Answers from the Christians

Greetings George.

This response was for me, not to Zul Qarnain.

I also noticed that you have pasted a great deal of your reply. I am not here to debate the "party line" of your faith. I was hoping for direct responses to my reply. I will make my points below.

George wrote: zulqarnain, This is in response to your latest post to me. The single homogenous belief system that you mentioned was in existence from the very first days after the resurrection of Jesus from the cross.  The gospel was preached orally for years.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as other books in the New Testament represent it.

No, it was not. You should quote B Erhman's sources for this topic as well. There was no single "homogenous" belief system, and anyone who still makes this claim is delving into the absurd with a serious case of denial. History does not agree with this bald face assertion, and you have not offered anything beyond, "Yes there was".

George wrote: In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented.

A repeat and you ignored my reply. The Christian claim for billions and trillions of MS is actually meaningless given that these MS are mostly dated after the fifth century and are copies of copies of copies. WHat we need is something within the first three centuries. Your early Christian communities were unable to agree on the basics like, "who was Jesus and what was he".

George wrote: These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor).

Irrelevant. It does not matter where they have been found, what matters is when they were written and by who. These are two points that are not resolved.

A MS dated to 125 AD?

http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm

Well, we have part of verses 31-33, and verses 37-38 of chapter "xviii". This is not tens of thousands of MS from the second century. This is a fragment that has nearly nothing on it that can help this thread or your claim. Could you point out the rest of the book? 

George wrote:    Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation.

Many? Portions? 150 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus?

This is a list of your tens of thousands of MSS.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/paplist.html

I would conclude that this hardely matches the claims that we are all told about in church.

George wrote: Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

What you are doing is called dumping. I am unable to varify phrases such as, "thousands of early Christian writings". This is like saying, "we have tens of thousands of MSS". The conclusion you have tried to reach with your above "assertion" is that someone, who lived 200 CE quoted gospels they like amongst hundreds of other gospels? So 170 years later someone mentions a Gospel that you read, but this only shows that something was being read with an attributed name you are familiar with, and it may even be the same gospel, but this does not prove any claim to validity or authorship or historical factuality of the gospel accounts. These writings survived amongst other writings that were not preserved given the group that won out created their view on history and did everything they could to wipe out the claims of their rival sects and their beliefs. So your point is simply a non sequitur.

George wrote:   We can determine some of the very Christian beliefs by the Creeds.

Again, this is no big "whoop". We already know that the early church inherited its tradition from the men you quoted, but we also know there were other groups with other thoughts, and the beliefs you derive are only founded on thinking at 200 CE, 170 years after the fact. In other words, we already know what the proto-orthodox believe. We do not know what Jesus believed. One thing simply does not imply the other. A non sequitur.

George wrote: Most of my information about the early Christian creeds comes from the book, "The Historical Jesus" by Gary R. Habermas. There is also a mention of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 in Lee Strobel's book, "The Case For Christ." Strobel's book is all interviews with noted historians and scholars and Craig L. Blomberg remarks on this creed. Habermas mentioned the works of Oscar Cullman, "The Earliest Christian Confessions" as "one of the classic works on this subject." I don't have that book but plan to try and get it. It was published in 1949.

 You are �asserting� and explaining your beliefs. This is not the same as replying to my points and arguing your case.

I would be happy to debate both works. Lee Strobel's work is extremely juvenile and he stays clear of any serious scholars. It is a soft work for those who already believe.

George wrote: The early creeds are important because they describe the nature of Christian thought before the writing of the New Testament. These creeds were communicated verbally years before they were written and preserve some of the earliest reports concerning Jesus from about 30-50AD. They are our earliest sources for the life of Jesus.

The creed is based upon those who founded your belief system.

This would be from the time period of 200 CE.

To try and conclude that this means this is what Jesus believed is "stretching" the evidence.

This man thought "such and such thing" 200 CE, therefore 30 CE this is what some man thought.

?

 This again is a non sequitur.

George wrote: One of the earliest creeds in this one: 1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. This creed is considered pre-Pauline and is recognized as such by virtually all critical scholars across a very wide theological spectrum. How do they know that it is old and pre-Pauline? 1. Paul's words "delivered" and "received" are technical terms for passing on tradition. So, Paul is saying that this material was not his own, but received from another source.

Circular reasoning. You are trying to show it is pre-Pauline. You are now trying to say that because Paul used a certain word, that it must be prepauline is simply irrational. You cannot prove something is pre-Pauline by evoking something Paul said, as what Paul said is not an established truth.

Furthermore, you have a major assumption that is not readily accepted: Paul was a spokesman for Jesus.

We know he was not universally accepted even in his own day.

George wrote: 2. A number of the words are non-Pauline which indicates another source. They are: "for our sins," "according to the scriptures," "he has been raised," the "third day," "he was seen," and "the twelve."

This begs the question: So what?

Mark uses verses from the Hebrew Scriptures. This does not make what Mark says, a Christian belief that is pre-Mark or pre Christian. One does not provide proof for the other. This is a non sequitur.

If you feel I am wrong, then please elaborate.

George wrote: 3. The creed is organized in a stylized, parallel form, thereby indicating an oral and confessional nature.

Once more, this begs the question: So what?

Copying a style or using past material does not make what Paul says to be what Gd wants us to believe. This is like saying, "What the Gospels say must be true because it uses verses from the OT, so therefore it is pre-Gospel period and must be true". This is yet another non sequitur.

George wrote: 4. There are indications that there may be a Semitic source, such as the use of the Aramaic "Cephas" for Peter, which would point to an earlier source before Paul's Greek translation.

 And yet we have another non sequitur.

George wrote: 5. Other indications of ancient Hebrew narration include the triple usage of "and that" along with the two references to the Scripture being fulfilled.

Your points are also using a great deal of �there are indications�, which tells me that the source you are taking this from is trying to tell us that their argument is �tenuous� at the very best. Not to mention this is another example of a �non sequitur�.

George wrote: Some date this creed from 3 to 8 years after Jesus' crucifixion. This is Blomberg's logic for dating the creed: Now think, if the crucifixion was as early as 30 AD, Paul's conversation was bout 32 AD. Immediately Paul was ushered into Damascus, where he met with a Christian named Ananias and some other disciples. His first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem would have been about 35 AD. At some point along there, Paul was given this creed, which had already been formulated and was being used in the early church.

Fallacious.

1)     Paul never met Jesus. We only have controversial and conflicting reports that Paul talked to dead people after he had an �incident�.

2)     Whatever Paul thought or felt does not imply what was thought in Jerusalem.

3)     Any ideas that Paul has does not tell us anything about ancient Christians. Given the various groups that existed where each had their own ideas, one cannot discern between having an idea being started by myth or by fact.

4)     Paul is completely silent about anything �historical� about the life of Jesus.

5)     There were numerous �mystery faith� religions contemporary to Paul, such that there could be other sources for his personal beliefs, and not necessarily those of the ancient Christians.

6)     The early church fathers derived their beliefs from Paul, and chose anything attributed to him as the barrier between the ancient Christians and their own beliefs. This does not mean that Paul was the only �school of thought�.

7)     One must accept Paul as a valid representation of Jesus, and there is nothing that has been put forth in the last 2000 years that permits him to necessarily be such.

8)     Paul was sent to the gentiles because his message was considered flawed and not worthy the Jews who were the intended target of Jesus.   

George wrote: Now, here with this creed we have the key facts about Jesus' death for our sins, plus a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected form�all dating back to within two or five years of the events themselves!! That's not later mythology from 40 or more years down the road. A good case can be made for saying that Christian belief in the Resurrection, though not yet written down, can be dated to within two years of th at very event!

Conjecture, supposition, assertions, none of which answer the questions as to why Gd must die for our sins, affirm Paul as anything but another mediocre religious man in an environment with countless others, or establish what the first Christians thought.

George wrote: It is also important to realize that this creed represents eyewitness testimony and to keep in mind that it is pre-Pauline.

I am sorry George, your appealing to a derived creed from the Pauline letters by men who live 170 years after the fact and favored Paul�s thoughts does not conclude there are eye witness testimony who believed as you do. You are reaching, as is the author of the work you are taking this angle from. You are asking me to accept a great many assumptions. Perhaps at this point one should bring to mind Occam�s Razor,�entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity�. The continued violation of this sound principle in order to show how Jesus really thought speaks volumes.

George wrote: By mid-second century Gnosticism was in full swing.  Also prevalent were the fanciful books�I call them folklore�Jesus speaking as an infant.  His first words were:  "

This has no relevance on the hundreds of gospel accounts that existed with the four you call �word of Gd�, nor does this validate any claim of authenticity of the four that were chosen by the same men who chose the Pauline letters to represent their ideas, nor does it invalidate the sources of mid second century books. Their sources are as known as the ones you call Gd�s word. 

George wrote: Bart Ehrman is a sad case.  Essentially he thought that the Bible somehow came down on a string from heaven.  When he found out that it hadn't, he became close to an agnostic.  His conclusions are being misused.

This is the common belief of most evangelicals. That their NT is based upon a common source from known authorship direct to Jesus, hence, Gd. His conclusions are solid which is why many Christians are angry with him. His conclusions bolster the position that Christians do not actually have any way to know that their NT is directly from Jesus.

George wrote: Ehrman gave his permission to use this quote: "I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world."

1)     �scribes (did not) changed everything in the text, or even most things�, so then it is �ok� to tamper with the word of Gd as long as it was not everything? It is ok as long as it is with �some things�? So you are now asserting that it is ok that the MS were tampered with on some points, because it was the Chrch fathers that did it!?

You are being put on trial for "such and such thing". You and your counselor find out that the prosecutor is using evidence that has been tampered with. Your counselor takes this information to the judge showing that the prosecutor's evidence has been tampered with. The prosecutor looks suprised that you and your counselor are complaining and is mystified that you have a problem with his evidence. The prosecutor tells you and the judge, "Sure, it was tampered with, but it was our witnesses that did the tampering so what's the problem!?".

So the tampered evidence would be ok as long as only �some of the evidence� was tampered with by the prosecutors witnesses? :lol: Come on George.

2)     The corruption of scripture means that different men were looking at similar narratives and walking away with conflicting beliefs about Jesus. This allows one to deduce that they did not really know anything about Jesus, and followed conjecture. They were so desperate to win the theological battle, that they resorted to �fudging� their �word of Gd� in order to show that it really agreed with their own personal view. What kind of holy man fudges their word of Gd? This is called �lying�, or rather, pious fraud.

3)     The texts spoke about the resurrection because this is what the third doctors focused on and this was the focus of their personal views. So this begs the question: Why would they tamper with resurrection accounts if this is what they believed in. The texts they tampered with were ones which did not readily support their views, not those that did.

4)     He said himself that the �nuances� were important. That means key to your faith.

5)     So after 2000 years your scholars feel they can now reconstruct your NT concerning the four narratives that were chosen and transmitted. Keep in mind, �2000 years later�, and about the �four narratives you have�, which has nothing to do with their historical validity, or what Jesus actually thought or what his followers actually thought. You are trying to take these vague generalizations and make sweeping conclusions that simply do not follow.     

George wrote: I've talked to Bart 4 or 5 times.  He told me that the corrections in the NT need not affect anyone's faith and he agreed that Bruce Metzger was a perfect example. You can read an review of his latest book here:  http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452 And another here: http://www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html

Opinion. And about the links. George, I do not do links. If you have something to debate or discuss, I would be happy to engage the topic. I am not here to refute someone�s websites. I also have many links and material of the two authors above that support my views, but the thread will look silly if all we do is exchange links.

George wrote: It seems to me that you would be much better off if you accepted that the text of the Bible and the Koran have both had human hands involved in its history and based your arguments on that fact instead of trying to discredit the Bible.

You are welcome to your opinion. But what we need is substance. Please show me where the Quran has been �fudged� by scrupulous men such as that case of your church doctors?

George wrote: We are fortunate that we have so many copies of the NT in order to do textual criticism, unlike Islam who during the time of Ultman, all variant copies of the Koran were burned.

That is a very interesting statement. You are saying that you are lucky that you have no authoritative source from Jesus or his disciples, and instead have copies of copies of copies of narratives that were four out of hundreds whom you do not actually know the authorship and were fudged by your own doctors in dishonest attempts to prove their theology to each other and on top of that, the copies of copies of copies do not agree with each other on numerous verses. And you feel I am unlucky because the Prophet (saw) actually transmitted the Quran to his followers and afterward compiled an authoritative reading based on committee of first hand followers, and chains were established in the following transmission? So you would be unlucky if Jesus had actually authorized his teachings and words to his first hand followers who authorized this teaching afterward and they guarded and established a chain of transmission, discarding fallacious and invented sources, including mistakes? You cannot be serious. I will take my �unlucky� situation over your �lucky scenario� any day.  

George wrote: Even if a Christian decided not to be a Christian based on their interpretation of it the NT that does not mean that they should embrace Islam and the Koran.  The Koran has to be able to stand on its own.

I never made such an argument.

Also, could you please show that it does not stand on its own?

George wrote: I would venture a guess that if Bart did a textual analysis of the Koran he would come to the same conclusion that he did of the New Testament.  In other words, he would not become a Muslim.

That's actually pretty juvenile George. The bible and the Quran are two very different texts given there modes of transmission. So only an uneducated fool would try and apply the same criteria to the Quran as the bible. The criteria was developed based upon the text and its history. Therefore, one could apply the same criteria. Dr. B. Ehrman is not a scholar of classic Arabic or texts in classic Arabic. What he may find or not is conjecture and would be silly to further entertain. Also, I have not argued that the unreliable NT is proof of Islam. One comes to Islam based upon Gd. The unreliable NT is simply one unreliable holy book amongst others in the world. The important thing is that the Quran acknowledges Jesus and that he had some revelation. That�s all we need to know.   

zulqarnain wrote: Please post me the "scientific errors in the Quran" again, PLEASE.

Hi zulgarnain,

Since the moderators deleted my links, they have left me with the impression that they do not want me to use them.  So I won't.

I googled, "Scientific errors in the Quran" and got a lot of sites that cited what they considered errors.  I used the first 4 or 5 cites that came up.

This is the best I can do.

zulqarnain wrote: Tell you what George. Now this is not going to WASTE your time. There are a number of questions asked by Christian Missionaries listed on the irf.net website. On the webpage, if you go all the way down. there's a "Q&A on Islam" click on that. Scroll down, then "qustions asked by christian missionaries". I'm not saying or forcing you to accept Islam. I'm only trying to erase the misconceptions and misunderstanding. The reason that why I refer to famous scholars/websites is that you should have the best answer available. It's upto you you wether yoo want to accept the Quraan. I did not ask you to do it.

One of my posts has been deleted in this thread.  You claim scientific "errors" in the Bible.  My post along with links, said that the same claims have been made against the Koran.

In the final analysis we all have answers to any allegations against our Holy Books.  You can find "Muslims scholars" who refute some of what is presented in the Koran (interpretations); you can find "Christian Scholars" doing the same against the Bible.

You would do well to compare what people like Naik and Deedat say against Christianity with the rebuttals from the Christians and you can readily find them on the Internet.

The difference between the Bible and the Koran is that the Bible was written by human beings who were 'inspired by God' (Theopneustos), thus they would use human speech and human ways of explaining how they figured out how the universe worked.  If a humansays the universe was created in 6 days, that's no big proble, since the Bible's truth does not depend upon it's divine authorship.

The Koran however is supposed to be written by a perfect God.  The problem does not exist for the Bible, since it is and always has been the work of human beings.