Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Awaiting_for_the12th

Misquoting Jesus

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Peace be on to all fellas...

so i was just browsing youtube and i found this out... the person is extremely knowledgable and was an ex-christian and now gnostic... He is a professor who spent his life in studying history of Christianity and Bible, and he is not only a professor but the head of department of religious studies at University of North Carolina.

I would love some comments and do recommend to watch all parts of the video... i am not here for debate but this does make people think...

"there are more differences in our manuscripts, than there are words in the New Testament" ... the worst part is his audience is obviously knowledgable people and not just blind faith and they were laughing at Bible itself :|

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo&feature=related

peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the lecture was very informative. Bart Erhman is the first modern day scholar to put this into the public sphere. The worst Christians do to this is say that the changes weren't "significant" or that we have 1000s of manuscripts. The fact is simple. The Bible has undergone change and evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the lecture was very informative. Bart Erhman is the first modern day scholar to put this into the public sphere. The worst Christians do to this is say that the changes weren't "significant" or that we have 1000s of manuscripts. The fact is simple. The Bible has undergone change and evolution.

The fact is, that isn't new or unknown. The issue is not has the Bible 'changed' but what does this 'change' constitute? You're assuming your Islamic doctrine of inspiration and imposing it on the Christian doctrine of inspiration. You obviously don't understand the Christian doctrine of inspiration. The doctrine doesn't teach that the text of the New Testament and Old Testament lack error in manuscript or transmission and that therefore they are inspired. But, rather that the propositions (spoken, and written) are inspired. These oral propositions spoken by the Prophets, Apostles, and witnesses were inscripturated and form the only sufficient, and certain infallible rule for the Church of God-The Bible. Opposed to this is the Islamic fanstasy that God sent a book down. We don't believe that. Scripture was providentially revealed, and providentially identified by the church. You mock the sovereignty of God.

Edited by Maranatha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

The fact is, that isn't new or unknown. The issue is not has the Bible 'changed' but what does this 'change' constitute? You're assuming your Islamic doctrine of inspiration and imposing it on the Christian doctrine of inspiration. You obviously don't understand the Christian doctrine of inspiration. The doctrine doesn't teach that the text of the New Testament and Old Testament lack error in manuscript or transmission and that therefore they are inspired. But, rather that the propositions (spoken, and written) are inspired. These oral propositions spoken by the Prophets, Apostles, and witnesses were inscripturated and form the only sufficient, and certain infallible rule for the Church of God-The Bible. Opposed to this is the Islamic fanstasy that God sent a book down. We don't believe that. Scripture was providentially revealed, and providentially identified by the church. You mock the sovereignty of God.

So, brother, amidst what you've just said, do you still stand by that every word of the New Testament is God's word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

So, brother, amidst what you've just said, do you still stand by that every word of the New Testament is God's word?

I'm not your brother, we adhere to two opposing religions. Lets avoid the ecumenism. We are at opposite ends in almost all things. Do you not understand what I just said? The Christians scriptures are not inspired because of the words, but the propositions therein. And, you should clarify 'God's word' since apparently you still assume your Islamic understanding. I can easily say "The Word of God" is the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I'm not your brother, we adhere to two opposing religions. Lets avoid the ecumenism. We are at opposite ends in almost all things. Do you not understand what I just said? The Christians scriptures are not inspired because of the words, but the propositions therein. And, you should clarify 'God's word' since apparently you still assume your Islamic understanding. I can easily say "The Word of God" is the Bible.

Imam 'Ali (as) said: "If he is not your brother in Islam, he is your brother in humanity".

So brother, let's look into this a bit deeper. It is known that some verses of today's Bible were not in the earliest versions of these Gospels you hold up as "The Word of God" or whatever else you would like to call them. Some verses about the Resurrection, the verse of the trinity in 1 John, the story of the prostitute, and other verses have been proven to be fabrications - additions to the text that took place after their writers were long gone. Do you also consider these verses as the the word of God, in an equal sense to the verses that were in the oldest manuscripts?

If so, then what if in one thousand years, more changes were to take place - would this also be the word of God? Why is it that the only proof your God gave you of His son's alleged sacrifice for the past two thousand years were these four Gospels (and other writings), which have been added to, whose authorship is in question, which are inconsistent with themselves, and authenticity unprovable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is known that some verses of today's Bible were not in the earliest versions of these Gospels you hold up as "The Word of God" or whatever else you would like to call them. Some verses about the Resurrection, the verse of the trinity in 1 John, the story of the prostitute, and other verses have been proven to be fabrications - additions to the text that took place after their writers were long gone. Do you also consider these verses as the the word of God, in an equal sense to the verses that were in the oldest manuscripts?

Okay, 'brother' lets talk about these 'verses'. Firstly, the verses are not contradictory or unbiblical in the sense that they do not represent a contrast or an anti-biblical position. So, to argue against a Christian world view on the basis that the text contains additions, or editions is not an attack on Christianity, but a caricature of the doctrine of inspiration that isn't taught by the church evangelical, and Reformed.

Again, it doesn't follow that Christ came, was God incarnate God is a Trinity, God sent his son to die for a people because of minor additions of the resurrection, or interpretations of other texts, or perhaps oral traditions. In case you didn't know, the resurrection is still assumed in Mark, the passage in 1 John isn't necessary to establish the Trinity (since this addition can be traced to the 9th century, yet our holy doctrine has existed since the beginning of the church itself), the story of the prostitute is also considered an oral tradition by the church.

Dan Wallace is a Textual Critic who has critiqued Bart Ehrman for his views http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtsWSOjHrr4

If so, then what if in one thousand years, more changes were to take place - would this also be the word of God?

You're assuming I think these passages are the Word of God, what if I don't?

Why is it that the only proof your God gave you of His son's alleged sacrifice for the past two thousand years were these four Gospels (and other writings), which have been added to, whose authorship is in question, which are inconsistent with themselves, and authenticity unprovable?

Why is that you'd expect twenty first century standards of authorship for the Gospels written in the 1st century? Furthermore, its blatantly clear that you do not seek out to know the doctrine of inspiration, but holding to your own understanding which is not the one of the Christian church.I'm willing to explain, but I'm unwilling to waste time on someone who is lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Okay, 'brother' lets talk about these 'verses'. Firstly, the verses are not contradictory or unbiblical in the sense that they do not represent a contrast or an anti-biblical position. So, to argue against a Christian world view on the basis that the text contains additions, or editions is not an attack on Christianity, but a caricature of the doctrine of inspiration that isn't taught by the church evangelical, and Reformed.

My point was not if they contradicted the text or not, but if you take these fabricated verses as the word of God or not.

I understand the Christian concept of divine inspiration in the New Testament - that the books were not "dictated by God", but rather the Holy Spirit inspired these men to write.

But a certain verse comes to mind. Now we Muslims don't believe in the Book of Revelations, but you do:

"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book" (Revelations 22:18)

Since the book of Revelations, much has been added - it does not matter if what was added was consistent or not, but rather the fact that it was added anyway means that you share the same plagues the Muslims allegedly do for not striking these verses out of the Bible.

Why is that you'd expect twenty first century standards of authorship for the Gospels written in the 1st century?

21st century standards eh? All I am saying is that there is no evidence to suggest that these books were written by their attributed authors. This is the standard of no specific century. As "recorders" for Jesus (as), writing completely anonymously for reasons unknown, to say that they waited almost 40-100 years to produced a Gospel is questionable. And of the lack of characteristics usually attributed to an eyewitness account. All of this makes the authorship doubtful at best. This is why contemporary Biblical scholars have quickly changed their stance on the authorship of these Gospels, from Matthew the Evangelist to an anonymous Jewish Christian, etc. His name may not have even been Matthew - as pen names and anonymous text is appropriate for smaller, persecuted movements like Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...