I quoted it in full, so people could see your derogatory comments were misplaced.
I showed Muhammad pbuh understood it was an Angel from GOD. Where did he think he was possessed or tried to kill himself? Are you referring to hearsay?
He was shocked and scared, just like the Biblical Prophets I mentioned. Recall Jonah pbuh rather be thrown into the sea, (self-murder) as you termed it.
Being Commanded by GOD is a frightening experience, and takes time to adjust to.
Chains of narration is what Muslims rely on to see if Hadiths are reliable, this covers the character of the transmitter, whether they had good memory, is it passed down through multiple chains etc. Western Scholars who have taken the time and trouble to look into it say it is phenomenal, with Muslims Scholars able to recite 10's of Thousands of Hadiths through memory alone, and give multiple chains, as well as cross reference with the Qur'an.
Please go back to the original post containing the Jpeg and read what I wrote regarding the translated Hebrew word for 'truth' eh'-meth in post 143 under the video.
This is your understanding of Jeremiah 8:8 You acknowledge Qur'an is saying people 'wrote' false things. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say they corrected what they wrote and the Scribes have the Scriptures as they were revealed. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown there were several Torahs and some communities would read 2 side by side. The Samaritan Torah differs in some 3,000 places to the Masoretic reading. There's evidence of Prophecy being added after the event etc, and that still means a gap of 1070 years of no written Torah between the death of Moses pbuh and the DSS.
The Jpeg wasn't alleging forgery, it used the word mistranslated, see the post under the vid for what is a reasonable argument.
I can't believe you think the NT has no forgeries in it :/
Who wrote 2 Peter?
Who wrote the book of Hebrews?
How many Letters is 2 Corinthians made up of?
How many of Paul's letters are originals?
Who wrote the Gospels?
Why did Church dispute over the following books: Revelations, Hebrews, Philemon, and the Catholic Epistles (I and II Peter, I and II and III John, and Jude)
You know Matthew and Luke used Mark as a template and improved and added to it don't you? Mark finishes 16:8 in the oldest complete Gospel of Mark that you have, found in the Codex Sinaiticus codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manuscript.aspx?book=36&chapter=14&lid=en&side=r&verse=26&zoomSlider=0 <<Go to the link and just have a look for yourself, also look at Mark 1:1 and tell me who added the extra words found in the Bible that you use? Open the KJV and explain why 1 John 5:7 is there? I have another dozen or so examples I could give before showing you a Bible that differs with more than 3,000 words not found in modern Bibles.
Look at the following improvements Matthew makes on Mark's template:
1) Mark's Gospel 6:5-6 "And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. 6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.
Matthew 13:58 "And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief."
2) Mark 10:17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
Matthew 19:16 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”
3) Mark 5:30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, “Who touched my garments?”
Matthew 9:22 Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well.
Mark portrays Jesus pbuh as a Prophet, who God is doing wonders and miracles through.
Matthew improves the image of Jesus pbuh to someone who is more knowing, more powerful.
Why is Jesus pbuh evolving in power and status? Obviously by the time we get to Gospel of John, he's getting right up there with the Angels! Calling upon God's faithfulness can't explain why the Bible is not preserved.
That's fair enough, but it's quite the coincidence that Scribes admit to using their hands to falsify the Torah.
Arabia is also referred to as the daughter of Babylon;
The Bible speaks about the fall of three Babylons:
1- Babylon (the Assyrian one). It fell to Islam.
2- The VIRGIN DAUGHTER of Babylon (pagan Arabia). It was a virgin because it had no official Divine Religion like Islam yet. It fell to Islam. This is the time when it began to meet its threshold.
3- Future Babylon, THE GREAT HARLOT. It will fall to Islam after the return of Prophet Isa (Jesus), peace be upon him.
There's plenty of evidence showing no one was crucified, so I doubt very much that Jesus pbuh made mention of a blood covenant.
Read from verse 1, GOD will stir up one from the 'East' - this is usually a foreigner. GOD is with his people, so don't fear him as he puts kings under his feet.
Before coming back to address this, please show me a Torah from the 7th Century.
If you can't do that then, as you are appealing to the Qur'an to show Bible is uncorrupted, please read the following verse...
"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel with them. He enjoins upon them that which is right and forbids for them that which is evil. He makes lawful for them all things that are good and prohibits for them all that is foul and he relieves them from their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, honor him, assist him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful" Qur'an 7:157
Show me where I can find him.
Not sure what Qur'an translation you are reading, but at best it was a guidance for a previous people at a past time.
Just one verse on refutes you...
And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers. 3:85
From the 4th Century onwards the Doctrine of Trinity was the only acceptable form of Christianity allowed by the Church. The Monotheists then struggled against the Pagan Church until Islam came some 300 years later, those who reverted to Islam were indeed successful as Islam swept through the Middle East, North Africa and then much of Europe.
Today the largest group of pure Monotheists are the Muslims followed by Jews. Christian as you know say, Three and the Qur'an condemns this as idolatry of the worst kind.
The source I gave for Muhammad fearing he was possessed and trying to kill himself was the well-known Muslim source al-Tabari. True, it is based on hearsay just like the ahadith. The “chains of narration” you mention are also based on hearsay, again hundreds of years after the time of the alleged original utterances. So if you want to be consistent with your own recommended criterion, you should reject all hearsay and so reject the chains of narration in addition to the ahadith, along with the early Muslim biographies. At least you will no longer have to worry about Ramadan or about which foot you enter the lavatory with, and you won’t have to feel guilty about yawning anymore.
If you read the book of Jonah in the Bible, you will see that Jonah did not try to commit “self-murder.” He simply told his companions that throwing him overboard would make the sea grow calm. Floating in a calm sea is not lethal in itself.
The feminine Hebrew word
emeth (not “
ehmeth”), is derived from “
aman” whose Hebrew trilateral root is
aleph-mem-nun and whose Arabic cognate is
alif-mim-nun (as in Arabic “
amn” & “
iman” & “
amniyet” etc). Meanwhile, Arabic
ahmed’s trilateral root is
he-mim-dal. It is thus not a cognate of Hebrew
aleph-men-nun. Moreover, there is only one consonant in common between “
emeth,” which is not a man’s name but a feminine noun, and the Arabic name “
ahmed.” Claiming there is a connection between “
emeth” and “
ahmad,” and especially a connection pointing to Muhammad, is gratuitous and arbitrary. And the Spirit promised by our Lord, if you were to read John 14-16 carefully, obviously cannot be a man named
ahmed, but only the Spirit who fell upon the disciples at Pentecost in fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy and of our Lord’s promise.
“The Spirit of truth” in John 14:17 is translated in the Hebrew New Testament as
רוּחַ הָאֱמֶת “
ruach ha-emeth” but “
emeth” is nowhere said to be the Spirit’s name as “
Jesus” is our Lord’s name. To see how arbitrary it is to assert that Muhammad is in view, just consider what our Lord said of Himself earlier in the same chapter, John 14:6, “I am the truth” — in the Hebrew NT
הָאֱמֶת again — thus He said, “I am the
emeth.” Jesus Himself was thus more “obviously a man named eh'-meth."
Christians are not divided into “more than 45,000 Christian denominations, each claiming they alone are guided by the ‘Spirit of Truth.’” There are basically only three communions in Christendom: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant; and we generally consider each other brethren in Christ and in His Spirit. A Catholic or an Orthodox, for example, would be welcome to worship at my Protestant church anytime.
The Samaritan Pentateuch, however useful as an ancient text, was never the standard by which all other copies of the Torah are judged. The Samaritans were, in fact, the notorious heretics of their day. And there is no evidence that the Masoretes took liberties with and distorted the Hebrew text like your jpeg blatantly did. Historically, it is well known that the Jews were careful custodians of the Hebrew Scriptures. Our Lord never faulted the Jews of His day for corrupting the text of the Bible. He Himself read from the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue, He quoted from them, argued from them, and faulted the religious authorities of the day for not knowing those very same Scriptures. But He never condemned them for distorting the Scriptures. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke, our Lord affirmed that the rich man’s brothers still “have Moses and the prophets” and that these Scriptures were still available to be listened to (Luke 16:29). Our Lord’s high regard for the Scriptures is what we are called to imitate as His followers. And as I must keep pointing out, God is faithful. Everything ultimately depends on God’s faithfulness. None of us have the originals, and none of us alive in the 21st century heard the words when they were first uttered. But if God is faithful, we can trust Him to preserve His words for us (Isaiah 40:8). As another pointed out here, even the Quran agrees that no human being can change God’s words. Unbelieving scholars can conjecture all they want about the Bible, but there is no way to prove the Bible was corrupted unless you can produce the original text and compare it with the copies we have today and see if anything essential was left out. And again, even if the essential message of the Bible was lost, it would not prove the Quran was true, for as I mentioned earlier (post #139), there is no reason to believe a man who merely snorts in a cave and comes out saying, Believe me or else!
Whoever made your jpeg did not allege forgery, as you said. But rather, whoever made the jpeg
engaged in deliberate forgery himself!
2 Peter was written by Peter without an amanuensis, which accounts for the less classical style of 2 Peter as compared with 1 Peter. Peter was originally a fisherman, of course, not a trained Greek orator.
The authorship of Hebrews has been discussed somewhat already. The author of Hebrews was Paul according to one ancient tradition in the early church, but it could have been another early Jewish apostle or apostolic companion. The work was known in the first century as it is quoted as authoritative already in Clement of Rome’s first epistle, which is commonly dated to around A.D. 95 but arguably predates A.D. 70. The book of Hebrews itself shows internal indications of being written prior to A.D. 70, since one of the main themes is apostasy back into late Temple Judaism, which was not as much of an issue after A.D. 70. It also mentions by name the apostle Paul’s associate in ministry, Timothy. The great familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures and with the Temple as well as the themes of the book bespeak Jewish authorship, however fine the author's mastery of Greek was.
2 Corinthians consists of the apostle Paul’s correspondence and is preserved just as his other genuine correspondence is.
Early church history uniformly states that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the authors of the Gospels that bear their names. There was no competing tradition in the early church that the books were the work of others.
The fact that some parts of the early church initially questioned some of the later books of the New Testament shows how careful the early church was when it came to admitting books into the canon. But once assured of their apostolic character, the churches acknowledged them as canonical.
I addressed Mark 1:1, Mark 16 and 1 John 5:7, in HZ’s previous thread, post #242,
the name of Mohammad in the Old testament
In sum, we have the New Testament in the same way that the Israelites had the Old Testament. God’s providence faithfully working through His people and committing to them His oracles. Our Lord is the good shepherd (Psalm 23:1) and has always provided for His people. Blessed be God!
On comparing Matthew with Mark, the differences show that there was no collusion between them. The independent and complementary character of their accounts is therefore a plus, just as the complementary testimony of independent witnesses in a court case makes their testimony all the weightier. If Matthew and Mark were worded exactly the same, then we might suspect that the uniformity between them was forced—just like the forced Quranic uniformity that Uthman strove for when he deliberately got rid of all Quranic variants but one. In each of the passages you quoted, where Matthew had already stated something, Mark simply gave a briefer version of the same account. According to early church history, Matthew, not Mark, was written first, and the passages you quoted are consistent with that view: Mark may have given a shorter version of events because his gospel presupposes Matthew’s more lengthy treatment. In any case, according to the “Q” hypothesis among textual critics, Mark was not the source of the material shared in common with Matthew and Luke, but rather another source known as “Q.”
Arabia is not "the daughter of Babylon" in the Bible, although the Babylonians may have conquered Arabian territory. If you read the OT prophets in context the daughter of Babylon refers to the Babylonian empire, just like "the daughter of Zion" refers to the Israelites or the kingdom of Judah. According to the prophet Daniel, the Babylonian empire fell to the Medes and Persians. In the book of Revelation, Babylon is symbolic.
On Isaiah 41, if you keep reading, the prophet explains who is meant. We are not left to guess who the “one from the East” might be. The answer is given in Isaiah 45:1-3. It is a great example of how the Bible explains itself.
On surah 7:157, we can infer a couple of things. First, the Bible has been preserved according to this verse also of the Quran. Otherwise, why would the Quran appeal to a corrupt book to give attestation to Muhammad’s otherwise unattested prophethood? Secondly, Muhammad or whoever fabricated that ayah, was either deceived or a deceiver. As my fellow Bible-readers here will attest, Muhammad is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, except in the sense that false prophets are mentioned.
Surah 3:85 does not refute my contention and that of Professor Saeed (and the Muslim scholars he names) that the Bible has been preserved. The ayah shows that the Quran is at odds with itself, confirming the Bible and yet at the same time contradicting the Bible’s teachings.
You claimed, “There's plenty of evidence showing no one was crucified,” but our Lord’s crucifixion is not doubted by even secular scholars. The historical evidence flatly contradicts the Quran. Even hostile critic Bart Ehrman says, “The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life.”
