So Yeshu and Christus aren't Jesus Christ?
Yes they are, those are the names used to refer to Jesus. However, that in itself does not prove that the man was crucified. We can go over this however many times you like: how will you show that an event did not only appear to have transpired, but instead, actually transpired?
Alot of ancient writings have been preserved.
The Iliad is very ancient yet it is very well preserved and is a complete epic that survived for 2500 years.
The Code of Hammurabi is 3800 years old!!
Mere preservation isn’t the only test. Find another book with all the criteria I’ve put for authenticity and then we can have a meaningful discussion. Besides, both of the quoted books don’t even claim divine authorship. However, as pieces of text I would definitely rank them as better preserved than the Bible.
The Quran also contains stories derived from many Jewish, Christian, and Persian apocryphal writings.
http://www.islamland.org/books1/wamy/mp ... _intro.htm
Again, the Quran contains narratives from two Infancy gospels that are compeltely different and were written centuries after Jesus's childhood.
Definitely any man of reason would believe a Gospel written 20 years after Jesus then to beloeve something hundreds of years after Jesus lived.
I wrote: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.
And here:
Let me give you an analogy of what you're doing.
The Gospel of Barnabas supports the claim that Jesus (pbuh) was not crucified.
The Gospel of Barnabas was written before the Qur'an
Erroneous conclusion: the Qur'an is based on the G of B
post hoc ergo propter hoc
(after this therefore because of this)
To disprove this faulty conclusion, one need only show that the effect was caused by something other than the suggested cause.
With historical events this is simple, since something either happened or it did not. If the Qur’anic version is true, it should not surprise anyone that an earlier text also supports this truth. It is well known that years after the alleged crucifixion, Christians believing in the Divine Unity and remnants of the Essene community continued to preach and transmit Jesus' true teachings and life experiences.
The fact that you can't show that those events in Jesus' (pbuh) did not happen means that you necessarily cannot conclude that the claim they did happen is false.
argumentum ad ignorantiam
(Argument from Ignorance)
Historically, an event either happened or it did not. If the account is true, then it doesn’t matter if it was recorded in mud or on the underside of a bar table by a murderer or in a text which contains a series of other unrelated untrue statements. I mean, this is precisely the argument that is used in defense of the Bible, “yes, it contains serious historical and internal contradictions, but that doesn’t mar the truth that it does contain”.
You’re trying to do two illogical things at once. First you’re saying that since the Qur’an and your apocryphal texts contain a similar account, then the Qur’an is copied from the texts. The reason this is illogical is because if the account is true, it doesn’t matter in which or how many texts it is contained. It’s not surprising that the account is true because it is found in a divine book that only contains truth. It shouldn’t be surprising either that a historical text records a historical truth because witnesses are apt to do just that, record events as they happened. On the other hand, if you’re trying to show that the account in the “apocryphal” texts is false solely because their manuscript has a later date than that of the Bible (not even true since you’re talking about supposed authorship instead of manuscript evidence ~325 AD), then this isn’t proof at all unless you are able to show that the account is false (and not just that the early Church fathers decided not to accept the gospels). In addition, you’d have to show that this gospel influenced the Qur’an, which will be even more difficult than showing that the Trinity is not based on the triadic godhead of Hinduism or Platonic triplets of the soul. Otherwise, anyone can say that the mere fact that these philosophies are similar means that they were copied.
Still not clicking, but I hope it soon will.
yet you won't believe that God is an awesome mystery beyond human thought.
Anthropomorphized gods were very popular among the pagans, I don’t see why you refer to that concept as a mystery.
Evidence amounts every day that the Bible is an accurate piece of historical work.
Except on the very thing it is supposed to convey: the life and teachings of Jesus. A gaping hole in the childhood narrative, unknown authorship, mysteriously fragmented transmission, and accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection which lean inordinately heavily on one of the Gospels.
The Trinity is clearly evideny in scripture, and that is a big reason why I believe it.
God is The Spirit, Jesus, and Father.
But that’s the entire point of this discussion. One should believe completely and unequivocally in what is contained in Scripture. The most important thing is to first determine whether the Scripture is authentic.
Otherwise, I think you’d enjoy Plato’s Republic as an equally valid “Scripture”.
The human soul, and preferably all social ideas, are to be divided into three-faculties-in-one.
Reasoning = Judging
Spiritedness = Spirited conscience
Desiring = Flesh, human, basic needs
Eerily familiar?
Wouldn't it bother you or make you think that maybe there is something wrong with the Gob all together? If you are not interested, then you shouldn't bring it into the debate because as you know, it will be debunked like all of the other arguments you and your friends have tried to use.
Heh, it doesn’t bother me at all, because as I said, I pit the G of B and the Bible together in terms of authenticity, and they contradict each other almost completely, so it’s good to hear how illegitimate you think the text is. I just consider that selective criticism on your part.
How well is word of mouth going from one person to the next and then to the next when they had to write it down? Why was only Zaid the only one to have his recordings be official whilst others were destroyed?
Here’s a simple, non-technical website to help you understand the transmission:
http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Sabeel/sabeel3.htm
You need to prove without a doubt that gob is relevant to quran or else your entire argument is debunked. Since you cannot do that, you have nothing to stand on. You can't see that you're picking and choosing here? You want to show a without a doubt document providing that Jesus is only the prophet. Try another heretic story and we can see if we can help you find the "proof" you're looking for. I know you won't be able to do it.
Here is the relevance of the G of B: it offers a plausible alternative to the account of the crucifixion given in the NT which does not contradict the Qur’an. I’m not interested in its theological points or any other historical points it offers.
Actually we can't tell you that since they are all heretic. LOL HOwever, if you do read them, let me know, but from what I've seen so far, the Book of Mary supports the NT, SHEPHEARD OF HERMES. Epistle of Barnabas as well. I guess I could go on, but you wouldn't believe me anyway.
That’s strange, there’s a chapter in my book about how the Shepheard of Hermas theologically contradicts the NT…
Trust me, I don't get angry so easily as you would like to think. I'm actually very entertained thank you very much.
Peace to you too.
Heh, I hope so. From your tone and jabbing use of smilies one would think that you’re getting upset.
Peace bros