12/27/2022 0 Comments Quran textual criticism![]() ![]() Hence the disagreement amongst you that has ALWAYS existed to this very day! > You mean the “original texts” that you don’t have? Regards And how do you know about the life of Jesus? Is it not from the “word of God”? So the latter is the very basis of the former, so that doesnt really work does it? Everything you know about what Jesus said and did comes from manuscripts that are in places so corrupted to the extent that you don’t know for sure exactly what he said and did. > LOL! This argument always makes me laugh no matter how many times i here it from Christians. Now if Mohammed made up the Quran, then why would he put that in about himself? I guess the Quran must be true then! Secondly, out of interest, can you tell me of any “embarrassing” instances about Jesus in the Gospel of John? Im just curious here. MOI > Oh that’s all it takes is it?! Well in that case the Quran is authentic because it “embarrasses” Mohammed by criticizing him for frowning at a blind man, and telling him to ask for forgiveness. (8) Therefore, one can only believe in the Quran when begging the question. (7) Therefore, someone can't reasonably believe in the Quran if one rejects apocryphal sources without begging the question. (6) The Quran reports that Jesus spoke in the cradle. (5) Apocryphal sources report that Jesus spoke in the cradle. (4) Therefore, someone can't believe in the Quran if one accepts apocryphal sources without begging the question. (3) The Quran claims to have no large variances. (2) Apocryphal sources report large variances in the Quran. The dilemma is this: (1) Apocryphal reports should be rejected in general or accepted in general, doing otherwise would be question-begging. From Islam2009: Yet every single “variant” you point to in the Quran regarding different Sura counts comes merely from apocryphal 10th century **REPORTS** that you have failed miserably to historically authenticate. Let me share with you what I call to be the "apocryphal dilemma". Now since you all have such a “personal relationship” with God and the Holy Spirit “dwells inside you”, could you do me a favour and ask him whether he “breathed” out Mark 16:9-20 on to some author all those years ago? Now how about some answers this time, rather than running away to start up a FOURTH thread with the same nonsense. ![]() Then of course Christians start arguing with each other about whether that new, updated “Word Of God” version, or the old “Word of God” version is the actual TRUE “Word of God”, whilst simultaneously trying to lie to all Muslim on the “answering Muslim” blog about how the NT text is so well defined and preserved. Someone accidently stumbles over an earlier manuscript that doesn’t contain that passage, and a brand new, shiny, “hot-off –the-press”, 28th Edition of the “Word of God” is published with the previous “Word of God” bit taken out the main text and dumped in a footnote at the bottom of the page. In practice, a passage in the NT is the “Word of God” for centuries. ON UTHMANS BURNING: > ON THE NT: In theory “scripture cannot be broken” and Jesus’ words “will never pass away”. So what do you do? GO AND START UP A THIRD ONE WITH THE SAME RUBBISH!! LOL! Im sorry Nabeel, but how spineless is that? Aren’t you supposed to be a ‘professor’? Hers a copy/paste of the bits you cant answer. Why do you protest so vigourouly when i call you dishonest when that is what you so clearly are? I refute all your nonsense on TWO other threads. This was the very tool that debunked the effectiveness of the variaty of Gnostic movements and their ideas and variaty texts the poor guys could not present a chain of succession, and when they attempted that, the names were unheard of. What gets to you first when you have done such a vast study and begin to grasp the picture, is how reliable the New Testament account is. I have spent more than eight months on this study, it is absolutely mind blowing and fascinating. There are also strong indications that these successors not only applied the New Testament text but also memorized it with additional material alongside the text. These successors were disciples of the apostles who in term selected their own disciples, to whom they passed on the information, the traditions, the history, etc. It's probably also worth mentioning that first - second century Christianity applied a system of apostolic succession and transmission, which operated individually from different locations. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |