Proofs, proofs, proofs... I need proofs. Not (language removed by newseed) and personal speculations.
these aren't personal statements, these are facts! it originated in that time, no jewish knowledge is found in it!, etc... what is your definition of proof my friend?
And one more thing: If your logic is right: Then for example Passion Narrative were wriiten around 30-60 which means before any Christian heresies contained today in the fictitous NT. Why were these writings rejected? Please backup your claims with authenticated proofs and not (language removed by newseed).
the passion narrative is hypothetical scripture... something a certain group of scholars think existed... yet there is large dispute about it, if it acctually did or not. So untill such a passion narrative is found it's neither rejected nor approved.
The Abingdon Bible Commentary1 (pg. 1076) readily admits they have no idea where the story of the woman caught in adultery (reported in John 8:3-7) came from, saying; “It is certain that this story does not belong to this gospel. It breaks the continuity of 7:52 and 8:12; the style and language are Synoptic and not Johannine. The textual evidence is against its authenticity as part of the Gospel.”
Jesus stoning the adulteress woman in the Christian NIV (New International Version) Study Bible says:
The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11
The Living Bible admits “most ancient manuscripts omit John 7:53-8:1-8:11.”
As Jade Koay wrote: “It is widely known and acknowledged that the whole incident thingy about ‘Jesus’ saying the words ‘he who is without sin cast the first stone’ never happened...In fact it was added to our bibles...Even my bible, right down at the bottom is footnoted as saying that this incident never appeared in the majority of ancient texts...”
this is not a conundrun in scholastic circles... this is normal with scriptual research to have different viewpoints towards it. Neither does it proof that it's apocryphal... since what is assumed of the gospel of john is that after his death his students/followers/monks completed the gospel based on John's preachings of the good news(gospel). Doesn't mean it never happend.
The Abingdon Bible Commentary 1 (pg. 1020-21), explaining Chapter 16 of Mark says; “The Resurrection (1-8) in Mark’s Gospel broke off suddenly at v.8 or it may be that the original ending became lost. At a later period, efforts were made to complete or restore it.”
“The codex Washington adds after verse 14 in Mark’s Gospel, a crude paragraph―which has been taken from some early second century Christians writing. In some extant MSS. of the Gospel of Mark, another shorter ending has been added as well.”
I never heard of a dispute of Mark surrounding the ressurection, i'm looking this 'dispute' up, but can't find it. can you give me reliable christian sources so i can look into that... yet keep in mind that of each gospel we have found something like 150 copies of each gospel. About wich gospel copy are you talking?
One last point – The Abingdon Bible Commentary (pg. 953) agrees with Christian scholars that Mark was the first gospel as it says; “One of the assured results of devout criticism is that almost the whole of Mark is incorporated in ‘Matthew.’ This conclusion can be verified by any student who cares to examine in a synopsis a parable or incident which is found in both Matthew and Mark. This discovery indicates that the author was not one of the twelve, for one who had been an eyewitness himself would not report to the work of a secondary witness.”
the Synoptic Gospels Mark, Matthew and Luke are known to have common themes and agreements in wording... yet i have no problem with this. Even a soldier at the landing of normady who wants to write a detailed summary of the event, will use other eye witness sources... to make sure that he's perspective doesn't do history wrong. neither does it mean that he wasn't their.
and what with the quran? who only has one eye witness, one book ? and one perspective? if your see a car accident happen, what is more credible? to believe the one that caused it? or 4 other persons that saw it happen?
Christians should no doubt be referred to as sheeple since they act like sheep. This is why their leaders are called shepherds. The sheep, like Christians, blindly go wherever their leaders tell them.
you acctually read the borrowings and stolen myths of the quran? your eager to apply this to others, yet not to yourself.