Christian/Muslim ThreadsBible Corruption and Who are the Real Authors?Concerning the Gospel of Luke
Kai replies: The same conclusion you would base your faith on, that of Zaid ibn, after all Zaid ibn compiled the Koran!!!!!!!!!!!!! My first rebuttal to your proposition is simply the confirmation of the Koran: Thus the confirmation in the Koran is more than enough to debunk your whole argument. These Koranic passage clearly speak about the Gospel as the Christians red it within Muhammad’s era. That Gospel would include all the four Gospels. Thus unless your believe Luke’s Gospel, I can hereby conclude that you are not a Muslim. Yet, I am aware of the problem, Abdullah! Exactly, if you believe the Gospel of Luke or any of the other Gospels, you cannot be a Muslim either. Face it bro, you are not Muslim, nor can you ever be a Muslim, it’s a contradiction in itself. Let me however point out some of the historical confirmation and evidences behind Luke Gospel: Luke’s compilation is found in some of the earliest Christian traditions: The earliest fragment of the Gospel of Luke is the Paris Papyrus (P4), which is Luke 3:23, 5:36, dated 66 A.D. Otherwise Luke is found in two Gospel-collections: The Bodmer Papyri, dated year 175, which contains 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, consisting of the Four Gospels and Acts dating 150-200, and the epistles of the apostle Paul by some dated between year 90 and 100. Several of the earliest Church fathers confirms Luke’s authorship, such as: Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 3.1.1) Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem 4.2.2) Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 2.1.15 and Stromata 5.12.82) We can fairly say therefore that Luke’s Gospel existed in the first century; it circulated in all the Christian communities, and it was recognised and by the Christian community as Canonical. At the end of the first century or early second century it was combined with the other three Gospels and formed the Gospel collection as we know it today. Some have pointed out that Luke was not an apostle and not an eyewitness: Two points are vital to mention here: 1. Luke gathered the material from eyewitnesses, which excluded Luke as an author; as with the other synoptic Gospels, Luke merely provided a compilation. 2. While Luke was not an apostolic Witness as were Matthew, Peter and John, nothing suggests that Luke should not be considered to be a prophet Jesus stated in Matthew 23: 34: This is later confirmed by Paul in Ephesus 2: And in Ephesus 3:
Despite the fact that Papias and Polycarp do not refer to Luke, nothing suggests that these early disciples rejected Luke, and their writings indicate nothing of the kind. Further more, Luke’s Gospel is well debated in the early to middle of the second history in the debate between Christian and Gnostics. It’s an historical fact that the Gnostic Marcion attempted to make his own compilation of Christian writings, which obviously included Luke Gospel. There are reference to Luke’s Gospel by name in the writings of Justin Martyr (150 AD), and Ireneaus (180 AD). As these writings derive from a period when we would expect very little to survive whether it was copied or not, we cannot claim that these historical evidences are of little significant. As a matter of fact they stand stronger than the witness of the Koran, in which the compiler Zaid ibn is not mentioned until at least 100 to 200 years after the Koranic compilation. Since then (according to Abdullah’s criteria), we have no early evidence for Zaid ibn’s role in compiling the Koran, we need to deem the Koran to be untrustworthy. Keep in mind, this is Abdullah’s criteria not mine. Abdullah wrote: Kai replies: So because Zaid Ibn does not refer to himself as the author of the Koran the Koran is from Satan? Is that what you are implying? Abdullah wrote: Kai replies: Well since the Bible commentary speaks about much unmistakable evidence it implies that we can be sure. Well, how are you going to prove to me that Zaid ibn was the one who compiled the Koran? Because if you are unable to do this, I will simply assume that the Koran is not completely trustworthy? Keep in mind Abdullah, this is your Criteria we are dealing with, not mine; I would suggest you pick up your own trash before you deal with what you assume to be distortion of Christian history. I also have some comments to Allauakbar.com, the website you rely upon. I am surprised that the website refers to Theophilus as the Patriarch of Alexandria (385-412). The website even refers to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which however, makes not reference to the silly claim of Allauakbar.com. If this approach to Luke is correct then we might as well refer to the Muhammad as the boxer Muhammad Ali. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame