To my Brothers and Sisters in Christ

I write this article towards the fundamentalist evangelical Christians, which is the majority of the Church today. This article is to question your belief in the gospels not as the word of God, but that it is without contradictions, discrepancies and your definition of inspiration.

1. We do not know what was originally written by the authors of the New Testament from Paul to the authors of the gospels. Now I am not saying we do know anything, we know about 99% of what the earliest form of the text said. Scholars agree that scribes sometimes changed the text for theological purposes .e.g. Mark 19 9:20, 1 John 5:7 etc etc and sometimes the text was changed by accident .e.g.car to bar. Now this causes concern for the textual critic to know what was the original, now we can make a pretty good guess with high pleausability by using the tools of textual criticism and I am not going to dive into that, as it could confusion if you do not know about it. However, I am going to be writing a lengthy article on the transmission and corruption of the New Testament text in the near future.
This 1% of major variants is hard to know what is the correct reading for a few reasons:-

1. We do not have the autographs of any New Testament book, like every other book in ancient history.
2. It is hard to determine the nature of a variant especially if it happens early in transmission of the text.
3. sometimes hard to determine the nature of a manuscript.

However, some of these major variants can be recovered .e.g. The baptism of Jesus in Luke 3 did it say you are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased or this is my beloved son, today I have begotten you. Now even though the second reading of the text could go back to the original and it does change the meaning of the text, it is more likely that the first reading goes back to the earliest form of the text.
What do I mean by these major variants? these variants are meaningful and viable variants; which means could go back to the original and also changes the meaning of the text.

2. Most Fundamentalists (I have even seen this being said at the Alpha course) will tell you the New Testament is the best attested book of antiquity, which is correct it is, but 94% of the manuscripts come after the 9th century which is 800 years after the original. The first completed manuscript we have of all four gospels is not until the 4th century. Only a handful of manuscripts come from the second century and only about 30-40 in the 3rd century.And some of these are just mere fragments of a certain verse .e.g. are earliest manuscript is P52, P meaning papyrus and 52 meaning the 52nd manuscript to be found and catalogued. This manuscript is no bigger than a credit card and has parts of John 18 on the front and back of the fragment.
Now I am not saying we have a poor tradition, as it is incredibly rich, but to use the best attested argument is such a weak argument when that does not prove much. Its like saying the dad is stronger than then son but it does not mean the Dad can now lift the car. However, if we cannot trust the form of the gospels then we cannot trust anything in ancient history.

Now remember I am not saying we do not know what the earliest form may have said we just do not know what everything was said, which is why I said we know about 99% and maybe a little bit more.

3. The term 'original'; Now you may be wondering well original is what NT writes wrote and sent out to churches and people to copy for themselves. However, it is not as easy as that; lets look at Paul who used scribes like a lot of people in history to write his letter form him. Paul would dictate to the scribe what to write, these scribes were known as secretaries. Now we all know that when you write something you make spelling mistakes or you miss hear what someone was saying or you day dream and therefore make mistakes. Now the scribe would of made mistakes and authors did sometimes check the work after to make sure it was correct, but what was the original? the word by the scribe or the corrected word that Paul/the scribe noticed? you may say Paul, but it has just been changed so that does not mean it is original.
A lot of authors would make copies of the work they have just wrote and they would be kept for themselves and their official, first work would be sent out or they would send the copies out and people would come copy the autograph form its place of residence. Problem is how do we know the drafts are the same as the autographs? Now they could of checked for mistakes in the drafts but they may still of missed mistakes. If this is the case we already have variants in the transmission of the text and therefore which is original the autograph wording or the authors drafts?
Now the term original has many meanings. It can mean the first ever copy all the way to the earliest form of a text. so, what is it? how do w prove that?. scholars have abondoned this terms for this reason and the difficulties to understand what mistakes authors may have themselves made. Now I am not saying Paul would of added new theology to his own gospel, as that makes no sense, seeing as though it would not be new it would just be his theology. Scholars now look to other avenues and two of these are used by scholars;
1. the authorial text, which is the text the author intended to publish
2. The initial text, which is the earliest form of the text that was published by the author to be copied.

Now the authorial text is very hard to also recover, as how can we know what the author intended to write? we cannot access the authors mind to assess that. However, we can recover the initial text. Kurt and Barbara Aland argue that the initial text would be relatively close to the original. I would agree with this, as the author is not trying to change things to suit his own theology, as he can just input his own theology, as it is their book they are writing, they are not a scribe copying his work who does not like the look of something he reads, so decides to change it. We can therefore say the initial text is what we can be recovered. 

4. Discrepancies/contradictions in the gospels are real, the bible is not the inerrant word of God and it never claims to be, it claims to be the inspired word of God. Now before I define what that means I will show you a discrepancy in the gospels that to me is one of the biggest discrepancies in the gospels.
Most Christians will know the account(s) of Jairus daughter, so now lets look at the gospel accounts:

Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and seeing him, he fell at his feet and implored him earnestly, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well and live.” And he went with him.

And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him. And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. (Mark 5:22-26, ESV

for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying.

As Jesus went, the people pressed around him. And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians, she could not be healed by anyone. (Luke 8:42-43, ESV)

While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in andknelt before him, saying, “My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.” And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, (Matthew 9:18-20, ESV)

As we can see Luke and Marks account is consistent with each other but notice Matthews gospel shows us that Jairus daughter had died when Jairus first met Jesus where as in Mark and Luke she was still alive when Jairus got to Jesus. Now we can clear see the contradiction here and it cannot be harmonized. Fundamentalists have tried to figure out an answer that is not compelling and is mere speculation. Some have tried to solve it by saying Matthew is telescoping the story. This is a scholar who I admire and agree greatly with but disagree with him on this point. Dr. White’s answer to this, ignoring the further development in Luke and John, was that Matthew did nothing wrong in summarizing the story. He referred to Matthew’s action as ‘telescoping’, by which he obviously means that Matthew has drawn in the ends of the story to make it shorter. He correctly pointed out that Matthew achieved this by omitting the later part about someone else coming to say Jairus daughter died and put it and the begining when Jairus came to jesus, which Dr. White calls this telescoping. To Dr. White, Matthew did not change the broad facts of the story in having Jairus declare the girl dead from the start, since we still get the same basic information from both Matthew and Mark.
even though this could be the case that Matthew shortens the story and therefore just tells us she died, as it is known in history that authors would adapt the story, paraphrase the story; this is not a bad thing it is to just to tell the story differently but also the same. This can mean putting the words into peoples mouths. People do this all the time .e.g. if your teacher gave a lecture about banks and you went up to him at the end you wouldn't repeat the exact lecture he just said or the exact point he made, you will adapt it in a way that tells the remarks differently but the punch line is the same. However, even though this , may be true about Matthew here for the telescoping theory it is still a discrepancy as the accounts contradict, but the punch line is the same that Christ has the power to heal and raise the dead, which is the whole point of the story.
Secondly, it is hard to say Matthew telescoped this, as we cannot go into Matthews brain therefore it has to be looked at as a discrepancy.

The Problem is fundamentalists will admit that the main part of the story in what is truth her and know there is a problem here with the contradicting passage, even Calvin understands this and argues the main point of the story is Jesus can raise people from the dead and heal the sick. But they themselves will still call the gospels the inerrant word of God when they can see there are discrepancies. Discrepancies are not a bad thing it is just how ancient authors wrote and even how we talk today. Authors also sometimes never wrote in chronological order.even though this to me is not the case here with Jairus we have to look at what history tells us.

6. What does it mean to say the New testament is inspired? William Lane Craig puts it this way, you have to understand that inspiration does not mean God somehow controlled the pen of the authors. he goes further and argues that you can be inspired to write something because someone has give you a reason to write something .e.g. Bob was inspired to write a book about his life, because so many people encouraged him to do it. however with the gospels god inspored them and inspired every word written, but how he inspires them has to be put into the culture of the time and how historical Biographies were written.

We can extend the point by considering the proposal that the Gospels should be understood as different performances, as it were, of orally transmitted tradition.  The prominent New Testament scholar Jimmy Dunn, prompted by the work of Ken Bailey on the transmission of oral tradition in Middle Eastern cultures, has sharply criticized what he calls the “stratigraphic model” of the Gospels, which views them as composed of different layers laid one upon another on top of a primitive tradition.  (See James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered [Grand Rapids, Mich.:  William B. Eerdmans, 2003].) On the stratigraphic model each tiny deviation from the previous layer occasions speculations about the reasons for the change, sometimes leading to quite fanciful hypotheses about the theology of some redactor.  But Dunn insists that oral tradition works quite differently.  What matters is that the central idea is conveyed, often in some key words and climaxing in some saying which is repeated verbatim; but the surrounding details are fluid and incidental to the story. 

Probably the closest example to this in our non-oral, Western culture is the telling of a joke.  It’s important that you get the structure and punch line right, but the rest is incidental.  For example, many years ago I heard the following joke: 

“What did the Calvinist say when he fell down the elevator shaft?”
“I don’t know.”
“He got up, dusted himself off, and said, ‘Whew! I’m glad that’s over!’”

Now just recently someone else told me what was clearly the same joke.  Only she told it as follows:

“Do you know what the Calvinist said when he fell down the stairs?”
“No.”
“‘Whew! I’m glad that’s over!’”

Notice the differences in the telling of this joke;  but observe how the central idea and especially the punch line are the same.  Well, when you compare many of the stories told about Jesus in the Gospels and identify the words they have in common, you find a pattern like this.  There is variation in the secondary details, but very often the central saying is almost verbatim the same.  And remember, this is in a culture where they didn't even have the device of quotation marks!  (Those are added in translation to indicate direct speech; to get an idea of how difficult it can be to determine exactly where direct speech ends, just read Paul’s account of his argument with Peter in Galatians 2 or of Jesus’ interview with Nicodemus in John 3.)  So the stories in the Gospels should not be understood as evolutions of some prior primitive tradition but as different performances of the same oral story.

Now I wrote this to help Christians understand the gospels and to understand them in the context they were written and to have some education in early Christianity and the text of the new testament.

I am not some sceptic, but I am not a fundamentalist and I hold a mixture of liberal and conservative views. I have devoted a lot of my adult life to this to know the truth and I hold to the conservative doctrine of Christ and I truly believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that scripture is the inspired word of God. But we must understand the truth and knowing the truth of the gospels actually strengthens me in Christ not the other way around. Yes we don't know what every word was in the initial form of the text (but it is not lost we are just tinkering with the text), yes we have discrepancies, but when you understand historical biographies and there transmission you understand how God worked with scriptures and it makes you glorify him more. This is not to bring you down, it is encourage you to look further and build your faith in Christ. 

If you have any questions please ask, if you have found this difficult and has made you question (which is not a bad thing) then please contact me and we can talk about. May God bless you all.

A responce to saaib Ahmad article - The real Jesus

Recently I came across an article posted by a Muslim called Saaib Ahmed who I have recently been speaking too. The name of the article is called 'The Real Jesus' and after reading the article I found it interesting and thought I would respond to the article.
Saaib was recently in a couple of debates that where he used similar arguments to what he has put in this article, so therefore using this article as a basis to respond to him would be easier, as you can read the article yourselves http://www.scribd.com/doc/168115474/The-Real-Jesus.
I will put Saaibs remarks into speech marks to show it is his words and I will respond.

'Prof. Bart Ehrman, who happens to be my favourite, is almost a celebrity among Muslims. Quotations from his books can be seen in almost every apologetic Muslim literature'

I have done an article on this in the past and this just proves my point that Muslims will treat Dr. Ehrman as some sort of celebrity who has completely refuted Christianity, yet fail to understand his beliefs contradict Islam. Saaib even quotes books to read of his including Jesus interrupted, which shows Ehrman believes that Jesus was crucified and that Jesus believed the kingdom of God was coming to earth soon in Jesus generation and that would bring the New Israel. These statements completely contradict Islam as it rejects the crucifixion of Jesus and they believe Jesus would come back in the future.

'Take the example of “Textual Criticism”. The belief of a perfectly preserved inerrant bible believed to be written by Prophets and Apostles is at best laughable.'

No Christian believes the bible has been preserved perfectly, as all historical books including the Quran are never perfectly preserved, as scribes always make mistakes .e.g. spelling mistakes, as they would write by hand, which lead to mistakes.
Regarding it be written by prophets and Apostles I will come back to.

' Textual Criticism of Bible has unveiled many hidden truths about the Bible. Meanwhile the Textual Criticism of Quran leads to a result which is acceptable to Muslims.'

I would love to know these truths, because Christians are open to everything about our text, as we have a critical edition that tells us everything about our manuscripts, what they contain and different readings that may be among the manuscripts .e.g. the favourites Muslims use Mark 16 9:20, where the earliest manuscripts do not contain this verse. However, the New Testament was an uncontrolled text therefore when copyists copied the original they were then sent into regions and therefore you could not make anything up, because as soon as you did it would be noticed in the manuscript tradition due to this uncontrolled, free text, which is why some manuscripts with certain verses and some not. We then use textual criticism to determine the original, as we do not have the original copies.
But what the Quran? Muslims believe they have this perfectly preserved text that was standardized though Uthman.
Recently an article came out on Topsaki manuscript and it listed many textual variants from the other manuscripts.
A renowned textual critic in the field of Quaranic studies named Gerd Puin On page 302 of his book Die Dunklen Anfänge says 'in surah 5 aya 46 of the foggs manuscript we read for a people who faith/ is  assured where as in the standard text we read to those who fear \God'.
As we can see there are also the textual problems in the Quran, but the problem with the Quuran is it was a controlled text, as Usman gathered all the other Qurans and burnt them and standardized the Quran, meaning if variants were to occur (which they have) you can only go back to Usman, which is something Bart Ehrman holds to as a textual critic and says it all the time in the field of textual criticism to historical works. This shows the Quran is in fact corrupt, as we cannot get back to the original of Muhammad.

'As a student of religion I see what reasons does Quran give for what it claims and there you see that it doesn’t give one. What reason is then there for it to make such a claim? The reason is “authority”. Quran speaks from authority and the authority here is the all-knowing God. What seemed to be certain is cleared by God to have been conjecture.The Quran says it! I believe it! That settles it!'

'Quran is a standing miracle which is there for everyone to go through. Let us argue with non-believers in the ways which are best and most beautiful with this standing miracle'

This argument was in response to the historicity of the crucifixion of Christ, as the Quran rejects this ever happened.
This is a common Muslim argument, that the Quran is Gods word therefore it does not matter, but we could all just say that .e.g. me saying the Bible is the word of God, therefore it is correct. There is also a contradiction here, as Saaib says the Quran is a standing miracle, yet to prove that you use historical analysis .e.g. produce a surah like it, a muslim would show how it was unique to all Arabic works and literature and also poetry at the time and could not be matched, yet when it comes to analysing the historical data of how EVERY Christian sect, bar the ones who did not believe Jesus was even human, they all believed he was crucified. Even non Christians believed this and it is confirmed in the first century by non Christians .e.g. flavious Josephus, Thalus, Tacitus, seuitoneuos etc.
Therefore I see no good reason to accept Islam you can't just look at the evidence one part and let it over power when the evidence against something in your book is very strong.

'Quranic claims about Jesus are irrelevant to historians. For a Historian the Quran was written almost 600years after the crucifixion, in a language alien to Jesus, at a place where Jesus never walked. For them, Quran was authored by a person who had limited knowledge of the subject, living with people who hardly knew Jesus.'

If the Quranic Jesus is true we would see evidence to him in the first century when we lived not just a recap of him in the 6th century. For example if I made a claim Muhammad was actually a Syrian poet, you would demand evidence from history on that. However, we see completely the opposite on the historical Jesus, as all scholars from all backgrounds believe Jesus was a jew who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The evidence is clear on who Jesus was and it looks nothing like a Quaranic Jesus.
Saaib then says the Quran was authored by a person who had limited knowledge of Jesus, yet forgets that as a Muslim the author of the Quran is God, which is fascinating to say God has limited knowledge, when one of his 99 names in Islam is 'all knowing'.

'For a historian Quran would have been beneficial if it would have presented a historical argument against the crucifixion, which it doesn’t. Here it becomes irrelevant.'

Here is the verse that denies the crucifixion of Christ:



“The Jews boast, "We have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them so; those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him: God exalted him unto Himself.

Crucifixion literally means being put on a cross, it does not mean death it is just usuall a guaranteed death, as can be seen in the new Testament when it says Jesus was sent to DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION.
Therefore the Quran rejects the crucifixion of Jesus.
What is also wrong with this verse is Jews would not call Jesus Christ, as the whole reason they were killing him was because they did not believe he was. They would also not call him an apostle of God, as this is unknown language to a Jew to am apostle of God, you were a prophet (however, some translations do have messenger or prophet). Thirdly, he would never be called messenger or prophet, as again they were killing him for saying he was this. The Jewish Sanhedrin in front of hundreds of Jews would also never call him the Messiah out of mockery, because it was a holy name that meant anointed and a holy word from God, to use it in mockery would be sinful.

'We have seen a long lasting polemic against the Quran that it gets the trinity wrong. For historians Quran criticizing the trinity of God, Mary and Jesus means that the belief of Christians surrounding Muhammad (saw) was like that'

We have no documents of Christians believing this in the time of Muhammad. The Quran says in surah 5 aya 116 says that Jesus on the last day did I tell you to worship me and my mother as Gods beside Allah?
Notice the errors here, no Christian believes Jesus or Mary to be Gods beside Allah but that there is one God but 3 persons. secondly, Jesus will say this to all Christians on the last day and not all Christians believe this and there is no evidence during Muhammad's time they did. the Quran does not even say certain Arab Christians believed this. It is just called beating round the bush.


 ' They were Christians according to the faith of the king with differences between them; they say: He is Allah, and say: He is Son of Allah, and say: He is the third of three[i.e., part of Trinity] and these are the claims of Christianity. [They use as evidence for their claim
that He is Allah the argument that] he used to raise the dead, cure the sick, create from clay bird-like structure.'

The miracles of Jesus speaking in infancy and giving life to birds made out of clay are usually dismissed by the Christians as “apocryphal” but these were perfectly acceptable to Christians in Arabia during the advent of Islam. And the Trinity they had was of God, Jesus and Mary.'

The problem with this is the Quran displays it different as in Surah 5 aya 73 it says Christians believe God is a third of three or one of three depending on the translation. However, Christians do not believe this, we believe god is one and not of three.
Secondly, it is true Christians did believe in Jesus creating birds from clay, so what? some Christians in Arabia believed in the Arabic infancy gospel, which has this story of Jesus but was written in the 5th century and has no evidence to it coming from Jesus and therefore unhistorical. This therefore disproves the Quran as we find the same story in the Quran.

'Do we know who the actual authors of the Bible were? For majority of the books, we don’t know who the authors were.'

The only authors we do not know are Hebrews and kings

'Is it possible that some of the authors of some of the biblical books were not in fact who they claimed, or were claimed, to be? Yes, it is very much possible. Most of the books of the Bible are anonymous and many are Forged.'

The evidence points in the other direction. Lets use the gospels Papias a late first century disciple of John the elder who was an apostle of Christ told us about the gospels Matthew and Mark and who wrote them. Bruce Metzger in his book the New Testament cannon says that Authors in the ancient world would attach their name to a separate bit of writing material and put in a pigeon cap attached to their work. The gospel of John claims to be an eye witness and the gospel of Luke claims to be of eye witness testimony. We also do not have any manuscripts without the gospel names. The NT manuscripts were a free text being copied in different regions, therefore if the gospel names were added later then we would see some manuscripts without the gospel names and some with.

'When did these authors live?We don’t know for most of the authors.'

They loved in the first century, as the gospels and letters are 1st century documents.

'What were the circumstances under which they wrote?We don’t know.'

What do you mean circumstances? why does their have to be a circumstance? why do we haave to know? Luke tells us he wrote his gospel to show Philpihus what the eye witness said about Jesus. John, Mark and Matthew say in their gospels it was to show who Jesus is.

'What issues were they trying to address in their own day?We don’t know except for some of Paul’s letters.'

They were trying to address nothing about their own day, the gospels that is, the purpose of the gospels was to show the good news of Christ.


'How were they affected by the cultural and historical assumptions of their time? We know that they are affected by both.'

Who? of course they were it was illegal to be a Christian, what does this statement prove? Muhammad was affected by the cultural and historical assumptions of the time.

'What sources did these authors use?Most of the authors were not eyewitnesses. We can only guess about what their sources were.'

Luke says that his gospel is based on eye witnesses, so there is no guessing unless you say he is lying. Mark's gospel is based on Peter, which can be seen in Marks gospel and through the early church fathers who were disciples of the apostles of Christ. John claims to be an eye witness and as Richard Bauckham has shown Matthew wrote in the third person plural which was how eye witnesses wrote in the ancient world.

'When were these sources produced?We don’t know.'

We do the first century, no scholar doubts this.

'Is it possible that the authors who used these sources had different perspectives, both from their sources and from one another?'
They wrote to different audiences and therefore wrote similar things and different things about Jesus life.

'Isit possible that the books of the Bible, based on a variety of sources, have internal contradictions? Not just that it is possible, the scholarly consensus is that the various books in general and Gospels in particular contradict each other every now and then.'

 

they don't just differences, it's not as though they say Jesus was the Christ and Jesus was not the Christ, they will look at it from different perspectives, so one author will tell more of a story of Jesus than another.

 

'There are other books that did not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were considered canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary.'

which ones? the only two are the epistle of Barnabas and the shepherd of hermes but they were not considered to be canonical. As Michael Kruger said in his book heresy of orthodoxy that these two letters were put at the back of the bible, as we see in codex siniaticus and are also separated indirectly from codex siniaticus, as they were only used to be read as an early Christian writing but not as scripture.
Also, please show evidence.

'The exodus probably never happened  as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the PromisedLand is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds on numerous points and contain non historical material. It is hard to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historicalJesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are filled with legendary fabrications andthe book of Acts in the New Testament contains historically unreliable information about the life andteachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament are pseudonymous—written not by theapostles but by later writers claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.'

The exodus never happened? amazing this comes from a Muslim when they believe in Moses and a very similar story to the exodus (pretty much the same). Good article on the reliability of the old testament http://www.theologynetwork.org/biblical-studies/getting-stuck-in/the-factual-reliability-of-the-old-testament.htm.
Name a historical error with the gospels and the book of acts? the gospels and book of acts have proven historians wrong time and time again. If Paul wrote in the New Testament how can it contain un historical things about Paul?
I have shown that we know who wrote the gospels.

'As Historians what we try to do is building probabilities around what happened in the past. More the probability of an event more will it be acceptable. As long as these are probabilities instead of certainties the Muslim position isn’t compromised. What is mean is, even if the crucifixion was 99.99%certain, the 0.01% that remains is enough for the Muslim position to escape through.'

This argument was in response to the crucifixion of Christ as historical fact, as all scholars agree. saaib doesn't deny this but uses probabilities and certainties.
If something is more probable you accept it, because you cannot be absolutely certain about many things .e.g. it is probable that we are all dreaming and we aren't actually physical, but it is very improbable. Its probable that Muhammad never existed, quite improbable, but it is not certain he lived, therefore should we use this criteria Saaib has supplied and provide us with an escape through to not believe Muhammad never existed? of course not it is about where the evidence goes and it shows Christ died by crucifixion.

' Moreover, as I said already, Quran doesn’t deny that there appeared to be some kind of crucifixion. So then if it appeared that Jesus was being crucified, naturally the historical data will suggest the same and historians will definitely reach the conclusion that Jesus had indeed been crucified.'

It says it appeared as though Christ was crucified, which is why Muslims ASSUME it was someone else. However, the evidence shows the disciples believed that Christ was crucified, but the Quran says that those who differ are full of doubts, really? we do not see any evidence to this, everyone believed Christ died, it was only gnostics in the second century that denied it, because they didn't believe Jesus was a man.

'Does this however mean that we can’t build a case against crucifixion? Certainly not. Let us examine theimage of Jesus as a crucified Messiah. The problem here is that “crucified messiah” is a clear cutcontradiction of terms. By definition the Messiah has to be victorious over his enemies, if he is killed bythe enemies, he is not the Messiah. '

This does not mean Jesus was never crucified, Bart Ehrman does not believe jesus was the messiah but believes he was crucified. However psalm 22 and Isiah 53 shows he will die. He was victorious as he rose again and will be victorious when he comes back again.

'Let us briefly have a look at the evidence for the resurrection to see if there is any hope that Jerriton canpersuade us that Jesus actually rose from the dead. The Gospel evidence is marked by contradiction anddoubt. If we look at the earliest Gospel, what evidence do we have for resurrection? Mark does notdescribe any actual reappearance of Jesus. Here is the actual lack of evidence.'

There is no contradiction just differences. He does say that Jesus rose again and it tells us of an angel who tells them he has risen. Matthew, Luke and John show a more detailed account. you have to remember that authors were limited to writing material and therefore put in what they thought was important and gets the picture across. there is no lack of evidence you have shown nothing, but the fact mark is not as detailed as the others, so what? the Quran shows hardly any detail on surah 4 aya 157 should we then just say it never happened?

'others wrote new and improved Gospels, for example Mathew supplies guards to the tomb toensure that no one could have stolen the body. Raymond Brown says about this narrative of Mathewthat if there were guards actually at the tomb other gospels will make no sense. Each gospel writtencomes us with his improved version of the story and these versions but naturally contradict each other.'

How are they new and improved? they are just different and explained further in certain places. Yes matthew tells us about the guards and mark doesn't so what? watch a football amtch and when they interview the fans at the end, every account is different but they all watched the match, they just explain certain things in more detail than others. How does the other gospels not make sense? Raymond brown also believes John never made up the IAM sayings to Jesus do you believe him on that?

'About Jesus’ reappearance Raymond Brown tells us, and I quote “It is quite obvious that the gospels donot agree as to where and to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection.” End of the quote. This is inhis Bible commentary.' They all agree he rose again out of Joseph or aromothias tomb and they all agree he appeared to Mary.

'If the disciples wrote the gospels or supplied information for them, the gospels should have agreed withone another, which they don’t and virtually every scholar agrees on this.In short, we can’t trust these reports of who saw Jesus and where.'

Loads of scholars disagree with what you have just said. The gospels agree and differ but do not contradict.
Even if they did contradict do historians throw them away/ of course not. As William lane craig argues, 'eye witnesses today of certain events may contradict the other eyewitness on a certain criminal .e.g. one says he had brown hair and the other black. But the main thing here is the whole context and that was there was a man, who probably had dark hair, they both agree on this. the same thing with the gospels, they all say Jesus was crucified, buried in Joseph of aromotheis tomb, there was an empty tomb and he rose again. the details of it do not contradict, but even if they do, it does not take away the overall context', this is known as multiple independent attestation.'

'Even when the gospels try to show that Jesus did reappear, yet they show that he could not be positively identified. Mathew’s Gospel says that disciples did see him and worshipped him, but some doubted'

noooo, they doubted if he actually rose again not that he was not God, they just had not seen Christ rise again when Mary told them but then believed when they saw him.

' Judaism understands the Messiah to be a human being (with no connotation of deity or divinity) who will bring about certainchanges in the world and who must fulfill certain specific criteria before being acknowledged as the Messiah.'

Really? so why did the jews who first believed in Christ believe he was God? The Nazarenes are a perfect example.




'Under such reworking of theme, Old Testament has been misinterpreted and wrongly used by Christiansto support their views. A beautiful example is that of Psalms 22:17, "Like a lion, they are at my handsand feet." The Hebrew word for “ 

like a lion” is grammatically similar to the word that would be used byChristians to mean something else. Thus Christians read the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "Theypierced my hands and feet." Christians also claim that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus. Actually, Isaiah 53directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people.'

No it hasn't Jesus did parts of the messianic role on his first coming and then rose again to show that what he will do on his second coming is true, as God raised him from the dead. The old testament says nothing about the messiah coming once and that's it, which is why some Jews believe there will be two messiahs.
I speak Hebrew could you please give me evidence that the word should be lion in Psalm 22? Isiaih 53 is clear and if attached to Isiah 52 and Isiah 53 being Israel, as Jews believe, then show me any evidence of Israel taking the iniquities of men , being pierced, was buried with a rich man in his death?

'Many a times a prophecy is fabricated and then Jesus is made to fulfill it. For example: Mathew 2:23says “He [Jesus] came and resided in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken through the prophetsmight be fulfilled. ‘He shall be called a Nazarene

.’” Since a Nazarene is a resident of the city of Nazarethand this city did not exist during the time period of the Jewish Bible, it is impossible to find thisquotation in the Hebrew Scriptures.'

 

What evidence do you have prophecies are fabricated? you could say the same about the hadith and Muhammad. Believe it or not the word used in the Hebrew bible when is there and it is known as Natzar which is where it says in Isiah and the psalms I will reach out my branch, which means Natzar and jesus is that branch.

Also God knows everything and knows what Nazareth would be called. The Quran says Muhammad Is in the torah, Ahmad was never a name that existed then, so on your basis the Quran is wrong.

 

This shows we can trust the bible and especially the resurrection and that it is very important, as if Jesus did not rise again are faith is in vein. But, he did rise again and the evidence is substantial. glory to god in the highest.

 

God bless

 

    





     


 






 

'




 

 

 


  

Does the Trinity make sense?

For some people the Trinity is something that just does not make any sense (illogical). However, is this true? can the trinity be defined and explained?
This article argues that it can be both defined and explained and I will try and do my best to explain that. The main people for arguing against the trinity are Muslims, with arguments such as the trinity is just the belief in 3 Gods or how can 3 persons be 1?

The Trinity is the one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

NOTE: We are not saying that the Father is the Son, or the Son the Spirit, or the Spirit the Father. It is very common for people to misunderstand the doctrine as to mean that we are saying Jesus is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity does not in any way say this!

The three Biblical doctrines that flow directly into the river that is the Trinity are as follows:

1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable.

2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another - that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.

3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being fully deity---that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.

Does this make sense though Can 3 persons be One God?

God is a title for the highest being in and out of the Universe, if there was anything above what we thought was God then that becomes God. God is not a who but a title like King, Queen, Doctor, President, human, etc you were never born called doctor or president or even born and named human, human is what you are not who you are.
Therefore The son, father and holy spirit are God, as they are the highest being. However, most people will say but these are 3 Gods as there is 3 of them. However, this is not what the New Testament teaches. In the same way when a man and woman get married they do not become two marriages or when you have 6 Muslims you do not then have 6 Islam's, you will say that is WHAT we believe. In the same instance God is the father, son and holy spirit, this is who God is and God is what they are.
Even if we cannot understand the trinity using the laws of physics or human ability does that make it untrue?
If God is a supernatural being and therefore the highest being above the laws of physics should we look to these laws? the laws of physics do not give space for miracles such as people turning sticks into snakes (moses) or The sea being split so people can cross the sea (moses) or even Muhammad taking a night flight to Jerusalem, as these things cannot be done naturally. Can we explain them? of course not, how do we know how God raised the sea with Moses? what laws did God use? We do not know. You could even push it to say how can someone or something be eternal? as we believe God is eternal. Therefore, we can say even if we can not naturally explain the process it does not make it untrue, so if the new testament teaches the trinity and it being a supernatural being, then saying it does not makes contradicts all supernatural things (miracles).


God Bless

Response to Muslim by Choice

I came across this video on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCNmx11QNPM by a Muslim who calls himself Muslim by choice and He/She has made many videos trying to disprove Christianity, prove Islam, debates etc.
In the video above he/she shows James White explaining the variant of 1 Timothy 3:16 as later manuscripts say God was manifested in the flesh, where as the earlier manuscripts say He who was manifested in the flesh. James White clearly demonstrates that God and He who are two words that are nearly the same, but God has a line above it as seen in the video. Papyri was rough paper and original/ early manuscripts of Koine Greek were written in capitals with no spaces and the paper had lines like lined paper we have today. I mean it was like this IWENTTOTHEPARKWITHMYFRIEND, have you not had in school when you wrote on lined paper and you may put T.... and may think it said I.... just because the lines on the paper may play tricks on your mind. It was even harder with Koine Greek  All this variant shows in 1 Timothy 3 16 is not a major viable corruption but a spelling mistake where a later scribe wrote the wrong letter instead of the other which changed the outcome of the word. How does this show meaningful corruption where the entire New Testament should be thrown out and discarded?
Muslim By Choice has posted videos by a Muslim apologist called Adnan Rashid in the past as showing that the Sana manuscripts of the Quaran are not different to the standard Quaran as we have today. Even though I disagree and have shown this in my previous post on my blog, Adnan Rashid in his debate with James White on the text of the Quaran and the bible admits that thereare spelling mistakes in the manuscript tradition and the latest topsaki variants of the topsaki manuscript has been published which shows non meaningful variants (spelling mistakes and viable variants. Even the Tafsir comments on variants between manuscripts.
Would Muslim By Choice then be consistent and say the Quaran is corrupt? of course not.

Gerd Puin who I use as a source to show Quaranic corruption (that being viable and meaningful corruption) demonstrates how the foggs palimpsest manuscript of the Quaran has these viable and meaningful variants to the standard Quaran. Even though Muslims keep saying he does not say anything is different, his books and academic journals say completely the opposite.
On page 302 of his book Die Dunklen Anfänge he says in surah 5 aya 46 of the foggs manuscript we read for a people who faith/ is  assured where as in the standard text we read to those who fear \God.

By actually looking at the evidence and being consistent a Muslim cannot say the New Testament original wording is lost.

Islamic consistency or inconsistency?

As the holiday season comes to an end the debate between Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Hindus etc continues.
As I look back on 2012 I see many Islamic apologists attacking other faiths, as if for some reason that proves Islam is true. If I disprove Hinduism that does not mean Christianity is true? If I disprove all faiths that does not mean Christianity is true? No, you have to prove your faith is true.

Now many Muslims target the bible as a way to seek truth in Islam. However, my argument focuses on the double standards they use a long the way to prove their faith and that it is a must for them to use double standards, because if they were consistent they would have to throw out the Quaran as a divine historical text. Even though I am not going to go into too much detail in regards to the Islamic claims to divinity; I want to focus on Muslims irrational claims that when making an argument against another faith they have a similar problem that would also affect the Quaran and that the same standard they use to prove their faith fails to meet a consistent standard when making an argument against another faith

1. The Quaran claims that it has the historical words of Jesus of Nazareth; however, when we look at the Quaran we see certain words of Jesus in the Quaran showing similarities to the words of Jesus in apocryphal gospels such the Arabic infancy gospel and the infancy gospel of Thomas. For example:


The Quran says:

19:29-31 The people said, "How shall we talk with him, who is but an infant in the cradle?" Whereupon the child spoke out, "I am a servant of Allah: He has given me the Book and He has appointed me a Prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I may be. He has enjoined upon me to offer Salat and give Zakat so long as I shall live.

Arabic infancy gospel


We have found it recorded in the book of Josephus the Chief Priest, who was in the time of Christ (and men say that he was Caiaphas), that this man said that Jesus spake when He was in the cradle, and said to Mary His Mother, "Verily I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word which thou hast borne, according as the angel Gabriel gave thee the good news; and My Father hath sent Me for the salvation of the world."

In Sura 19:30, Jesus says, "I am the servant of Allah," but in the Arabic Infancy Gospel, he says, "I am Jesus, the Son of God."

It is clear we can see borrowing. The Arabic infancy gospel shows parallels with the Syriac infancy gospel. It created fables centuries after Jesus. The reason we know this is the fact the gospel shows no historical source it used. We can make a few assumptions but that is about it. The Arabic infancy gospel focuses on Jesus life as child, as we do not see this in the four canonical gospels in much detail. Many gnostic gospels did this to try and fit in the gaps. Now Christian scholars will admit that we do not know how Matthew and Luke knew about Jesus being born of Mary in Bethlehem unless they spoke to Mary or Jesus for it to be confirmed, as they were not at the birth or there during his early years in childhood. Now who would of spoken about Jesus speaking from a cradle in the first century for an oral tradition to pass over 400 years to someone in a foreign land to write it in one known gospel? The arabic infancy gospel. We know it is not historical, as how did anyone know this? You have to prove that the source it used had communications with Mary or Jesus, or an apostle that was told this by Mary or Jesus. The Arabic infancy gospel also show no relations to anything in 1st century palestine or even Palestine itself. IT makes  claim that at a robber who will be crucified along with Jesus is called Dumachus, which shows no relation to any 1st century palestinian name. Bruce Metzger argues in New Testament Studies book that the Arabic Infancy Gospel shows a variant reading of the Acts of Pilate (third century book) that has a different person on the cross known as KECTAC. In the book of Hierotheus in the 12th century the robber on the cross is called Zumachus. We can clearly see an evolution of this robber on the cross, which is what late gospels did, they taken stories from gospels and evoloved them to their own theology.
This gospel had no access to 1st century Palestine nor the eye witnesses to Jesus themselves, therefore it is not historicaly true, meaning the Quaran is wrong.
However, many Muslims will argue that Jesus may have said the verse that is contained in the arabic infancy gospel that has made it's way into the Quaran, as it just got passed down through oral tradition and everything got mixed up and some historical sayings of Jesus are in many gospels but also unhistorical and the Quaran has come to correct them. But, how can you use this as an argument? For example Muslim will use produce a surah like it as an argument to show the Quaran is from God by using historical analysis, such as  comparing ancient Arabic literature, Arabic linguistics etc to show it is supposedly from God, but then throw out all historical analysis when something shows the quaran is wrong by making an argument from silence, when as shown above the verse that is in the arabic infancy gospel that has made it into the Quaran did not come from the historical Jesus. Now I have no problem with making an argument from silence if there is no evidence to something, but when there is evidence something is an error or correct we should believe the outcome. So, why the double standard? We might as well just say the Quaran was revealed by the devil not God and that he is very intelligent and was able to disguise himself as an angel and reveal the Quaran to Muhammad. The bible says the devil will come in forms of Angels and deceive people. Could we not just say the bible is making an accurate prophecy? and that the quaran is not unique at all; Muhammad copied the science in the Quaran from a genius in Arabia who was also able to show amazing uniqueness compared to any other poet at the time and then Muhammad killed him and burnt all his other works and said it was from God and shocked everyone. Would you allow me to do this? I mean it could be true but you would just say what is your evidence? and I ask you what is your evidence the Arabic infancy gospel was able to know that Jesus spoke from a cradle which is in the Quaran?

Another common argument made by Muslims is the fact that we do not know who wrote the gospels, so how can we trust them?
Without even looking at the internal evidence we can just look at the external evidence. Papias an early church bishop knew one of the Lords disciples John the elder who was not part of the 12 but walked with Jesus. Papias tells us how he heard the gospel being preached by the elder; Papias tells  us that Matthew who was an eye witness and a disciple of the Lord wrote the gospel of Mathhew. Mark was not an eye witness but wrote his gospel according to the interpretation of Peter the apostle. Papias does not specifically talk about the gospel of Luke or John, but may of originally wrote about John ( we only have parchments of the writings Papias) due to his relations with John the Elder, which is what Richard Bauckham argues in his book Jesus and the eye witnesses (2008).
Irenaeus an early church father who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle and tells us that Matthew wrote Matthew, John wrote John etc. He mentions all four gospels and the current names we have to them. He tells us like Papias that Peter was the interpreter for Mark and Matthew was an eye witness, that Luke walked with Paul and his gospel was according to eye witness testimony. That John the evangelist wrote Johns gospel.
In John's gospel the author even claims to be an eye witness (John 20:21), so why should we not believe him? As John Meier states in his historical Jesus lecture that John knows Jewish customs, 1st century Palestinian names, Jewish dietary systems, Jewish Law, The Torah and Tanakh, 1st century Palestinian agriculture and archaeology, cities, towns, people etc. So why should he just be thrown out as an eye witness? even if we did not know the authors name that changes nothing. For example, if you have a gospel of Peter that said I am peter the apostle at the beginning of his gospel, but shown errors in Jewish customs etc, but then had an unknown author who claims to be an eye witness and knows everything you would know the unknown gospel is still more reliable. Therefore as D A Carson says in commentary of the gospel of John, 'I see know reason to doubt that the gospel of John was based on an eyewitness account'.
Now lets look at the Quaran authorship. Even though Muslims will say it comes from God and passed through Muhammad, we would say the same thing about the bible but instead of it being God saying it to a prophet it is the eye witnesses who walekd with Jessu telling us about the life of Jesus through what they saw and heard in different accounts through the Holy Spirit. Now, even though Muhammad passed on the Quaran, who established the quaran into a complete written text? Muslims will use the hadith to prove this not the Quaran. The hadith is a collection of works and sayings of Muhammad that is done through chains of narration (Isnad). Now scholars will use various things such as did this person know this person? were they in the same area? did they know the prophet or a companion of the prophet? reporters memory? etc, to determine the strength of the Isnad chain. (Asher Elkayam - 2009, The Quaran and Biblical origins)
Now look the Quaran uses historical anlysis using outside sources to show the Quaran's origin. Many Muslims will say we believe the Quaran and that is the most importance, but the hadith plays a vital role to the history of the Quaran's origins and transmission as a spoken recension and text. So why the inconnistency? why should we believe in Usman? and the 7 ahrufs? sayings of Muhammad? transmission of the Quaran after Muhammad death? the hadiths show of Quaran tradition? Christian scholars use similiar ways to authenticate the bible's authors. Papias knew John the elder who walked with Christ and Ireneous who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle. Now disciple means learner, so they learnt from their teacher, so why trust Isnad chains when we see a similiar but also different tradition with the followers of Jesus and their disciples? Inconsistency.
Muslims may not even propose this and just say well the bible is corrupt, so that is why the Quaran came to correct and confirm what was lost. They may use verses that are in doubt such as Mark 16 9:20, 1 john 5:7. However, we can give good reason to the fact that they are not original .e.g.  1 john 5 7 was added in the 15h century. Mark 16 9:20 is in all our later manuscripts. even though I could go into greater detail, the point I am trying to make is the Muslims have similar problems. Muslims do not obtain the original Quaranic text of Usman or Hafsa's Quaranic text, as reported in Sakik al Bukhari. Muslims only have copies but also two early reciters of the Quaran who Muhammad saw as good , who have conflicting Quarans. They are Ibn Masud and Zaid Bin Thabit. Ibn Mauds copy had two less Surahs the Zaid Ibn Thabit but many Muslims will say they still have the same Quaran and both are God's word it is just Zaid Ibn thabit had the Quaran in the Quereyshi dialect and Zaid's extra verses are still God's word., which the Quaran was revealed, however, this is not something Muhammad approved, he said that Ibn Masud was able to recite the Quaran. So what is the meaning of all this? Well due to the fact Usman burning all the Quaran manuscripts that pre dated his standardised Quaran we cannot go back further than the standardised text of Usman, therefore we cannot obtain the original Quaran unless using textual criticism  However, there is a problem, there were a bunch of Quaranic manuscripts that were found in Sana known as the Fogg's palimpsest manuscripts. Many Muslim will just say the different words that are found in the Fogg's compared to the Topsaki manuscript for example are just dialect differences. However, this is not what Gerd Puin an Islamic scholar points out in his book Die Dunklen Afange page 302. He says 'in Surah 5 aya 46 we can read people whose faith is assured, where as in the standardised text we read to those who fear God in Surah 5 aya 46. Now this is a vaiable variant (corruption of the text).
On page 315 Gerd Puin continues by saying that the same tradition of Ibn masud's quaran that is reported in the Fihrist shows similarities to the foggs palimpsest manuscript, due to variant readings. Even though Gerd Puin does not say it is in fact a copy of Ibn Maud's Quaran, the point is there are variant readings in the quaranic manuscripts. So why the inconsistency? when you have the same problem. Muslims may say, 'but the quaran means recitation and it does not matter if the text is corrupt, as it is recorded on the hearts of believers as they say it in their daily prayers'. However, Muslims do not say every word of the Quaran in their daily prayers and even if they did we need the manuscripts to show what the Muslim of 1st century and 2nd century hijra were reciting, so it plays a vital part.

From what has been demonstrated it is clear the there is clear inconsistencies in the Quaran and without Muslims being inconsistent they would have to throw the Quaran away, as it would fail to reach a consistent standard with other faiths.

God Bless