Raja Petra Kamarudin the Chief Editor on Malaysia Today wrote an article about the
Doctrine of Jesus. See 'The doctrine of Jesus'
The article highlights historical assumptions of the Biblical Christ which raised
doubt as to the True Nature of Christianity, and doubt as to the Divinity of Christ.
Essentially, does the historical record and events surrounding the Ecumenical Creation
of the Christian Church, base on a true interpretation of the Biblical Yeshua.
What the article did, was spur an interesting discussion amongst the comments from
the readers. I would like to highlight some of the discussion beginning with a responce
from Alex Goh and forwarding replies Note: There are multiple replies that lead down
different paths. I am just highlighting one trail.
Alex Goh ·
It is true the actual manuscripts of the New Testament authors are no longer in existence, but the same is true for the Old Testament and any of the major religions in the world. But biblical scholars employ a methodology to determine how accurate those Scriptures are-how soon were they written after the events and how many of them were around at the time. The New Testament copies or manuscripts numbered over 2,000 and any differences among them are minor and does not change the meaning of the Bibles in circulation today. So the alteration theory does not have strong evidence at all.Depending on which commentary is being referenced, the dating and authorship of the NT is likewise debatable- some claiming even earlier dates for the Gospel and Pauline manucripts.
Reply · 6 ·
· January 25 at 1:51am
Alhaj Ibn Ibrahim Asysarawaky ·
Dear Alex Goh
There are three Johns as regard to Jesus, two who lived in his time i.e. John The Baptist, John (the illiterate poor Jew fisherman) the disciple of Jesus and John (the educated, philosophical Greek or Roman) who “wrote” about a century later The Gospel of John. Read “Who’s Who in the Age of Jesus” by Dr Geza Vermes an ex-Vatican priest and for verification and “Misquoting Jesus” by Prof Dr Bart Ehrman the Distinguished James A Gray Professor of Religious Studies of North Carolina University, Chapel Hill, U.S. (an ex-pastor) and a leading authority of Christianity. You may also like watch his numerous debate against apologetic Christian scholars like Dr William Craig, Dr Craig Evans, Dr James White to mention a few, on youtube.
The illiterate Aramaic speaking John the disciple of Jesus could not have written The Gospel according to John (originally written in Greek). Only 3 % according to statistics the population of Palestine at the time of Jesus could read, more less able to write. And education at the time is the pleasure of the privileged rich few.
Reply · 1 ·
Doctrine of Jesus. See 'The doctrine of Jesus'
The article highlights historical assumptions of the Biblical Christ which raised
doubt as to the True Nature of Christianity, and doubt as to the Divinity of Christ.
Essentially, does the historical record and events surrounding the Ecumenical Creation
of the Christian Church, base on a true interpretation of the Biblical Yeshua.
What the article did, was spur an interesting discussion amongst the comments from
the readers. I would like to highlight some of the discussion beginning with a responce
from Alex Goh and forwarding replies Note: There are multiple replies that lead down
different paths. I am just highlighting one trail.
Alex Goh ·
It is true the actual manuscripts of the New Testament authors are no longer in existence, but the same is true for the Old Testament and any of the major religions in the world. But biblical scholars employ a methodology to determine how accurate those Scriptures are-how soon were they written after the events and how many of them were around at the time. The New Testament copies or manuscripts numbered over 2,000 and any differences among them are minor and does not change the meaning of the Bibles in circulation today. So the alteration theory does not have strong evidence at all.Depending on which commentary is being referenced, the dating and authorship of the NT is likewise debatable- some claiming even earlier dates for the Gospel and Pauline manucripts.
Reply · 6 ·
· January 25 at 1:51am
Alhaj Ibn Ibrahim Asysarawaky ·
Dear Alex Goh
There are three Johns as regard to Jesus, two who lived in his time i.e. John The Baptist, John (the illiterate poor Jew fisherman) the disciple of Jesus and John (the educated, philosophical Greek or Roman) who “wrote” about a century later The Gospel of John. Read “Who’s Who in the Age of Jesus” by Dr Geza Vermes an ex-Vatican priest and for verification and “Misquoting Jesus” by Prof Dr Bart Ehrman the Distinguished James A Gray Professor of Religious Studies of North Carolina University, Chapel Hill, U.S. (an ex-pastor) and a leading authority of Christianity. You may also like watch his numerous debate against apologetic Christian scholars like Dr William Craig, Dr Craig Evans, Dr James White to mention a few, on youtube.
The illiterate Aramaic speaking John the disciple of Jesus could not have written The Gospel according to John (originally written in Greek). Only 3 % according to statistics the population of Palestine at the time of Jesus could read, more less able to write. And education at the time is the pleasure of the privileged rich few.
Reply · 1 ·
- Don
Tan ·
-
Where did you come up with John the illiterate and John the
educated. Where are you getting your facts from?
'The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[7][8] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[9][10][11][12][13][14] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.' ~ See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle.
If you want to comment on the Gospels, why don't you, speak to its content. Someone else himself was challenged by the Naserene's and Jew's for proof as to his authenticity. They asked for proof of miracles, prophecy etc. This was his reply ' [29:50] They said, "If only miracles could come down to him from his Lord!" Say, "All miracles come only from GOD; I am no more than a manifest warner."' Why do you need modern anti-christian scholars to support your view. Spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are powerful tools especially when you can quote someone else i.e. expert inorder to support ones views.... hmmm My Spidey Sense is Tingling
Reply · 1 ·
· January 27 at 10:41pm
No comments:
Post a Comment