Seeing how you guys can get killed for getting away from Islam, I should have said I hope to meet a brave one. Let's drop this for now once I have defeated all your attacks against the bible I will attack the Quran and you will have a chance to prove your point. Deal?
O great what a stupid thing to say its like me saying that people can get burned by practising witchcraft or are heretics if they follow Christianity your just trying to be rude here.
You have (
Defeated) all of my attacks.. since when did i attack.. If you want to see a real attack just ask me for it and i will put more effort and time to actually have a debate but sure go ahead ill wait since you will be the first in 1434years to disprove the preservation its even a well known fact accepted by the
majority of the historians who have done study into it.
F0uad I can't read your mind. What 200 yrs. The bible was perfect in it's first draft. In the 1800 or so years since then it has 5% that is not known to be unreliable. That is better than any other work of antiquity by many many times over. Try and prove me wrong.
How do you come up with this nonsense except of biased sources, read my post again and you know what i meant.
I didn't say it mattered if Christians in general believe it. I said that the people in the world most qualified to judge it's authenticity (The apostles) accepted it. There is no way out of this. Some Hadith doesn't trump the apostles.
Ok and tell me how the apostles John, Mark, Matthew and Luke have ever could written down the gospels and be eye-witnesses on the same time when the Gospels were written down 60 years and later after Jesus(p).
This is my actual statement "It has multiple consistent witness testimony by many people" I never claimed all the writers were witnesses to the ressurection, but many of the apostles were, the apostles were however all witnesses to the appearences.
So you deny that the writers are the Apostles John, Mark, Matthew or Luke or are you saying Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were but other people wrote the gospels? please some clarification.
This is getting nuts. If a friend said I went to the store. And I said I went to the store in a car. They are both true and reliable. Thats the way the gospels are.
I was addressing the two witnesses that you liked to quote and use as a argument so according to the two witness testimony that car in your story is not reliable.
No I didn't. Here is why I think the quran is wrong. This was my actual statement "The bible is 95% accurate and is believed to contain every word given in revelation within it's textual tradition. It contains different facts and claims than Islam. It has multiple consistent witness testimony by many people, it was written hundreds of years closer to the events than the Quran. Since Islam's Quran is written hundreds of years later, by one questionable man, and contains gross innacuracies with the bible then it is false. Virtually every secular expert in jurice prudence acknowledges this." This is valid jurice prudence that has been used through thousands of years. If you make up things I said or think, that are not true your counter points are meaningless.
Ok you meant to say that's why i think the quran is wrong on the subject. Can you clarify what you mean by the 95% accurate on what? It has multiple consistent witness testimony
but also disagreements i know you don't like the be sceptical about it but try it for a minute. Your argument can be countered by this example:
Person A who lived 3000 years ago says the earth is flat, Person B who lived 2000 years ago says earth is round and lets say there is no evidence for both. Since i never denied a Crucifixion but the death of Jesus(p) i don't see you having a real argument here but maybe i am to tired its late...
This is the first time I can remeber arrest mentioned. If you aren't saying he is right or wrong, what are you saying?
That there was no-one there according to that verse and other verses contradict that?
If you are reffering to authorship of the quran, see my first post. It's coming as soon as you are through with the bible.
ok.
I didn't use it for all. I have said this twice now and actually done it once. Yes name them.
Instead of calling them contradictions i rather ask behind it because there can be logical answers or explanations to them
According to Matthew (27:34) Jesus(p)
drank Wine mixed with Gall
According to Mark (15:23) Jesus(p)
didn't drank and was only offered wine with myrrh.
According to Luke(23:36) and John 19:29-30 it says he did
drink Vinegar
I am not so sure about this one though
Neither one of the thieves believed in Jesus. Matthew(27:44)
Neither one of the thieves believed in Jesus. (15:32)
In Luke’s story, only one thief does not believe, but
ONE DOES! (23:39-41)
And John doesn't mention it.
Telescoping cannot be used here... (i think)
“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” That is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matthew (27:46) Mark is almost the same but when when we read John: “It is finished” or Luke: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.”
i don´t see how telescoping can be used on this or are you saying that Jesus(p) said allot of things and John and Luke just wrote different things down what they found important?
When reading Mark we see Mary prepared the spices
after the Sabbath was over. (16:1) while both in John and Luke they stated it was
before and in Matthew it isn't mentioned i think..
Matthew (28:16) and Mark’s (16:7) post-resurrection story has the apostles immediately depart Jerusalem, and go to the Galilee, which is about an 80-90 mile journey. Luke’s narrative, on the other hand, insists that the apostles were never told to go to the Galilee and never did depart Jerusalem! Because the anonymous person who wrote the Book of Luke authored the Book of Acts as well, his story was written in a manner that would keep the disciples gathered in Jerusalem after the crucifixion in order to form the new Jerusalem church (Luke 24:5-7, 49; Acts 1:4).
After seeing the angels, whom does Mary meet first, Jesus or the disciples?
Matthew says Jesus(p), Mark says Jesus(p) Luke says
DISCIPLES and John says Jesus(p)
Luke asserts (24:34) that when the two followers who met Jesus on the road to Emmaus returned to Jerusalem and told the eleven about their encounter, the disciples declared “It is true!,” whereas Mark insists that when the two reported their encounter, the disciples did not believe! —Mark 16:13
So if your argument is telescoping again i would say there is a huge gap here..
I think this will do for now.
If you will review the original statement that I posted or the one I reposted you will see I did not say all four for the ressurection but all the apostles and over 450 more for the appearences. You say here that not one was:
I said that none of the writes were witnesses.
I had a history class in college that taught this as the scholarly concensus. However I said specifically that it didn't matter anyway, that the principle I mentioned applies to any language.
Agreed.
I appreciate the honesty. However what you are saying is incorrect. Some of our first extant references to a text is after their lifetimes. Their originals were in their times. If you research the writings of the early church fathers you will find that 95% of the new testament was in circulation within a few years maybe 5-30 of Christs death. It obviously existed then. We just don't have their original copy from this early period for some of them. I will drop the whole subject of the biblical realiability altogether as far as this part of the discussion is concerned if you want to begin defending the Quran now. It will have to wait until tomorrow though I have to leave. Have a blessed day.
So you sincerely belief that we have to trust some church fathers giving us the real deal? or at-least 95% of it? You know the Church Fathers are considered Catholics? I mean since you are a protestant.. it seems a bit weird..
.
