What is the Jesus doctrine ? Part II

        It is interesting to note that the conversation continues with the tone of Christian
Scriptural Distortion, so closely, associated with a religious conspiracy tone. Alhaj
quotes experts that happen to agree with his view. I was hoping that he would establish
a benchmark, methodology, and personal insight. I am, well aware, of how a devout
Quranic believer would view Christianity and one's apparent bias. It is not enough just
to quote, experts that one like's. We are accountable for our own belief's on the Day of
Judgement, that is what i believe. Am i going to argue before the Lord on the Day of
Judgement. Dr. Bart Erhman said so, therefore,  i gave up my freewill to do my own
research or come to my own conclusions, using my own logical and spiritual mind ?
Alhaj engaged in plausible doubt, to which, i replied in plausible logic, and my
methodology to arrive at my conclusions. By the Way, i have seen a lot of debates,
and decided not to give up my own freewill, to come to my own conclusions. 

Alhaj Ibn Ibrahim Asysarawaky ·

Dear Don Tan

All the four gospels are not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke or John. They are written by 
other scribes, hence the term ‘the gospel according to’ Mark, Matthew, Luke or John and 
not said in certain term written by Mark, Matthew, Luke or John. The Gospel according to 
John is anti-Jew (anti-semitic) from the beginning contrary to John the disciple of Jesus 
who is as Jesus himself is a Jew. As you yourself found: the gospel evolved, layer by layer, 
changed from time to time.

You don’t have the original sayings of Jesus in Aramaic Hebrew in your gospels other than 
the single ‘Eli, Eli lama sabactani’. What could the real historical Jesus be and what was he 
actually teaching? Conveying a religion from a second language may create distortions, 
especially more if you don’t have as far as Christianity goes the originals in Aramaic to refer 
or resort to.

I read as many books as possible on Christianity. Facts are facts, interpretation are 
interpretations. The purpose of scholarship is to digest facts from interpretation or inclination
of what’s one wants to believe. The world of Christianity as a whole is not in full agreement 
that John of the Gospel according to John is the disciple of Jesus.

‘Who’s Who in The Age of Jesus’ written by an ex-Vatican priest, Dr. Geza Vermes, published
 by Penguin Reference Library is a good read (turn to page 145 on the topic John The 
Apostle).  Read also ‘Misquoting Jesus’ by Dr. Bart Ehrman. See his numerous debates in 
youtube to make sense with well-known Christian scholars like Prof. Craig Evans, 
Dr. William Craig, Dr. James White of the Alpha and Omega, to mention a few and plus 
Dr Daniel Wallace on bible manuscripts. None of them is saying that the other is lying or 
spreading lies.

Don Tan, I am a product of missionary school (Sacred Heart Secondary School of Roman 
Catholic denomination) in Sibu, Sarawak in the 60’s. My principal then was Brother Adrian. 
Taking Scriptures as a subject is a must in this school.

No offence intended.

Reply ·
· February 1 at 10:51pm

Don Tan ·

Alhaj Ibn Ibrahim Asysarawaky I am willing to take what you've said with a grain of salt.

We don't have an Aramaic compilation of the New Testament because Greek was the written and compiled language (lingua franca) of the Roman Conquerors. If you grant me Grace, i will explain why the gospels weren't written immediately or in Aramaic. Simply because, if you use common logic. Papyrus (Manuscripts) and scribing was an ultra expensive long process, and would have cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars to compile in those days. Secondly, who would you find to scribe it in Aramaic. Aramaic writings came from the Neo-Asyrian Empire (8 BCE). ‘Eli, Eli lama sabactani’ is transcribed using Greek letters. Think about it ?

So, it does not disturb me if they arrived later ~4AD (Codex Sinaiticus) in Greek. Transmission errors are also evident. Interpretation is what you want to make of it but because we have thousands of copies to compare. We have the advantage to see what the differences were. That is why we have textual criticism.

I've researched the Quran as well, and have listened to opinions from quranic researchers (not imam). Historical professors and one from the University of Al-Azhar. In my opinion, the old testament (Tanakh) is the most accurate because they implement parity checking (word counts). I saw for myself a transcriber in Masada Israel counting the words as he was writing the Tanakh onto a new scroll.

Parity checking is superior, when compared to the Hafiz Scribers. The Quran itself is a product of evolution from the Qureshi Dialect i.e. Uthmani Compilation. The Gospel Manuscripts are intact unlike the multiple copies of the (~ 200) Quran that were discarded. Most Muslims are not aware that the Quran they have is an interpretation of Qureyshi (Dialect) Versions that were discarded. However, they want to point out that the Quran is an original copy, and the Christian Bible is hap-hazard. There will always be historical doubt on ancient manuscripts, but i think it is the Christian Scholars who are more willing to be open, and honest about it. Again, most of the disciples were poor fisherman, they did not have loads of money to pay transcribers to pen the Gospels, and they did not have the technology (Guttenberg Press) to print out perfect copies. I Apologize for the less than acceptable accuracy that Anti-Christian Proponents seem to want to harp on, day and night.

Reply · 1 ·
· February 2 at 4:00pm