Christian/Muslim Threads100 Christians Proofs For Islamic Falsehood\Abdullah wrote: Kai replies: It’s is not as simple as that bro! The Bible is an historical book, and can be traced back to the era of the apostles via manuscripts, both biblical and secular and the backing up of its contemporary history, such as the writings of the church fathers. Some centuries ago, scholars stated that the New Testament was written in the Second century; such a claim is not valid any more. Codex Vaticanus, dated earlier than year 350, containing the whole Bible up to Hebr.9:15 Codex Sinaiticus, dated around year 350, containing the entire New Testament of the Bible Bodmer Papyri, dated year 175, containing almost the full Gospel of John, and large parts of the Gospel of Luke chapter 3 up to John 15 Chester Betty Papyri, dated year 90-300, with the Four Gospels and Acts dating 150-200, and the epistles of the apostle Paul by some dated between year 90 and 100 The Death Sea Scrolls (Cave Seven) the findings of several New Testament fragments, e.g. the Gospel of Mark (fragments from chapters 4, 6 and 12), also fragments from the book of Acts, Romans, Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter and James. The Lukan Papyrus, Gospel of Luke, dated approximately year 100 (late first, early second century) The Magdalene Manuscript, a fragment of the Gospel of Matthew chapter 26, dated 65/66 Just to mention some of them The dating of biblical manuscripts is so significant that it precedes the integrity of virtually every ancient historical piece of literature. The works of Julius Caesar (written 100-44 BC), the earliest copy in existence dates year 900 AD (10 copies), which leaves a time-span of approximately 1000 years. Strangely no scholar seems to have any problem in terms of its credibility, despite the enormous time-span and tiny amount of copies. The writings of Aristotle (written 384-322 BC), the earliest copy in existence dating year 1100 AD (5 copies), leaving a time-span of 1400 years. Again scholars despite time-span and number of copies seem to have no reason to discredit Aristotle’s work or bring up the allegation that the text has to be tampered with or fabricated at later period time. We could similarly mention Plato, Lucretius and Aristophanes, just to mention a few. How come our great atheistic scholars have no problems accepting other ancient works? Obviously the motive arises from fear, since the Biblical writings contain more than merely philosophical discoveries. Clearly if the Biblical books are history and as reliable as the writings and accomplishments of any other historical figure, it indicates that the miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus and in that case his message as well, are true. Considering the view of any atheist or Muslim, the only possible way is to approach the Christian books with a biased attitude. Interestingly enough the number of Biblical (New Testament) manuscripts in our possession, which date AD 1000 toward the first century, number no less than 24.000. The Second historical lines of evidence are the writings of early Christian theologians. It is not unusual to hear such ignorant claims that the New Testament (Christian Biblical writings) were simply developed over a period of centuries with a final compilation in the fourth century. However such a claim needs first to be weighed against the manuscript evidence and secondly against the writings of early Christian theologians, for example: Justin Martyr (writing year 133 AD) refers to the four Gospels, the Book of Acts and the epistles 330 times Irenaeus (living late second century) refers to the Gospels 1038 times, Acts 194 times, Paul’s epistles 499 times, the other epistles 23 time and the Book of Revelation 65 times, with a total of 1819 times Clement of Alexandria (living 150-212) refers to the Gospels 1017 times, Acts 44 times, Paul 1127 times, Revelation 11 times, the other epistles 207 times, with a total of 2406 times. Origin (living 185-254) refers to the Gospels 9231 times, Acts 349 times, Paul 7778 times, other epistles 399 times, Revelation 165 times, with a total of 17.922 times. If the critic is correct in concluding that the New Testament books were merely fabrications up to middle fourth century, then how come: (1) Clement of Alexandria (year 150-212) cites from all New Testament writings except three books. Or to take an even earlier example: (2) that of Ignatius (year 70-110 AD) who wrote seven letters containing quotes from: Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Galatians, Colossians, James, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy and I Peter. This proves (just to mention two cases) the whole of the New Testament to be in the hands of theologians based in various places in the first and second century. Secondly this gives additional evidence to the reliability of the New Testament Biblical text. It has been estimated that the quotations of the early theologians of the New Testament text up to the fourth century covers the whole of the New Testament except eleven verses. So is the Bible history? Indeed! If someone does not believe the New Testament accounts you have no reason to believe in any shred of ancient history either. In that case, Julius Caesar, Plato, Socrates, Alexander the Great, Nero and all the history surrounding these individuals is a myth and lie as well. Such an attitude would however seem remarkable obscure and ignorant, first of all due to the fact of evidences, and secondly due to the simple question of why not believe in their history. The same indeed goes for the Bible and the New Testament writings, they are not myths separated from world-secular history, they are history, God’s intervention into our world of natural dimension, and that is the only reason why these books are different, yet a part of the over all human experience and occurrence. THE EVIDENCES FROM THE KORAN Secondly in case of Islam the Christians face no problems what so ever. I would rather say that it is the Muslim who has quite a few questions to answer. The Koran seems to be very clear that the Bible (Kitab) has not undergone any literate corruption. The only reference to any possible tampering is local, by certain parties, and is not even stated to be literate corruptions but verbal. Thus the Muslim who asserts that the Bible has been fabricated merely contradicts the teachings of his own book. Since Abdullah considers the Bible to be corrupted, I have NO REASON WHAT SO EVER to perceive him as a Muslim, why, because in the view of Allah he has become a rebel and gone astray. The Koran maintains that the Koran and the Bible are one book, as they were perceived and read in the era of Muhammad: a. The 3 major books of acceptance b. These books are in fact one book c. The previous Revelations are simply portions of the Book (2) The Qur’an verifies and confirms the previous Books The Qur’an confirms and testifies to the previous Scriptures, it does not correct them but provides a fuller explanation
(3) The previous Books support and confirm the Qur’an as a foundation (4) The Christian’s and the Jew’s possessed the previous Books in Muhammed’s lifetime a. The Jews possess the Torah in the time of Muhammed “But why do they (the Jews) come to thee for decision, when they have the Torah in which is the command of God”. (Al-Ma’ida 5:46) b. The Christians possess the Injil in the time of Muhammed c. The previous Books in the hands of the Jews and the Christians (5) The Christian’s and the Jew’s read the previous Books in Muhammed’s lifetime
(6) The previous Books are a guidance and light in Muhammed’s lifetime (7) Since the previous Books are a guidance and light the Christian is to judge from them (8) The Jew’s and Christians are to live according to the previous Books (9) The Muslim is to believe these previous revelations in Muhammeds lifetime
(10) Muhammed is to consult these previous Scriptures (11) The followers of Jesus overcame (12) The various nations will be judged according to their own book (13) Denying the previous Scriptures brings serious consequences
|
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame