God�s written instructions for life.

Kish wrote: 1st Where are the so-called �original� or copies of the original Gospel that you speak of to show its corruption, at a Museum?

Kish wrote: 2nd What are you comparing the Gospel account to too show up these corruptions?

Kish wrote: 3nd Why did not Jesus say the Torah and the Gospel was corrupted as Muhammad says it is?

Kish wrote: 4th Why would Prophet Muhammad frequently include and recognize these instructions for life from the Gospel and refer to them as the word of God in the Quran?

Kish wrote: 5th If they were corrupted before Muhammad, what date and by whom, at least twelve other verses say that the Quran was written for the purpose of confirming these books?

Kish wrote: Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgments on Allah�s revelations.� (S) 5:46, 47. Judge in accordance, how could you if the Gospel Muhammad had been corrupted?

The same surah also accuses the Jews and Christians of forgetting a large portion of the message sent to them.  I have already quoted the relevant verses.  Furthermore, you are completely misunderstanding verse.  Perhaps we should let Ibn Kathir clarify it for us:

"(Let the people of the Injil judge by what Allah has revealed therein.) meaning, so that He judges the people of the Injil by it in their time. Or, the Ayah means, so that they believe in all that is in it and adhere to all its commands, including the good news about the coming of Muhammad and the command to believe in and follow him when he is sent."  

Obviously, the prophecy of Muhammad's coming is not present in the Gospels, unless you believe that "parakletos" was the Greek corruption of the original Aramaic.  Either way, it is obvious that the Quran is not referring to the current "Gospels".

Kish wrote: 6th If they were corrupted after you should be able to show the verses of the alleged corruption, and compare them to what as you say to the �pristine� or �uncorrupted� version�?

I have already shown you one example of a passage which was added later on, to which you have yet to respond.  All you have been doing is running in circles and resorting to special pleading.  There are many examples which any serious student of New Testament criticism would be aware of.  If you want more examples, I suggest you read Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" as well as Vermes' "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus". 

Kish wrote: 7th What would prevent this �final� revelation from getting corrupted or edited since it happened before as you say, maybe it could happen again, again and again although God previously promised that it wouldn�t?

It certainly could, but it hasn't.  God promised to protect the final revelation.  It says so in the same Quran you have been trying to (mis)quote:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)." (15:9)

In order to cast doubt on this matter, you would actually have to show clear-cut examples (like I have shown with the Gospels) instead of playing the "would" or "could" game. 

Kish wrote: So many implications as you can readily see!

Yes, and most of them are completely ridiculous, as I have shown!

Kish wrote: However, Isaiah 40:8. �The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.�

Apparently, someone forgot to show this to Jeremiah:

⁸ ��How can you say, �We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,� when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah 8:8)

How could the word endure "forever" yet also be falsely "handled" by scribes? 

Kish wrote: I�ll wait to see your uncorrupted version and if you�re unable to provide that which you likely are, it is only because the Quran that came centuries later disagrees with the Bible, which of course is why you disagree. That is quite understandable since the Quran does not teach Salvation through Jesus.

Until you provide a reasonable excuse for why someone decided to add the Pericope de Adultera to the Gospel of John, the only thing I can assume is that you are ignoring the evidence.   

Also, the Quran teaches salvation through God only, not through a man.  So of course it disagrees with the Gospels.  The Old Testament, even in its less than pristine form, argues the same thing.  Christians have had to misquote the Old Testament, mangling out of context verses to try to prove that their half man/half god (sounds like Greek mythology) was sent to die for their sins.  

Kish wrote: But don�t expect the Gospel and the Torah to confirm and conform to a book that was completed several hundred years later which is what it sounds like you�re doing.

I don't.  That is what you are trying to do.  I know better.

Kish wrote: I would expect so since Islam does not accept Jesus as the ransom sacrifice of the son of God but the Jews who converted over to Christianity did because of what the Mosaic Law in the Torah prepared them for, which was the Great Sacrifice of the Lamb (Sheep) of God, Jesus. If you were aware of the use of the word lamb (Sheep) in the Torah �Old Testament� and what those sacrifices represented you would know why Jesus is referred to as the sacrificial Lamb (Sheep) of God in the Gospel �New Testament.�  John 1:29 See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!� Isa. 53:7 �He was being brought just like a lamb to the slaughtering.

This is exactly what I meant when I said that Christians resort to mangling OT verses out of context to line up with their NT beliefs.  Are you sure you are not a Christian, because your M.O. resembles theirs very closely?  Isaiah 53 is oft-quoted by zealous Christians but it is always out of context.  Anyone who reads the entire chapter would realize there is no way this can be referring to the Messiah.  For example, read Isaiah 53:10 which states:

"Yet it was the LORD�s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes[c] his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand."

Since when did Jesus have "offspring"?  It is obvious that the chapter is not talking about any one person.  Instead, it is a metaphor for the nation of Israel.  In fact, if you actually took the time to research this a little more, you would know that the "servant" was clearly identified in Isaiah 49:3 as the nation of Israel:

"He said to me, �You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.�"

Kish wrote: And the Quran does not.

And neither does the Old Testament.  Therefore, the Gospels introduced a new concept which was never taught before.  This is not a problem for the Muslim or the Jew, but it is for the Christian. 

Kish wrote: Like the virgin birth of Mary? That was certainly a new and extraordinary concept and the Quran acknowledges and also agrees!

Now you are just resorting to red herrings.  How is a miraculous birth an "extraordinary concept"?  God created Adam without a father and mother!  Surely, the virgin birth is not a new concept nor is it extremely difficult for the Almighty! 

The point is, which you failed to refute, is that the idea of a human/god hybrid is a new concept which is foreign to monotheism and is more akin to Greek mythology and that for serious monotheists to accept it as the truth would require extraordinary scriptural evidence.

Kish wrote: Is it not true that Jesus died as a human before he was resurrected to heaven? It said in the Quran that Jesus died. Perhaps it requires more faith on your part.

No, it does not.  The Quran says he was not crucified and was raised alive to Heaven.  Also, he was born a human and remained a human.  He was not part human, part God.  This blasphemy is rightfully condemned in the Quran.

Kish wrote: No, you only showed how one can interpret or misinterpret a scripture. In order to prove corruption you have to show texts of what was said originally in the scriptures which you cannot. You only showed what the Church fathers wrote afterward but the Church fathers did not write the Gospel.

I always get a kick out of people who ask for examples of corruption and when they are shown examples, they resort to special pleading and straw-man arguments.  I showed you a clear example of a passage (the Pericope de Adultera) which scholars believe was not in the original (which of course has not survived).  The spurious nature of this passage is proven by the fact that it is found in some late manuscripts but not in the earlier manuscripts.  You have yet to respond to this damning proof of the corruption of the Gospels.  And this is just one example out of many!

Kish wrote: (Genesis 40:8) �Do not interpretations belong to God?� (Not to the church fathers and scholars who are not inspired)

Yet another misquote of the Hebrew Bible.  How ironic given that you accused me of "misinterpreting" scripture.  What does Genesis 40:8 actually say?  Let us look:

"⁸ �We both had dreams,� they answered, �but there is no one to interpret them.�

   Then Joseph said to them, �Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell me your dreams.�"

As you can see, this is not even talking about interpreting scripture but dreams!  And if you keep reading, you will see that Joseph actually interprets the dreams! 

The moral of the story, Kish, is to not accuse someone of "misinterpreting" scripture when you are as guilty as anyone else.  An old Arab proverb states:

"Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Kish wrote: Yea, so the Quran did not mean what it said about the Gospel being a book of guidance and light.

As explained before, it was referring to the original Gospel sent via Jesus (pbuh) and not the "Gospel according to so and so".   

Kish wrote: Acts 2:41 Therefore those who embraced his word heartily were baptized, and on that day about three thousand souls were added Acts 5:28 �We positively ordered YOU not to keep teaching upon the basis of this name, and yet, look! YOU have filled Jerusalem with YOUR teaching, and YOU are determined to bring the blood of this man upon us. Acts 6:7 Consequently the word of God went on growing, and the number of the disciples kept multiplying in Jerusalem very much; and a great crowd of priests began to be obedient to the faith.

Oh I see.  To prove the Gospel writers' claims of many witnesses, you refer to the Gospel writers own testimony?  Okay.  You know yesterday I saw Bigfoot and so did about a 100 other people. I don't know who they were so you will just have to take my word for it that there were witnesses.  Therefore, Bigfoot must be real because so many people saw it. 

Obviously, you have no actual evidence that there were many witnesses, just as I would have no evidence that many people saw Bigfoot with me.  So, all you have done is to commit a circular argument fallacy.  So I ask again.  What witnesses are you referring to?  What were their names?  Do we have their personal testimonies?

Kish wrote: Again, eyewitnesses have been established and If you don�t believe in the eye-witnesses of the Gospel believe at least in what (S) 4:162 and what was revealed before Muhammad, but as you say �it was edited� although you or anyone else can present any texts that can verify your assumptions and accusations.

Your repeated attempts to continue to (mis)quote the Quran will fall on deaf ears since you have been unable to refute anything I have written about the Quran's teachings about the previous revelations.  All you have been doing is repeating ad nauseum the same argument while ignoring the facts.  Unless you have something new to say with regard to this issue, please don't keep repeating the same argument which has been explained enough times already.

Kish wrote: The Quran disregards how Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Law, the Gospel tells us as I�ve mentioned already. Also, you fail to realize that Isaiah prophetically pictures Jesus, read Isaiah chapter 6 Jesus is a holy seed bringing the Kingdom of God (Isaiah 53:10 & 8:18) another topic! So this is very much in harmony with the Old Testament and a contradiction to the Quran.

This is of course absurd since you completely failed to respond to the fact that Isaiah 59:21 clearly says that the covenant was supposed to last forever.  So, either there is a contradiction in Isaiah or you are misinterpreting Isaiah or the NT contradicts the OT.  Either way, it is a problem for you and not for me. 

Concerning Isaiah 53, I have proven conclusively that it is not referring to the Messiah but to the nation of Israel.  I will wait for your response. 

Kish wrote: Whether YOU refer to them as apocryphal is irrelevant, the Catholic writers do as I quoted from them and which deuterocanonical means. But as you yourself said, they were not of the original which I agree; they were added as I also agree. But if that is corruption, on who�s part God, the Gospel or imperfect men? Imperfect men! You put too much trust in scholars; put trust in God�s Holy word NOT scholars and critics I believe this is seriously confusing you and Hasan greatly understanding not only 'pure true Christianity' but the Quran!

Certainly, I am not the only one who refers to them as the apocrypha.  Scholars of NT criticism also refer to them as apocrypha and so do non-Catholic Christians.  The Protestants regard them as apocrypha and "uninspired". 

Too much trust in scholars?  Who should I trust then?  You?  A lay person?  A guy who apparently does not even believe in any religion (although I am starting to doubt that given your stringent defense of Christian scripture)?  Come on. 

The corruption is due to imperfect men who clearly were making stuff up to push their own agendas.  It is hard to imagine any other reason for why there were so many "gospels" in circulation and why there are so many differences even between the "canonized" gospels. 

Kish wrote: At that time the Hebrew Scripture canon had already been fixed and did not include any apocryphal books according to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus �There are not with us myriads of books, discordant and discrepant, but only two and twenty [the equivalent of the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], comprising the history of all time, which are justly accredited.� - Against Apion, Book I, par. 8 (according to the translation in The Interpreter�s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 163)

This is interesting given that the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) contains 24 books, not 22 books.  Therefore, Josephus' list was not complete and differs from the modern Tanakh. 

Kish wrote: Not true, they were accepted by first century Christians and Jesus immediate followers (Jews then later non-Jews) then they came in by the 1000�s in the beginning of the 1st Century (33 C.E.) by eye=witnesses as I mentioned right after his death, what great faith, they were not afraid to die for their belief in the Christ to gain salvation! (Read Acts chapter 1, 2 if you like.) Then many more in the 2nd Century believed; all this took place shortly after Jesus death, the Quran does not even come close to the amount of eye-witnesses when it comes to Muhammad and what he accomplished within his life time on the earth and even after, does that prove its authenticity? Islam was divided after Muhammad�s death and people were  assassinated or murdered within.

You have absolutely no evidence to show that 1st century Christians already accepted all of the Gospels.  The evidence for the evolving canon can be seen by the writings of the same Church fathers you refer to.  Let us consider the three most famous 2nd century Church fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons:

1.  Ignatius of Antioch can be shown to have referred to only two of the Gospels, and those also only via fragmented verses.  He refers in three instances to the Gospel of Matthew and in one instance to the Gospel of Luke [1].  He also quotes from the letters of Paul and the Book of Acts.  There are no references to the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John.  The fact that the latter is conspicuously absent is very telling.  The Gospel of John, as Christian tradition states, should have already been completed by the time Ignatius was writing. 

2.  Justin Martyr references three of the Gospels, again only via fragments.  He also perhaps refers to the Book of Revelation, but none of the letters of Paul or the Book of Acts [2].  Whether he actually referenced the Gospel of John is a matter of debate.  It has been claimed that 1 Apology 66 is a reference to John 3:3-5, but Justin Martyr does not refer to this quote as he does to other quotations from the other Gospels using the phrase "recorded in the memoirs of the apostles..."  Therefore, in the absence of clear quotations from the Gospel of John, we can only be certain that Justin Martyr was familiar with only three of them: Mark, Matthew and Luke.

3.  Irenaeus of Lyons does say that there are only four Gospels and as such, he is the absolute earliest Church father to say this.  He also quotes heavily from the letters of Paul and also some of the other epistles.  But, he also quotes from the aprocryphal book, the Shepherd of Hermas! 

From the above, we see a clear evolution.  Even if we accept that Justin Martyr may have referred to the Gospel of John, it is clear that in the early 2nd century, Ignatius was familiar with only Matthew and Luke.  Therefore, the popularity and usage of the Gospels clearly changed over the course of the 2nd century.  Therefore, the Christian canon evolved!  Since 2nd century Christians clearly had different ideas of what the canon represented, it is absurd to suggest that 1st century Christians already had accepted all of the Gospels and had a unified canon.   

Kish wrote: Translator Muhammad Pickthall writes: �All the surahs of the Qur�an had been recorded in writing before the Prophet�s death, and many Muslims had committed the whole Qur�an to memory. But the written surahs were dispersed among the people; and when, in a battle . . . a large number of those who knew the whole Qur�an by heart were killed, a collection of the whole Qur�an was made and put in writing.� What a double standard you have presented to me about authenticity when only a collection of the Quran was put in writing after the fact.

The double standard is clearly on your part and so is the manipulation of the facts.  You completely ignore the fact that Pickthall said clearly that "all the surahs...had been recorded in writing before the Prophet's death..."  The first collection was done under Abu Bakr (ra), the successor to Muhammad (pbuh) but the Quran was already complete.  It just had not been brought together in book form, which was not that important at the time.  Furthermore, as Pickthall pointed out, many Muslims had memorized the Quran in its entirety so any attempts to change the Quran would have been instantly recognized and stopped.  No such fail-safe existed for the Bible.  Unfortunately, this is why we have so many variant manuscripts and canons of the Bible.

Kish wrote: That�s an individual choice right, but the Trinity is not a original Christian teaching it started in ancient Babylon first, not Jerusalem.

How is it an "individual choice"?  This is pure special pleading.  Would God be happy with those people for following a teaching which originated in a pagan culture?

The Trinity concept stems from ancient Babylon, where the sun-god Shamash, the moon god Sin, and the star god Ishtar (Same star used in Islam) were worshipped as a triad. Egypt followed the same pattern, worshipping Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Assyria�s chief god, Asshur, is portrayed as having three heads. Following the same pattern, images are to be found in Catholic churches depicting God as having three heads

This is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the trinity was developed to explain the verses which showed Jesus as a divine being who was to be worshiped.  This was the only way to harmonize the Gospels which clearly differed from the monotheism of the Jews.  This is further elucidated below.

Kish wrote: Remember, Churchmen or fathers only wrote about Christianity in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. Some of them were Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, and Papias. If the apostles taught the Trinity doctrine, then yes those Apostolic Fathers should have taught it too but no evidence support the Apostles taught that theory. Whether other writers later on consciously or unconsciously feel into what Jesus prophesied about, the �weed and the wheat class� that�s a whole other story.

This only goes to prove that the original message of Jesus was corrupted by Christians.  Furthermore, of the fathers you mentioned above, Ignatius does indeed mention this heresy in his Epistle to the Magnesians:

"Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union beth fleshly and spiritual." (Chapter 13)

Kish wrote: Which one(s)? �seemingly?� However, the early Christians and Apostolic fathers did not accept that concept at all I believe.

Every verse which makes Jesus appear as a god had to be harmonized with the monotheistic teachings of the Jews because otherwise, they would imply the existence of multiple gods.  Verses like Titus 2:12-14 clearly show Jesus as a divine being:

"¹² It teaches us to say �No� to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, ¹³ while we wait for the blessed hope�the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, ¹⁴ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good."  

Kish wrote: One of the earliest non-Biblical statements of Christian faith is found in a book of 16 short chapters known as The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some historians date it before or about the year 100 C.E. Its author is unknown.2

Which is why it was not accepted into the canon.  But go on...

Kish wrote: The Didache deals with things people would need to know to become Christians. In its 7th chapter, it prescribes baptism �in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,� the same words Jesus used at Matthew 28:19.3 But it says nothing about the three being equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom which is what the Trinity theory teaches.

But then this would be a blasphemy since baptism should only be done in the name of God alone.  Adding the son and Holy Spirit into the mix would imply equality.  It would be like a Muslim like me saying "In the name of Allah and Muhammad".  Such a statement would be anathema to Muslims as it would imply that Allah and Muhammad are equals, astagfirAllah! 

In addition, the Didache is problematic since it fails to mention the two most important doctrines in Christian teaching: the death and resurrection of Jesus and the redeeming nature of his death.  How do you explain this?

Kish wrote: Clement of Rome, thought to have been a �bishop� in that city, is another early source of writings on Christianity. It is believed that he died about 100 C.E. In the material said to have been written by him, he makes no mention of a Trinity, either directly or indirectly. In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, he states: �Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.� �The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.� Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, lived from about the middle of the first century C.E. to early in the second century. Assuming that all the writings attributed to him were authentic, in none of them is there an equality of Father, Son, and holy spirit. Ignatius calls Almighty God �the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,� showing the distinction between God and His Son.9 He speaks of �God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.�10 And he declares: �There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son.�11 9. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, page 52. 10. Ibid., page 58. 11. Ibid., page 62. Thus, in those late-first-century and early-second-century writings of the Apostolic Fathers, there is no support for Christendom�s Trinity. They spoke of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit just as the Bible does. Look, for example, at Acts 7:55, 56:

See above regarding Ignatius.

Kish wrote: That answer is only partly right, some Jews (Above) not all  believed and were saved (Those who accepted Christ) and they did not have any concept of the trinity in there teachings and nether do "True Christians" (Like myself), besides Jesus was sent to the world of mankind, first to the Jews because of the covenant with Abraham. But, they failed to honor that covenant, so then sent to non-Jews in 36 C.E. which is mentioned here in Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius, the first uncircumcised Gentile convert.

So now you are a "true Christian"?  Since when?  If you are a Christian, why didn't you say so in the first place?

Regarding your claim about Jesus and the covenant, I will let Geza Vermes answer for me:

"For if there is one certain conclusion which no serious reader...can escape, it is that these hundreds of sayings have not been produced by one and the same teacher.  They patently represent irreconcilable variations, indeed again and again they display flat contradictions.  Jesus could not declare the proclamation of the good news to be restricted to Jews alone, yet simultaneously wish it to be addressed to all the nations of the earth" ("The Authentic Gospel of Jesus", p. 370).

Also, you said to brother Hasan:

Kish wrote: (Je′sus) [Latin form of the Greek I�e�sous′, which corresponds to the Hebrew Ye�shu′a‛ or Yehoh�shu′a‛ and means �יהוה [Jehovah/YHVH] God Is Salvation�]. Now, that we know Salvation is only tied to Jesus' name, you can continue amusing yourself from your misquoting, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the scriptures that the Quran openly acknowledges and indirectly lends support to.

This is a patently absurd statement.  The fact is that salvation is NOT only "tied to Jesus' name".  Among the other Hebrew names which are "tied to salvation" are:

1. Elisha (My God is Salvation)

2. Hoshea (literally meaning Salvation)

3. Isaiah (Yahweh is Salvation)

Please do some research before making false statements.

So, your response against points #1 - #6 are all based on assumptions and accusations because you have yet showed any texts or documentation to show and prove what teachings or beliefs of Jesus were corrupted or changed in the Gospel. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all taught and believed what Jesus their leader taught them, that he was the Son of God like Adam was a son of God. Jesus himself said he was the son of God and most importantly his father said that Jesus was his son.

Who have to prove he taught differently, you do! He spoke in favor of the Torah, Psalms, Gospel and the oneness of God that we do know. So it makes logical since that you would have to prove otherwise, not based on assumptions and accusations based on imperfect scholars, believers .   

You have yet proved otherwise but it�s never too late to show us documentations that God, Jesus or his followers taught what Muhammad and the Quran teaches, then perhaps I�ll be persuaded to believe.     

Your argument is that we have no original copies is a very, very, very weak argument as if the Quran has original or copies of originals and the Quran is a much, much younger book, even his closes companions wrote on animal skin and whatever else they could find to write on.

So, all this �previous scriptures� that you�re using as your foundation is all based on assumptions with no show and tell to back up what you are saying.

It�s really a simple task; just show us some texts or verses that Jesus is not the son of God and what his disciples wrote and taught in the Gospel is incorrect about Jesus, that�s all. And since as Origen says the differences are great it shouldn�t be a problem then.

Oh yea��.

In the words of a 17th-century writer, Origen�s critics asserted: �His doctrine in general is absurd and pernicious, a Serpentine deadly poison, which he vomited into the world.� About three centuries after his death, in fact, Origen was formally declared a heretic.

You really put too much stock in philosophers and scholars who taught contrary to Jesus and his disciples.

#7 Speculation,

islamispeace wrote: In order to cast doubt on this matter, you would actually have to show clear-cut examples (like I have shown with the Gospels) instead of playing the "would" or "could" game.

lslamispeace wrote: It certainly could, but it hasn't.

Double standard I see.

islamispeace wrote:  Until you provide a reasonable excuse for why someone decided to add the Pericope de Adultera to the Gospel of John, the only thing I can assume is that you are ignoring the evidence.

What? apart from what Jesus and his Apostles said and taught about wolves entering into the Christian congregation trying to destroy it from within. These were added also�..

�� writings like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon.

Since it�s been established that not all people have good intentions, how about showing us that the teachings and beliefs of Jesus and his apostles as recorded in the Gospel are incorrect starting with Jesus being the son of God.