:19 is the second supporting verse, its authenticity is questioned by many scholars because the NT's internal testimony shows that immersion was done in the name of Jesus, not the name of the Trinity.

Naively, Bible scholars have included 1 John in the NT edition of the 15th century even though they did not believe that the verse was authentic.

Since that time, the New Testament scholars have gathered additional evidence that strongly states that the passage is not authentic for Chapter 1 John and they briefly outline the evidence: :smartass:

This section does not exist in every Greek manuscript. It was not quoted by Greek Fathers, who, if they knew it, would certainly use it in the Trinitarian controversy of the third and fourth centuries. Not found in all manuscripts of ancient Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Arabic, Slavonic versions - except Latin. Nor is this found in the original Latin Vulgate of Jerome (Codex Fuldensis, Codex Amiatinus) or in the Old Latin version in its original form (such as Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine). It was not found in Jerome's (about 400 AD) original Vulgate translation.

There are two, I John 5: 7 which one is true. :clueless:
"For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement."
“For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.”

:reading:
Spoiler! :
5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been fathered by God, and everyone who loves the father loves the child fathered by him.
5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God: whenever we love God and obey his commandments.
5:3 For this is the love of God: that we keep his commandments. And his commandments do not weigh us down,
5:4 because everyone who has been fathered by God conquers the world.

Testimony About the Son
This is the conquering power that has conquered the world: our faith.

5:5 Now who is the person who has conquered the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
5:6 Jesus Christ is the one who came by water and blood – not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
5:7 For there are three that testify,
5:8the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.

5:9 If we accept the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the testimony of God that he has testified concerning his Son.
5:10 (The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has testified concerning his Son.)
5:11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
5:12 The one who has the Son has this eternal life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this eternal life.

Assurance of Eternal Life

5:13 I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
5:14 And this is the confidence that we have before him: that whenever we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.
5:15 And if we know that he hears us in regard to whatever we ask, then we know that we have the requests that we have asked from him.
5:16 If anyone sees his fellow Christian committing a sin not resulting in death, he should ask, and God will grant life to the person who commits a sin not resulting in death. There is a sin resulting in death. I do not say that he should ask about that.
5:17 All unrighteousness is sin, but there is sin not resulting in death.

5:18 We know that everyone fathered by God does not sin, but God protects the one he has fathered, and the evil one cannot touch him.
5:19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life.
5:21 Little children, guard yourselves from idols.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:48 am
by manfred
While it is true that SOME claim that that last verse of Matthew may be a later addition, it does not change at all what I said about how Matthew established the divinity of Christ in his text.

There are no known ancient manuscripts of Matthew which contain the ending of Matthew but lack this final episode or that contain it without the Trinitarian formula. Our earliest manuscripts are, of course, fragmentary in places and are missing portions of the text due to damage, but every ancient manuscript where the final pages of Matthew have survived contains the account of Jesus giving the great commission and includes the command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not only true of the Greek manuscripts, but also of the translations of Matthew into other ancient languages. So the manuscript evidence is 100% unanimously in agreement on the ending of Matthew and on the Trinitarian formula. Any theory that wishes to assert that these words are not part of the original has to go outside of and against the actual physical evidence.

The Didache, considered to be one of the earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament itself, contains instructions on baptism, stating:

"Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water," (Didache Chapter 7).

The Didache does not explicitly claim to be quoting the Gospel of Matthew, but it contains numerous striking parallels with Matthew that have led many scholars to suspect that Matthew's Gospel was a primary source for the Didache. For example, the Didache contains the Lord's Prayer almost word for word from Matthew.

And John 1 is not an addition, as you claim, that is simply false. You are confusing the first chapter of John's gospel with the first letter of John, an entirely different text, as becomes apparent when you say this:

"For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement."
“For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.”


The first statement if about three SACRAMENTS, signs given to believers on earth: the "Spirit" is about the sacrament of confirmation, the "water" about baptism and the "blood" about the sacrament of the Eucharist

The second statement asserts the trinity. John is his gospel already used "the word" to describe Christ. Here he (or possibly one of his followers, as some scholars suggest) uses that analogy again.

It draws an analogy between the three main sacraments of the church and the trinity.

And it is not the whole text that was absent in some texts until the 15th century, it was merely the "comma" in it:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma


And we do have church fathers quoting the phrase such as Cyprian and Tertullian, writing in the third century, and possibly also Clement of Alexamdria, writing 100 years before.

Also, the Vulgate bibles dates from the 4th century, not the 15th.The "comma" may have started out life as an ancient note on the margins of a text, and then included, or it may have been accidentally omitted by some copyists.

It really is ludicrous to suggest that John and associated texts do not teach about the trinity. If you decide to ignore the "comma", there are many statements like it all over all of the texts. While the Roman church has asserted that the "comma" is original, in response to Luther, the orthodox church said that it is in full agreement with the rest of the text, leaving it for the individual to decide what to make of it.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:25 pm
by SAM
manfred wrote:While it is true that SOME claim that that last verse of Matthew may be a later addition, it does not change at all what I said about how Matthew established the divinity of Christ in his text.

There are no known ancient manuscripts of Matthew which contain the ending of Matthew but lack this final episode or that contain it without the Trinitarian formula. Our earliest manuscripts are, of course, fragmentary in places and are missing portions of the text due to damage, but every ancient manuscript where the final pages of Matthew have survived contains the account of Jesus giving the great commission and includes the command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not only true of the Greek manuscripts, but also of the translations of Matthew into other ancient languages. So the manuscript evidence is 100% unanimously in agreement on the ending of Matthew and on the Trinitarian formula. Any theory that wishes to assert that these words are not part of the original has to go outside of and against the actual physical evidence.

The Didache, considered to be one of the earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament itself, contains instructions on baptism, stating:

"Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water," (Didache Chapter 7).

The Didache does not explicitly claim to be quoting the Gospel of Matthew, but it contains numerous striking parallels with Matthew that have led many scholars to suspect that Matthew's Gospel was a primary source for the Didache. For example, the Didache contains the Lord's Prayer almost word for word from Matthew.

And John 1 is not an addition, as you claim, that is simply false. You are confusing the first chapter of John's gospel with the first letter of John, an entirely different text, as becomes apparent when you say this:

"For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement."
“For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.”


The first statement if about three SACRAMENTS, signs given to believers on earth: the "Spirit" is about the sacrament of confirmation, the "water" about baptism and the "blood" about the sacrament of the Eucharist

The second statement asserts the trinity. John is his gospel already used "the word" to describe Christ. Here he (or possibly one of his followers, as some scholars suggest) uses that analogy again.

It draws an analogy between the three main sacraments of the church and the trinity.

And it is not the whole text that was absent in some texts until the 15th century, it was merely the "comma" in it:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma


And we do have church fathers quoting the phrase such as Cyprian and Tertullian, writing in the third century, and possibly also Clement of Alexamdria, writing 100 years before.

Also, the Vulgate bibles dates from the 4th century, not the 15th.The "comma" may have started out life as an ancient note on the margins of a text, and then included, or it may have been accidentally omitted by some copyists.

It really is ludicrous to suggest that John and associated texts do not teach about the trinity. If you decide to ignore the "comma", there are many statements like it all over all of the texts. While the Roman church has asserted that the "comma" is original, in response to Luther, the orthodox church said that it is in full agreement with the rest of the text, leaving it for the individual to decide what to make of it.
The true Bible scholars have made many other changes in their Greek texts to confirm the doctrine of the Trinity since the early centuries. It is quite clear that Trinity is a mere creation by the members of the church.

Allah told the truth in the Qur'an that Isa son of Mary was not crucified and the trinity was a great lie by the People of the Book... :D

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:27 pm
by manfred
"Isa" is a fictional character invented by Mohammed very loosely based on Jesus.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:32 pm
by Hombre
SAM wrote:Allah told the truth in the Qur'an that Isa son of Mary was not crucified and the trinity was a great lie by the People of the Book... :D
Allah or Muhammad's own imaginations and words?. Again. No Allah and no Enchilada.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:45 am
by SAM


The verse has been used from the very beginning of the Church's history to prove the Trinity!

Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, wrote around 250 AD, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians
200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in hisAgainst Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitateagainst the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:04 am
by manfred
So you agree with me that the verse was not a 15th century addition, as you previously claimed.

Also , SAM, to say that it "proves the trinity" is not quite right. It shows that Christians very early on developed this terminology to express their faith.

Beliefs are not "proven" by any text. But some texts bear witness to the kinds of beliefs people have.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:19 am
by SAM
First, textual criticism is based on the fact that we do not have the original documents written by the biblical writers. For instance, we do not have the book of Acts as it came from the hands of Luke, only copies of it.

Second, we have more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and when we compare them with each other we find in many cases additions, deletions, and other types of changes. We call those variant readings.

Textual criticism analyzes those differences to determine which ones were later additions or modifications made to the original, as well as the possible reasons for the changes. Most of the changes were accidental, but some were done intentionally, supposedly to clarify the meaning of the original text.

How did it become part of the Greek text? Here is "the rest of the story."

When Erasmus published his version of the Greek New Testament, he left out the additions to 1 John 5:7 from his first two editions (1516, 1519), arguing that he could not find those words in any Greek manuscript. Pressured by some to include this addition to the Greek text, Erasmus proposed that if they could show him a single Greek manuscript in which the addition was found, he would include it in his next edition.

Sure enough, they came up with a Greek manuscript in which the addition was found, one scholars believe was dated from the sixteenth century A.D., translated from the Latin to the Greek and added to the Greek text. Erasmus subsequently included it in his 1522 edition of the Greek New Testament.

source: https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/m ... /1-john-57

"And say: Truth hath come and falsehood hath vanished away. Lo! falsehood is ever bound to vanish." [Quran 17:81] :*)

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:44 am
by manfred
SAM, papyrus rots. That is a fact of life. Almost all the "readings" are in reality occasional spelling mistakes, as you would expect from people making copies of large texts. Other differences are things that do not change the meaning in any way, for example one manuscript may say "spirit" and another "holy spirit" and so on. But by comparing all the texts we can establish what the original was with a very high degree of accuracy.

By contrast, the Qur'an is by comparison a heavily edited text, created for political reasons many years after Mohammed, mostly based on hear say that is over a hundred years old. It is not even clear that Mohammed's original ramblings were recorded in Arabic, Syriac is at least equally as likely.

The work on manuscripts done by Jews and Christians over many centuries to establish the original texts has never been attempted in Islam on the Qur'an. So in reality the Qur'an started off life as a corruption of biblical texts which was further altered and twisted by later generations.

We have just a few copies the text that survived the purge of Usman, and Muslims are too scared to even look at them. They get locked away, like deadly poison.

And I have explained the Johannine comma to you in some detail. You yourself provided a list of very early writers that all knew the passage.

I also pointed out that even if you remove those two verses, the teaching of the trinity is consistently expressed all over the writings of John, so that alone make the argument pointless.

Similarly your point on Erasmus and the alleged conspiracy is plain silly: What does it prove if he did not have access to manuscripts that have that line? Does that mean that such manuscripts do not exist? Obviously not, as there are some, dating back to about the 4th century, and we have church fathers quoting the passage 200 years before then. Nobody "forced" Erasmus to include it, he looked at the evidence and decided to include it after all.

But even if it is a footnote or similar and does not belong there, the overall teaching of the trinity in John's texts is unchanged. Jerome does not seem to be aware of the passage, for example, but he still presents his case for the trinity using John regardless.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:50 am
by Hombre
Look at the stages through which the Quran was written. Read and tell me how is it possible to keep a 77000-word manuscript - word-for-word for more than 80 years and 3 generations later?

1. Allah conveys his words to Angel Gabriel.
2. A. Gabriel tells to an illiterate man (Muhammad)
3. Muhammad (allegedly) repeats the same words to his followers. Whom - for the most part, memorize them OR some recorded them on perishable organic materials.
Muhammad dies in 632 ACE
5. Entire Quran is passed on to the 2nd generation. (some 25 years after Mo death)
6. Entire Quran is passed on to the 3rd generation (some 50 years after Mo death)
7. Entire Quran is passed on to the 4th generation (some 75 years after Mo's death)
8. (Allegedly) final draft of the Quran is published.

With so many Muslim clerics involved along the way - each more megalomaniac than the others, and no means to keep hard records - how is it possible that each word & sura in such large manuscript was kept intact - word-for-word.? It is therefore impossible to believe that the Quran was not altered - with added or deleted words.

After all, it was already corrupted by one of his own scribes (Abdullah ibn Sarh) during Muhammad own lifetime - let alone 80 years later.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:53 pm
by SAM



Many books of the NT were falsified, altered, corrupted and changed which were allegedly written by John and Peter.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:43 pm
by manfred
Ah, good old Ehrmann... the Muslims' favourite NT writer.

First, why don't you ask him if he agrees with your statement, SAM?

You will find he does not.

Did Peter really write any of the letters in NT? "He could not write" is a rather thin argument as people can get help to write, if that was true. We actually know the name of one person who helped him. And "hardly anyone" believes that? Well, if you ignore ALL the Catholics, Orthodox, most Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans, and also the fundamentalists, then that would right... but this is a tiny number.

In writings of the first and second centuries, e.g., Justin's letter to the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Papias, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, the "Didache", the "Pastor" of Hermas, and others, the authenticity is affirmed. The Second Epistle of St. Peter, admitted to be very ancient even by those who question its authenticity, alludes to an earlier Epistle written by the Apostle. At time when Peter was still alive and many were familiar with his actions and movements, such a "forgery" would be quickly discovered. In fact, both have been accepted by the church from the start.

Examination of the Epistle in itself is wholly favourable to its authenticity; the author calls himself Peter, the Apostle of Jesus Christ. Mark, who, according to the Acts of the Apostles, had such close relations with Peter, is called by the author "my son". The numerous places in which he would appear to be the immediate witness of the life of Christ , as well as the similarity between his ideas and the teaching of the Gospels, are eloquently in favour of the Apostolic author.

As to the different "styles", this is also something discussed since antiquity, and it is probable if not certain that the Apostle made use of an interpreter, especially of Sylvanus; St. Jerome says: "the two Epistles attributed to St. Peter differ in style, character, and the construction of the words, which proves that according to the exigencies of the moment St. Peter made use of different interpreters".


So, SAM while Ehrmann is a lecturer, like me, unlike me he has no authority to speak in the name of the church. His views are his own, and when I teach I must follow the teachings of the church, as I have sworn during ordination. What in the end matters most, it that both texts are of great antiquity and give us a good insight into the beliefs of the early church, and that is something not even Ehrmann would argue with me about.


This brings me to the elephant in the room, or rather the absence of it, SAM.... Where on earth is the equivalent of Ehrmann in Islam? Where are the people doing textual studies of the Qur'an? The answer is they do not exist or if anyone tried they would get their heads chopped off.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:57 pm
by Hombre
SAM wrote:Now, there is a popular Turkish TV Series PAYİTAHT ABDÜLHAMİD about Sultan Abdul Hamid II against the conspiracy of Zionist Jewish, Vatican and Western World leaders aiming to overthrow the Osmanli Empire... Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques (Al-Aqsa and Kaabah). I'm still watching the Season 2.
After you told me about it - I did watch more than 7 hours (3 episodes, 2.30 min each) of it.

Although the acting is first class - the story and the antisemitic fictional stories are much lower class. The more I watched - the more I raised eyebrows on the validity of their storyline. It simply amplifies Erdogan's own ambition to restore Turkey to its bygone glory of Ottman Empire - himself as the new Sultan of the new Ottoman Turkey.

You want to tell me that, the Vatican of the 19th century - known for its antisemitic fervor, conspires with Hertzl to have its emissary (Hiram) in Insunbule to assassin the Sultan in broad daylight, so Jews will rule the region from the Euphrates to Tigris rivers?.

Or General Mehmud - Sultan's own brother-in-law who is the real plotter to kill, or overthrow the Sultan himself is Jewish?

Anyway, here is what Washingon Post had to say about this TV Series.:

A Turkish TV blockbuster reveals Erdogan’s conspiratorial, anti-Semitic worldview
.
.
.
The Last Emperor” may have superior production values, but its message is much the same. It is state propaganda designed to appeal to viewers’ worst instincts and leave them with a revisionist, conspiratorial narrative of Turkish history. Worst of all, while this account of Abdulhamid’s reign is almost pure fiction, the plight of Turkish citizens living under Erdogan’s increasingly sultanic rule is very much real.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:15 pm
by manfred
You watched that for 7 hours?? I hope you had a supply of brandy or similar... that sort of thing you cannot endure without the occasional stiff drink...

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:24 pm
by Hombre
manfred wrote:You watched that for 7 hours?? I hope you had a supply of brandy or similar... that sort of thing you cannot endure without the occasional stiff drink...
No, I watched it over 3 nights - an episode a night.

The acting is very good, only the plot sucks. Although the story moves from Istanbul where the Sultan lived, and Viena where Hertzl lived and allegedly convened his first Jewish Congress (actually it was in Basel) he is portrayed as the proverbial "ugly Jew" manipulative and conspiring to rule the world. According to the TV series, the two blue stripes on Israel's flag - symbolize the Tigris & Euphrates.

The story of "the Elders of Zion" all over again. Not sure if I am going to waste more time to watch the rest. However, it is on youtube with English subtitles.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:49 pm
by Hombre
SAM wrote:



Many books of the NT were falsified, altered, corrupted and changed which were allegedly written by John and Peter.
Bissmillah wu Rahman u Rahime. In the name of Allah - please drop your nonsense garbage allegation that HB & NT are corrupt or falsified.

Muslims are the last believers on earth to throw mud onto other peoples' backyard. As I depicted to you - the fact that the entire content of the Quran was dictated by only one "unlearned" (read illiterate) man - and put together some 80 years after his death proves w/o any shadow of doubt that Quran could and very well was corrupted by those who wrote the final draft.

Just use your common sense. Muhammad dictates to his scribes. they write down whatever they write. Being illiterate - he could NOT verify if indeed they wrote exactly what he said. They could & did distort his words and sentences - as the case with Abdullah bin Sa'ad ibn Sarh vividly demonstrated it. This story is part of Islam's own official history.

People do lie to others - however when you lie & deceive yourself, that not a good sign of mental stability. All we are asking you - use your own logic and common sense before you draw any conclutions.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:55 pm
by Eagle
SAM wrote:Although baptism in Matthew 28:19 is the second supporting verse, its authenticity is questioned by many scholars because the NT's internal testimony shows that immersion was done in the name of Jesus, not the name of the Trinity.


Matthew's trinity formula has some shaky scriptural history but thats not the core reason why one should reject it as a fabrication. A simple observation of the New Greek Testament's internal evidence is enough, as will be seen after a reminder of a well known fact.

Eusebius, the early church father quotes many bible verses in his "Ecclesiastical History" among them Matt28:19 quoted more than once and never appears like in modern bibles but rather:“Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name”. He was involved in debates with the Arians on whether Jesus was God or His creation and if the manuscripts he had in front of him read "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" he would have used that argument in his favor, no matter how weak the argument is in favor of the trinity doctrine, and never quoted it as simply "in my name". This observation is often discarded as mere argument from silence by Trinitarian apologists, but it certainly is a strong and compelling one simply because Eusebius would certainly have known about it had it been a fact and would therefore under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it.

Furthermore, the disciples did baptize after Jesus, but never using that trinity formula.

Besides this unexplanable disobedience of the disciples, the main reason questionning the authenticity of this verse is the fact Jesus in his lifetime never directed his ministry at gentiles. He repeatedly distanced himself from them by allegoricaly comparing them to animals who cannot be fed before a human is fed Matt15:22-28,Mk7:27. Those "humans" being only the children of Israel to who Jesus was sent Matt15:24, and not the others alluded to as animals in the allegory.

There isnt any instance of Jesus himself going out of his way to preach to a non-Israelite. After him, his earliest disciples kept the same distance and established themselves in Jerusalem. Paul was immediately recalled to Jerusalem after the disciples learned he was preaching to the gentiles. Paul defended himself of converting Gentiles by saying Jesus appeared to him and told him to do so. Peter, who knew Jesus, tested Paul on whether Jesus appeared to Paul or not and concluded he had. So either Jesus did appear to Paul or Paul was a very good liar, probably motivated by the money he received from the gentiles, and as seen from the inconsistent account of his alleged encounter with Jesus the second option seems more plausible.

Just as he was sent only to the Israelites, Jesus similarly commands his followers to preach to the towns of Israel only
Matt10:5-6"These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel"
and further adds that they will still be preaching within Israel before the coming of the Son of Man
"I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes"
. This coming can certainly not be speaking of Jesus' alleged resurrection following his crucifixion since that "coming of the son of man" is preceded by a list of trials and tribulations the disciples will endure and none of those occured until the alleged resurrection. That coming of the son of man, which will happen before the disciples finish preaching to the Israelites, is the prophecied end of days that is supposed to occur during those very disciples' lifetime. Jesus will come back then, and Judgement will be imposed on all his rejecters and those who denied the message of his disciples, in addition torturing and persecuting them. The whole passage contains references to imminent doom of towns that reject the message of the disciples, towns that the disciples must flee after unsuccesful preaching, and the promised salvation of those that patiently endure persecution in Jesus' name.

The individual Gentiles whom Jesus healed were needy people Jesus encountered and helped out of empathy and after the person demonstrated his faith. Jesus' miracles were primarly directed at the Jews, no the Gentiles which is why these 2 incidents show the Gentiles having to pass through a "test of faith" before Jesus healed them out of empathy
Matt9:35-38"Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field"
that lost sheep is the one to whom he was exclusively sent Matt15:24 and just as he was sent to the Israelites only, Jesus similarly commands his followers to preach to the Israelites only Matt10:5-6.
Jesus went to Galilee Matt11 not to preach to the Gentiles but to gather the lost sheep of Israel to whom he was exclusively sent, as even reflected in the Book of James whose very first sentence is
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting".
James was the leader of the Jerusalem council Acts15 tried to preserve the Jewishness of the group, and opposed attempts to convert gentiles. Similarly, Peter who was an apostle to the Jews prior to Paul's apearance on the scene Gal2:8 starts with
1Pet1:1"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to God's elect, strangers (parepidemos = "a resident foreigner" literally "an alien alongside." It refers to non-Gentiles who dwelt among Gentiles, as foreigners and aliens) in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia".


As an aside, though Paul lays claim to be "apostle of the Gentiles" in contradistinction to Peter, it is nonetheless Peter who allegedly converts the first Gentiles Acts10:48, performs the first apostolic miracle Acts5:15-16,9:33-35, converts the entire town, as well as all the residents of the plain of Sharon.
Jesus had sent his disciples ahead of him, among them James and Peter, to Judea and Galilee with the unequivocal instructions not to preach to Gentiles but only to the lost sheep of Israel, that dwelt among gentiles Matt10:5-6. His disciples were to prepare the way for his ministry among the scattered sheep of Israel only.

It is to be noted that remnants of the scattered Israelites were found up to the shores of the Black Sea in northern Asia Minor that go back to the early NT times. Similarly, at the beginning of his minisry, Jesus goes to Galillee while quoting Isaiah9, a chapter dealing with the crisis that existed in Judah which was about to be destroyed by the Assyrians. The northern Israelites had been exiled outside Israel, in the area of Galillee and as Judah was about to suffer the same fate, Isaiah reaffirms God's promise that the kingdom would be preserved in accordance with 2Sam7:12-16. Jesus in Matt4 and later in Matt11 went to Galillee to those scattered Israelites only.

After Jesus' departure his early followers constituted a small group of 120 Acts1:13-16 (Most translations say "brethren" and "believers". The Alexandrian copy reads "in the midst of the brethren", the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions "in the midst of his own brethren") until the conversion of Constantine, the ruthless and opportunistic Roman emperor, 400 years later who made it a state religion, extending favors and limitless funds to a chosen form of Christianity among others who were fought. It is important to note that at that up to that point, there did not exist a single orthodoxy from which emerged a variety of competing "heretical" minorities. Instead, a number of divergent forms existed, no one of which represented a clear majority of believers against all others. In some regions, what later became "heresy" was in fact the original and only form of Christianity. Elsewhere, "heresies" coexisted with later dominant views, without a clear demarcation between the competing ways.
It was only throug socio-political exertion that one view gained dominance over another and became orthodoxy. The major driving force that would define orthodoxy all throughout the Christian world, was, as said above, the conversion of Constantine.

Fringe Christian sects began fading into insignificance while 2 great groups remained, Unitarians and Trinitarians. The Roman empire’s support fluctuated between these two groups for a long time until the Trinitarians finally gained the upper hand and all but wiped the Unitarians off the face of the earth.

These 120 were the followers of "the way" and known as the Nazarenes (Quran calls them nasara from nusra/help in reference to those few that valliantly stood by him), before the name "Christian" appeared Acts11:26. In fact the word Christian itself is in reference to the belief that those who hold that qualification are anointed with God's oil, according to the earliest Christians such as Theophilus.

The Nazarenes grew among the Israelites but persecutions forced them to go into hiding, with Paul playing a central role in their persecution prior to his convertion. After he joined their ranks, he started influencing the group leaders, namely Peter and James, to reach out to Gentiles. With more non-Jews entering the fold, many Jewish customs were abandonned Acts15:1-29 and the Nazarenes who were centered in Jerusalem gradually became isolated from the main Christian movement who started looking up to Paul for leadership, instead of Jesus' brother James, a strict observer of Jewish Law and considered as Jesus' successor in non-canonical Gospels. With the establishment of Christianity as a state religion in Rome by Constantine in the 4th century, they definetly fled Jerusalem, in the surrounding deserts and managed to survive outside Palestine as they are mentionned by Jerome upto 380AD to have lived in the Syrian desert. Among them the Ebionites (who claimed to descend from the original Jewish disciples led by James) and Elchasites who rejected Paul as a charlatan and his teachings as falsehood, as well as the Zadokites, Essenes, Rechabites, Sabeans, Mandaeans etc. They had their own writing which they considered scripture, composed of an oral tradition attributed to Jesus, and some HB books. Their writings are known, among others as Gospel of the Nazareans, Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Ebionites. They would later write that Paul was a false apostle who taught heresy based on the fact he was a failed convert who was disappointed with Judaism and therefore motivated to teach against its laws (circumcision, kashrut, etc..). As brieflyput by well known ex-evangelical Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman
"one of the competing groups in Christianity suceeded in overwhelming all others. This group gained more converts than its opponents and managed to relegate all its competitors to the margins. This group decided what the Church’s organizational structure would be. It decided which creeds Christians would recite. And it decided which books would be accepted as Scripture. This was the group Iraeneus belonged, as did other figures well known to scholars of second- and third-century Christianity, such as Justin Martyr and Tertullian. This group became “orthodox,” and once it had sealed its victory over all its opponents, it rewrote the history of engagement — claiming that it had always been the majority opinion of Christianity, that its views had always been the views of the apostolic churches and of the apostles, that its creeds were rooted directly in the teachings of Jesus. The books that it accepted as Scripture proved the point, for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all tell the story as proto-orthodox had grown accustomed to hearing it".


For arguments sake, this Matthew verse doesnt even hint to the three entities making one God. Baptizing in someone's name doesnt make that person God, in 1Cor10:2 people are baptized in Moses' name. Baptizing in someone's name simply implies; under that person's authority.

Besides it seems the name in itself isnt sufficient to attract the necessary blessings. In Acts19:13-16 we read of "wandering Jews" attempting to exorcize in Jesus' name, to no avail, because the indwelling demons do not know who these exorcists are. Obviously the incident is meant at establishing church monopoly; "unauthorized" use of the holy name wont get you anywhere.

Re: Stories of the Prophets: Bible vs Qur'an

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:28 am
by manfred
Eusebius, the early church father quotes many bible verses in his "Ecclesiastical History" among them Matt28:19 quoted more than once and never appears like in modern bibles but rather:“Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name”.


He lived in the 4th century, and he was excommunicated as a heretic. He did not believe the teaching of the trinity, ao he made the text change to fit his own views. You know, like Muslims always do with the Qur'an....



Furthermore, the disciples did baptize after Jesus, but never using that trinity formula.


You went back in time on your own buraq, perhaps? This is just your wish, not reality.


Just as he was sent only to the Israelites, Jesus similarly commands his followers to preach to the towns of Israel only


... this episode is before the crucifixion.

and further adds that they will still be preaching within Israel before the coming of the Son of Man


They are no churches in Israel today?


And why is this even important to you?

As I said, Matthew establishes the teachings around the trinity subtly, unlike John who is more explicit, or Paul who is loud and clear on that topic.

He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.
In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.).
He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31).
He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias — a step long since taken by all the Apostles — but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17).
Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).

In 2 Corinthians 13:13, St. Paul writes: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all." That should be enough to show what the first Christian believed.

The various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel, to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly asserted in John 10:38. That the Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord reported by St. John (14-17)

And it seems that for Muslims there is only one scholar they ever quote, and then very selectively. It is clear that the NT teaches the trinity. It is also clear that these texts represent the earliest testimony of Christian belief we have. So, early Christian believed in the trinity. There is no way round that. This would not even be disputed by Ehrmann.

As to "non-canonical" gospels, you have to understand that there were rejected for three main reasons: one, they were written too late to be a reliable witness account, two they were generally attributed to older people to give them a air of authenticity, but were in reality written by someone else. and three, many if not all do not teach Christinity as the earliest Christians understood it. They introduce gnostic elements, or they re-fight arguments long settled in the community, such as the place and role of Jewish observance.