Peace humble guest,
1) As I mentioned before, to doubt the authorship of the G of B is to shoot yourself in the foot. As a piece of text, its authorship and pristine transmission though not verifiable beyond all reasonable doubt, is STILL more ascertainable than that of the four gospels of the Bible. When you drag down the G of B, you are inadvertently pushing the legitimacy of the four gospels deeper below water. I don’t see why you insist on doing that.
2) Actually, ancient historical evidence in support of Jesus’ crucifixion is precisely what is void and sought by Christian and secular scholars alike. If there actually was proof, there would be little reason to have to resort to religious debates on the subject. I don’t know what you mean when you say “magically replaced,” but I would be very interested to read the historical proof you have against the statement:
[Yet they did not kill him nor crucify him, but it was only made to appear to them so. And surely those who disagree about it are doubtful and have no knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture, and certainly they did not kill him-] (Qur’an 4:157)
It will be very interesting to read a historical proof, beyond conjecture, that an event did not only appear to witnesse to have transpired, but actually transpired.
If you read the links I gave you, realize that many ancient historians spoke about a "Chritus" that was crucified under Pilate. The Talmud talks about "Yeshu" that twas crucified a day after Passover.
I can't see how you can reality, Jesus was crucified.
It's not unlike the Jews, sadly, to kill their prophets.
The Quran teaches conjecture beacause there is NO evidence to support the Quran's theory.
There’s mounting evidence that John the Baptist and Jesus (pbuh) himself were members of this group. Some have even attributed the dead sea scrolls to them.
Definitely John was an Essene, but Jesus was not really a part of any group.
In matters of religion, divine revelation trumps speculative detective work.
Also, you are still missing the point on the reason why your argument is flawed. Consider that tomorrow the oldest known gospel is discovered which matches the Biblical narrative. The day after that, the text turns out to be, as you love to say, “apocryphal,” questionable work written by early slanderers of Christianity. Using your reasoning, one would conclude that the Bible is based on this text since it shares the same narrative and that therefore the Bible is itself an unauthentic replica. This would be illogical because the chain of events in the narrative is either true or false. Now since you say that the Bible is inspired work, and that the narrative therein is absolutely true, then it doesn’t even matter if this “truth” is contained in another questionable text. That in itself cannot falsify a truth.
You didn't give me a direct answer, see you just assume whatever the Quran says is real. That is why you beloeev thys G of B is a more realistic depiction of Jesus, and that is why you'd probably believe the silly story about the datre-palm over Jesus being born in Bethelehm.
Realize that the Arabic Infancy Gospels was written 170 years after Jesus was born!
And the Pseudo-Matthew gospel was written 400 years after Jesus was born!
The Quran contains narratives from both of these contradictory apocryphal gospels!
Hey, if you want to believe in apocryphal fairy tales, that is your business. I will believe every word from a gospel written 20 years after Jesus lived then believe one word from a gospel written 400 years after Jesus was born!!!!