Canon and the Authenticity of Scripture

Tim Robbins

Excelsior wrote:

Lads, do you not think it is a great thing that the Catholic church has made careful restoration of Scriptural authority over the last generations so that a lot of the non-Scriptural traditions have been de-emphasised (not eradicated) to free us up to worship God more fully, free from the debris of man-made tradition?

Eh what do you mean by scripture?
Do you mean only scripture in the Bible?
or
scripture that is in the Bible and not in the Bible? e.g. Gospel of Thomas, Peter etc.
Or do you mean any scripture from any faith?

And what do you mean by "authority"?

As soon as you say something like, scripture has authority you are into all sorts of circular logic.
Here's example, watch this go round and round.

Q. How do we the scripture has authority?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. But how do we know it is the word of God?
A. Because it says it is.
Q. But how can we trust that, how does it have authority?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. But how do we know it is the word of God?
A. Because it says it is.
Q. But how can we trust that, how does it have authority?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. But how do we know it is the word of God?
A. Because it says it is.
Q. But how can we trust that, how does it have authority?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. But how do we know it is the word of God?
A. Because it says it is.
Q. But how can we trust that, how does it have authority?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. But how do we know it is the word of God?
A. Because it says it is.

In fact you cannot derive a logical argument for God from scripture as it becomes circular quite quickly.

You are also still left with why is a particular scripture (New Testament)better or more trustworthy than another scripture (e.g. Quran)?

Is one just a fake? Is one historically incurate?

Or why should we trust the Gospel of Mark and not the Gospel of Peter? Surely Peter knew Jesus better, why not trust his Gospel? Why put trust in Roman empires of 4th century who decided which Gospels went into the Bible and which Gospels should be expelled?

This problem gets even more complex when you consider that many faiths have their own scripture not just Christianity and Islam.

Furthemore, why is something true just because it's written down?
Is the Sunday Independent true because it's written down and is read by the masses?

Most Catholics I know, know this and cherry pick the scripture for bits that they connect with. For example, they leave the mass genocide and the killing and connect with things like, 'Let he who has no sin, cast the first stone', and they connect with the traditions and philosophy of the Catholic Church.

Go Christians!

robindch

> The truth never changes just as God never changes.

This is certainly a common belief. However, what's believed from generation to generation changes all the time -- Albert Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus was one of the first books which pointed out that each generation's interpretation of Jesus Christ reflected contemporary expectations. This hasn't changed.

> Priests don't seem to warn us any more of the danger of ignoring the moral
> teachings of the Church.

It's been a while since I've been at a catholic service, but I'd imagine you're quite right here that the church would have had to tone down its moralizing, having lost most of what it had over paedophile priests. The general move away from authoritarianism and superstition over the last thirty years or so (following the rise in education, literacy, travel and living standards) hasn't helped it much either.

> BTW, in what way would the Church not have been taken seriously if it
> hadn't changed?

The church would have largely disappeared if it hadn't evolved to changing social circumstances and expectations in Ireland. People these days wouldn't tolerate the way the church and its priests behaved as they did in rural Ireland during the 50's, when (for example) they used to supervise village dances and separate people if they danced too closely together, or when a catholic priest called for (and got) a sectarian boycott of protestants, as infamously happened in Fethard-on-Sea etc, etc.

But even having changed somewhat, it's still dying quickly, with the much more lively and appealing protestant variations ("Find one that says what you want to hear!") picking up what the catholic church loses. Personally, within the next 50 years, I'd expect the catholic church in Ireland to have diminished to something like the church of England is today.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

But even having changed somewhat, it's still dying quickly, with the much more lively and appealing protestant variations ("Find one that says what you want to hear!") picking up what the catholic church loses. Personally, within the next 50 years, I'd expect the catholic church in Ireland to have diminished to something like the church of England is today.

I don't think the Protestant variations are picking up leftovers. Their attendances are down too (I only have anecdotal evidence for that) and in some cases, they've had to amalgamate or share their Churches.
That said, I'd be open to correction and would be interested any evidence you might have. I think some Irish Catholics still have hang up about Protestants due to our colonial past. I appreciate Wolf Tone, Parnell and many others were of Protestant faith but most people don't even know that and are basicially a bit prejudiced towards Protestants.

That's just an opinion, I have no statistical evidence.

robindch

> don't think the Protestant variations are picking up leftovers.

Perhaps not all of the leftovers, but certainly some of them, as well as new converts and immigrants If you take a look at the stats from the CSO's Volume 12, specifically in the "Tables 1-10" document at:

http://www.cso.ie/census/Vol12.htm

...the figures for mainstream protestants are up by around 25% while the market-driven presbyterian and methodist populations are up by 35% and 50% respectively, though admittedly from small bases. The stats don't say how much of this increase comes from immigrants, but even assuming as many immigrants as locals account for the increases, they're still pretty substantial in percentage terms.

> basicially a bit prejudiced towards Protestants.

Yes, you're right, though this prejudice seems to be generally, though not exclusively, directed against the "mainstream", old-style protestants (CofI, CofE), rather than the recent variations which are transmitted principally from the USA and the North of Ireland and which live under the protestant umbrella, but haven't been around long enough to generate much prejudice. I'm open to correction on this, but that's my finger-in-the-wind feeling.

kelly1

Barnabas wrote:

May the Lord Jesus pour his grace abundantly upon you Noel.

Thanks Barnabas! I'm badly in need of it!

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

Eh what do you mean by scripture?
Do you mean only scripture in the Bible?
or
scripture that is in the Bible and not in the Bible? e.g. Gospel of Thomas, Peter etc.
Or do you mean any scripture from any faith?!

Scripture: God inspired writings. The books of the OT are talked about in the NT as being authoritative. Since Jesus, who is God, described them as such, I'll take His word for it.

Tim Robbins wrote:

And what do you mean by "authority"?!

Tim Robbins wrote:

Inspired by God.

As soon as you say something like, scripture has authority you are into all sorts of circular logic.
Here's example, watch this go round and round.

Q. How do we the scripture has authority?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. But how do we know it is the word of God?
A. Because it says it is.
Q. But how can we trust that, how does it have authority?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. But how do we know it is the word of God?
A. Because it says it is.
Q. But how can we trust that, how does it have authority?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. But how do we know it is the word of God?
A. Because it says it is.
Q. But how can we trust that, how does it have authority?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. But how do we know it is the word of God?
A. Because it says it is.
Q. But how can we trust that, how does it have authority?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. But how do we know it is the word of God?
A. Because it says it is.

In fact you cannot derive a logical argument for God from scripture as it becomes circular quite quickly.!

The part you are missing herre Tim is that What was written in the NT has been shown to be historically correct and passes every test of historical biographical analysis, that shows that the gospels were written in the early 60's (except John) and that Paul letters were written in the late 30's into the 40's.

With all of this activity going on, there is not one writing ever found that contradicts any of the events in Jesus' life. Only writings that support the events in the NT.

So it is not as you described above.

Tim Robbins wrote:

You are also still left with why is a particular scripture (New Testament)better or more trustworthy than another scripture (e.g. Quran)?

Is one just a fake? Is one historically incurate?!

The Bible - authorized by Jesus, God Himself. About Jesus, God incarnate. Nothing written from the time to contradict it. Written within one generation of His life, by those who were either direct eyewitnesses or were writing as dictated by eyewitnesses.

The Qu'ran (I'm no expert here)- written 500 or so years after the death of it's main character Mohammed. Sura 4:157, is explicit and emphatic: “They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them…for of a surety they killed him not.” Although we know that Christ was crucified. The Qu'ran has it wrong. Mohammed asks for forgiveness, wheras Jesus asks, 'Can you prove me guilty of sin? (John 8:46, 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 John 3:5).

The central character of the Bible is Jesus, God, who became man and had impeccable morals. The central character of the Qu'ran is a man, who had questionable morals.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Or why should we trust the Gospel of Mark and not the Gospel of Peter? Surely Peter knew Jesus better, why not trust his Gospel? Why put trust in Roman empires of 4th century who decided which Gospels went into the Bible and which Gospels should be expelled?!

Your facts are wrong here. The 3 of the gospels were written before AD62. John was written in the 90's. The other gospels were written in the 2nd and 3rd century. The books that we currently have in the Bible were recognized as authoritative by Origin, Eusebius etc, as early as AD115. They were widely used and accepted by Christians as early as the 40's as they were written by Paul, distributed and read in churches and Christian gatherings.

At the council of Nicea they became 'official' when recognized by the new Christian government of Rome. The 'other' so called gospels were never taken seriously because they didn't live up to scrutiny.

It would be like me writing a paper on biology and expecting it to be used as a university textbook. It wouldn't happen.

Tim Robbins wrote:

This problem gets even more complex when you consider that many faiths have their own scripture not just Christianity and Islam.!

of course they do. But what is their source? The Bibles source and what makes it quite different, is that it is about God becoming flesh to create a direct communication with His creation.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Furthemore, why is something true just because it's written down?
Is the Sunday Independent true because it's written down and is read by the masses?

B3ecause the facts are verifiable.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Most Catholics I know, know this and cherry pick the scripture for bits that they connect with. For example, they leave the mass genocide and the killing and connect with things like, 'Let he who has no sin, cast the first stone', and they connect with the traditions and philosophy of the Catholic Church.

Go Christians!

And cherry picking the Bible is wrong. It is either the word of God and to be used to have the Holy Spirit speak to you, or not. It is to be used to rebuke and correct.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 (New International Version)
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

Scripture: God inspired writings. The books of the OT are talked about in the NT as being authoritative. Since Jesus, who is God, described them as such, I'll take His word for it.

More circular logic:
Q. How do I know God inspired the writings?
A. Because the writings say so.
Q. But how do I know the writings are correct?
A. Becuase God inspired them.
Q. How do I know God inspired the writings?
A. Because the writings say so.
Q. But how do I know the writings are correct?
A. Becuase God inspired them.
Q. How do I know God inspired the writings?
A. Because the writings say so.
Q. But how do I know the writings are correct?
A. Becuase God inspired them.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The part you are missing herre Tim is that What was written in the NT has been shown to be historically correct and passes every test of historical biographical analysis, that shows that the gospels were written in the early 60's (except John) and that Paul letters were written in the late 30's into the 40's.

You cannot show something is historical correct, unless you have a time machine. I accept, many theologians have argued the dates you suggested, but so where the Gospels that were rejected from the Bible. How does one acertain which Gospel, if any is correct? It is impossible to this logically, objectively or scientifically.

With all of this activity going on, there is not one writing ever found that contradicts any of the events in Jesus' life. Only writings that support the events in the NT.

No that's wrong. The Gospel of Peter says that Jesus did not suffer when he died on the cross, the other Gospels imply that he did suffer.

The Bible - authorized by Jesus, God Himself. About Jesus, God incarnate. Nothing written from the time to contradict it. Written within one generation of His life, by those who were either direct eyewitnesses or were writing as dictated by eyewitnesses.

No that's wrong the Bible was not written within one generation of his life, some of the scripture was. Some of the scripture did contradict itself, Peter's, contradicted the canocial gospels.

The Qu'ran (I'm no expert here)- written 500 or so years after the death of it's main character Mohammed. Sura 4:157, is explicit and emphatic: “They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them…for of a surety they killed him not.” Although we know that Christ was crucified. The Qu'ran has it wrong. Mohammed asks for forgiveness, wheras Jesus asks, 'Can you prove me guilty of sin? (John 8:46, 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 John 3:5).

There are a number of possible permutations here:

1. Bible is right, Quran is wrong.
2. Bible is wrong, Quran is right.
3. Bible is wrong, Quran is wrong.

There are several other cases
4. Bible is in part right, Quran is wrong.
5. Bible is in part right, Quran is in part right.
etc. etc.

Unless you have a time machine, you do not know for certain which one of the above is correct.

The central character of the Bible is Jesus, God, who became man and had impeccable morals. The central character of the Qu'ran is a man, who had questionable morals.

Morals are relative. Luke 19, Jesus mentions killing people. I don't call killing people good morals.

Your facts are wrong here. The 3 of the gospels were written before AD62. John was written in the 90's. The other gospels were written in the 2nd and 3rd century. The books that we currently have in the Bible were recognized as authoritative by Origin, Eusebius etc, as early as AD115. They were widely used and accepted by Christians as early as the 40's as they were written by Paul, distributed and read in churches and Christian gatherings.

Which fact of mine is wrong? Be more specific.

At the council of Nicea they became 'official' when recognized by the new Christian government of Rome. The 'other' so called gospels were never taken seriously because they didn't live up to scrutiny.

"they didn't live up to scrutiny", this is the crux of the matter. Who determines scrutiny?

It would be like me writing a paper on biology and expecting it to be used as a university textbook. It wouldn't happen.

That's a pathetic analogy. A concerted effort was made to keep particular narratives of Jesus away from people. Why can't people read all the narratives and all the Gospels make up their own mind?

of course they do. But what is their source? The Bibles source and what makes it quite different, is that it is about God becoming flesh to create a direct communication with His creation.

That is not a source.

B3ecause the facts are verifiable.

The "facts" are neither verifiable or falsifiable. They are not facts. Unless you are a fundamentalist, they are statements.

And cherry picking the Bible is wrong. It is either the word of God and to be used to have the Holy Spirit speak to you, or not. It is to be used to rebuke and correct.

And we end with circular logic:
Q. How do know there is a God and Hold Spirit?
A. Because it says it in the Bible.
Q. How do we know the Bible is accurate?
A. Because it is the word of God and Holy Spirit
Q. How do know there is a God and Hold Spirit?
A. Because it says it in the Bible.
Q. How do we know the Bible is accurate?
A. Because it is the word of God and Holy Spirit
Q. How do know there is a God and Hold Spirit?
A. Because it says it in the Bible.
Q. How do we know the Bible is accurate?
A. Because it is the word of God and Holy Spirit
Q. How do know there is a God and Hold Spirit?
A. Because it says it in the Bible.
Q. How do we know the Bible is accurate?
A. Because it is the word of God and Holy Spirit

And may I just revert back to the OP i.e. Catholic traditions, my favourite would be
1. Peace be with you
2. Giving up something for lent

However my Catholic background was not as intense as others, my school was a community School and would have been on the more liberal side of Catholism or more of a non-denominal school as there were several Protestants. No Chaplain ever thumped scripture into your head, they just tried to convery a sense of spirtuality, compassion and a bit of moral philosophy.

BrianCalgary

OK Tim, you point out that the NT was not written within a generation of the events recounted.

John AD 90's
Revelation late 90's
Matthew Mark Luke early 60's
Acts Prior to AD62
Writings of Paul late 30's and 40's and 50's

You state that the only way to know this for sure is to have a time machine. You then go on and tell us that the Bible was put together by a group at the council of Nicea. Where you there to corroborate you particular telling of the events?

No you weren't.

The Bible was written at the times that I have listed above. The books of the Bible were being actively read throughout churches in the Roman world as early as the latter half of the first century AD. Read Papias AD125, Iranaeus AD180 to name a couple.

The gospel of Peter you cite as an example of a writing of the time that does 'No that's wrong. The Gospel of Peter says that Jesus did not suffer when he died on the cross, the other Gospels imply that he did suffer.'

The other Gospels don't imply that He suffered, they state that He did suffer. pliny, a Roman Governer says that He suffered.

The Gsopel of Peter certainly was not recognized as being authoritative in the early church as it wasn't used and copied, hence the lack of manuscripts. It was used by one church in Rhossus in the late 2nd century. The other 4 gospels were used widely throughout Christendom and therefore were copied and hence the large collection of early manuscripts.

Just to set the record staright on teh council of Nicea, it was called to answer thw question of 'who is Jesus?', not to set and debate the books that were to be in the Bible.

As far as using the Bible to support itself, if it wasn't for extant biblical knowledge Tim you would be right that the Bible is self supporting. But that history supports the historical narrative in the NT allows one to regard it as being accurate.

robindch

> But that history supports the historical narrative in the NT allows one
> to regard it as being accurate.

You have said this quite a few times, but you are not correct. While external sources (Josephus, Tacitus et al) have made vague (and contested) references to the existence of Jesus Christ, not a single text -- not a single word -- says anything about alleged miracles, or about Jesus rising from the dead, or about Jesus being the son of god, or about anything that Jesus said, or in fact, about Jesus being anything at all other than a man who lived in Palestine during the first century and who lead some kind of revolt against the Roman Empire.

Regardless of how sincerely you may believe the opposite is true, the extraordinary claims that the bible makes about Jesus are most emphatically not supported by any historical evidence.

.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

OK Tim, you point out that the NT was not written within a generation of the events recounted.

John AD 90's
Revelation late 90's
Matthew Mark Luke early 60's
Acts Prior to AD62
Writings of Paul late 30's and 40's and 50's

That's a straw man, I said
"I accept, many theologians have argued the dates you suggested, but so where the Gospels that were rejected from the Bible"

You state that the only way to know this for sure is to have a time machine. You then go on and tell us that the Bible was put together by a group at the council of Nicea. Where you there to corroborate you particular telling of the events?

I say the only way to show something is historical correct is to have time machine. I maintain that. My opinion on the compilation of the Canon Bible is based on evidence. That is all it is, it is not showing or a proof of correctness.

The Bible was written at the times that I have listed above. The books of the Bible were being actively read throughout churches in the Roman world as early as the latter half of the first century AD. Read Papias AD125, Iranaeus AD180 to name a couple.

No the parts of the Bible, you have listed are considered to be written at those times.
Papias and Iranaeus were not reading the Canon Bible, but a subset of Christian of scripture that ended up being in the Bible.
At the time, there was no single version of Christianity. Marcionism, for example was quite different. There was no official Canon Bible at this time.

Let's have a look at the Catholic encyclopedia:

"The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council"

What's more, there are no original copies of any of the Gospels written in the years you suggested. How many times they were edited, changed, mistranslated is unknown. How much they copied from each other is unknown. How inerrant they are is unknown. How inerrant the non-canonical Gospels are is unknown.

The other Gospels don't imply that He suffered, they state that He did suffer. pliny, a Roman Governer says that He suffered.

The Gsopel of Peter certainly was not recognized as being authoritative in the early church as it wasn't used and copied, hence the lack of manuscripts. It was used by one church in Rhossus in the late 2nd century. The other 4 gospels were used widely throughout Christendom and therefore were copied and hence the large collection of early manuscripts.

What decides authority?

As far as using the Bible to support itself, if it wasn't for extant biblical knowledge Tim you would be right that the Bible is self supporting. But that history supports the historical narrative in the NT allows one to regard it as being accurate.

Ridiculous, you are just straw manning me and making no sense.
My point was never that the Bible is self supporting, it's that arguments based on it get circular quite quickly as I have clearly demonstrated several times in this debate.

As for history supporting the historical narrative, I think Robindch shows the weakness of your point there.

Barnabas

I'm not quite sure how this thread has developed to a debate on the authenticity of Scripture but heregoesmy penny's worth:

There are a few myths being proposed here on this thread as facts – things which seem more in keeping with a Dan Brown novel than with reality. Most scholars would date the gospel of Peter from 70 AD to about 160 AD but none would seriously say that St. Peter wrote it. The Gospel of Thomas is later again. However, all of these non-canonical (i.e. not in the bible) from whatever author they might be, are non-canonical for one plain and simple reason – they do not correspond to the Apostolic faith. They contain heresies – Gospel of Peter is strongly docetist (i.e. Jesus only seemed to be human therefore he didn’t suffer on the cross because only humanity can suffer divinity cannot.) and so it was rejected by the Church. The goal of the Scriptures, and in particular the New Testament, is to communicate and make present the testimony of the faith in Jesus Christ which was lived and handed on by the Apostles. Our faith is Apostolic, i.e. it is built on the witness and preaching of those who lived with and knew Jesus and his ministry – which is why it was important for the Apostles to replace Judas with someone (Matthias) who had been with them from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry until his Ascension. St, Paul of course had a special revelation of this which was later confirmed by the other Apostles – he tells us that he went to Jerusalem to ensure that the gospel he preached corresponded to theirs - and it did.

The writings of the New Testament are those writings which the four ancient Apostolic Sees – i.e. dioceses – in particular had from an early date maintained as being of Apostolic origin or from those who were with the Apostles (Luke and Mark). These Apostolic Sees were Jerusalem (for obvious reasons), Antioch (Peter seems to have founded this Church), Alexandria (Mark is thought to have founded the Church here) and Rome (both Peter and Paul are martyred there). Later Constantinople becomes one of these leading Churches but that is mainly because the city becomes the capital of the empire under Constantine. Other Churches also had their list of what should and should not be in the Scriptures and debates between greats such as St.Jerome and St.Augustine raged as to what the canon of scriture should be. And each of the great 4 Sees seems to have had books that later did not make it into the bible – e.g. Rome seems to have used ‘The Shepherd of Hermes’ for a while – which didn’t make the cut at a later stage when the Church, to protect against heresy decided to definitively codify what was to become the bible. The first authoritative codification came from Pope Damascus I (if i'm not mistaken) who upheld St.Augustine's list. St. Jerome was then commissioned to translate the entireBible (according to the papal list) into Latin. Thisdecree was upheld by severalCouncils during the following centuries. Those writings that did make the cut have a couple of common denominators – they were common to all 4 Sees it seems and they were recognised as Apostolic in origin and were faithful to what the Tradition of the Church held to be the faith.

Here we see the strength of the Catholic position of Tradition which has the power and indeed the duty of passing on the witness of the Apostles faithfully. That witness is passed on faithfully and infallibly by the New Testament but without an authority which can decide the matter it would be impossible to know what should or shouldn’t go into the bible – what is and isn’t scripture.
The claim that is made that the argument for the infallibility of the Sacred Scriptures is circular doesn’t stand up when you introduce this simple principle. (but I'msurethere may be some other objection forth-coming) A given gospel or letter is in the bible – because it was put there by the Apostolic Authority of the Church, to which Christ promised the Holy Spirit who would lead the Church into all the Truth. The Second Vatican Council affirmed that the Apostolic preaching is “expressed in a special way” in the Scriptures, (see document Dei Verbum No.8) but not exclusively therein. It is important to acknowledge the existence and role of the Church’s Tradition in the service of the Gospel. Both Scripture and Tradition fulfil an identical role in the Church, though they do so in their own particular way. They hand on to subsequent generation what was entrusted to them in the beginning and this is nothing more than the revelation of God in Jesus Christ bourne witnesstobythe Apostles.
I know that some of my Protestant brethren will not perhaps agree with me on this but a look at history will show that it was the Church that decided infallibly and definitively what is and isn’t scripture.
(Those who say it was an Emperor should go read history books not Dan Brown type novels – The Council of Nicaea was called indeed by the emperor to decide the controversy about whether Jesus was Divine. It upheld his divinity and the Emperor refused to accept this, opting for the side of the Arians, i.e. those who denied Christ divinity.)
The gospels mentioned in this thread so far however, were never seriously entertained by any major church in the known world and were rejected continuously by the great Fathers of the Early Church. Our faith is founded on the testimony of the Apostles – we state that in the Creed. We have access to that witness through the Sacred Scriptures which are indispensable, but also through an equally indispensable Tradition. Unfortunately, without Tradition then the best we Christians can say is that we have a fallible collection of infallible writings.
Comments are welcome but I’m not an expert on this by any means. Anyone interested can look at some of the info on the following site:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

purple'n'gold

Now I wouldn’t be an expert on things ecclesiastical, but it seems a bit extreme to me to send someone to hell for all eternity for having a **** and dying before he went to confession or told god he was sorry. Same sentence as Hitler got for murdering about ¼ of the population of Europe.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> But that history supports the historical narrative in the NT allows one
> to regard it as being accurate.

You have said this quite a few times, but you are not correct. While external sources -- Josephus, Tacitus et al -- have made vague (and contested) references to the existence of Jesus Christ, not a single text says anything about alleged miracles, or about Jesus rising from the dead, or about Jesus being the son of god, or about anything that Jesus said, or in fact, about Jesus being anything at all other than a man who lived in Palestine during the first century and who lead some kind of revolt against the Roman Empire.

History most emphatically does not support the lavish claims that the bible makes about Jesus, and while you may sincerely believe the opposite is true, unfortunately, it is false.

.

Sorry Robin, but I am not wrong. What we know about Jesus, extant from the Bible is the following:
He was from Galilee
He taught throughout Judea
He performed acts of sorcery
He had quite a following
his tomb was empty.

The only contested part of any writing that you mentioned is a piece of Josephus that has embellished parts regarding Jesus. Remove the embellished parts and you get the following:
Jesus lived and He was a wise man.
He wrought surprising feats.
A teacher of many who accept the truth
He won over Jews and Greeks
He was considered by His followers to be the Christ (reference to His being God)
He was crucified under Pilate.

These statements of Josephus corroborate the NT biographical writings about Jesus.

The Gospels speak of His rising from the dead. Paul writes that there were over 500 witnesses to this fact and invites the reader to go and ask those who did see Him.

As an historian I would then ask the questions, 'If Christ did not rise form the dead, and this sect was growing and being a pain to society, why didn't anyone with any authority write anything that disputed this claim?'

The answer is because they couldn't dispute it, there were too many witnesses.

Barnabas

I'm not sure a vulgar post like yours 'purple' deserves a response. Additionally this is perhaps not the particular thread in which you could best discuss this matter.
Sending people to hell is not an ecclesiastical 'thing'. The Church exists to send people to heaven. If you've ever attended a Christian funeral you'd have noticed that.
Just what sentencing of Hitler do you mean? What happens to those who die we can say, what happens to particular individuals is beyond us to say. If Hitler is in Hell it is not because the Church or her teaching sent him there.

As for the Church's teaching on sexuality - well that's beyond the scope of my reply - sufficed to say that the use of one's body for something like masturbation runs contrary to God's plan for human sexuality -therein lies the sin. Purity and chastity might not be fashionable, but they are indispensible for a right relationship with God and that's why the Christian is called to livethese virtues and reject anything that will lead to the loss of these.

I suggest also that you look into what is actually meant by mortal sin since I suspect that you have a pre-conceived idea of what you think it is or have been told it is.

The 'sentence' the repentant heart receives is always mercy. But an unrepentant heart, for whatever sin, cannot receive that mercy which the Lord so desires to pour out upon it - it has closed itself off to God. If one were to persist in this obstinately to the end then there is very little that the Lord can do if we are to remain truly free.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it this way:
No.1861 - Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

Judging by your post I'd say you are a teenager. Even if you're not then I'd encourage you to speak about these things in a more personal way to someone who can explain them to you better than I can, perhaps a family member or a member of the clergy of a Church you might belong to. Perhaps the best palce to discuss it first though is with your own conscience and with God in prayer.

Yours in Christ,

Barnabas

robindch

> What we know about Jesus, extant from the Bible is the following:

You left out every one of the vital facts which set Jesus apart from anybody else. Amongst which were that he turned water into wine, that he raised people from the dead, that he died and came back to life, that he was the son of god, that his mother was a virgin etc, etc.

> The only contested part of any writing that you mentioned is a piece of
> Josephus that has embellished parts regarding Jesus.

The text you refer to is known as the "Testimonium Flavianum" and its authenticity has been contested since the 1600's. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Josephus says that "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations" which is worrying from a reference book which is not known for suggesting that its mother organization rests upon anything other than a bed of rock.

> These statements of Josephus corroborate the NT biographical writings
> about Jesus.

Even if the text of Josephus is genuine, which few believe, it still doesn't corroborate a single miraculous event in the life of Jesus. Not a single one. Far from corroborating the story of the NT, they instead suggest that the uncorroborated details are simply untrue. Why wouldn't Josephus say that Jesus had died and come back to life, if it was common knowledge that he did? Why wouldn't he say that Jesus could bring others back to life? What about all the other miraculous stories? What happened to them? Why are Josephus, Tacitus and all the other many of authors of the time simply entirely silent on the amazing things which are supposed to have happened?

Does the omission of every single event crucial to the NT's portrayal of Jesus, suggest to you that the story of Jesus as given in the NT is uncorroborated?

Asiaprod

purple'n'gold, If you intend to continue participating in this thread, please tone down your language.

Suff

I know i'm going off point here, Apologies... but I feel I must correct some pointers made by my friend BrianCalgary.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Bible - authorized by Jesus, God Himself. About Jesus, God incarnate. Nothing written from the time to contradict it. Written within one generation of His life, by those who were either direct eyewitnesses or were writing as dictated by eyewitnesses.

Authorised by Christ (PBUH) ! where did you get that from!?
The bible relates the life and teachings of Jesus, the letters of the Apostle Paul and other disciples to the early church and the Book of Revelation.
so how could Christ have approved of it if most of its elements were after him?
and if I'm not mistaken the widely used and approved King James Version (1611) is translated from the Masoretic Hebrew Text states clearly in it that its Authorised by King James!
can you give me a bible that clearly states its authorised by Christ (PBUH)!? ofcourse you cant! the bible was written not by Christ (PBUH) nor in his life time but by some of his apostoles and other historians, the earliest is 45 years after Christ (PBUH) even so Its books were gradually collected into a single book over a period of several centuries! and to this day we find new versions being printed and written espicially in North America.

A good tip for anyone looking into a bible research: find the oldest copy you can get (mine dates 1582) and try to compare it to a newly pinted one, you'll notice differences and contradictions between both copies. if your interested in this I'll start a new thread to discuss the findings.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Qu'ran (I'm no expert here)- written 500 or so years after the death of it's main character Mohammed.

Nice of you to state that your not an Expert on this because you need to get your facts right
The Entire Qur'aan was revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) in his life time [took 23 years] it was not written after him, his apostoles [close students/followers] learned it by heart wrote it in his life time then collected the written Chapters into one Book 2 years after his death by the caliph{successor} Abu Baker.
There is only ONE version of the Quraan from the 1st to the leatest printed edition now, nothing changed.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sura 4:157, is explicit and emphatic: “They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them…for of a surety they killed him not.” Although we know that Christ was crucified. The Qu'ran has it wrong.

Dont take it out of context, Its GOD's answer to the Jews:
Surah 4 The Women, verses 155-159:

[4:155] (They incurred condemnation) for violating their covenant, rejecting GOD's revelations, killing the prophets unjustly, and for saying, "Our minds are made up!" In fact, GOD is the One who sealed their minds, due to their disbelief, and this is why they fail to believe, except rarely.

[4:156] (They are condemned) for disbelieving and uttering about Mary a gross lie.

[4:157] And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.

[4:158] Instead, GOD raised him to Him; GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.

[4:159] Everyone among the people of the scripture was required to believe in him before his death. On the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them.

In Christianity you believe he was crucified in Islam we dont we believe that GOD raised him to heaven until his 2nd comming.
Still that doesnt make you right and I am wronge or the other way around before a discussion.
here's the mention of the crucifix in the Quraan along with the creation of Christ (PBUH):

Surah 3 The Family Of 'Imran, The House Of 'Imran verse :42-60

" 42. Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations.
43. "O Mary! worship Thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down."
44. This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Messenger.) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point).
45. Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.
46. "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."
47. She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
48. "And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,
49. "And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah.s leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah.s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;
50. "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
51. "'It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"
52. When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah." Said the disciples: "We are Allah.s helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.
53. "Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger. then write us down among those who bear witness."
54. And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.
55. Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
56. "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
57. "As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay them (in full) their reward; but Allah loveth not those who do wrong."
58. "This is what we rehearse unto thee of the Signs and the Message of Wisdom."
59. The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.
60. The Truth (comes) from Allah alone; so be not of those who doubt."

BrianCalgary wrote:

Mohammed asks for forgiveness, wheras Jesus asks, 'Can you prove me guilty of sin? (John 8:46, 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 John 3:5).

first of all why the need to ask for fogivness?
it constantly purify and cleanse our heart. We are not born in sin, but we are born in weakness. We are prone to fall prey to the many temptations that are part of our test in this life. And when we do fall and commit a sin, it produces a dark spot in our heart. it is also a means of enhancing that consciousness of GOD and strengthening our relationship with Him. We turn to no one except GOD in repentance. We confess our deepest errors, shortcomings, failures, and sins to Him and Him alone.

"'Allah the Almighty has said: 'O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me, and hope in Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds in the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I shall forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with an earthful of sins and were you then to face Me, without having associated anything with Me*, I shall grant you an earthful of pardon.'"
* = The concept of the ONE GOD.

Christ (PBUH) also did Ask for forgivness for himself and Christians:

Surah 5 The Table, Verse 116-120:

"116. And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" Christ will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.
117. "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.
118. "If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servant: If Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in power, the Wise."
119. Allah will say: "This is a day on which the truthful will profit from their truth: theirs are gardens, with rivers flowing beneath,- their eternal Home: Allah well-pleased with them, and they with Allah. That is the great salvation, (the fulfilment of all desires).
120. To Allah doth belong the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, and it is He Who hath power over all things."

Schuhart

Suff wrote:

There is only ONE version of the Quraan from the 1st to the leatest printed edition now, nothing changed.

In one sense, does it matter, seeing as how clearly the Quran’s account is even more distant in time to the events described.

I recall the general question of the Quran’s origins coming up before, and Wibbs being able give necessary background to it. If memory serves, the Quran was first written in a script that did not use vowels which raises some problems of interpretation (this might be the origins of that ‘is it virgins or raisins’ question). A second point was that one of the Caliphs deemed a particular version of the Quran to be authentic and ordered the destruction of all other versions – hence the one extant today. A final point was that Quranic inscriptions (I think carved into the Dome of the Rock?) exist that vary slightly from what now appears in the Quran.

Which all boils down to the same kind of thing that might be said about the Bible. There may well be spiritual truths recorded in the text, but the case for regarding either text as utterly unquestionable seems weak.

Suff

Schuhart wrote:

In one sense, does it matter, seeing as how clearly the Quran’s account is even more distant in time to the events described.

I think it does regardless of the distance in time, for example we have the story of either Noah, Abraham and Moses in both the Qur'aan, Torah and the Bible. they are very similar and we know how distant each scriptures are from the actual events however if you think of it from a faith point of view: GOD would reveal the actual account/ story in order to guide the people.

The Torah had a number of teachings and laws, yet when Christ (PBUH) came he introduced new and changed the old with the belief that thats how they should have been when Moses (PBUH) brought the teachings first to the people of Israel. (which are 12 tribes: the descendants of the 12 Sons of Jacob aka: Israel)

I recall the general question of the Quran’s origins coming up before, and Wibbs being able give necessary background to it.

Wibbs,..your thoughts please ?

If memory serves, the Quran was first written in a script that did not use vowels which raises some problems of interpretation (this might be the origins of that ‘is it virgins or raisins’ question). A second point was that one of the Caliphs deemed a particular version of the Quran to be authentic and ordered the destruction of all other versions – hence the one extant today. A final point was that Quranic inscriptions (I think carved into the Dome of the Rock?) exist that vary slightly from what now appears in the Quran.

Old Arabic didnt have Dots over/under letters (Aramic had the same issue) which was introduced in 643 AD. While vowel signs and hamzas were added, beginning sometime in the last half of the seventh century.
but the whole thing about "virgins or raisins" is made-up IMO...the word for Virgin in Arabic is "hor" the word consists of three letters "H", "O" and "R" the only veriatin you can do to these leter by changing the dots over/under them will give you words as follows:

Khor, Jor, Khoz, Joz...none make any sence in classical/old/plain arabic [I'm an Arab ]

When it comes to producing a copy of the Quraan a recitater must conform to three conditions:

1. It must match the rasm, letter for letter.
2. It must conform with the syntactic rules of the Arabic language.
3. It must have a continuous isnad to Muhammad through tawatur, meaning that it has to be related by a large group of people to another down the isnad chain. Even in thesedays you can check the "Hafiz" [The memorizer of the entire Qur'aan] as each would recieve a document/parchment stating who he learned the Quraan from,..and goes as far as the Prophet himself (PBUH).

A second point was that one of the Caliphs deemed a particular version of the Quran to be authentic and ordered the destruction of all other versions – hence the one extant today. A final point was that Quranic inscriptions (I think carved into the Dome of the Rock?) exist that vary slightly from what now appears in the Quran..

Little agreement on the above.... but where did you get this "Dome of the Rock" thing? I'm interested now

I won't go into the details of it here so if anyone is interested in the Qur'aan History check wikipedia's link its free!

Which all boils down to the same kind of thing that might be said about the Bible. There may well be spiritual truths recorded in the text, but the case for regarding either text as utterly unquestionable seems weak.

Well no one can do this without doing a full scale research on both scriptures.

IMO I believe in a Qur'aan to be The Final Word From GOD and I do believe in the Torah and the Injeel "Bible" but not the ones we have in our time.

Schuhart

Suff wrote:

I think it does regardless of the distance in time, for example we have the story of either Noah, Abraham and Moses in both the Qur'aan, Torah and the Bible. they are very similar and we know how distant each scriptures are from the actual events however if you think of it from a faith point of view: GOD would reveal the actual account/ story in order to guide the people.

Indeed, but you'll understand that an alternative view is simply that these stories were part of a longer tradition, and the Quran, Torah and Bible simply borrow them from that tradition.

Suff wrote:

the whole thing about "virgins or raisins" is made-up IMO

The raisin or virgin thing actually seems to come from here. So it doesn’t appear to be an ambiguity because of the lack of vowels.

Christoph Luxenberg's book, Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran, available only in German, came out just over a year ago, but has already had an enthusiastic reception, particularly among those scholars with a knowledge of several Semitic languages at Princeton, Yale, Berlin, Potsdam, Erlangen, Aix-en-Provence, and the Oriental Institute in Beirut.

Luxenberg tries to show that many obscurities of the Koran disappear if we read certain words as being Syriac and not Arabic. We cannot go into the technical details of his methodology but it allows Luxenberg, to the probable horror of all Muslim males dreaming of sexual bliss in the Muslim hereafter, to conjure away the wide-eyed houris promised to the faithful in suras XLIV.54; LII.20, LV.72, and LVI.22. Luxenberg 's new analysis, leaning on the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, yields "white raisins" of "crystal clarity" rather than doe-eyed, and ever willing virgins - the houris. Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offerred, and not unsullied maidens or houris.

In Syriac, the word hur is a feminine plural adjective meaning white, with the word "raisin" understood implicitly. Similarly, the immortal, pearl-like ephebes or youths of suras such as LXXVI.19 are really a misreading of a Syriac expression meaning chilled raisins (or drinks) that the just will have the pleasure of tasting in contrast to the boiling drinks promised the unfaithful and damned.

Suff wrote:

where did you get this "Dome of the Rock" thing?

I just did a quick google regarding the Dome of the Rock and found this. (I’ve a feeling I read this claim in a book I got out of the library). Inevitably, there seems to be controversy over whether the inscriptions differ or not. Its another of those issues where you really feel someone should be able to take a photograph, set it down beside a page of the Quran and say ‘that’s different/identical’. All I notice about the text I’ve linked is that while the author of the piece says the verses are ‘identical’, the source he quotes says they are not ‘substantially different’ which is hardly the same thing. The impression I get is that, much as with Biblical scholarship, people find that variants rarely make for a substantial difference in the message. But hopes of an exact letter perfect fidelity to the original text will be disappointed.

As for the other inscriptions inside the Mosque of al Aqsa and the claim of Smith that they differ from the Qur'an today, (although he doesn't show where and how they differ, which is obvious because they don't), then this is also nonsense.

According to Brockett they are identical to the verses from the Qur'an today:
"The reading tamtaruna (Q.19:34) as opposed to yamtaruna of the Hafs and Warsh transmissions provides no evidence of a text substantially different from what it is now. Differences such as these have no real effect on the meaning; indeed, the extent of the agreement of the inscriptions with the text must, in fact, have already been fixed. Nor can such inscriptions be considered to be actual copies of the Qur'an requiring strict adherence to the rules of transmission." (Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an)

Suff

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but you'll understand that an alternative view is simply that these stories were part of a longer tradition, and the Quran, Torah and Bible simply borrow them from that tradition.

I accept your view however where did Moses, Christ and Muhammad (PBUT) got these traditions from? they had to come from some source.
maybe...
Abraham started the tradition..some of it got lost..Moses was sent with the reminder...some of it got lost/corrupted...Christ was sent to clearify/correct the tradition..some of got lost/corrupted...Muhammad was sent to yet again clearify/correct the traditon.

now,..hold on before you say..."some of got lost/corrupted"
in the Torah, Bible and Qur'aan all state that the last prophet will be sent to complete and clearify the message.
where did I got this from..you may ask? well...I'll post my torah/bible findings if you like me to

Barnabas

Suff you state that: "in the Torah, Bible and Qur'aan all state that the last prophet will be sent to complete and clearify the message."

With all due respect might I just point out:

The Bible, more specifically the New Testment, states pretty clearly that the last prophet did in fact come - that being Jesus, prophet, Messiah and Son of God. So strong is this point emphasised by the likes of St. Paul that he states that even if he, himself, should come back at a later stage to the community which he had preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to with anything else, anything different, then they were to reject him. He says this because for Christians Jesus fulfils and clarifies God's mysterious plan of salvation hidden for all ages and revealed now in and through the Son. So Christians have no need nor do they expect any further 'completion' or 'clarifications' of the message delivered to them and are duty bound to reject anything which seeks to add to the Gospel revelation, never mind something which contradicts that Gospel, which would obviously include the Qur'aan which denies Christ's divinity.

Yours respectfully

Barnabas

Schuhart

Suff wrote:

I accept your view however where did Moses, Christ and Muhammad (PBUT) got these traditions from?

I think the short answer is Mesopotamia. We know that people are curious about their surroundings. We know that stories get told, and grow in the telling. While its origins only date back to the second world war, I believe its not actually known if the legends surrounding the John Frum figure at the centre of one cargo cult have any basis in fact, showing how myths can quickly escape any hope of 'proof'. But certainly we know that people create myths and legends to help make sense of their surroundings.

Suff wrote:

the Torah, Bible and Qur'aan all state that the last prophet will be sent to complete and clarify the message.

You’ve seen what Barnabas thinks about that. And, on the other side of things, you’ll find people who say that Mohammed didn’t have the final word either. To my own mind, the Quran is just an Arabic take on the Bible with undoubted relevance in its time and place, but not much value outside it.

Suff wrote:

I'll post my torah/bible findings if you like me to

To be honest, I don’t ever expect scripture to tell me exact truths. Hence, when I see a case being built on the basis of a literal reading of words such as ‘the Old Testament says we’re going to get a prophet with a beard married to an older woman who’s a widow, and guess who matches that description’, I just lose interest because I think real insight is being lost.

There may be truth in those old books. But there’s lies, too. I don’t think we should take them as final, in any sense. As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it,

The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs. Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past...? The sun shines today also.

robindch

> Emerson [...] The sun shines today also.

A decent thought, and well-expressed too -- thanks for the link.

Towards the end of Chapter 2, the inestimable Gibbon similarly rains on the parade of second century Rome for its slavish reverence to its own ancients:

The authority of Plato and Aristotle, of Zeno and Epicurus, still reigned in the schools; and their systems, transmitted with blind deference from one generation of disciples to another, precluded every generous attempt to exercise the powers, or enlarge the limits, of the human mind. The beauties of the poets and orators, instead of kindling a fire like their own, inspired only cold and servile imitations [...] The name of Poet was almost forgotten; that of Orator was usurped by the sophists. A cloud of critics, of compilers, of commentators, darkened the face of learning, and the decline of genius was soon followed by the corruption of taste.

Suff

Barnabas wrote:

The Bible, more specifically the New Testment, states pretty clearly that the last prophet did in fact come - that being Jesus, prophet, Messiah and Son of God.

Barnabas,...you are entitled to your own belief and opinion on this matter however no one can agree until a discussion is made, anyone can throw words but its important to back them up where its needed so I would ask of you to backup your statment 'Above' if possible.

to point out few things,..first of all Muhammad means in Arabic "The honorable one", "The glorified one", "The admirable". in the Greek Bible the word "Periklytos" which means the admirable or glorified one. He called that to predicted human prophet "Periklytos"

In the Bible we can find the following four passages where Christ (pbuh) predicts a great event:

John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever"

John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me"

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

John 16:7-14 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you."

In these four verses, the word "comforter" is translated from the word "Paraclete" ("Ho Parakletos" in Greek). Parakletos in Greek is interpreted as "an advocate"

In the above verses we read "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." The comforter can not be the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost (according to the Bible) was "with" them already (and even quite active) long before the coming of Jesus (pbuh) himself and then throughout his ministry:

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

1 Samuel 10:10 "And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them."

1 Samuel 11:6 "And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly."

"Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?" (Isaiah 63:11)

"For he (John the Baptist) shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee." (Luke 1:35)

"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke 1:41)

"And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying," (Luke 1:67)

"And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him." (Luke 2:25)

"And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost (Simeon), that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ." (Luke 2:26)

"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him (Jesus), and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." (Luke 3:22)

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." (John 20:21-22)


Now you states that Christ is the son of GOD! however in the bible...

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate(parakletos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 John 2:1)

"...This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." (Matthew 21:11) and "..Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people" (Luke 24:19:).


In the above verses Christ (pbuh) is quoted as saying "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." What does Christ(pbuh) mean by "ye cannot bear them now"? If we were to read the Bible, we would find many verses throughout the Bible where Christ(pbuh) bemoans the lack of understanding he was constantly greeted with from his disciples throughout his ministry:

"And he(Jesus) saith unto them(the disciples).....O ye of little faith." (Matthew 8:26)

"...and (Jesus) said unto him(Peter), O thou of little faith." (Matthew 14:31)

"he (Jesus) said unto them(the disciples), O ye of little faith." (Matthew 16:8)

"And he(Jesus) said unto them(the disciples), Where is your faith?" (Luke 8:25)

also Jesus (peace be upon him) is quoted as saying that the coming Paraclete will "abide with you forever." how?

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying." (John 8:51-55)

"And I (Jesus) give unto them (the believers) eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (John 10:28)

"and my servant David [shall be] their prince forever." (Ezekiel 37:25).

"The king shall joy in thy strength, O LORD ... He asked life of thee, [and] thou gavest [it] him, [even] length of days for ever and ever." (Psalm 21:1-4)

also below are two interesting statements that could be found in both scriptures:

" I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require [it] of him." (Deuteronomy 18:18-19)

the Qur'an:

"Nor does he (Muhammad) speak of his own desire. It is but an Inspiration that is inspired [unto him]" (The Qur'an, Al-Najm(53):3-4)

so we find that "The Paracletos" will be the last prophet, because he will "abide with you forever" and "he will guide you into all truth" (Greek "into the whole truth") and "he shall teach you all things," so there will be no need for any further prophets. In the Qur'an we read:

"Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is Aware of all things." (The Qur'an, , al-Ahzab(33):40)

"This day have I (God) perfected your religion for you (mankind) and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you as religion Islam(the submission)." (The Qur'an, al-Maidah(5):3)

Christians have no need nor do they expect any further 'completion' or 'clarifications' of the message delivered to them and are duty bound to reject anything which seeks to add to the Gospel revelation, never mind something which contradicts that Gospel, which would obviously include the Qur'aan which denies Christ's divinity.

Didn't we hear the Jews saying the exact same as what you stated above when Christ (PBUH) came to them !

I will give my answer but direct Quote from both th Quraan and the bible:

"And from those who said: "We are Christians," We took their covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you, explaining to you much of that which you used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed, there has come to you a light from Allah and a plain Scripture. Wherewith Allah guides him who seeks His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He brings them out of darkness by His will into light, and guides them to a straight path." (The Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):14-16)


"These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you. But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you." (John 16:1-15)

check The Barnabas Gospel site and do a search on the name "Muhammad".

Barnabas

Sorry about the length of this post!

John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever"
The comforter here referred to Suff is the Holy Spirit not Muhammad. If it refers to Muhammad then why is he now no longer with us? You shouldn’t quote things out of context either since it does nothing to serve the truth. The above sentence continues in verse 17 as “that Spirit of Truth whom the world can never receive since it neither sees nor knows him; but you know him because he is with you, he will be in you.” Verses 16 and 17 form one single statement about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not Muhammad and I don’t think that is what you want to claim. Is it? Remember, for Christians, the Holy Spirit is a Divine person of the Trinity- co-equal, co-eternal with the Father and the Son, as our creed states: with the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
And what do you think Jesus means when he say the Holy Spirit will be ‘in’ you. (note also the future tense).
No one denies that the Holy Spirit was present and active throughout history, but with the coming of Christ and baptism into him – meaning a spiritual but real union with the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit; that presence of the Holy Spirit is qualitatively different. Remember Jesus praises John the Baptist who is sanctified by the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb (See Luke 1:15, and Luke 1:41). But he goes on to say that the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than he. (See Luke 7:28). The reason would be that Christian Baptism brings about a profound change in the person which is brought about by the Holy Spirit’s power and by his presence in a new way among us – in us, in fact. As St. Paul tells us – Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit. (See1Corinthians 3:16 and 6:19 and also Ephesians 2:22)


John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me"
My response to this particular quotation is similiar to that which I have made to the above, i.e. Comforter = the Holy Spirit. I’d would just add that if the comforter was to be identified with Muhammad then why didn’t he testify to Jesus? A few references here and there (as is my understanding of what the Qur’aan has to offer regarding details of Jesus and his ministry and mission – though I am open to correction on that!) hardly constitutes testifying to Jesus as the Christ. In fact the testimony of the Qur’aan directly contradicts that found in the New Testament. So it seems illogical that you should use quotations from the New Testament to support the Qur’aanic version of events which claims the New Testament to be a falsification of the story of Jesus. Remember the purpose of the New Testament is to bear witness to the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour and the Way, the Truth and the Life.

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

By using the above quotation to prove that Muhammad is the promised Comforter or Paraclete you seem to be saying that he is the Holy Spirit, which can’t possibly be what you mean since the Holy Spirit is Divine and as you point out in your post the Holy Spirit has been present throughout salvation history. Muhammad was not present throughout history! I’m sorry but this seems illogical and not very well thought out. I hope I’m not causing you any offence. But if you are going to quote the bible to us then you have to be consistent in your use of it and not use bits and pieces here and there to suit your argument. By taking a line or two out of context from the bible (and I’m sure the same is true for the qur’aan) one can justify just about any position.
John 16:7-14 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you."
Once again I would have to respond that this in no way implies that the Paraclete is Muhammad. Once again the name Paraclete is synonymous with the Holy Spirit- “when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth”.

The word ‘Paraclete’ is translated into English as Comforter, Consoler, Advocate, or Helper but it is used primarily of the Holy Spirit, though as you point out Jesus is also called the paraclete. If I’m not mistaken the root of the word comes from the Greek meaning to speak on behalf of – which is why many translations speak of ‘Advocate’ – from the Latin ‘to speak for or on behalf of someone. The mission of the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete detracts nothing from the mission of Christ. In Heaven Christ remains our parakletos or advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). In this world, He is with us even to the consummation of the world (Matthew 28:20), but He is with us through His Holy Spirit of whom He says : "I will send Him to you. He shall glorify me; because He shall receive of mine, and shall show it to you" (John 16:7, 14)

You finish off your post by quoting John 16:1-15. in verse 15 we read “All that the Father has is mine.” Your translation of the original Greek is faulty since it states “all things that the Father has”. If all that the Father has belongs to Jesus then surely his Divinity belongs to him also.

I think the problem which seems insurmountable is that the Bible emphasises that Jesus is a prophet unlike any other because no other prophet could be a prophet in the same way as Jesus was. He is qualitatively different because not only does he speak on behalf of God but he speaks as God. The fact that Moses predicts a prophet from among the people is in perfect harmony with the fact that Jesus is not God in human disguise but God Incarnate, he enters human history, really enters into the day to day of human affairs by becoming a man like us in all things but sin while still remaining Divine. The qur’aan however states something very different and so I can’t see how you can use what you consider a faulty or false scriptural revelation, i.e. the New Testament, to support the scripture that claims it to be faulty.

Toclose let me putto you a few quotaionsfrom the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

No.689 The One whom the Father has sent into our hearts, the Spirit of his Son, is truly God.10 Consubstantial with the Father and the Son, the Spirit is inseparable from them, in both the inner life of the Trinity and his gift of love for the world. In adoring the Holy Trinity, life-giving, consubstantial, and indivisible, the Church's faith also professes the distinction of persons. When the Father sends his Word, he always sends his Breath. In their joint mission, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct but inseparable. To be sure, it is Christ who is seen, the visible image of the invisible God, but it is the Spirit who reveals him.

No.690 Jesus is Christ, "anointed," because the Spirit is his anointing, and everything that occurs from the Incarnation on derives from this fullness.11 When Christ is finally glorified,12 he can in turn send the Spirit from his place with the Father to those who believe in him: he communicates to them his glory,13 that is, the Holy Spirit who glorifies him.14 From that time on, this joint mission will be manifested in the children adopted by the Father in the Body of his Son: the mission of the Spirit of adoption is to unite them to Christ and make them live in him.

Schuhart

Can this kind of reading of scripture be relied on? Take the Virgin Birth, a point common to both Islam and Christianity. From what I can gather, this arose from a mistranslation of the Hebrew word ‘Alma’ in Isaiah 7:14 to read ‘virgin’ instead of simply ‘young woman’. Because of this mistaken understanding of the prophecy, Jesus was deemed to be the child of a virgin. This mistake is then replicated in the Quran, suggesting both it and the Bible are capable of error on points of detail.

Its unsurprising if we find things in the New Testament that suggest Jesus is divine or things in the Quran that suggest it’s a message from God, as the authors would have put those things in to assert the truth of their messages.

Excelsior

For me, authority of Scripture is best defined by Tom Wright here.

gosimeon

It is interesting that when people seek historic and scientific proof of Jesus, they immediately discount the Bible as a reliable source.

If we look at the Bible simply as a historic document, it should be among the most reliable on record compared with others.

Historians routinely cite Herodotus as a key source of information. He wrote from 488 B.C. to 428 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work comes from 900 A.D. (1,300 years later). There are only eight known copies of his work.

By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages.

So the Bible cannot be ruled out as a historic source. Yet, it will be by all athiests, who have no issue accepting historical teachings based on Herodotus.

It is historically accepted that Jesus' tomb WAS empty.

On Jesus, the Josephus quote has been meddled with slightly.

It reads:
3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

It is generally accepted that "he was the Christ" was changed, and should read "he was said to be the Christ". Josephus was, after all, Jewish, so did not accept Christ as his saviour. however, he did acknowledge many did and they did so due to his deeds and "wonderful works" - miracles?

There are a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}

<Note: Yeshu is how Jesus was pronounced in Hebrew, and the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.>

Note also he was accused of sorcery, which illustrates his actions that were plain weird - the miracles - happened. He was killed for sorcery - magic, performing magical feats. The charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

"The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws."


Back to the resurrection. Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.

Paul of Tarsus also backs up the resurrection. He hated Christians before he met Jesus, he persecuted Christians. Yet he attributes his change of mind to a revelation on the road to Domascus.

Thallus, whose identity is difficult to determine, is known to have written a history from the Trojan War to his own time, which was sometime in the first or early second century. His work has been lost. In discussing Jesus' crucifixion and subsequent darkness, Julius Africanus, writing c. 221, referenced the lost work of Thallus:

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."

So is Jesus a historical figure? Yes. In The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders used Alexander the Great as a paradigm—the available sources tell us much about Alexander’s deeds, but nothing about his thoughts. "The sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought."[61] Thus, Sanders considers the quest for the Historical Jesus to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander than to those historical figures with adequate documentation.

Consequently, scholars like Sanders, Geza Vermes, John P. Meier, David Flusser, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond E. Brown, Paula Fredriksen and John Dominic Crossan argue that, although many readers are accustomed to thinking of Jesus solely as a theological figure whose existence is a matter only of religious debate, the four canonical Gospel accounts are based on source documents written within decades of Jesus' lifetime, and therefore provide a basis for the study of the "historical" Jesus. These historians also draw on other historical sources and archaeological evidence to reconstruct the life of Jesus in his historical and cultural context.

Here I'll summarize briefly eight lines of evidence supporting the fact that Jesus' tomb was found empty.

1. The Historical Reliability of the Story of Jesus' Burial Supports the Empty Tomb

Now you might ask, how does the fact of Jesus' burial prove that his tomb was found empty? The answer is this: if the burial story is true, then both Jew and Christian alike would have known where the tomb was. But in that case, the tomb must have been empty, when the disciples began to preach that Jesus was risen. Why? First, the disciples could not have believed in Jesus' resurrection if his corpse still lay in the tomb. It would have been wholly un-Jewish, not to say foolish, to believe that a man was raised from the dead when his body was still in the grave. Second, even if the disciples had preached this, no one else would have believed them. So long as the people of Jerusalem thought that Jesus' body was in the tomb, they would never have believed such foolishness as that he had been raised from the dead. And third, even if they had, the Jewish authorities would have exposed the whole affair simply by pointing to Jesus' tomb or perhaps even exhuming the body as decisive proof that Jesus had not been raised. Thus, you see, if the story of Jesus' burial is true, then the story of the empty tomb must be true as well.

And, unfortunately for those who deny the empty tomb, nearly all NT scholars agree that Jesus' burial is one of the best-established facts about Jesus. Now space does not permit me to go into all the details of the evidence for the burial. But let me just mention a couple points: First, Jesus was probably buried by Joseph of Arimathea. According to the gospels, Joseph of Arimathea laid Jesus' body in the tomb. Joseph is described as a rich man, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was a sort of Jewish Supreme Court made up of seventy men, which presided in Jerusalem. Its members were the leading men of Judaism. It seems very unlikely that Christian tradition would invent a story of Jesus' honorable burial by his enemies, or even that it could invent Joseph of Arimathea, give him a name, place him on the Sanhedrin, and say he was responsible for Jesus' burial if this were not true. The members of the Sanhedrin were too well-known to allow either fictitious persons to be placed on it or false stories to be spread about one of its actual members' being responsible for Jesus' burial. Therefore, it seems very likely that Joseph was the actual, historical person who buried Jesus in the tomb.

Second, Paul's testimony provides early evidence of Jesus' burial. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Paul quotes an old Christian tradition that he had received from the earliest disciples. Paul probably received this tradition no later than his visit to Jerusalem in A.D. 36 (Gal 1:18), if not earlier in Damascus. It thus goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. The tradition is a summary of the early Christian preaching and may have been used in Christian instruction. Its form would have made it suitable for memorization. Here is what it says:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

Now notice that the second line of this tradition refers to Jesus' burial. When one matches the events of this Christian tradition with the events described in the gospels and in the apostles' preaching in Acts, it is clear that the second line of the tradition is a summary of the story of Jesus' burial in the tomb. Thus, we have here very early evidence for Jesus' burial, evidence that is so early it cannot be explained away as legend. For these and many other reasons, the vast majority of scholars accept the historical reliability of Jesus' burial. But if we accept this, then, as I have explained, it is very difficult to deny the historicity of the empty tomb.

2. Paul's Testimony Implies the Fact of the Empty Tomb

Although Paul does not explicitly mention the empty tomb, two phrases in the old Christian tradition that he cites in 1 Corinthians 15 seem to imply it. First, the expression "He was buried," followed by the expression "He was raised" implies the empty tomb. The idea that a man could be buried and then be raised from the dead and yet his body still remain in the grave is a peculiarly modern notion. For the Jews there would have been no question but that the tomb of Jesus would have been empty. As E.E. Ellis remarks, "It is very unlikely that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive of any distinction between resurrection and physical, 'grave-emptying' resurrection. To them an anastasis (resurrection) without an empty grave would have been about as meaningful as a square circle."7 Therefore, when Paul says that Jesus was buried and then was raised, he automatically assumes that an empty tomb was left behind.

Second, the expression "on the third day" implies the empty tomb. Since no one actually saw Jesus rise from the dead, why did the early disciples proclaim that he had been raised "on the third day"? The most likely answer is that it was on the third day that the women discovered the tomb of Jesus empty; and so naturally, the resurrection itself came to be dated on that day. In this case, the expression "on the third day" is a time-indicator pointing to the discovery of the empty tomb.

These two expressions in the early Christian tradition quoted by Paul thus indicate that the early Christian fellowship out of which the tradition sprang adhered to the fact of Jesus' empty tomb. Hence, such belief cannot be written off as a late legendary development.

3. The Empty Tomb Story Is Part of Markian Source Material and Is Therefore Very Old

In writing the story of Jesus' passion, Mark apparently employed a source of information that is accordingly very early. This pre-Markan passion source in all probability included the empty tomb story. The burial story and empty tomb story form one smooth, continuous narrative. They are linked by grammatical and linguistic ties. It seems unlikely that the early Christians would have circulated a story of Jesus' passion ending in his burial. The passion story is incomplete without victory at the end. Hence, the pre-Markan source probably included and may have ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.

But that means that the empty tomb story is very old. The German commentator on Mark Rudolf Pesch, argues that since Paul's traditions concerning the Last Supper (1 Cor 11) presuppose the Markan account, that implies that the Markan source goes right back to the early years of the Jerusalem fellowship. Pesch also draws attention to the fact that the pre-Markan passion source never refers to the high priest by name. It is as if I were to refer to something "the President" had done, and I and my listeners both knew whom I was referring to, namely, the man currently in power. Pesch believes that this is the case as well in the pre-Markan passion source. Since Caiaphas held office from A.D. 18-37, this means that at the latest Mark's source dates from within seven years of Jesus' crucifixion. This is incredibly early and makes the hypothesis of legend with regard to the empty tomb an idle theory.

4. The Phrase "The First Day of the Week" Is Very Ancient

This goes to confirm the previous point. According to the Markan account, the empty tomb was discovered by the women "on the first day of the week." We've already learned from the Christian tradition quoted by Paul that the earliest Christians proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus "on the third day." As E.L. Bode explains, if the empty tomb story were a late legend, it would almost certainly have been formulated in terms of the accepted and widespread third day motif. The fact that Mark uses "on the first day of the week" confirms that his tradition is very old, even antedating the third day reckoning. This fact is confirmed by the linguistic character of the phrase in question. For although "the first day of the week" is very awkward in the Greek, when translated back into Aramaic it is perfectly smooth and normal. This suggests that the empty tomb tradition reaches all the way back to the original language spoken by the first disciples themselves. Once again, this makes the legend hypothesis extremely unlikely.

5. The Story Is Simple and Lacks Legendary Development

The Markan account is straightforward and shows no signs of legendary embellishment. To appreciate this fact, all you have to do is compare Mark's account of the empty tomb with the account found in the so-called Gospel of Peter, a forgery from around A. D. 125. In this account, the tomb is not only surrounded by Roman guards but also by all the Jewish Pharisees and elders, as well as a great multitude from all the surrounding countryside who have come to watch the resurrection. Suddenly, in the night there rings out a loud voice in heaven, and two men descend from heaven to the tomb. The stone over the door rolls back by itself, and they go into the tomb. Then three men come out of the tomb, two of them holding up the third man. The heads of the two men reach up into the clouds, but the head of the third man reaches up beyond the clouds. Then a cross comes out of the tomb, and a voice from heaven asks, "Have you preached to them that sleep?" And the cross answers, "Yes." In another forgery called the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus comes out of the tomb sitting on the shoulders of the angels Michael and Gabriel! This is how legends look they are colored by theological and other developments. By contrast, the gospel account is simple and seems to be pretty much a straightforward report of what happened.

6. The Tomb Was Probably Discovered Empty by Women

In order to see why this is so, we need to understand two things about the place of women in Jewish society. First, women were not qualified to serve as legal witnesses. The testimony of a woman was regarded as so worthless that they could not even testify in a court of law. If a man committed a crime and was observed in the very act by some women, he could not be convicted on the basis of their testimony, since their testimony was regarded as so worthless that it could not even be admitted into court.

Second, women occupied a low rung on the Jewish social ladder. Compared to men, women were second-class citizens. Consider these Jewish texts: "Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women!" and again: "Happy is he whose children are male, but unhappy is he whose children are female!"

Now, given their low social status and inability to serve as witnesses, it is quite amazing that it is women who are the discoverers and principal witnesses of the empty tomb. If the empty tomb story were a legend, then it is most likely that the male disciples would have been made the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that despised women, whose testimony was deemed worthless, were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb can only be plausibly explained if, like it or not, they actually were the discoverers of the empty tomb. Hence, the gospels are most likely giving an accurate account of this matter.

7. The Disciples Could Not Have Preached the Resurrection in Jerusalem Had the Tomb Not Been Empty

One of the most amazing facts about the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection was that it originated in the very city where Jesus was crucified. The Christian faith did not come into existence in some distant city far from eyewitnesses who knew of Jesus' death and burial. No, it came into being in the very city where Jesus had been publicly crucified, under the very eyes of its enemies. If the proclamation of Jesus' resurrection were false, all the Jewish authorities would have had to do to nip the Christian heresy in the bud would have been to point to his tomb or exhume the corpse of Jesus and parade it through the streets of the city for all to see. Had the tomb not been empty, then it would have been impossibIe for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem as they did.

8. The Earliest Jewish Propaganda Against the Christians Presupposes the Empty Tomb

in Matt 28: 11-15 we have the earliest Christian attempt to refute the Jewish propaganda against the Christian proclamation of the resurrection:

While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soldiers and said, "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.

Now, our interest is not so much in the evangelist's story of the guard at the tomb as in his incidental remark at the end, "This story had been spread among the Jews to this day." This remark reveals that the author was concerned to refute a widespread Jewish explanation of the resurrection. Now what were the Jews saying in response to the disciples' proclamation that Jesus was risen? That these men are full of new wine? That Jesus' body still lay in the tomb in the hillside? No. They were saying, "The disciples stole away his body." Think about that. "The disciples stole away his body." The Jewish propaganda did not deny the empty tomb, but instead entangled itself in a hopeless series of absurdities trying to explain it away. In other words, the Jewish propaganda that the disciples stole the body presupposes that the body was missing. Thus, the Jewish propaganda itself shows that the tomb was empty. This is historical evidence of the highest quality, since it comes not from the Christians but from the very enemies of the early Christian faith.

Taken together these eight considerations constitute a powerful case that Jesus' tomb was indeed found empty on the first day of the week by a group of his women followers. As a historical fact, this seems to be well-established. According to D. H. Van Daalen, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."8 But those assumptions cannot alter the facts themselves. NT scholars seem to be increasingly aware of this. According to Jacob Kremer, a NT critic who has specialized in the study of the resurrection: "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb," and he furnishes a list of twenty-eight scholars to which his own name may be added: Blank, Blinzler, Bode, von Campenhausen, Delorme, Dhanis, Grundmann, Hengel, Lehmann, Leon-Dufour, Lichtenstein, Manek, Martini, Mussner, Nauck, Rengstorff, Ruckstuhl, Schenke, Schmitt, Schubert, Schwank, Schweizer, Seidensticker, Strobel, Stuhlmacher, Trilling, Vogtle, and Wilckens.9 I can think of at least sixteen more that he failed to mention: Benoit, Brown, Clark, Dunn, Ellis, Gundry, Hooke, Jeremias, Klappert, Ladd, Lane, Marshall, Motile, Perry, Robinson, and Schnackenburg. Perhaps most amazing of all is that even two Jewish scholars, Lapide and Vermes, have declared themselves convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus' tomb was empty.

Info gathered from:
Wikipedia
http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/craig-resurrection.html

Suff

Barnabas wrote:

The comforter here referred to Suff is the Holy Spirit not Muhammad. If it refers to Muhammad then why is he now no longer with us?

For the majority of your post you seem to consitrate on the fact that the comforter is the holy sprit and not Muhammad (pbuh).

My findings suggest that The Holy Ghost was already with them.
the verses "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." The comforter can not be the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost (according to the Bible) was "with" them already (and even quite active) long before the coming of Christ (pbuh) himself and then throughout his ministry.

Read for example:

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

1 Samuel 10:10 "And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them."

1 Samuel 11:6 "And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly."

"Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?" (Isaiah 63:11)

"For he (John the Baptist) shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee." (Luke 1:35)

"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke 1:41)

"And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying," (Luke 1:67)

"And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him." (Luke 2:25)

"And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost (Simeon), that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ." (Luke 2:26)

"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him (Jesus), and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." (Luke 3:22)

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." (John 20:21-22)

Did they or did they not already receive the Holy Ghost? Was Christ (pbuh) not still with them when they received the Holy Ghost? Was the Holy Ghost not with Simeon, Mary, Elisabeth and Zacharias before the birth of the Messiah? Was the Holy Ghost not with Moses (pbuh) when he parted the seas? There are many more similar verses to be found in the Bible. In the above verses, we are told that if Christ (pbuh) does not depart then the "parakletos" will not come. Thus, the "Holy Ghost" cannot be the one originally intended since it was already with them!!!.... I'm sorry but the contradiction is quite obvious !

Also,... you stated that why Muhammad (PBUH) is not with us!? ofcourse he's not... he was only a man of flesh and blood, he has never proclaimed himself to be anything other than a simple human. the point there was the message that lives on from before the time of Abraham until Judgment Day.

I’d would just add that if the comforter was to be identified with Muhammad then why didn’t he testify to Jesus? A few references here and there (as is my understanding of what the Qur’aan has to offer regarding details of Jesus and his ministry and mission – though I am open to correction on that!) hardly constitutes testifying to Jesus as the Christ.

My friend indeed you have very little knowldge on what the Quraan have on Christ (pbuh)

This might take some space! as there's a a large number of refrences in the Qur'aan on Christ (PBUH) but I'm only going to qoute some...

First In the Quran, Mary's story begins while she is still in her mother's womb. The mother of Mary, said:
Surah 3. The Family Of 'Imran, The House Of 'Imran

35. Behold! a woman of 'Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: For Thou hearest and knowest all things."

36. When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!"- and Allah knew best what she brought forth- "And no wise is the male Like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected."

37. Right graciously did her Lord accept her: He made her grow in purity and beauty: To the care of Zakariya was she assigned. Every time that he entered (Her) chamber to see her, He found her supplied with sustenance. He said: "O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?" She said: "From Allah. for Allah Provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure."

in the Quotes below the Quraan give us the story of Christ's birth...
Surah 19 Mary:

16. Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.

17. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.

18. She said: "I seek refuge from thee to ((Allah)) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah."

19. He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.

20. She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"

21. He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."

22. So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.

23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!"

24. But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;

25. "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.

26. "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to ((Allah)) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"

27. At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!

28. "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"

29. But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"

30. He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;

31. "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;

32. "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

33. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!

34. Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.

35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.

36. Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight.

37. But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day!

God sent all the prophets with the same purpose, and Jesus was not different from them:

"And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming what was before him, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and light, confirming that which was before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition to those who are careful.”(5:46)

“...Jesus, son of Mary, said: O Children of Israel! See! I am the messenger of God to you, confirming what was before me in the Torah, and bringing good news of a messenger who will come after me, whose name is Ahmad (the Praised One).” (61:6)

in conclusion...Islam Fully Acknowledge that ... in Arabic: Īsā, Hebrew: Yehoshua , Aramaic: Yeshua and English: Jesus is Christ the awaited Messiah.

Remember the purpose of the New Testament is to bear witness to the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour and the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Again the bible was written by different people who held different views on this issue. but please think about it... did Christ never set to establish Christianity?? can one find a text in any scripture where Christ states that he wanted people to worship him ?

One last thing...did you check the Barnabas Gospel do a search on the word "Muhammad".

robindch

Out of interest -- does anybody actually read these humongous posts?

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

Out of interest -- does anybody actually read these humongous posts?

Yes, every one:)

robindch

Wow. Five posts in 48 hours averaging over 2,000 words each. I admire your endurance, sir!

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

Wow. Five posts in 48 hours averaging over 2,000 words each. I admire your endurance, sir!

I wish the wife was as understanding as you are:D

Tim Robbins

gosimeon wrote:

It is interesting that when people seek historic and scientific proof of Jesus, they immediately discount the Bible as a reliable source.

If we look at the Bible simply as a historic document, it should be among the most reliable on record compared with others.

Historians routinely cite Herodotus as a key source of information. He wrote from 488 B.C. to 428 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work comes from 900 A.D. (1,300 years later). There are only eight known copies of his work.

By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages.

So the Bible cannot be ruled out as a historic source. Yet, it will be by all athiests, who have no issue accepting historical teachings based on Herodotus.

"All atheists" is a straw man. I question all History, all literature and all print media.
Something is either correct or incorrect, the number of times something is propagated is not a function of correctness.
This is basic logic. Just because The Sunday Independant has 1 million copies in circulation doesn't mean it's right or correct.

Another reason why the New Testament is not used a historical source is because it's subjective how to determine the level propaganda and the level of objectivity in it.
The NT does not inspire confidence that the latter was the agenda, as why were several Gospels not included?
Surely it would have been most objective to include all Gospels as opposd to 4 and discarding another 13 or so.

Suff

Tim Robbins wrote:

why were several Gospels not included?
Surely it would have been most objective to include all Gospels as opposd to 4 and discarding another 13 or so.

The four known/ accepted Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are Gnostic (dualistic role that flesh is evil and spirit is good) in style and content, presenting a very different view of teaching to the non-Gnostic Gospels. There are many like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of James, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Barnabas and Secret Gospel of Mark.
for example take the gospel of Judas which was found in early 2006 is not claimed to have been written by Judas himself, but rather by Gnostic followers of Christ. we all know according to tradition and the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Luke, John and Mark, Judas betrayed Jesus (PBUH)
it interpret this betrayal as one performed in obedience to the instructions of Jesus! it conforms to the Gnostic notion that the human form is a prison, so Judas helped to release the spirit of Christ from its physical constraints. this is a result of the claim that Jesus gave Judas the secrets of the kingdom

"Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal."

You can see how this Gospel was cast aside when it came to collect the many Gospels into one volume.

gosimeon

Tim Robbins wrote:

The NT does not inspire confidence that the latter was the agenda, as why were several Gospels not included?
Surely it would have been most objective to include all Gospels as opposd to 4 and discarding another 13 or so.

Eleven "gospels" were not accepted due to a lingering doubt over the authorship, the time frame between the original writing and the events described, or for containing content that was at odds with the prevailing orthodoxy. If a gospel claimed to be written by for example, James, but was clearly authored beyond 120, then there was little chance of the authorship being authentic, was there? This differs from the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) which the majority of historians agree were authored before 100. For this reason, most of these non-canonical texts were only ever accepted by small portions of the early Christian community, and rejected by the vast majority.

Therefore your assumption that because not all gospels were included in the Bible it isn't reliable is without foundation. The fact that there was, if you will, a "quality check" implemented on the Bible actually strengthens the argument that it IS reliable, not that it isn't.

If there was no "quality check", and all the gospels were thrown together regardless of authorship and age, that would not add to the credability of the bible. It would surely take away from it. So I don't see your point!

Wibbs

Suff wrote:

I accept your view however where did Moses, Christ and Muhammad (PBUT) got these traditions from? they had to come from some source.

As schuart said Mesopotamia.

Abraham started the tradition..some of it got lost..Moses was sent with the reminder...some of it got lost/corrupted...Christ was sent to clearify/correct the tradition..some of got lost/corrupted...Muhammad was sent to yet again clearify/correct the traditon.

which begs the question why an all powerful God lets his earlier texts get corrupted, yet protects the last one? In any case historically the christian canon of texts are much closer in date to the time they write about than the Islamic Quran that we see today(contrary to popular belief). The Hadeeth are even later in style. The Jewish texts are far older than either of them stretching back thousands of years.

first of all Muhammad means in Arabic "The honorable one", "The glorified one", "The admirable"

How likely that someone would give their child a name that presumptuous? Is it more likely to be an honorary title?

check The Barnabas Gospel site and do a search on the name "Muhammad"

The barnabas gospel is considered by most scholars in the field to be a much later collection of writings. The earliest txt dates from the 1500, not the 100's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas You will see it also has many things that contradict Quranic teachings. It has many problems. Not least of which the writer gets confused about the meanings of words;

Barnabas appears not to realize that 'Christ' and 'Messiah' are translations of the same word (christos), describing Jesus as "Jesus Christ" yet claiming that 'Jesus confessed and said the truth, "I am not the Messiah"' (ch. 42)

Contradiction, no?

Jesus is said to have been born during the rule of Pontius Pilate, which began after the year 26.

Not a great take on history for a guy who was supposed to have been there. It would be like us writing about the Beatles playing for Roosevelt.

The Gospel talks of wine being stored in wooden casks - as characteristic of Gaul and Northern Italy (chapter 152); whereas wine in 1st century Palestine was stored in wineskins and jars (Amphorae). The Pedunculate or English Oak (quercus robur) does not grow in Palestine; and the wood of other species is not sufficiently airtight to be used in wine casks,

Ooops.

Hardly a text from which much can be gleaned, save for the intentions of the writers to put across a later reading of things at odds with the earlier.

The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs. Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past...? The sun shines today also.

Quality quote as ever from the Schu.

Tim Robbins

gosimeon wrote:

If there was no "quality check", and all the gospels were thrown together regardless of authorship and age, that would not add to the credability of the bible. It would surely take away from it. So I don't see your point!

My point is quite simple. Who or what determines quality?
Time of authorship?

Is there any of the original scripts from any of the Gospels which can be carbon dated to indicate how old they are? No for how do we even know a Gospel is original?
Did any of the authors sign and date their work?
Well some did, for example Gospel of Peter states:
"But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea;" — GoP, 14.
But some theologians won't accept Peter even wrote that!

Even if we could accurately say the date of writing or the authorship for each Gospel (which we can't with 1005 certainty), the characteristics of time and authorships don't determine quality or accuracy.

It is not deductively valid to say that these premise determines the validity.

For example:
The Sunday Indo can be accurately dated - doesn't mean it's right.
The Sunday Indo - the authors can all be confirmed - again doesn't mean it's right.

So there is no logical reason to assume one Gospel is more or less valid than another. In fact there is no logic to assume any Gospel is valid.

It would have made more sense to make all Gospels available and let people make up their own mind, instead of selecting particular Gospels and claiming that they passed a "quality check", quality is a subjective characterisic.

What's wrong with people being allowed to view all the evidence and make up there own mind?

gosimeon

You CAN read them if you wish. Go ahead.

However, that doesn't mean they ought to be a part of the Bible. The people that compiled the Bible knew a lot more than us about who wrote what, and what happened at Jesus' time etc. They drew their judgement on whether a book was very reliable or not through their knowledge.

I have noticed a spawn of books related to this lately. All about the hidden gospels, the dark secrets that Christianity hides. Funnily enough they seemed to become popular around the same time as the D a Vinci Code. Another fad mindset that will die down no doubt. The people who compiled the Bible were Christians who no doubt took their task very seriously. They picked the gospels that were most reliable and best reflected what they knew to be true about the dawn of Christianity.

Some of the Gnostic gospels (all of which WERE NOT written by the people they are named after).

Peter was written in the mid-2nd century, according to most historians. The gospel is pseudepigraphical, just because the author the book says he is the real Peter, that doesn't make him Peter. It is difficult to imagine that he was Peter considering Peter was dead when his gospel was written:rolleyes: . Hardly overly reliable? It was written by the gnostics, who developed their own ideas and theology. It doesn't belong in the Bible.

You can, however, read it - there are a number of translations available.

Tim Robbins

gosimeon wrote:

You CAN read them if you wish. Go ahead.

However, that doesn't mean they ought to be a part of the Bible. The people that compiled the Bible knew a lot more than us about who wrote what, and what happened at Jesus' time etc. They drew their judgement on whether a book was very reliable or not through their knowledge.

I have noticed a spawn of books related to this lately. All about the hidden gospels, the dark secrets that Christianity hides. Funnily enough they seemed to become popular around the same time as the D a Vinci Code. Another fad mindset that will die down no doubt. The people who compiled the Bible were Christians who no doubt took their task very seriously. They picked the gospels that were most reliable and best reflected what they knew to be true about the dawn of Christianity.

Some of the Gnostic gospels (all of which WERE NOT written by the people they are named after).

Peter was written in the mid-2nd century, according to most historians. The gospel is pseudepigraphical, just because the author the book says he is the real Peter, that doesn't make him Peter. It is difficult to imagine that he was Peter considering Peter was dead when his gospel was written:rolleyes: . Hardly overly reliable? It was written by the gnostics, who developed their own ideas and theology. It doesn't belong in the Bible.

You can, however, read it - there are a number of translations available.

Q.1 How do you decide how much trust you put in the people who decided canon and how much trust you put in the authors of the non canonical Gospels?
You say they took their Christianity "seriously" are you saying the author(s) of Peter and all other non canonical Gospels did not? Elaborate with evidence please.

Q.2. What evidence do you have that the Gospel of Peter was not written earlier than mid 2nd century?

Q.3. Do you agree that authorship and date of writing do not imply "quality" or veracity i.e. there is no deductive validity between that premise and conclusion?
You ignored my point here.

Suff

Wibbs wrote:

which begs the question why an all powerful God lets his earlier texts get corrupted, yet protects the last one?

No one knows, thats GOD's wisdom. but when it came to the last text GOD promise to protect it:

Surah 15. Al-hijr, Stoneland, Rock City

"9. We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it. "

How likely that someone would give their child a name that presumptuous? Is it more likely to be an honorary title?

No, his name was Muhammad (PBUH), Dont forget that Arabic is a deep meaningful language when compared to english, however the name is not the only element here,..you're missing the point completly, the fact that his name was Muhammad, mentioned in the Torah and the "Bible" (below) and having brought this timless/ forever occurring mericle The Quraan its more than enough!

Please read the whole chapter xxviii. of Jeremiah, and then reflect on the ninth verse: -

"The prophet which foretells the Islam (Shalom), at the coming of the word of the Prophet, that prophet will be recognized to have been sent by God in truth" (Jer. xxviii. 9)
("shalom" and the Syriac "Shlama," as well as the Arabic "salam" and "Islam," are of one and the same Semitic root, "shalam," and mean the same thing, is an admitted truth by all the scholars of the Semitic languages. The verb "shalam" signifies "to submit, resign oneself to," and then "to make peace;" and consequently "to be safe, sound, and tranquil.")

At the time of the coming of Christ (pbuh), the Israelites were still awaiting for that prophet like unto Moses prophecied in Deuteronomy 18:18. When John the Baptist came, they asked him if he was Christ and he said "no". They asked him if he was Elias and he said "no". Then, in apparent reference to Deuteronomy 18:18, they asked him "Art thou that Prophet" and he answered, "no". (John 1: 1 9-2 1).

Surah 7. The Heights
157. "Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."

"The Lord came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran." (Deuteromony, 33.2)
Paran is a mountain range in Makka. It is mentioned in the Torah (Genesis, 21.19-21) as the area in the desert where Hagar was left by her husband Abraham, upon him be peace, to live with her son, Ishmael.

"I will make the son of the maidservant (Hagar) into a nation. Hagar, lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation" (Genesis 21:13 & 18).

26- But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me: 27-and ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. (John 15: 26-27)

The barnabas gospel is considered by most scholars in the field to be a much later collection of writings.

I am well aware of the number of issues regarding the Barnabas gospel however its mentioned in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works: the Decretum Gelasianum (no later than the 6th century), as well as a 7th-century List of the Sixty Books.
the point that it named Muhammad (PBUH) is something to consider.
There are a large number (29+) of Gospels who contradicts the four accepted Gospels of (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) in either the trinity, the prophethood of Christ or the coming of the Comforter (Muhammad).

Which comes to the Question:
...when presented with quotes from the bible regarding the topics of Muhammad (PBUH) or the Prophethood of Christ (PBUH) the same answer seem to arise "..can't take the bible as a valid source.." or " there are different versions of the bible" or "translation issue" then on what grounds do Christians argue their beliefs to non-Christians if themselves dont trust their texts?

Barnabas

Suff the reason I concnetrate on your assertion that the Comforter is to be equated with the Muhammad is because the New Testament equates the comforter with the Holy Spirit.

Following your logic the following would be the conclusion which cannot be what you want to say:

Comforter = Muhammad
but New Testament states that
Comforter = the Holy Spirit
logical conclusion is
Muhammad = the Holy Spirit.

And this is completely absurd!

As regards the presence of the Holy Spirit being already with them.
I've already said that no one has a problem in Christianity with the presence of the Holy Spirit before and during the life, mission and death of Jesus. But after his death and Resurrection when he goes to the Father the Spirit is sent in a qualitatively new way. He is not just with them anymore but in them and they in him. That's what Christians mean when they speak of life in the Spirit. The Spirit comes to bear witness to Son who came to bear witness to the Father. St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles makes very clear that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at pentecost is the fulfilment of the prophecies regarding the Spirit's mission. Read Acts of the Apostles 2:14 - 40 and please pay particular attention to verses 32 -36 which not only speak of the Spirit being poured out on them but also of Jesus with the title of Lord - a title only God can have.


The problem we have is that you propose a monadic monotheism while I, as a Christian, propose a Trinitarian monotheism.

Wibbs

Suff wrote:

No one knows, thats GOD's wisdom. but when it came to the last text GOD promise to protect it:

Surah 15. Al-hijr, Stoneland, Rock City

"9. We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it. "

Ok then why are the earliest examples of the Quran slightly different in text to the modern one. Why do the earliest examples of the Quran differ quite a bit from the Quranic inscriptions on the dome of the rock? Why are those early examples no earlier in style and dating than 200 years after Muhammed was said to have existed? Given that the current copy of the Quran has diacritical dots yet the earliest does not, this straight away suggests that the no change ever is simply not historically accurate. If there were no corruption then those early ones would look identical to today's. They don't. One could argue that the subtlety of Arabic explains this away, but if a book that's supposed to be for all time with a clear message is that hard to pin down, questions must be raised. Add to the texts concerning it's collection by Uthman which suggest that there was more than one "version" extant at the time. many would say that Uthman was divinely guided in his collection. Fair enough but then you're uncomfortably close to the chronology and accuracy of the Gospel writers.

No, his name was Muhammad (PBUH), Dont forget that Arabic is a deep meaningful language when compared to english, however the name is not the only element here,..you're missing the point completly, the fact that his name was Muhammad, mentioned in the Torah and the "Bible" (below) and having brought this timless/ forever occurring mericle The Quraan its more than enough!

No you believe he was foretold in the torah etc. No Jewish or Christian scholar would say so.

Paran is a mountain range in Makka. It is mentioned in the Torah (Genesis, 21.19-21) as the area in the desert where Hagar was left by her husband Abraham, upon him be peace, to live with her son, Ishmael.

Makka/Mecca is mentioned in no Jewish/Roman/Mesopotamian/Greek religious maps or texts. Not once. It only pops up on the radar after the early spread of Islam. Strange for such an important religious and trading town. Very weird the trade maps and geography/religious texts don't mention it.

I am well aware of the number of issues regarding the Barnabas gospel however its mentioned in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works: the Decretum Gelasianum (no later than the 6th century), as well as a 7th-century List of the Sixty Books.

And absolutely no trace of that gospel remains. None. A bit suspicious then that it first shows up in moorish Spain purporting to show the Islamic side of things. Hmmmmm. That's like saying that there are mention of scores from Mozart in his time that are now lost and finding one in the style of written on paper dated to the 1950's.

the point that it named Muhammad (PBUH) is something to consider.

Only if you believe it mentions him, which is wishful thinking frankly. A Jew would likely say the same with reference to Jesus

Which comes to the Question:
...when presented with quotes from the bible regarding the topics of Muhammad (PBUH) or the Prophethood of Christ (PBUH) the same answer seem to arise "..can't take the bible as a valid source.." or " there are different versions of the bible" or "translation issue" then on what grounds do Christians argue their beliefs to non-Christians if themselves dont trust their texts?

Well the translation and differing texts over time have been covered. the main difference between the two traditions is that one has to believe there has been no change, no matter what, or the central tenet of faith falls. A precarious position indeed for any religious text.

Suff

In reply to Barnabas....

Muhammad (PBUH) is not the Holy Spirit, your view contradicts the below:

Does the Holy Spirit "speak" or "inspire"??
The Greek word translated as "hear" in the Biblical verses ("whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak") is the Greek word "akouo" {ak-oo'-o} meaning to perceive sounds. It has, for instance, given us the word "acoustics," the science of sounds. Similarly the verb "to speak" is the Greek verb "laleo" {lal-eh'-o} which has the general meaning "to emit sounds" and the specific meaning "to speak." This verb occurs very frequently in the Greek text of the Gospels. It designates a solemn declaration by Jesus (peace be upon him) during his preachings (For example Matthew 9:18). Obviously these verbs require hearing and speech organs in order to facilitate them. There is a distinct difference between someone "inspiring" something and him "speaking" something. So the Paraclete will "hear" and "speak," not "inspire."

Muhammad (pbuh), as seen above, did indeed fulfill this prophesy. Whatsoever he "HEARD" from Gabriel (The Qur'an), the same did he physically "SPEAK" to his followers. In the Qur'an we read:

"(God swears) By the star when it falls!: Your comrade (Muhammad) errs not, nor is he deceived; Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is naught save a revelation that is revealed (unto him)." (The noble Qur'an, Al-Najm(53):1-4)
in the bible you are told that if Jesus (pbuh) does not depart then the "parakletos" will not come, the "Holy Ghost" cannot be the one originally intended since it was already with them!
What is the "Holy Spirit"?... its the Angel Gabriel who's the only connection between a Prophet and his GOD, he job is only to communicate with Prophets and not to ordinary people.

Wibbs wrote:

Ok then why are the earliest examples of the Quran slightly different in text to the modern one. Why do the earliest examples of the Quran differ quite a bit from the Quranic inscriptions on the dome of the rock?

So you do acknowldge that the Quran had a well documented history compared to the bible. I dont recall or know of any of this "slighty different text" you mentioned, all Islamic scholars would strongly deny this alligation also the dome of the rock is a blinding and not a holy text! the builder could have easly made a mistake.

Why are those early examples no earlier in style and dating than 200 years after Muhammed was said to have existed?

Please elaborate on this as i dont understand the question.

Given that the current copy of the Quran has diacritical dots yet the earliest does not, this straight away suggests that the no change ever is simply not historically accurate.

It is accurate, as its not only conserved in texts/ scriptures it was also memorised by a large number of people who checked/oversaw the process of making new copies of the scripture. "Quran"

If there were no corruption then those early ones would look identical to today's. They don't.

please produce your backup before making such alligation.

One could argue that the subtlety of Arabic explains this away, but if a book that's supposed to be for all time with a clear message is that hard to pin down, questions must be raised. Add to the texts concerning it's collection by Uthman which suggest that there was more than one "version" extant at the time. many would say that Uthman was divinely guided in his collection. Fair enough but then you're uncomfortably close to the chronology and accuracy of the Gospel writers.

the difference here is not version as you understand the term..its more of ascent, there are 7 ascents to read the Quraan, as the Arabs had seven.
till this day they are with us and some are popular than others depending on your region however the text is the same, no change.

No you believe he was foretold in the torah etc. No Jewish or Christian scholar would say so.

if they acknowldge him would that change your mind ?

Makka/Mecca is mentioned in no Jewish/Roman/Mesopotamian/Greek religious maps or texts. Not once. It only pops up on the radar after the early spread of Islam. Strange for such an important religious and trading town. Very weird the trade maps and geography/religious texts don't mention it.

Read the posted qoute it said "Paran", nothign about Mekka in the actual text. however paran are a mountains that surround Mekka.
also Mekka valley was known as Becca, look the name up in your bible.

And absolutely no trace of that gospel remains. None.

So completely ignore it then!? which is my point "Picky" 29+ Gospels contradicts the four canonical Gospels but still they have been discussed and researched.


edit: fixed the Quotes

gosimeon

Tim Robbins wrote:

Q.1 How do you decide how much trust you put in the people who decided canon and how much trust you put in the authors of the non canonical Gospels?
You say they took their Christianity "seriously" are you saying the author(s) of Peter and all other non canonical Gospels did not? Elaborate with evidence please.

Q.2. What evidence do you have that the Gospel of Peter was not written earlier than mid 2nd century?

Q.3. Do you agree that authorship and date of writing do not imply "quality" or veracity i.e. there is no deductive validity between that premise and conclusion?
You ignored my point here.

1
The earliest church were in a far better position to judge what happened than we were. They would have had far more resources available to decide which gospels were authentic and which were not. The fact that the Gospel if Peter was almost certainly not actually widely available/known by Orthodox Christians at the time is also a simple reason why I trust them not to put your favoured Peter in - they didn't know it existed!

2
On Peter. Firstly, it is important to point out that NO COMPLETE COPY of this gospel exits. None. So it is ridiculous to suggest it should be in the Bible when you don't actually know what the full thing says. It could have been a book about the flying spaghetti monster for all you, or I, know. To quote Gospels.net on Peter: "When the Gospel of Peter was first published, many scholars quickly regarded it as a rearrangement and loose paraphrase of the canonical gospels. They believed that the gospel was written in the late second century. They asserted that the gospel was obviously dependent on the canonical texts for its material. " There are some that say it was written earlier, but they are a small, small minority. If you look it up on the net (on a balanced site, not a conspirecy theory website, you won't find in dated any earlier than 70AD. Usually it is said to have been written about 100-150 AD. Therefore Peter couldn't have been alive. Therefore it would have been stupid of the church to include a Gospel that lied blatantly. As you say, it says it is written by Peter. As the facts say, it couldn't be, he would have been dead. Hardly reliable then?

3
Authorship and date point towards whether a biblical writing is first hand or not, and also whether it could have been tampered with. Which is surely a part of the quality of doctrine - its authenticity? Including a book not written by the person it claimed to be written by, or even dictated by Peter, would have been a bad move by the church.

Barnabas

I don't have the exact reference but I am sure that in the Acts of the Apostles there are several references to the Holy Spirit 'speaking'! Also, the Father (who doesn't have a body and so has no organs for speech) speaks from heaven when the Lord Jesus is Baptised by John the Baptist in the Jordan. Quite frankly, and I don't want to sound offensive here, your rebuttal using semantics is quite ludicrous and doesn't do your position any favours. God has given you the gift of reason - please use it.

I get the feeling Suff that no matter what any of us Christians say to you and no matter how reasonable it might be, you will just keep posting something that contradicts it using our own scriptures.
Your use of the Bible is very fragmented and by taking a quote here and there you are trying to force a meaning that is not there and has never been there. As I pointed out to you quite a number of posts ago - you can take any passage of the bible or the qur'aan out of its context or put it in a context it was not meant to fit to justify just about anything. But I'm getting the impression that you aren't really interested in reading anything we have to say so you probably didn't read that bit.
Sorry if all this seems a little harsh - it's not meant to be.

The Holy Spirit is not the Angel Gabriel, he is one of the Trinity - he is the Lord God - one with the Father and the Son and with the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. The angel Gabriel is a creature and can never be worshipped.

Barnabas

The relevant quotations are:

Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.

Acts 20:22-23 22"And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. 23I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me.

Also if as you say the Holy Spirit is to be equated with the Angel Gabriel then what sense does it make when Paul says that we Christians are the temples of the Holy Spirit. According to your opinion that would mean that we are inhabited by (or possessed) by the Angel Gabriel. It just doesn't make sense to read the Christian Bible and say that the Holy Spirit is not sent by the Father and the Son as their Holy Spirit - the 3rd person of the Trinity.

Tim Robbins

gosimeon wrote:

1
The earliest church were in a far better position to judge what happened than we were. They would have had far more resources available to decide which gospels were authentic and which were not. The fact that the Gospel if Peter was almost certainly not actually widely available/known by Orthodox Christians at the time is also a simple reason why I trust them not to put your favoured Peter in - they didn't know it existed!

Well I doubt that. Who knows what position the earliest Church were in, how meticulous they were and what their motives were? It's entirely speculative.
What we do know is literacy rates were extremly low then, and critical analysis is nowhere near what it is today. It's your decision where you put your trust. I would just question the process that lead you to your decision. It sounds to me if you were told that Peter, Mar Mag and all the non canonical gospels were ok and Mark, Mathew, Luke and John were not ok from a young age from the same organised establishments you'd accept. So it sounds like you are just accepting a particular establishment. I'd need a lot more convincing.

gosimeon wrote:

2
On Peter. Firstly, it is important to point out that NO COMPLETE COPY of this gospel exits. None. So it is ridiculous to suggest it should be in the Bible when you don't actually know what the full thing says. It could have been a book about the flying spaghetti monster for all you, or I, know. To quote Gospels.net on Peter: "When the Gospel of Peter was first published, many scholars quickly regarded it as a rearrangement and loose paraphrase of the canonical gospels. They believed that the gospel was written in the late second century. They asserted that the gospel was obviously dependent on the canonical texts for its material. " There are some that say it was written earlier, but they are a small, small minority. If you look it up on the net (on a balanced site, not a conspirecy theory website, you won't find in dated any earlier than 70AD. Usually it is said to have been written about 100-150 AD. Therefore Peter couldn't have been alive. Therefore it would have been stupid of the church to include a Gospel that lied blatantly. As you say, it says it is written by Peter. As the facts say, it couldn't be, he would have been dead. Hardly reliable then?

You have evaded the question. You have no evidence that Peter was not written less than 70AD.
It is possible for Peter to have written 50 or 60 AD. There is no argument which deductively proofs that Peter was not alive when any of that was written and he had no input to it.

Many theologians consider that Mathew didn't write his Gospel, but he inspired it hence why it is called that. It could be the exact same with Peter. Why ditch one and not the other? What's the logic, because you are told too?

3
Authorship and date point towards whether a biblical writing is first hand or not, and also whether it could have been tampered with. Which is surely a part of the quality of doctrine - its authenticity? Including a book not written by the person it claimed to be written by, or even dictated by Peter, would have been a bad move by the church.

Well you obviously don't understand "deductive validity".
What type of logic are you using?How are you factoring in your potential error conditions or the probability of error into your opinions?

the_new_mr

Hello and peace to everyone.

Once again, I commit the forum crime of not reading previous posts before writing this post. Sorry about that

Anyway, here are a couple of links from youtube discussing Mohamed (peace be upon him) in the Bible. Worth a look in.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8_1E22brcU

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiyc08wHhbk

Suff

Barnabas wrote:

Quite frankly, and I don't want to sound offensive here, your rebuttal using semantics is quite ludicrous and doesn't do your position any favours. God has given you the gift of reason - please use it. Sorry if all this seems a little harsh - it's not meant to be.

Barnabas,.....you are not offensive or harsh. however the same thing applies to you when it comes to the use of reason.

I get the feeling Suff that no matter what any of us Christians say to you and no matter how reasonable it might be, you will just keep posting something that contradicts it using our own scriptures.

Barnabas... that applies to you also.
It seems to me that no matter what both of us say/argue/quote... our minds are made up. full head on collision. you believe in a theory and I in another.. or what people would say: you have your belief and I have mine.

HOWEVER!...please keep an open mind when it comes to this topic,..I know I will.
and do check the links provided by the_mr_new

you are trying to force a meaning that is not there and has never been there.

Careful now..this will leads us back into a circle again
which would be fun but I guess we'll leave it for another day.
......I'll be Back!