Why does the Quran direct Muslims to Bible?

[chazz]

With the new digital dead sea scrolls now available with more to come, and the possible publication of the Sana'a papers, I think that Islam and Judaism is on a collision course with God, not to mention a few others.

 

[muslim-]

This is a good question. The reason behind this is that we believe that ALL messengers had essentially the main message of monotheism. We usually mean Tawheed by that, and not just "believing in One God" as even idol-worshippers believed in one God, but they took idols as intercessors.

So all prophets and messengers came with a message eliminating "the middle man", enforcing the idea of directing all acts of worship only to God, directly, which was the message confirmed over and over again by all prophets.

They had different laws, but with regard to belief we believe this was the main messege of the Torah and injeel, before not only tampering happened, but even twisting the ways verses are understood.

To understand this better far from getting into a discussion about the origins of the Bible, it is better to understand the concept of authenticity among Muslims.

The Qur'aan is the word of God, the Sunnah is the sayings or actions of prophet Muhammad peace be upon him passed to us by narrations. We dont accept any narrations, so scholars developed a whole science called Mustalah Al Hadeeth, in which sayings are classified into categories, weak, good, correct, and fabricated.

They must know every person in the chain of narrators, whether its one or two people in each level of the chain, or the saying is passed on by a group, to another group, of known people.

What I mean by known, is taken from another science related to the sciences of authentication which is called "Ilm Al Rijaal" (Sciences of men), so they must know about the persons piety, truthfulness, and also, they must know how his memory is. Sometimes even memory shaprness changes towards the end of life so they take this into consideration also. In other words we have to know for sure the prophet said this, its one of his rights upon us, and shows deep respect and care for his sayings.

So theres very, very strict rules regarding this, and if a saying doesnt fit the criteria, it is not accepted as authentic. Theres collections of the non authentic narrations even.

So we tend to take this very seriously. And this is Sunnah and not the Qur'aan even, which even til today, we have tens of thousands of 11 year olds who memorize it by heart.

So when we apply such strict rules to the Bible today (which are narrations of men, who arent even Jesus the messiah peace be upon him), a saying from the Sunnah that is weak, and not accepted, is classified as stronger in authenticity than the Bible today, which again isnt even words of Jesus or word of God. Even in places where God is quoted, this we dont consider "scripture", but we'd call it "hadeeth Qudsi" in which the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him narrates from God.

No Muslim can be Muslim without believing in Jesus peace be upon him as the messiah, and his miraculous birth, and his miracles etc. In fact, no Muslim can be Muslim without believing in the Gospel being sent down to Jesus, and the Torah to Moses peace be upon them. It is one of the six articles of faith to believe in them.

So what we have today from the Bible, if it doesnt contradict anything from Quraan or Sunnah, we dont accept it as authentic, but dont reject it either. This is with regard to beliefs, as for laws, they have been abrogated anyway by Islamic laws so we dont accept or reject them either as not authentic.

Theres hadeeths and verses and narrations about the Bibles authenticity in Islam im sure some already mentioned them. But thought id explain more, so that one can get a better, more holistic view.

 

[ohhcuppycakee]

The Qur'an is not directing Muslims towards what is the Bible now. In Islam, we believe the Bible was corrupted by man, and no uncorrupted copy exists here on earth. The true Bible is with Allah (SWT.)

 

[gnostic]

The Qur'an is not directing Muslims towards what is the Bible now. In Islam, we believe the Bible was corrupted by man, and no uncorrupted copy exists here on earth. The true Bible is with Allah (SWT.)

And yet, no Muslims have been able to explain which books, letters or verses have been corrupted.

And the Bible was written by God. It never was. Only Muslims and Muhammad would claim such nonsense, especially when you considered that the Qur'an were also written by many men (Muhammad's followers).

To understand why the numbers of books were written, you have to understand the history of scripture authorship and how it was their ways (Hebrew and Christian authors) to present their relationship with God. God may have deliver some messages, covenants or commandments to the prophets, disciples, etc, and those authors may have written them or pass them on through oral traditions, but nothing was written by god himself.

And if the Bible was corrupted, then you need another scripture to compare with, and Muhammad presented no authoritative copy to compare with it. And you can't compare it to the Qur'an because the Qur'an bear no resemblance whatsoever to any of individual books or letters that are found in the Bible.

I am not Christian or Jew, but I am not fool by such shameless Muslim propaganda to bolster Islam's so-called superiority in the scriptural department.

Even other Muslims admitted that there is no corruption in the bible as it is; the corruption lie within interpretation, and that's a whole different matter, ohhcuppycakee.

I would suggest you read my posts: To Musliims only: The Bible is corrupted. Especially a post by Muslim member - a-manESL (post 38).

 

[ohhcuppycakee]

And yet, no Muslims have been able to explain which books, letters or verses have been corrupted.

And the Bible was written by God. It never was. Only Muslims and Muhammad would claim such nonsense, especially when you considered that the Qur'an were also written by many men (Muhammad's followers).

To understand why the numbers of books were written, you have to understand the history of scripture authorship and how it was their ways (Hebrew and Christian authors) to present their relationship with God. God may have deliver some messages, covenants or commandments to the prophets, disciples, etc, and those authors may have written them or pass them on through oral traditions, but nothing was written by god himself.

And if the Bible was corrupted, then you need another scripture to compare with, and Muhammad presented no authoritative copy to compare with it. And you can't compare it to the Qur'an because the Qur'an bear no resemblance whatsoever to any of individual books or letters that are found in the Bible.

I am not Christian or Jew, but I am not fool by such shameless Muslim propaganda to bolster Islam's so-called superiority in the scriptural department.

Even other Muslims admitted that there is no corruption in the bible as it is; the corruption lie within interpretation, and that's a whole different matter, ohhcuppycakee.

I would suggest you read my posts: To Musliims only: The Bible is corrupted. Especially a post by Muslim member - a-manESL (post 38).

Okay, how has the Bible not been corrupted or changed? It's been translated and re-translated over and over, books taken out, verses added. Catholic Bible or the standard one? Which one is closer to God's? Why isn't the famous story of the woman who committed adultery, a story quoted over and over again, not found in the Codex Sinaiticus?

 

[gnostic]

Okay, how has the Bible not been corrupted or changed? It's been translated and re-translated over and over, books taken out, verses added. Catholic Bible or the standard one? Which one is closer to God's? Why isn't the famous story of the woman who committed adultery, a story quoted over and over again, not found in the Codex Sinaiticus?

Again, like most other Muslims who claim the Bible is corrupted, failed to produce a comparison of which to measure this so-called "corruptions".

Unless you can produce complete books in which to compare every other single books, letters, chapters, passages and verses, then all I hear is your unsubstantiated claim that corruptions.

And unless you do have books that can point out corruption, it is poor scholarship (as well as heavy does of propaganda), which I am not surprise.

Look, I don't view the bible's contents to be perfect, because I don't think the books need to be perfect to deliver messages or guidelines. Second, I don't believe in the bible, no more than I believe in the Qur'an or other religious texts from other religions. I read it like I read any other scriptures, as myths, folklore, parables or allegories.

In fact, I don't believe the Qur'an to be perfect as well, despite the empty claims of "divine authorship" by none other than Allah himself. It is your scripture, and you can believe whatever you want. But don't expect us to believe that sort of propaganda that Allah wrote the Qur'an. I don't give a crap if Allah wrote the Qur'an or not, because to me it was written by humans (disciples of Muhammad).

If Allah did write it, then why is so incomplete? It doesn't have single book that are found in the Bible. It never tell complete narrative, just some here and some there, that may bear some resemblance to the stories found in the bible.

It doesn't tell complete narratives of the lives of Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, etc.

Translations will always be different. Some would convey the original contexts better than other translations. I have seen the English translations of the Qur'an, and none of them are exactly the same, and like the translations of the bible, some are better than the others.

Now can you show me where the Qur'an and the Bible don't meet?

And I don't think you can make comparisons, because they weren't written the same. Just abbreviated versions, like a bunch of summaries. And some of these stories found in the Qur'an are wildly exaggerated, like Solomon being able to control weathers and command and control animals (like birds and ants) and army of djinns (which sounds like a badly written fable when you compare it to A Thousand And One Nights). There are number of books of the prophets, both major and minor prophets, and all those prophecies, and the Qur'an have very little of these.

If all this is true, then how can you possibly compare the two to find these so-called "corruptions"?

You can't.

 

[ohhcuppycakee]

I'm sorry, but it is common knowledge that the Bible has been changed throughout history. How is there even an argument here?

Why would the Qur'an have WHOLE books of the Bible in it? The Bible in Islam is a previous revelation, having some laws and stories in it that are meant specifically for different times. The stories that are for every time is in it. (Noah's Ark, story of the golden calf, etc) And the Qur'an is not meant to be a long history much like the Bible is.

Oh, and it's really not propaganda for Muslims to say the Qur'an is from Allah, much like it is not propaganda for Christians to state their beliefs about the Bible.

 

[gnostic]

Why would the Qur'an have WHOLE books of the Bible in it?

Good grief.

I don't know why some Muslims bother to reply. Do you have no concept of comparative religions or comparative scholarship?

Because you think there is corruption and the Qur'an say, then YOU WOULD NEED SOMETHING TO COMPARE IT WITH to find these so-called corruptions.

It simply not good enough just to base it on what the Qur'an say. You need to prove it. Without comparisons, then your claim is pretty much baseless.

Since, the Qur'an claim there are corruption, then there should be there to compare it with. The Qur'an is incomplete. What I mean it has no complete narrative, just random exegesis, random prophecy, random law, mixed with random fables and fairytale.

You say there are lot of translations. That's simply not good enough, because you of all people should understand that a literal translation is not recommended, because it often render the work, unreadable and will still lose the original context during translation. No translators these days, do literal translation. Instead of literal translation, they tried to paraphrase and try to convey the best possible readable passages while trying to maintain as faithful to original context as possible.

 

[asa120]

This is a question for the muslim posters mainly but others may join in. I have noticed that a lot of muslims posters seem to be of the opinion that the bible (hebrew and greek scriptures) are not to be viewed as the Word of God...that the text is compromised and untrustworthy.

However, i'd like to ask what the opinion is on these verses from the Quran which encourages the use of the bible?

Āl ‘Imrān [3]:3, 4, NJD: “He has revealed to you the Book with the truth, confirming the scriptures which preceded it; for He has already revealed the Torah and the Gospel [Injīl in Arabic] for the guidance of men.”

Al-Mā’idah [5]:46, 47: And in their footsteps, We sent 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), confirming the Taurat (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurat (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqun (the pious)

Yūnus [10]:94.“If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee.”

It seems to me that the Quran is endorsing the use of the holy bible rather then trying to correct its teachings. I'd like to know where this idea that the bible needed correcting comes from?

And if the bible was falsified 'later' as muslims claim, then when is 'later'? It must have been before Mohammads time, otherwise he would not have come and declared that it had been changed... but then if it was before Mohammad, why would the Quran (which was written AFTER Mohammads time) direct people to the bible?


This all seems very contradictory to me.

well i hate to enter and to debate
but no the quran does not direct Muslims to the gospel but it direct Cristian to meditate in the gospel but not in those verses in thise verses it describe faith of islam we belive in the taura and the gospel and we belive that thy were changed in other verses
because the gospel was not changed by intension like the taura but it was loste soo even the version that existe now have conception make it e lot closer to islam than crisitniy faith
and crisitian belief was not built totaly on gospel

1 the gospel describe all man kind as children of god not just jesus we are not gods , soo we are less sepirior than god
2 jesus pray and fast an action of e woshiper that he will not do if he is god and equal to god
3 jesus debate the jews aboute worship one god thy say why you always call us to worship one god and he return to worship mean to love,,,,,, the verses continue soo he is clairly calling to woship with love one god and notwhat we have in criasinity now
4 jesus never absolutly never tell hise folower to worship him the holy spirite like the cristian do now

5 jesus debate e lot the jewish correpted rabays aboute religion as islam look at him e correctioniste
6 if you researsh history you will find that criasitnity was devloped by outsiders not by the deciples the deciples fond another form of religon called massianisme ans thy teach only jews and thy reject the man who now is who regroupe crisianity he name i think is paule

if you read the gospel you will find an image of traditional ibrahamque religion that worship non but god and do good as e preparation for the laste dayand thise is not what we have in cristianity now

 

[Bismillah]

And the Bible was written by God. It never was. Only Muslims and Muhammad would claim such nonsense, especially when you considered that the Qur'an were also written by many men (Muhammad's followers).

You really don't understand the idea of the Injil do you? Try to stop speaking for the Prophet and Muslims and understand what they say instead, you'll come off as less foolish.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Question.....While I understand that most bibles have some degree of interpolations is there a common Arabic Bible Muslims can use. I like the RSV and I cross reference it with the Codex Sinaiticus. Now, I'm not speaking on translation per-se because that is a slightly different kind of issue.

 

[abdul lateef]

The key point is here. That Muslims believe that the revelation to Moses was the Torah. the revelation to JEsus was the Gospel and that there were many revelations to various messengers.

However, whereas gospel translates as "undeniable truth", the gospel of today isnt what was revealed to Jesus.

What the "gospels" of today are, are mere accounts, by men who did not even meet Jesus, but are apparently "according" to an individual Matthew, Mark Luke and John.

When the Quran talks about the Torah being revealled to Moses, it did not mean the Torah in its current state.

Without a doubt, when God sent revelation to messengers, it was perfect in its contents. but over time the rabbis and priests changed things, adding things, taking things out. Men narrated and changed the texts according to their understandings/interpretations/agendas etc.

So although a number of truths could be found in the previous scriptures, (and this is the parts that God refers to when telling the Jews and Christians to read their texts - ie the words of Jesus/Moses and the Words of God revealed to Jesus/Moses) the scripture has not been kept in its original form.

The Muslims are taught in the Quran to have dialogue with the people of the scripture (christians and jews) and come to a common agreement, that we worship only One God. the God of Abraham

 

[Pastek]

Because you think there is corruption and the Qur'an say, then YOU WOULD NEED SOMETHING TO COMPARE IT WITH to find these so-called corruptions.

It simply not good enough just to base it on what the Qur'an say. You need to prove it. Without comparisons, then your claim is pretty much baseless.

Since, the Qur'an claim there are corruption, then there should be there to compare it with. The Qur'an is incomplete. What I mean it has no complete narrative, just random exegesis, random prophecy, random law, mixed with random fables and fairytale.

Well, first of all we base our faith in the Quran so if God says something and the Bible says something else, for us there is a corruption.
An exemple as you asked :

Quran :
2.102 And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited during the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic

Bible :
4.As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been.
5.He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites.
(1 kings 11)

For us, here it's a corruption of the Bible

 

[Pegg]

The key point is here. That Muslims believe that the revelation to Moses was the Torah. the revelation to JEsus was the Gospel and that there were many revelations to various messengers.

However, whereas gospel translates as "undeniable truth", the gospel of today isnt what was revealed to Jesus.

What the "gospels" of today are, are mere accounts, by men who did not even meet Jesus, but are apparently "according" to an individual Matthew, Mark Luke and John.

thats no different to the Quran. It was not written by Mohammad either, but was written by many different disciples.

When the Quran talks about the Torah being revealled to Moses, it did not mean the Torah in its current state.

that claim is made without any proof whatsoever. I can say the same thing about the Quran or Mohammad. without any proof, I can claim that Mohammad didnt exist at all.

It would be very foolish of me to make such a claim and not offer any proof, im sure you'd agree.

 

[Pegg]

Well, first of all we base our faith in the Quran so if God says something and the Bible says something else, for us there is a corruption.
An exemple as you asked :

Quran :
2.102 And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited during the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic

Bible :
4.As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been.
5.He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites.
(1 kings 11)

For us, here it's a corruption of the Bible

the bible was written long before the Quran... so in most peoples view, it is what is written later that is the contradiction.

Can you imagine if someone came with a new Quran that was printed recently and in it you find teachings completely different to what is in the old original Quran?
Would you believe the new one is the right one and the old one is the fake???

 

[Pastek]

Would you believe the new one is the right one and the old one is the fake???

No
Of course, this is based on faith, so i can't prove that (like the exemple of Solomon)

But, there is a lot of non muslims who said that the Bible is not in its original form, they say there is contradictions between the texts and some historical errors
And i heard that some christian's explaining that the Bible was "inspired", it contains "allegory", or it's not an "historical book" to justify it.

An exemple not based on faith like the exemple of Solomon :

24:1 The Lord’s anger again raged against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go count Israel and Judah.”
(2 Samuel)

21:1 An adversary* opposed Israel, inciting David to count how many warriors Israel had.
(1 chronicles)

*In the french version it's not "an adversary" but "Satan". And i saw 4 different french translations

In spanish too, it's "Satan"
1 Pero Satanás se levantó contra Israel, e incitó a David a que hiciese censo de Israel.

So, there is here a contradiction.
There is a big difference between God and Satan, right ?

Here an other one :

1.6 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.
(Mark)

11.18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’
(Matthew)


Different version of a same scene. I can't trust at 100% the Bible.

 

[Pegg]

No
Of course, this is based on faith, so i can't prove that (like the exemple of Solomon)

But, there is a lot of non muslims who said that the Bible is not in its original form, they say there is contradictions between the texts and some historical errors
And i heard that some christian's explaining that the Bible was "inspired", it contains "allegory", or it's not an "historical book" to justify it.

critics of the bible claim that, yes. But it has been proven by historical evidence of a comparison of some very ancient texts from all different parts of the world that the text we have has not changed so much that any meaning is different.

What is often overlooked is the fact that the bible has been copied over many centuries and in different languages ....this means that as the languages change/evolve, so do the way words are used and the way the original thoughts of the bible are expressed. If we all spoke ancient hebrew or koine greek there would be no problem because we could read the bible in the original language... but as we dont all speak those languages, the bible must be translated and a good translation can be considered the equivalent of the true word of God if it has been translated well. Now not all translations are good, thats for sure, but we all have the ability to compare translations and to study the original words and do a little research ourselves.

An exemple not based on faith like the exemple of Solomon :

24:1 The Lord’s anger again raged against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go count Israel and Judah.”
(2 Samuel)

21:1 An adversary* opposed Israel, inciting David to count how many warriors Israel had.
(1 chronicles)*In the french version it's not "an adversary" but "Satan". And i saw 4 different french translations

In spanish too, it's "Satan"
1 Pero Satanás se levantó contra Israel, e incitó a David a que hiciese censo de Israel.

So, there is here a contradiction.

No its not a contradiction...this is very simple
The two accounts relate the same event, but they were written by different people so naturally they wrote it in their own words.
The writer of 2Samuel does not name the one who incited David to do the wrong thing.... but Ezra the priest did add that detail of who it was
2Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David against them, saying: “Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.”

1Chronicles 21 And Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel.

Its not a contradiction. It is what happens when different people write about the same event...they dont necessarily each add all the same details.

There is a big difference between God and Satan, right ?

It was not God who incited David to number Isreal....it was Satan. Samuel adds the detail that Jehovah was angry at David....he isnt saying that it was God who incited David to do the wrong thing.

Here an other one :

1.6 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.
(Mark)

11.18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’
(Matthew)

Different version of a same scene. I can't trust at 100% the Bible.

You have it very wrong here. Matthew was quoting Jesus when Jesus rebuked the unfaithful jews who refused to believe that John had been sent from God. Mark was simply stating a point about who John was. They are speaking about entirely different subjects.

the gospels are not copies of each other. The writers are similar to 'reporters'. They wrote their accounts by gathering information from eyewitnesses and recording the information. But in this case, the writer of Mark was not explaining about what John did or didnt eat. He was quoting Jesus words about the jews rejection of John. Do you really think Jesus was saying that a grown man lived his whole life without eating or drinking anything??? Dont you think that man would not live very long if he didnt eat or drink. Look at surrounding verses to get an idea of the context.

 

[Pastek]

2Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David against them, saying: “Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.”

Which Bible do you have ? I don't have this part in french and english
1

Chronicles 21 And Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel.

Its not a contradiction. It is what happens when different people write about the same event...they dont necessarily each add all the same details.

For me it's a contradiction when God and Satan are supposed to say the same thing. It confuse everybody.

the gospels are not copies of each other. The writers are similar to 'reporters'.

Yes, i know. But sometimes one disciple say something and the other say something else. So who can we believe ? For exemple when they talk about Jesus on the cross it's completely different.

Do you really think Jesus was saying that a grown man lived his whole life without eating or drinking anything??? Dont you think that man would not live very long if he didnt eat or drink. Look at surrounding verses to get an idea of the context.

It's well known , Pegg that John was often fasting. So yes, Jesus was talking about the fact that John was fasting.
(9.14 Matthew)

 

[Pegg]

Which Bible do you have ? I don't have this part in french and english
1

For me it's a contradiction when God and Satan are supposed to say the same thing. It confuse everybody.

that is what you've misunderstood. The account is about satan inciting David to do something he should not have done. Neither account say that God incited David.. . one says that Jehovah was angry at david, the other says that David was incited by 'one' who told him to do something and for that God was angry. The 'one' who incited David to do wrong was Satan, not God. And just think for a moment.... if God asked David to do something, and Daivid obeyed, why would God then be angry with him for obeying????

My bible is the New World Translation printed by Jehovahs Witnesses.

Yes, i know. But sometimes one disciple say something and the other say something else. So who can we believe ? For exemple when they talk about Jesus on the cross it's completely different.

they are relating the events as different eyewitnesses saw them. One eyewitness may have stood at a distance and saw something that another eyewitness did not see.

There is a reason why a court will call many eyewitnesses to the stand in a trial. they get a clearer picture of what happened when they hear all of the eyewitness accounts. Not everyone sees the same things during an event. Someone may only see the start of the event but not the middle of the event, another may only see the end of an event but not the start. That is how the gospels are written and when you put them all together you get the complete picture.

It's well known , Pegg that John was often fasting. So yes, Jesus was talking about the fact that John was fasting.
(9.14 Matthew)

i think if you read the account in context you will see it more clearly. You cannot just take one sentence out of an entire dialogue and form an opinion of it on just that one sentence...you must read it all.

Think for a moment. Can any person or any animal live its whole life without ever eating or drinking? Do you really think that is what Jesus was saying???

 

[Pastek]

My bible is the New World Translation printed by Jehovahs Witnesses.

No offense, but i've heard that your Bible is different from the other Bibles. By christians themselves.
Like I said, i saw different translations (french, english and spanish) and there is not the sentence you have

they are relating the events as different eyewitnesses saw them. One eyewitness may have stood at a distance and saw something that another eyewitness did not see.

No, sometimes it's completely different :

Here one exemple :

26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
26:49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.
(Matthew)


18:3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
18:4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
18:5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
(John)


Are you ok that for the same scene it's happen differently ?
One say Judas kissed Jesus as a sign for the soldiers

One said Jesus went forth and asked them what they want


An other one about Jesus on the cross :

​

15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
(Mark)

23:47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.
(Luke)

In one version he said he is a man in an other one he said he is the Son of God

Sometimes the scene is different, sometimes the sentences are different, sometimes both

How can we be sure that Jesus did this or said that ? Some disciples weren't even there when he was on the cross