Thank you for your time :)

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

OK Mr Historian, please provide us with any historical contemporaneous evidence you have that Jesus, pbuh, was crucified. if you quote somebody, please give their name, when their statement was written and the evidence that you have that they witnessed this event.

we'll look at it historically!

lol, I am not the historian, but I will have to get back to you on this; I need to research a little more.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Wasn't that 'for me or against me' a quote of George W. Bush?

lol, Bush??, I am not too happy about him. if he said that I don't know, but Jesus did.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

No, I don't see you as an 'enemy of Islam' (though for a moment I did, hence my anger); however I see Satan, Pamella Geller, Terry Jones, Usama Dakdok, The Florida Family Association and Brother Andrew as enemies of Islam.

Oh, good because I don't know brother Andrew; I wrote him once to find out where he gets his info, but he never responded; that was the end of that. People say things that sound reputable, and they give sources; so, I don't know, and I ask is it true? I have never done so much research in my life before. I am asking God why is truth so hard to find?

format_quote Originally Posted by Burninglight

Thanks for sharing. BTW, Dr. Bart Erham does more damage of turning people away from God than Dr. Richard Dawkins. Let me tell you. If he could convince me, but he can't, that the Bible is false concerning the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I would become agonist, but notice in all his debates online he doesn't say the historical Jesus wasn't crucified; there is historical evidence that happened. if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then all of Christianity is destroyed and we of all people are the most monstrous and sorry and miserable on the face of the earth.

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

why become agnostic? that doesn't seem logical. you, as a Christian, see the problems with all of the "churches" but you still believe in Jesus, pbuh. well...SO DO WE! we believe Jesus, pbuh , is IN FACT the Jewish Messiah! we also believe he will return, that's what you believe as well. so how do you determine what to believe about Jesus, pbuh?

you look for authentic sources! there are no contemporaneous eyewitness accounts. here's the lowdown on the Gospels:

Mark: written sometime between 65 and 75AD. no one knows who authored it. but even still at this late date, there is no eyewitness, or written, account of a resurrected Jesus, pbuh. you see, Mark ends at:

16:6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

reading further in the NIV, you see:

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

the ending of Mark is an addition as testified BY CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS!

Matthew and Luke [both anonymous] are believed to have been written around 85AD. but think of the year. remember, most of the Apostles are always shown as being OLDER than Jesus, pbuh, who had to have been born around 6-4BC. any living apostles would have been 90 plus! a wee bit fishy...

now take a look at John [again, anonymous]. this is pretty much the definitive Jesus IS God Gospel, but it was written until around 95AD! we can safely assume all of the Apostles are dead and so without any eyewitnesses remaining, Jesus BECOMES God!

you can call it the "evolution of Christology" if you please.

so, if we have no authentic eyewitness sources, we must find some kind of revelatory accounts; we need someone sent by God, thru the "Holy Spirit" you would say. well, that's what we are telling you! God sent Gabriel [Holy Spirit] to Muhammad, pbuh! we believe most of what you believe about Jesus, pbuh. he performed many miracles, even raising the dead. he is the Messiah, and he will return!

now where we differ, is the LAW. Jesus, pbuh, "said" not one jot or tittle would pass away, Paul says NO LAW. if there were to be no law, wouldn't Jesus, especially if you think he is God, wouldn't he have mentioned that? why did Jesus, pbuh, make Peter the head of the Church if Paul was just going to destriy his work? did Jesus, pbuh, say, "here are the keys to the kingdom, give them to Saul when you see him? did he?

we HAVE the LAW! even the 10 commandments; it looks like 9, but it's 10! i'll explain in a later post, in sha'a Allah.

ponder that for now...



sam

format_quote Originally Posted by Burninglight

I would be agnostic, because...Look this is disturbing stuff I have to do more study. I don't even know if this true; it could be from a Christian hate site. God will have to lead me on what I should say write and do. There is distrubing things written about the Bible and the Quran. If Christ is not raised from the dead than I have wasted most of my life. That is not something to wink at. I am not blaming you. Peter minstered to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. All the law was fufilled through Christ with His death on the cross. Now through Christ we have our restl He is our Sabbath rest, If we love God with all our heart soul and mind and our neighbor as ourself, we fufill all the law and the prophets. I will look into the Christ's death and resurrection. That is the heart of Christianity not Peter or Paul

hate site? no, it is all available in Christian Bibles and reference books. that is why iy shocked Bart Ehrman so much. MOST educated church leaders know all of this. they don't tell "their flocks" using the excuse that they are "babes in Christ" and that it would weaken their faith.

[Protestant]Professor Luke Timothy Johnson tells 2 amazing stories in his course, The Story of the Bible [available from The Teaching Company]:
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/c....aspx?cid=6252

the first is that when Catholic leaders were first dealing with the reformation, at first there was little concern. Many Protestants were calling for "sola sriptora", religion based solely on the Bible. Catholic leaders figured once they realized the condition of the scriptures, they would have to return because the Popes claimed direct descendancy from Peter and Paul.

the second involve the "trinity" verse. when Humanist Erasmus first translated the New Testament, he quoted I John 5:7/8 as:

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Catholic leaders were furious as they are a trinity based church. they demanded the he put it back. his response was that he had reviewed nearly 100 manuscripts and NONE of them contained the verse. if they wanted him to include the verse, they would have to produce a manuscript with verse in it. that is just what they did, Erasmus, fearing the inquisition, inserted it back. that is why you will read in NIV study Bibles, the following footnote:

Footnotes:

1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

source example:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...05&version=NIV

source example for Mark 16 footnote:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...16&version=NIV

as you can see, these are Christian Bible resources. you can go to a bookstore or library and open a Zondervan NIV Study Bible and see those notes for yourself.

what for me is amazing about this is that as a consequence of this, that Christians were STILL trying to determine what should or should not be in the Bible in the 14th Century is that, even though the Qur'an was revealed nearly 600 years AFTER the authentic Injeel [the true Gospel of Jesus, pbuh], the Qur'an was in completed form nearly 7 centuries BEFORE the Bible!

now which does it seem that God provided protection for? the Bible? or the Qur'an!

Brother, we are only inviting you to the truth! there is only One God, not 3 in 1, or 1 in 3! and Muhammad, pbuh, IS a Messenger of God, just as Jesus,pbuh was!

can't you now see the evidence for the truth? you, if you wanted, could finally realize that your search for the TRUE "church" of Jesus has finally come to fruition. PLEASE join us!



sam

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/...les/josh2.html

To put Christianity to nought one just has to destroy the the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not necessary to bring up interpolation discrepancies or translational errors or omitted books of the Bible. Just His death and resurrection is enough!

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Assalamu alaikum, Brother. Have you considered the significance of this date relative to the destruction of Jerusalem and the turmoil that must have existed at that time? Jerusalem and the immediate surrounding area is the heart of where Jesus (as) preached and it is where the disciples resided as evidenced by Paul in Galatians. Could it be that the 4 gospels were written by followers of Paul again as one may interpret from Galatians?

If this preposterous scenario happened, what form of Islam would we have today? Could this imaginary scenario be an analogy for what actually happened in Christianity?

the date is of EXTREME importance. the dates i gave for the Gospels are generally accepted by the majority of Biblical scholars. conservative Christians and evangelicals cite the omission of the destruction of the Temple in the Gospels as evidence that they were written before it. that is like saying if i write a story about the Korean War, but don't mention the Vietnam War then my writing of it had to predate the Vietnam War.

ALL of the Gospels were written after Paul "changed" the true Message of Christianity, therefore, the writers probably had little interested in the destruction of the Temple. you see anti-Jewish sentiment in the Gospels anyway.

Burninglight
To put Christianity to nought one just has to destroy the the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not necessary to bring up interpolation discrepancies or translational errors or omitted books of the Bible. Just His death and resurrection is enough!

you can't destroy the REAL Christianity, which is Islam!

some comments on the link:

The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

the human lifespan was alot shorter 200 years ago, 35 years before Mark is a LONG time! an assumption is NOT evidence.

The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.

what IS a FACT is that we don't know who the writers were. they don't identify themselves or themselves as witnesses. it is hearsay.again, an assumption is NOT evidence.

F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."

assumption.

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

there is no evidence that "Luke" is the author of Luke. if the author had "authentic evidence", he or she could have produced it. i see no footnotes by the author telling us his evidence. and again, assumption.

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

the FACT there is no evidence means that Mr Blaiklock is neither truthful nor a historian.

i WAS trying to sleep, but i'll go on a bit more:

The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb. Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of levers) against a tomb entrance.

keep in mind that ONLY John mentions the 100 lbs. you see, by the time Joseph would've gotten back, it was the Sabbath, no work is allowed. let's look at the earlier Gospels:

Mark 15:42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.

Matt 27:57 As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. 58 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.

Luke 23:50 Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea, and he himself was waiting for the kingdom of God. 52 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body. 53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. 54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

65 years after the time of Jesus, the author of "John" states:

John 19:38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[e] 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there

now, i'm going to some straight out and claim "John" to be a liar! i know testimony can vary, but certain "alleged Christian authors" who predate him, disagree. and no, this doesn't come from some "hate site", i have a rather unusual source for this one...

you ready for it?

it's "The Bible!" you see, unlike "John" i have the other 3 Gospels before me and unlike Mr "historian" Blaiklock, I CAN READ!! [which, at the least, should be a prerequisite for some researching an earlier time!

Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

and the kicker:

Luke 23:52 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body. 53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. 54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. 56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.

Luke 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.

you see, because of the Sabbath, they had to wait until Sunday!

But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote

hearsay upon hearsay, based upon the man who tried to destroy Christianity, and claiming [in Galatians] to have a new Gospel, Saul!

i DO agree that there was an empty tomb, but i disagree that Jesus, pbuh, was ever put in it. remember, the earliest Gospel Mark, in it's earliest form ends at:

Mark 16:6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid

source:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...16&version=NIV

so, according to the earliest written Gospel, Jesus,pbuh, appeared to NO ONE! and the women "said nothing to anyone" about the "young man dressed in a white robe." so then, where did all of the other stories come from?

Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine.

Josephus never claims to be a witness, writing ca 75-95, AND the parts where he does mention it are considered to be in part, forgery.

There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.


Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University

i'm sorry Mr Mcmaster, but there is NO contemporaneous evidence, NONE! it's "irrational" to even make your statement.

Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to he a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.

eyewitness who are confirmed in this? ZERO, but Paul, along with the "author" of Acts, does render conflicting accounts.

so we discount the other 499 witnesses.

OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.

we just discredited 499, plus Paul isn't that reliable. thus no 50 hours of testimony. too bad!

be careful when checking propagandist websites!



sam

format_quote Originally Posted by Burninglight

Did you mean 200 or 2000? Go back another 2000 and people lived much longer than today.

2000, according to Professor Harl PhD, Yale, teaching at Tulane, each couple need to have 10 children at the time just to maintain a zero population growth.

There is no evidence that he's not the author.

*laughs* well, you want us to believe that he is the author, you must produce the evidence, otherwise i could just as well say, prove the Devil didn't write it!

Paul claims Jesus spoke to him. Why should I doubt it any more or less than Muhammad's angelic visitations?

we have witness, to revelation being revealed and testimony that of Gabriell's presence from witnesses. the 2 reports in Acts are contradictory.

How do you know?

because none exists. if there was, Christians would produce it.

I don't understand how you discounted 499 witnesses. Sorry I don't follow you here. The death and resurrection cannot be disproved either. We have the Scriptures that came before stating clearly it happened. Those Scriptures have been in circulation for some 1600 years before Muhammad's time. The Bible records the events way more closer to the time frame of the event than the recitations.

claiming 500 witnesses doesn't make it so. i can't take you to court and just claim that i 500 witness against you. i would have to produce them. the earliest complete Qur'an is closer to Muhammad, pbuh, that the earliest complete Bible is to Jesus, pbuh. and there is no evidence of any Christian scriptures 1600 years before Muhammad, pbuh!

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

2000, according to Professor Harl PhD, Yale, teaching at Tulane, each couple need to have 10 children at the time just to maintain a zero population growth.

Okay, point taken.

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

*laughs* well, you want us to believe that he is the author, you must produce the evidence, otherwise i could just as well say, prove the Devil didn't write it!

Well, don't laugh to loud; this doesn't get us anywhere. Someone can say it was NOT Jibril but an impersonating demon; that cannot be proved. Christians believe when the Bible states that Satan can appear as an angel of light to deceive even the elect, and if he can do that, it is no wonder that prophets can appear as ministers of righteousness and not be like Muslims believe, for instance, about the great apostle Paul. Moreover, no one can prove that angels didn't appear to Joseph Smith, and no one can prove that it was Jesus that spoke to Paul on the road to Damacus to persecute more Christians or that it was really Jibril compelling Muhammad to recite. Isn't what I say calling a spade a spade?

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

we have witness, to revelation being revealed and testimony that of Gabriell's presence from witnesses. the 2 reports in Acts are contradictory.

What witnesses? How do we know they weren't fooled by an impersonation or how do we know for sure the witnesses were reliable? We can reverse everything that is said about the Bible to the Quran to one degree or another.

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

because none exists. if there was, Christians would produce it.

Okay, point take again. So, what can I do but try to reason things out the best I can. Since you and I cannot deny that there are authors behind the Bible, we need to ask do the authors pass the test of intending on giving a true and accurate portrayal of Biblical history. IOW, is there any reason or motive for them not ot do so? In the intro to Luke 1 the following is said: ¹ Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled^[a] among us, ² just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. ³ With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴ so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. It sounds like Luke the physician is writing this to me with noble intentions!

Next, we need to look at the ability test. For instance, even if the authors intended to portray an accurate preserved account, were they able to do it? How can we be sure that they were able to reliably preserve the record of Jesus' life, death and resurrection for thirty years before it was finally put to print? Well, they didn't have computers back then so they relied on memorization. Rabbis have become famous for being able to memorize the entire OT. With that being said, it would be easy for Jesus' disciples to commit to memory the NT or it was well within their ability like those that memorized the Quran.

Now, we need to look at whether they pass the character test. In other words, is there any moral failures in their lives that might take from their creditablity? I know of none. Were they willing to put to practice what they believed? I think many of them have gone through horrible deaths to preach, teach and live the gospel. Is it logical for someone to do such a thing to spread a tale? Wisdom and logic tell me no!

There are other test we can put them through such as the consistency and many other tests. I will stop with this test since it has been discussed the most on this forum in regards to Dr. Evans & Dr Erhman's debate. Let me share what Simon Greanleaf (Harvard law school professor)said, "There is enough discrepancey to show that there could have been no previous concert among them: and at the same time such substantial agreement to show that they were all independant narrators of the same great transaction" Hans Stier concurs that divergent details suggest creditability and that fabricated accounts harmonize too prefectly. He states, "Every historian is skeptical at the moment when an extraordinary happening is only reported in accounts which are completely free of contradiction"

I can tell you from my experience that people can witness an accident and give a report on it. Everyone that saw it from different angles have a different perspective that may seem like contradiction and are not really. We weren't there to see what they saw. We Christians take it by faith that God is able to preserve what Scriptures were important for us to know. All version of the Bible agree that Jesus died and rose again; the only scriptures that deny this and add confusion and blantant contradiction to what has been reported for over 2000 years is the fairly recent Quran by comparison.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender

OK. So through your posts I've gathered that you recognize that there are contradictions in the bible. But it seems that you don't care about any of those and all that matters to you is the resurrection.

I wouldn't say contradictions don't bother me. I'm just wondering if there is an explanation that I haven't noticed. Now, I am going through a study about the resurrection. I didn't know about the 9 am and noon deal. I never noticed that before. It is strange about the different color robes. I favor the ESV over the NIV it says it was the 6th hour and another the third hour, but it still means the same. I just don't know what to make of it. I didn't read the book. I wish you would pull out what you consider to be significant detail. Why do I want to read a book designed to tear down my belief system. If you spoon feed me I;ll look at it all. I honestly don't understand thoswe confliction passages in the Bible does it bother me? Yes, but not enought to convince me that Islam is the order of the day.

You are showing me detail and contradictions that you researched online or could from other sources. I can do that and find contradictions for the Quran, but I read them and feel it is not worth bringing to you attention. I am sure there explianations for them. I just try to look at the big picture not what I would consider to be insignifcant detail. I am going to do a study on the codex Sinaiticus. Have you research the Hafsaph codex? The Big Picture is that Jesus fufills over 300 prophecies in the Bible Isaiah 53 says why he was to die for our trangressions. What difference does it make what time or what color the robe was the point is He was crucified. Now if one book says hHe was and another says He wasn't then you have destryed the crediability of hte NT, but no one has been able to destroy the Bible; it is still the best seller and always will be. Have you read what I wrote about little detail differences historians say it supports the creditablity of the Bible and proves it had different authors. Historians are suspect of something that so prefectly harmonizes. I need some major conflict to discount the Bible not petty details that make no difference to the central theme of the Bible.

format_quote Originally Posted by Burninglight

Again I quote, "There is enough discrepancey to show that there could have been no previous concert among them: and at the same time such substantial agreement to show that they were all independant narrators of the same great transaction" Hans Stier concurs that divergent details suggest creditability and that fabricated accounts harmonize too prefectly. He states, "Every historian is skeptical at the moment when an extraordinary happening is only reported in accounts which are completely free of contradiction"

I agree with these comments above.

Originally Posted by Burninglight
All version of the Bible agree that Jesus died and rose again; the only scriptures that deny this and add confusion and blantant contradiction to what has been reported for over 2000 years is the fairly recent Quran by comparison.
"That's not true. I don't think you've actually taken the time out to read what we've shared with you here. Did you not see what the brother shared with you earlier?" No, I am a little slow that way and not very observant. So if you could post it again, but I am not going to read books on it. I need spoon fed details as to why the crucifixion of our beloved Jesus didn't happen besides the Quran saying so. IOW, what version of the Bible contradicts this fact of history and where. Telling me that the codex book left out some detail of the resurrection is not saying it didn't happen.

All of Christianity hangs on the death and resurrection of Christ! Without that Christianity cannot stand.

Jesus Barabbas I didn't understand that at all.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender

How many Christians do you know who have memorized whichever version of the Bible they have? Talk to a Christian in Ethiopia, another Christian in Iowa and another Christian in South Korea, they wouldn't be reciting the same thing. Not to mention these are different languages and translations of it all. Show me a Christian who can recite the entire bible, old testament and new testament in it's original language. It is an insult to the millions of hafiz across the world to even try and make that comparison.

Jesus was born, grew up, and spent his ministry among people who knew Scripture by memory, who debated its application with enthusiasm, and who loved God with all their hearts, all their souls and all their might (Deut. 6:5). http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2753
Do you know of anyone blind that memorized the Quran?
http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=5466
If someone burned all the Bibles in the world. It can be reproduced because of it being committed to memory by many and to heart. I have memorized quite a bit of Scripture myself in a differnent language than my mother tongue like Spanish as well. Yo puedo aprender tambien.