When Muhammad gets things wrong about Jesus, Muslims typically blame the Apostle Paul for corrupting Christianity. But what happens when we compare Paul and Muhammad, and we realize that Paul is far more reliable than Muhammad? Let's find out in this video series.
Compelling viewing David. I had to watch it a second time. Well done.
Codex Sinaiticus is NOT "the oldest New Testament"
It is the oldest (more or less) COMPLETE New Testament. There are very many older partial manuscripts that contain the parts that you claim are missing.
In any case it is generally accepted in New Testament scholarship that mere antiquity of a manuscript is not necessarily the main point.
You have no argument here.
As I've said before, Amin doesn't care to engage in meaningful dialogue just like his scholars which unfortunately include people like Zakir Naik and people like Osama Abdallah who seemingly on their sites think they are convincing people and claiming their self proclaimed victories on debates. I've just stopped responding to him now because it doesn't matter. He won't dialogue, he'll post a few links and back off.
And to the example of misleading translations by some Christians thing, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus of Nazareth.
In the newest Teach the Text commentary on Matthew Jeannine Brown explains the reason for the difference.
“Some manuscripts include the name ‘Jesus’ before the surname ‘Barabbas’; others do not. Given a clear disposition by Christian scribes copying the New Testament to hold Jesus’ name in reverence, it is easy to understand how they might omit that name when used to refer to a criminal. It is less discernible why some scribes might add the name if it was not originally in Matthew. For this reason, it is likely that both prisoners to whom Pilate refers have the name ‘Jesus,’ a quite common Jewish name in the first century. The choice between the two men named ‘Jesus’ is set before the people: Jesus Barabbas or Jesus the Messiah.” (p. 306)
She provides a footnote to Richard Bauchham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses stating that the name ‘Jesus’ “was the sixth most popular male name among Palenstinian Jews in the period 330 BC-AD 200.” (p. 328n.2)
Then you've got some fools over at answering-christianity.com trying to prove that it was actually Jesus Barabbas who was crucified and not Jesus the Christ. Sigh :
fsxflyer789, I could engage in a dialogue, but are not the links clear? I explain it for you, Barabbas is Aramaic, it means "son of the father". There are two different characters bearing the same name in the New Testament (two Jesus). The one who said that he is the son of God is Barabbas, because his name indicates it. Jesus the Messiah never said that because "son of the father" and "Messiah" is used to distinguish them. And also many verses were written for the first time in Europe (e.g. those in Codex Bezae), so they are man-made.(Allah knows best)
First off Amin, you source Wikipedia for much of your source information which is childish to say at best. Second of all, these comments that you post aren't showing I don't know why?
These are the "added verses"
Supplementations (by a later hand)
Matthew 3:7-16; Mark 16:15-20; John 18:14-20:13
Matthew 3:9, 15, 5:20-22, 25-28, 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33
The fact that Papyrus 64 includes Matthew Chapter 3 verse 9 and 15 is quite the evidence that it is not written in 400 AD for the first time. This Papyrus was written in around the 2nd century.
Mark 16:15-20 - You should read Justin Marytyr's apology to see what's going on with these verses and the letters of the church father's all allude to this verse set but most modern day textual criticism excludes it due to it not being in the earliest "complete" manuscripts of the New Testament.
Matt 1:23- 2:2; 19:3-8; 21:19-24; Mark 12:32-37; John 18:29-35; 19:24-26; 20:17-20; 21:20-23
P52 Contains - John 18:31-33,37,38 (125 AD)
P90 Contains - John 18:36- 19:7 (150-175 AD).
And something noteworthy is that these "Supplementaries" do not have to be deliberate additions to the text such as you try to say in Codex Bezae. You need to realize that back in that era, when your book was damaged or ripped, you didn't have book stores back then to just hop in and grab another copy. It was usually just much more expensive since paper wasn't a thing. It was rather easier to just add a supplementary to the existing manuscript to save costs.
You can't just Wikipedia something without actually researching the topic in depth.
Yes the links to your blog do provide stuff, but I'm sure I'm repeating myself again by saying that those arguments are copy paste from other Muslim sites and apologists and simply not worth the effort to copy paste the same refutation again and again, it gets redundant after a few times.
I'm sure you have heard of the Didache? Even the didache contains the verse to baptize in the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy spirit. This document is traced to be rooted in tradition of the Apostles.
I explain it for you, Barabbas is Aramaic, it means "son of the father". There are two different characters bearing the same name in the New Testament (two Jesus). The one who said that he is the son of God is Barabbas, because his name indicates it.
Barabbas means son of the father. How does being God and being Father meant the same thing to Barabbas that he called himself son of God and when does Jesus not call himself the son of God or have you just ignored the evidence to the contrary?
“Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” 18For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him.
19While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”
20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
21“Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.
“Barabbas,” they answered.
22“What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”
Jesus is also the son of God and the Messiah in Christianity which is a fact I think you seem to ignore while making that comment.
If one is consistent, you can't just take that out of context and say that since Jesus is said to be Jesus the Messiah here and he is not called Jesus son of God all throughout the narrative it means that Jesus is not the son of God and its a later interpolation.
I'm sure you'll quit the habit of quoting Wikipedia as your source for info from now on.
Amin, that issue has been taken up in the scholarly circles many times. When we claim that the variants in the Bible don't mean anything to the faith is because those lines in doubt are just around 40 in number AND DON'T AFFECT ANY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. DOES THIS STORY AFFECT ANY CORE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE?
Why is Jesus called the son of Mary so many times?
lol you're still here, quite surprising. I won't even bother.
Thanks for sharing
Comprare Patente di Guida
FÜHRERSCHEIN ONLINE KAUFEN
Post a Comment