Transparency and credibility of factual facts

toty5

VIP Member
Jan 14, 2015
828
213
88
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 5:18
The Prophet Jesus peace be upon him,
came to complete the law of the ancient prophets
Without decrease or increase
So the Old Testament cannot be repealed

Why such variance in viewpoints? To begin with, different theological camps disagree on which books should be included in the Bible. One camp’s apocrypha is another’s scripture. Secondly, even among those books that have been canonized, the many variant source texts lack uniformity. This lack of uniformity is so ubiquitous that The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.”[2]

Not one sentence? We can’t trust a single sentence of the Bible? Hard to believe.
Maybe

The fact is that there are over 5700 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament.[3] Furthermore, “no two of these manuscripts are exactly alike in all their particulars…. And some of these differences are significant.”[4] Factor in roughly ten thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, add the many other ancient variants (i.e., Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Nubian, Gothic, Slavonic), and what do we have?
A lot of manuscripts

A lot of manuscripts that fail to correspond in places and not infrequently contradict one another. Scholars estimate the number of manuscript variants in the hundreds of thousands, some estimating as high as 400,000.[5] In Bart D. Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[6]
How did this happen?

Poor record keeping. Dishonesty. Incompetence. Doctrinal prejudice. Take your pick.

None of the original manuscripts have survived from the early Christian period.[7]/[8] The most ancient complete manuscripts (Vatican MS. No. 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex) date from the fourth century, three hundred years after Jesus’ ministry. But the originals? Lost. And the copies of the originals? Also lost. Our most ancient manuscripts, in other words, are copies of the copies of the copies of nobody-knows-just-how-many copies of the originals.
No wonder they differ

In the best of hands, copying errors would be no surprise. However, New Testament manuscripts were not in the best of hands. During the period of Christian origins, scribes were untrained, unreliable, incompetent, and in some cases illiterate.[9] Those who were visually impaired could have made errors with look-alike letters and words, while those who were hearing-impaired may have erred in recording scripture as it was read aloud. Frequently scribes were overworked, and hence inclined to the errors that accompany fatigue.

In the words of Metzger and Ehrman, “Since most, if not all, of them [the scribes] would have been amateurs in the art of copying, a relatively large number of mistakes no doubt crept into their texts as they reproduced them.”[10] Worse yet, some scribes allowed doctrinal prejudice to influence their transmission of scripture.[11] As Ehrman states, “The scribes who copied the texts changed them.”[12] More specifically, “The number of deliberate alterations made in the interest of doctrine is difficult to assess.”[13] And even more specifically, “In the technical parlance of textual criticism—which I retain for its significant ironies—these scribes ‘corrupted’ their texts for theological reasons.”[14]

Errors were introduced in the form of additions, deletions, substitutions and modifications, most commonly of words or lines, but occasionally of entire verses.[15] [16] In fact, “numerous changes and accretions came into the text,”[17] with the result that “all known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or lesser extent mixed texts, and even several of the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors.”[18]

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman presents persuasive evidence that the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:12) and the last twelve verses of Mark were not in the original gospels, but added by later scribes.[19] Furthermore, these examples “represent just two out of thousands of places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be changed by scribes.”[20]

In fact, entire books of the Bible were forged.[21] This doesn’t mean their content is necessarily wrong, but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s right. So which books were forged? Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude—a whopping nine of the twenty-seven New Testament books and epistles—are to one degree or another suspect.[22]
Forged books? In the Bible?

Why are we not surprised? After all, even the gospel authors are unknown. In fact, they’re anonymous.[23] Biblical scholars rarely, if ever, ascribe gospel authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. As Ehrman tells us, “Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.”[24] Graham Stanton affirms, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to …’) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.”[25]

So what, if anything, did Jesus’ disciples have to do with authoring the gospels? Little or nothing, so far as we know. But we have no reason to believe they authored any of the books of the Bible. To begin with, let us remember Mark was a secretary to Peter, and Luke a companion to Paul. The verses of Luke 6:14-16 and Matthew 10:2-4 catalogue the twelve disciples, and although these lists differ over two names, Mark and Luke don’t make either list. So only Matthew and John were true disciples. But all the same, modern scholars pretty much disqualify them as authors anyway.
Why?

Good question. John being the more famous of the two, why should we disqualify him from having authored the Gospel of “John”?
Umm … because he was dead?

Multiple sources acknowledge there is no evidence, other than questionable testimonies of second century authors, to suggest that the disciple John was the author of the Gospel of “John.”[26] [27] Perhaps the most convincing refutation is that the disciple John is believed to have died in or around 98 CE.[28] However, the Gospel of John was written circa 110 CE.[29] So whoever Luke (Paul’s companion), Mark (Peter’s secretary), and John (the unknown, but certainly not the long-dead one) were, we have no reason to believe any of the gospels were authored by Jesus’ disciples


New Testament of the Bible regarding Jesus by Yusha ...



هندوسية تدخل الإٍسلام بعد سؤال مترجم A hindu woman is accepting Islam



مسيحي يعتنق الإسلام في حوار مع عباس ...

 
Ah. another Muslim is here to tell Da Evul Xians what they should believe and spread bullshit.
 
Professor Darrell Bock has already refuted Ehrman's nonsense many times, both in writing and in debates with him. You were apparently born yesterday and aren't aware of the many rebuttals of that silly claim over the last several decades, since Walther Baur came up with his silly claims of Gnostics being the 'true Xians n Stuff' based on a few pieces of scrolls he found in Egypt.
 
someone said:

I watched this about 2 years ago when i was christian, this video and many others and studies i accepted the Quran and know the bible cannot be trusted. All glory and praise belongs to God alone.




Debate: Dr. Zakir Naik vs. Dr William Campbell - ...




1
 
Adam, the first man and prophet, made such a mistake, which led to his expulsion from the Garden of Eden. But Adam repented and prayed to God for forgiveness, which God granted him, as mentioned in the following in chapter 2, verse 37 of the Quran:



{Then, Adam learned from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him; for He is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.}



This means that unlike Christianity, which teaches that all the children of Adam are sinful for Adam’s sin, Islam teaches that all humans are innocent by birth and they become sinful only when they consciously commit a sin.



Islam regards the concept of original sin and the need for atonement by God Himself – via dying on the Cross – as a pure invention of those who came after Jesus Christ, declaring themselves as Christians.



Another important point to bear in mind about the Islamic concept of sin is that one man’s sin cannot be transferred to another; nor can the reward due to a person be transferred either.



Every individual is responsible only for his or her actions, for God is never unjust.



{Who receives guidance, receives it for his own benefit: who goes astray does so to his own loss. No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would We punish until We had sent a messenger [to give warning].}



Every individual is an independent person who is responsible for his or her actions alone. There is no need for salvation from someone else’s sin, for there is no original burden.



One’s success in the Hereafter lies in his living a righteous life in this world. Each has to build his/her own Heaven, avoiding the misery of Hell. Faith is important, but faith alone without deeds will be fruitless.






CONCEPT OF ORIGINAL SIN IN ISLAM & CHRISTIANITY dr zakir naik



 
.
surly they were crucified for a reason - liberation theology ... spoken not written. the golden rule would be one, becoming sinless for admission another - no book required.

so how may pages is the koran, less than the 10,000 pages of the other two ....
 
Why would he sacrifice himself when he could forgive without killing him?

Why didn't the father sacrifice himself instead of sending his son?

in Matthew 16-27: For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

. Christ himself decides that each person will be rewarded according to his actions. This contradicts inherited sin and salvation by crucifixion, because the text indicates that salvation is by work and not by crucifixion

He will not bear the sins of the people


Ezekiel 18:20-
New International Version
20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

And why, why and why Paul's hoaxes and the church never ends


And Paul, the first enemy of Christ, invented the story of redemption and crucifixion
It is a pagan myth, and the truth is that Christ did not die





. Hard to imagine. On one hand, we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John telling us . . . oh, excuse me. I meant to say, we have Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous and Anonymous telling us . . . well, what? What do they tell us? That they can’t even agree on what Jesus wore, drank, did or said? After all, Matthew 27:28 tells us the Roman soldiers dressed Jesus with a scarlet robe. John 19:2 says it was purple. Matthew 27:34 says the Romans gave Jesus sour wine mingled with gall. Mark 15:23 says it was mixed with myrrh. Mark 15:25 tells us Jesus was crucified before the third hour, but John 19:14–15 says it was “about the sixth hour.” Luke 23:46 says Jesus’ last words were “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit,” but John 19:30: says they were “It is finished!”


Despite the clear verses in the Bible,
Christ is just a prophet of God

They leave it and turn around superstitions written by unknown people that tell fabricated stories about Christ

Is this God?
No of course

Praise be to allah. The Muslim loves the perfect God who is not subject to his creatures and who bestows authority and prophecy to Christ, the Prophet Muhammad and all the prophets, peace be upon them.
What Christians call the father







هل مات عيسى من اجل خطايانا؟ الشيخ خالد ياسين


هل مات المسيح من أجل خطايانا؟ - د. لورنس براون
 
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 5:18
The Prophet Jesus peace be upon him,
came to complete the law of the ancient prophets
Without decrease or increase
So the Old Testament cannot be repealed

Why such variance in viewpoints? To begin with, different theological camps disagree on which books should be included in the Bible. One camp’s apocrypha is another’s scripture. Secondly, even among those books that have been canonized, the many variant source texts lack uniformity. This lack of uniformity is so ubiquitous that The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.”[2]

Not one sentence? We can’t trust a single sentence of the Bible? Hard to believe.
Maybe

The fact is that there are over 5700 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament.[3] Furthermore, “no two of these manuscripts are exactly alike in all their particulars…. And some of these differences are significant.”[4] Factor in roughly ten thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, add the many other ancient variants (i.e., Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Nubian, Gothic, Slavonic), and what do we have?
A lot of manuscripts

A lot of manuscripts that fail to correspond in places and not infrequently contradict one another. Scholars estimate the number of manuscript variants in the hundreds of thousands, some estimating as high as 400,000.[5] In Bart D. Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[6]
How did this happen?

Poor record keeping. Dishonesty. Incompetence. Doctrinal prejudice. Take your pick.

None of the original manuscripts have survived from the early Christian period.[7]/[8] The most ancient complete manuscripts (Vatican MS. No. 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex) date from the fourth century, three hundred years after Jesus’ ministry. But the originals? Lost. And the copies of the originals? Also lost. Our most ancient manuscripts, in other words, are copies of the copies of the copies of nobody-knows-just-how-many copies of the originals.
No wonder they differ

In the best of hands, copying errors would be no surprise. However, New Testament manuscripts were not in the best of hands. During the period of Christian origins, scribes were untrained, unreliable, incompetent, and in some cases illiterate.[9] Those who were visually impaired could have made errors with look-alike letters and words, while those who were hearing-impaired may have erred in recording scripture as it was read aloud. Frequently scribes were overworked, and hence inclined to the errors that accompany fatigue.

In the words of Metzger and Ehrman, “Since most, if not all, of them [the scribes] would have been amateurs in the art of copying, a relatively large number of mistakes no doubt crept into their texts as they reproduced them.”[10] Worse yet, some scribes allowed doctrinal prejudice to influence their transmission of scripture.[11] As Ehrman states, “The scribes who copied the texts changed them.”[12] More specifically, “The number of deliberate alterations made in the interest of doctrine is difficult to assess.”[13] And even more specifically, “In the technical parlance of textual criticism—which I retain for its significant ironies—these scribes ‘corrupted’ their texts for theological reasons.”[14]

Errors were introduced in the form of additions, deletions, substitutions and modifications, most commonly of words or lines, but occasionally of entire verses.[15] [16] In fact, “numerous changes and accretions came into the text,”[17] with the result that “all known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or lesser extent mixed texts, and even several of the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors.”[18]

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman presents persuasive evidence that the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:12) and the last twelve verses of Mark were not in the original gospels, but added by later scribes.[19] Furthermore, these examples “represent just two out of thousands of places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be changed by scribes.”[20]

In fact, entire books of the Bible were forged.[21] This doesn’t mean their content is necessarily wrong, but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s right. So which books were forged? Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude—a whopping nine of the twenty-seven New Testament books and epistles—are to one degree or another suspect.[22]
Forged books? In the Bible?

Why are we not surprised? After all, even the gospel authors are unknown. In fact, they’re anonymous.[23] Biblical scholars rarely, if ever, ascribe gospel authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. As Ehrman tells us, “Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.”[24] Graham Stanton affirms, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to …’) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.”[25]

So what, if anything, did Jesus’ disciples have to do with authoring the gospels? Little or nothing, so far as we know. But we have no reason to believe they authored any of the books of the Bible. To begin with, let us remember Mark was a secretary to Peter, and Luke a companion to Paul. The verses of Luke 6:14-16 and Matthew 10:2-4 catalogue the twelve disciples, and although these lists differ over two names, Mark and Luke don’t make either list. So only Matthew and John were true disciples. But all the same, modern scholars pretty much disqualify them as authors anyway.
Why?

Good question. John being the more famous of the two, why should we disqualify him from having authored the Gospel of “John”?
Umm … because he was dead?

Multiple sources acknowledge there is no evidence, other than questionable testimonies of second century authors, to suggest that the disciple John was the author of the Gospel of “John.”[26] [27] Perhaps the most convincing refutation is that the disciple John is believed to have died in or around 98 CE.[28] However, the Gospel of John was written circa 110 CE.[29] So whoever Luke (Paul’s companion), Mark (Peter’s secretary), and John (the unknown, but certainly not the long-dead one) were, we have no reason to believe any of the gospels were authored by Jesus’ disciples


New Testament of the Bible regarding Jesus by Yusha ...



هندوسية تدخل الإٍسلام بعد سؤال مترجم A hindu woman is accepting Islam



مسيحي يعتنق الإسلام في حوار مع عباس ...



Just where do you perform all the animal blood sacrifices that are included in the, "not one title or dot....will be removed from the law, until all is accomplished"? Have you been circumcised the required number of days after you were born under the terms of the Old Law? Are you the subject of a KING appointed by God and what is this Kings name? And just where is the Tribe of Levitical Priests that are required under the terms of the Law hiding today? :dunno: If you do not follow ALL THE LAW then you are guilty of breaking the entire law. (James 2:10)


"UNTIL ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED". All was accomplished when the perfect sacrificial lamb of God declared, "It is finished..........."

The scriptures confirm the fact that the old law (Law of Moses) has been taken away, All has been accomplished, The writer of the book of Hebrews states, ".....if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place for would have been sought for another." -- Heb. 8:7

Even the Old Testament teaches that the Law of Moses would one day come to an end and be replaced with a new covenant that is written on the Hearts of the faithful instead of on stone. (Jer. 31:31-34)

Then we have the apostle Paul declaring with no ambiguity whatsoever that Christ Jesus, "........wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." -- Col. 2:14

The Old Law has become "obsolete" (Heb. 8:13, 7:12, Eph. 2:14-16). Why is the LAW obsolete? Because there had been a change in the Priesthood (Heb 7:12). Jesus being the High Priest of Christian Faith made the 2 laws into 1 removing the middle wall that separated the Jew from the Gentile making every Christian regardless of being a Jew or a Gentile spiritual seeds of father Abrham....with Christianity now being the nation of Spiritual Israel and heirs to the promises made to Abraham. (Gal. 3:28-29)

Do we still use the Old Law? Only as a "schoolmaster" to prove that Jesus is the Messiah of Prophecy and to learn numerous and valuable lessons from the history found in the Old Testament Law. .....but, we are no longer bound by the oracles of the Old Law (Romas 15:4)
 
Last edited:

Clyde 154


Read this text
“3 Tell them that this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Cursed is the one who does not obey the terms of this covenant—’”” Jeremiah 3:11

so
You are cursed

“Those who forsake instruction praise the wicked,
but those who heed it resist them. . Proverbs 28:4

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

II Timothy 3 - Books 16-17


Here Paul was talking about the Old Testament because the New Testament had not yet been written.

Also, the New Testament does not contain anything about marriage laws (unlike the Old Testament). If a Christian claims that he does not follow the Old Testament, then in this case he has the right to marry his mother or sister because nothing in the New Testament forbids that!



Despite this, we find that Paul has a different special law
About the law of Christ and about the Jewish law, which is
The Sharia that is now followed by the Christians, and we mention some of his sayings
by which the law openly rejects, saying,


“17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:[a] The old has gone, the new is here!” 2 Corinthians 5:17


. And Jesus himself was very clear about the Old Testament, the prophets, and the primary laws
Jesus was very clear that he would not change any of the teachings of the laws in the Old Testament. Rather, he adds to that by saying that Christians have to follow these laws literally, until the Day of Judgment.


That was in the time of Christ
But now the Old Testament and the New Testament are corrupted


How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie (Jeremiah 8:8, quoted from the New American Standard Bible). Here the Prophet Jeremiah is scolding the Israelites that their corrupt scribes have made the Law of the Lord (that is the Torah) into a lie by their lying pen (that is the pen they used to change the verses). This proof in the Book, the People of the Book are carrying, clearly establishes that their Book has been corrupted by their own scribes.



Jesus own language of Aramaic, which is a Semitic language, an eastern language similar to Hebrew and Arabic. The original extant copies of the gospels are in Greek, a western language. Now there are four gospels, supposed to have been written by four of the disciples of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Was Jesus quoting, from these Greek books, written many years after his disappearance when he was addressing his people? Certainly not! He was quoting from the Book he received from God, which was the original Bible in the language of his own people. The argument that God revealed his Bible to Jesus in Greek is like saying that God revealed the Qur’an to Muhammad in English!


So the original Gospel was not in Greek, it was in the language Jesus and his people spoke and understood. We have no record or evidence to indicate that; this original Gospel was written down by scribes under Jesus’s own supervision. I repeat: We have no original Gospel existing now as a single volume, in the original language. Every educated Christian must know this fact! (Those who are in doubt can go to the Jerome Biblical Commentary, or any authentic book by genuine scholars that deal with the subject. Nevertheless, missionaries give the impression that this is only a baseless charge by Muslims. Instead of the original Gospel, we have four books written by persons who are supposed to have been Jesus’s disciples. I say supposed,


because modern scholars who have done research on the subject, question the claim that these were the disciples of Jesus, in the first place. These four books called the Gospels are placed at the beginning of some 27 books, bound together into one volume, called The New Testament. Out of these 27 books, thirteen were written by a man called St. Paul. This Paul was not a disciple of Jesus, nor has Jesus met him, as he himself testifies. Modern Christians are ardent followers of St. Paul, even in cases where Paul clearly contradicts Jesus!

The Islamic request to Christians is for them to please follow Jesus, and not to follow Paul, who preaches a different gospel! The Islamic belief about the present Book, which the Christians use as the word of God, called the New Testament is that it is not the Gospel of Jesus mentioned in the Qur’an. Still, Muslims believe that the Gospels in the bible contain some teachings of Jesus, as well as the interpretations of the writers of those books, whoever they might have been.

 
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 5:18
The Prophet Jesus peace be upon him,
came to complete the law of the ancient prophets
Without decrease or increase
So the Old Testament cannot be repealed

Why such variance in viewpoints? To begin with, different theological camps disagree on which books should be included in the Bible. One camp’s apocrypha is another’s scripture. Secondly, even among those books that have been canonized, the many variant source texts lack uniformity. This lack of uniformity is so ubiquitous that The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.”[2]

Not one sentence? We can’t trust a single sentence of the Bible? Hard to believe.
Maybe

The fact is that there are over 5700 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament.[3] Furthermore, “no two of these manuscripts are exactly alike in all their particulars…. And some of these differences are significant.”[4] Factor in roughly ten thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, add the many other ancient variants (i.e., Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Nubian, Gothic, Slavonic), and what do we have?
A lot of manuscripts

A lot of manuscripts that fail to correspond in places and not infrequently contradict one another. Scholars estimate the number of manuscript variants in the hundreds of thousands, some estimating as high as 400,000.[5] In Bart D. Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[6]
How did this happen?

Poor record keeping. Dishonesty. Incompetence. Doctrinal prejudice. Take your pick.

None of the original manuscripts have survived from the early Christian period.[7]/[8] The most ancient complete manuscripts (Vatican MS. No. 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex) date from the fourth century, three hundred years after Jesus’ ministry. But the originals? Lost. And the copies of the originals? Also lost. Our most ancient manuscripts, in other words, are copies of the copies of the copies of nobody-knows-just-how-many copies of the originals.
No wonder they differ

In the best of hands, copying errors would be no surprise. However, New Testament manuscripts were not in the best of hands. During the period of Christian origins, scribes were untrained, unreliable, incompetent, and in some cases illiterate.[9] Those who were visually impaired could have made errors with look-alike letters and words, while those who were hearing-impaired may have erred in recording scripture as it was read aloud. Frequently scribes were overworked, and hence inclined to the errors that accompany fatigue.

In the words of Metzger and Ehrman, “Since most, if not all, of them [the scribes] would have been amateurs in the art of copying, a relatively large number of mistakes no doubt crept into their texts as they reproduced them.”[10] Worse yet, some scribes allowed doctrinal prejudice to influence their transmission of scripture.[11] As Ehrman states, “The scribes who copied the texts changed them.”[12] More specifically, “The number of deliberate alterations made in the interest of doctrine is difficult to assess.”[13] And even more specifically, “In the technical parlance of textual criticism—which I retain for its significant ironies—these scribes ‘corrupted’ their texts for theological reasons.”[14]

Errors were introduced in the form of additions, deletions, substitutions and modifications, most commonly of words or lines, but occasionally of entire verses.[15] [16] In fact, “numerous changes and accretions came into the text,”[17] with the result that “all known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or lesser extent mixed texts, and even several of the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors.”[18]

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman presents persuasive evidence that the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:12) and the last twelve verses of Mark were not in the original gospels, but added by later scribes.[19] Furthermore, these examples “represent just two out of thousands of places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be changed by scribes.”[20]

In fact, entire books of the Bible were forged.[21] This doesn’t mean their content is necessarily wrong, but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s right. So which books were forged? Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude—a whopping nine of the twenty-seven New Testament books and epistles—are to one degree or another suspect.[22]
Forged books? In the Bible?

Why are we not surprised? After all, even the gospel authors are unknown. In fact, they’re anonymous.[23] Biblical scholars rarely, if ever, ascribe gospel authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. As Ehrman tells us, “Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.”[24] Graham Stanton affirms, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to …’) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.”[25]

So what, if anything, did Jesus’ disciples have to do with authoring the gospels? Little or nothing, so far as we know. But we have no reason to believe they authored any of the books of the Bible. To begin with, let us remember Mark was a secretary to Peter, and Luke a companion to Paul. The verses of Luke 6:14-16 and Matthew 10:2-4 catalogue the twelve disciples, and although these lists differ over two names, Mark and Luke don’t make either list. So only Matthew and John were true disciples. But all the same, modern scholars pretty much disqualify them as authors anyway.
Why?

Good question. John being the more famous of the two, why should we disqualify him from having authored the Gospel of “John”?
Umm … because he was dead?

Multiple sources acknowledge there is no evidence, other than questionable testimonies of second century authors, to suggest that the disciple John was the author of the Gospel of “John.”[26] [27] Perhaps the most convincing refutation is that the disciple John is believed to have died in or around 98 CE.[28] However, the Gospel of John was written circa 110 CE.[29] So whoever Luke (Paul’s companion), Mark (Peter’s secretary), and John (the unknown, but certainly not the long-dead one) were, we have no reason to believe any of the gospels were authored by Jesus’ disciples


New Testament of the Bible regarding Jesus by Yusha ...



هندوسية تدخل الإٍسلام بعد سؤال مترجم A hindu woman is accepting Islam



مسيحي يعتنق الإسلام في حوار مع عباس ...


You playing the God shit on a bit thick comrade.

When has a fact never been factual?
 
Christmas and 25th of December

Many Christians are unaware that the true spirit of reverence which Muslims display towards Jesus and his mother Mary spring from the fountainhead of their faith as prescribed in the Holy Quran. Most do not know that a Muslim does not take the name of Jesus , without saying Eesa alai-hiss-salaam i.e. (Jesus peace be upon him).





Jesus is commonly considered to have been born on the 25th of December. However, it is common knowledge among Christian scholars that he was not born on this day. It is well known that the first Christian churches held their festival in May, April, or January. Scholars of the first two centuries AD even differ in which year he was born. Some believing that he was born fully twenty years before the current accepted date. So how was the 25th of December selected as the birthday of Jesus ?



Grolier's encyclopedia says: "Christmas is the feast of the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated on December 25 ... Despite the beliefs about Christ that the birth stories expressed, the church did not observe a festival for the celebration of the event until the 4th century.... since 274, under the emperor Aurelian, Rome had celebrated the feast of the "Invincible Sun" on December 25. In the Eastern Church, January 6, a day also associated with the winter solstice, was initially preferred. In course of time, however, the West added the Eastern date as the Feast of the Epiphany, and the East added the Western date of Christmas".



So who else celebrated the 25th of December as the birth day of their gods before it was agreed upon as the birth day of Jesus ? Well, there are the people of India who rejoice, decorate their houses with garlands, and give presents to their friends on this day. The people of China also celebrate this day and close their shops. Buddha is believed to have been born on this day. The great savior and god of the Persians, Mithras, is also believed to have been born on the 25th of December long before the coming of Jesus .



The Egyptians celebrated this day as the birth day of their great savior Horus, the Egyptian god of light and the son of the "virgin mother" and "queen of the heavens" Isis. Osiris, god of the dead and the underworld in Egypt, the son of "the holy virgin", again was believed to have been born on the 25th of December.



The Greeks celebrated the 25th of December as the birthday of Hercules, the son of the supreme god of the Greeks, Zeus, through the mortal woman Alcmene Bacchus, the god of wine and revelry among the Romans (known among the Greeks as Dionysus) was also born on this day.



Adonis, revered as a "dying-and-rising god" among the Greeks, miraculously was also born on the 25th of December. His worshipers held him a yearly festival representing his death and resurrection, in midsummer. The ceremonies of his birthday are recorded to have taken place in the same cave in Bethlehem which is claimed to have been the birth place of Jesus .



The Scandinavians celebrated the 25th of December as the birthday of their god Freyr, the son of their supreme god of the heavens, Odin.



The Romans observed this day as the birthday of the god of the sun, Natalis Solis Invicti ("Birthday of Sol the invincible"). There was great rejoicing and all shops were closed. There was illumination and public games. Presents were exchanged, and the slaves were indulged in great liberties. These are the same Romans who would later preside over the council of Nicea (325 CE) which lead to the official Christian recognition of the "Trinity" as the "true" nature of God, and the "fact" that Jesus was born on the 25th of December too.



In Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon says: "The Roman Christians, ignorant of his (Christ's) birth, fixed the solemn festival to the 25th of December, the Brumalia, or Winter Solstice, when the Pagans annually celebrated the birth of Sol " vol. ii, p. 383.



Christians opposed to Christmas



There are several Christian groups who are opposed to Christmas. For example, they take the verse from the Bible in Jeremiah 10:2-4 as an admonition against decorating Christmas trees.



The King James Version reads: "Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen.... For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."



In order to understand this subject, it is helpful to trace some of the history of Christmas avoidance, particularly its roots in Puritanism.



The Puritans believed that the first-century church modeled a Christianity that modern Christians should copy. They attempted to base their faith and practice solely on the New Testament, and their position on Christmas reflected their commitment to practice a pure, scriptural form of Christianity. Puritans argued that God reserved to himself the determination of all proper forms of worship, and that he disapproved of any human innovations - even innovations that celebrated the great events of salvation. The name Christmas also alienated many Puritans.





Christmas, after all, meant "the mass of Christ." The mass was despised as a Roman Catholic institution that undermined the Protestant concept of Christ, who offered himself once for all. The Puritans' passionate avoidance of any practice that was associated with papal Rome caused them to overlook the fact that in many countries the name for the day had nothing to do with the Catholic mass, but focused instead on Jesus' birth. The mass did not evolve into the form abhorred by Protestants until long after Christmas was widely observed. The two customs had separate, though interconnected, histories.


As ardent Protestants, Puritans identified the embracing of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the early 300s CE as the starting point of the degeneration and corruption of the church. They believed the corruption of the church was brought on by the interweaving of the church with the pagan Roman state. To Puritans, Christmas was impure because it entered the Roman Church sometime in this period. No one knows the exact year or under what circumstances Roman Christians began to celebrate the birth of their Lord, but by the mid-300s CE, the practice was well established.



مسيحية تتهجم على يوسف استس وتقول له كيف تتجرأ أن تترك المسيحية فدمر سؤلها بدقائق​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2nWd2V6MdA



أحمد ديدات - من هو أبو المسيح عليه السلام - YouTube




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ejqMYNwrY



when Christ was born Ahmed Deedat a lecture debates youtube








حكم التهنئة بالكريسماس - ذاكر نايك Zakir Naik





Christ in Islam a sequel (full studio debate) - Sheikh Ahmed ...







ولادة عيسى عليه السلام وفقاً لما ورد في القرآن الكريم || الدكتور ذاكر نايك




أحمد ديدات يحدد ميلاد عيسى عليه السلام


 
كيف عرف النبي ذلك؟! - حدث تاريخي مفصل يذكره القرآن بدقة ويفشل الكتاب المقدس في ذكره




القرآن يذهل العالم ويكشف 10 أسرار تاريخية عن الفراعنة ومصر القديمة لم تُكتشف إلا حديثاً



 
Biblical absurdities about the prophets

the absurdities attributed to the prophets and pious men found in the "holy" bible. As a Muslim, we do not recognize this nonsense. The prophets, peace be upon them, are innocent of this gossip.

When we read the Bible, as Muslims, we come across certain absurdities such as the prophet Lot (as) who allegedly slept with his two daughters under the influence of alcohol ,

or David (as) who would have committed adultery with Uri's wife and would have had her husband killed in order to marry her then,

Aaron (as) who would have made the idol of the golden calf which perverts the sons of Israel, Solomon (as) his polytheistic life because of his wives, etc. May God preserve us from saying such nonsense about the best men who walked this earth.

Now let's see another absurdity attributed to the prophet Noah (as).

The tragic episode of Noah's nudity

We read in Genesis chapter 9, 22-23 this:

“Noah, first a farmer planted a vineyard. He drank of his wine and got drunk, and lay naked in the midst of his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

The first thing that shocks here is seeing the prophet Noah (as) getting drunk to the point of undressing while remaining naked “in the middle of his tent”. Besides this absurdity attributed to this noble prophet, there is another ...

What to say after all this? Not much. Christians who attempt to refute the Jewish comments should be very careful because Jesus (as) allegedly said: “ 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
Matthew 23, 2-3).

That is, the Jews are the best able to understand their scriptures. Not to mention that they consider that the Talmud contains part of the oral Torah which was revealed to Moses (as) on Mount Sinai ... It is therefore a revelation for them.

see here
scandal

أحمد ديدات -- عتاد الجهاد -- كينيا -- مترجم​



رسالة مؤثرة من بريطاني على فراش الموت اعتنق الإسلام



MMA Fighter Willi Ott Converts to Islam - بطل الفنون القتالية الألماني ويلي أوت يعتنق الإسلام

 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top