I discussed this topic a few messages ago. I agree that he did not have access to the Bible, but some contact, even minimal or superficial, with Jewish and Christian concepts is entirely possible. Complete theology may not have been accessible, but basic knowledge certainly was. Moreover, the focus of the Qur’an is primarily on the oneness of God, judgment and the afterlife, laws and moral conduct, rejection of heresies, and the mission of Muhammad himself. When stories of prophets and past peoples appear, they are mostly presented as warnings or examples, often summarized and adapted, with little detailed description.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
JESUS
- Thread starter Acer
- Start date
- Replies 90
- Views 976
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | PHP 8.4 patch for vBulletin 4.2.5
the word “name” can sometimes refer to authority or role in the Old Testament, the context of Matthew 28:19 clearly goes beyond a mere functional or liturgical formula. Jesus instructs His disciples to baptize in the singular “name” of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The singular here is not accidental; it signals that all three persons share a single divine identity, not just unified authority or mission.In biblical usage, a singular 'name' can indicate authority or role (eg. Deuteronomy 18:5 and 7 speak of serving in the 'name' (authority) of the Lord). So this verse can be seen as a liturgical or functional formula, not necessarily a metaphysical statement that they share the same essence.
This reading is supported by the broader New Testament context, where Jesus is presented as fully divine (e.g., John 1:1, Colossians 2:9), and the Spirit is consistently identified as God’s active presence. Scholars like R.T. France and D.A. Carson say that this formula is not simply a liturgical convention but a theological statement about the unity and divinity of the Godhead.
Deuteronomy can show that “name” sometimes denotes authority, but in Matthew 28:19 the text’s grammar, context, and surrounding theology all point to shared divine essence, not just functional alignment.
The mistake here is confusing summarized practice with theological denial. Eusebius frequently paraphrases, theologizes, or summarizes biblical texts — something that is extremely common in patristic literature. At no point does he deny that Matthew 28:19 contains the Trinitarian "formula". In fact, and this is crucial, when Eusebius quotes the passage verbatim, he explicitly includes the formula “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” When he omits it, he is clearly paraphrasing or emphasizing a theological point, not preserving an alternative textual tradition.Even if Eusebius’ reports aren’t a literal quotation, they indicate how early Christians understood and applied the text. If most apostles baptised 'in Jesus’ name', it indicates a focus on Jesus’ authority or identity instead of a Trinitarian concept. If you say Matthew 28:19 is a theological command, why would the apostles disobey such a command? Even if the Father, Son and holy spirit are mentioned in the original text of this verse, that does not prove the trinity. The doctrine of the trinity states that the Father, son and holy spirit together make 'one God'; this verse refers to three, but never says they are 'one'.
Moreover, baptizing “in the name of Jesus” does not exclude the Father or the Holy Spirit. It simply identifies the baptism as Christian baptism, carried out under the authority of the risen Christ, in contrast to other ritual washings (such as John’s baptism). This understanding is widely recognized in scholarship. Scholars like Larry Hurtado, Gordon Fee, and James D. G. Dunn have consistently shown that the strong Christological focus in Acts is functional and historical, not anti-Trinitarian. Emphasizing Jesus’ authority does not negate a Trinitarian framework.
Additionally, Matthew 28:19 functions as a theological mandate, not as a rigid liturgical script. The New Testament consistently demonstrates liturgical flexibility: the Lord’s Supper is described without a fixed procedural formula, prayers vary widely, and confessions of faith are expressed in multiple forms. Reducing obedience to the mechanical repetition of a specific wording is a liturgical anachronism imposed on the text, not something demanded by the text itself.
The crucifixion of Jesus is one of the most solid facts in ancient history. There is overwhelming scholarly consensus that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Bart Ehrman (an atheist and a critical scholar of Christianity) states, “The crucifixion of Jesus is one of the most certain facts we have about his life.” John Dominic Crossan similarly writes, “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” This is not even a serious point of debate in academic scholarship.Such sources, even eyewitnesses, cannot prove that it was Jesus who was crucified. This is because, according to one interpretation, the likeness of Jesus was placed upon someone else who was then crucified, not Jesus.
In addition to the New Testament, there are multiple non-Christian sources with no theological interest in defending Christianity that affirm the crucifixion, such as Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, Mara bar-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud. Moreover, all four Gospels—independent sources—consistently report the same event.
The interpretation that someone else was made to resemble Jesus and crucified in his place appears only six centuries later with Muhammad, without eyewitnesses, historical documents, or any early tradition to support it. This theory requires that Romans, Jews, the disciples, the women at the tomb, and even enemies of Christianity were all simultaneously mistaken. Such a scenario would demand a global and perfectly coordinated conspiracy.
This line of reasoning is filled with fallacies. The fact that some conservative groups reacted negatively does not mean the biblical text was corrupted. In reality, the backlash came almost exclusively from the KJV-only movement, which does not represent mainstream academic scholarship. This group rejects any manuscript that is not based on the Textus Receptus, a position that is marginal even among conservative evangelicals. Internal disagreement is not the same as a loss or alteration of the core message.I'll just quote one quote here. When the Revised King James Version was published at the end of the nineteenth century, many “orthodox” scholars felt that the new “updates” in the text so badly damaged the Christian faith that they decided to launch an offensive campaign against the team of scholars responsible for it, accusing them, or their preferred manuscripts, of straying from the faith. Even today, some authors accuse the two main figures in the translation committee responsible for the Revised Version (Westcott and Hort) of being heretics; D.A. Waite, a Baptist scholar and one of the most famous defendants of the King James Version today, writes: “these two men were apostates, liberal and unbelievers” (Defending the King James Bible, Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today Press, 1996, p.41).
Westcott and Hort did not alter the Christian faith. They compared thousands of Greek manuscripts and produced a critical edition of the Greek text; they did not invent new doctrines. Claiming otherwise is simply inaccurate. The differences between manuscripts involve matters such as spelling, word order, or accidental duplication. No central Christian doctrine depends on a single disputed verse.
There is also a notable irony here: the Qur’an itself underwent textual standardization under Uthman, during which divergent manuscripts were destroyed, and there are known textual variants (such as the Sana’a manuscript and the different qirā’āt). This is not the focus of my argument, but it highlights the inconsistency in applying textual standards.
In contrast to these claims, the academic consensus is clear. Bart Ehrman states, “The essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” Bruce Metzger likewise affirms, “No doctrine of the Christian faith rests solely on a disputed text.” Daniel Wallace concludes, “Textual criticism has shown that the New Testament we have today is remarkably stable.”
Paul did not reinterpret Jesus in a way that created a completely different gospel. Rather, he interpreted what Jesus taught, and he did so on the basis of who Jesus revealed Himself to be from beginning to end. Since Jesus consistently presented Himself with divine authority, Paul’s theology is built upon that reality.From the verses quoted in this thread alone we can see there is no internal consistency; for instance, one cannot be a follower of Jesus and Paul at the same time.
That said, I am careful not to rely on Paul as my primary source. I do not appeal to Paul’s theology except as a historical witness. I intentionally avoid grounding my argument in his theological developments, because I understand that they can initially be difficult for someone who is not deeply familiar with the Gospels or who comes from a different background. For this reason, the core of my argument is drawn primarily from the Gospel accounts themselves.
Moreover, Paul claimed to have had a direct divine encounter with Jesus Himself, just as Muhammad claimed to have had a revelatory experience. However, since such experiences do not carry historical weight on their own, I do not rely on Paul or his theological ideas, even though he was a brilliant thinker, did not invent anything new, and the apostles themselves referred to his writings as “Scripture.”
I wonder what purpose these kind of threads can achieve. An analogy that comes to mind is this;Among the early Christians, different interpretations about Jesus emerged,
There is a church where everyone must wear red shoes to attend, down the road the church insists everyone should wear green shoes. After a while the leaders in the red church, notice varying shades of red shoes. The leaders then agree on a rigid standard of red shoes.
Can any greater purpose be achieved now everyone believes in exactly the same red shoes? Do we have to go to the green church and tell them to wear red shoes?
The same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. Beliefs are profound, but will we be judged more by what we believe, or what we do with our beliefs.
It's good that we revisited this topic because I forgot to mention a few points. A very interesting point is that the Qur’an does not assert things that directly conflict with the Gospels only, but it does sometimes differ from the Old Testament as well. So, assuming there was a large-scale corruption of the New Testament, as Muslims claim, would the same have happened to the Old Testament? The Old Testament has been carefully preserved for millennia, and the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm this.Firstly, we need to point out that the New Testament manuscripts are copies and copies of copies; they are not independent texts that have been written by original authors. Most of these manuscripts were copied many centuries (some over a millenium) after the writing of the New Testament. Moreover, with regard to the Greek New Testament manuscripts that are available, some 80-90% represent the Byzantine or the 'Majority' text which is almost universally considered to be the worst text-type. Bearing this in mind, even if it is true that the manuscripts are 99% the same, this is not reassuring considering their poor quality. But the modern day textual critics seem to give quite a different picture of the accuracy of the New Testament. For instance, the committee of textual critics for the United Bible Societies' The Greek New Testament suggested textual certainty to be about 83.5% (which is way off from "99%" agreement between the New Testament text in the manuscripts).
The second issue is with regards to the differences simply being in grammar or spelling. This is unfortunately being too hopeful. In the earliest Christian periods, the professed followers of Jesus were engaged in intense polemics against each other. In this highly charged atmosphere, accusations of moral, ethical and theological corruption rifled back and forth, with various parties accusing the other of corrupting and fabricating 'scripture'. For example, an "orthodox" presbyter of Asia Minor owned up to forging the Apostolic Constitutions and III Corinthians. In his defence the deposed presbyter claimed that he did it "out of love for Paul." In fact, the textual history of the first three hundred years of the New Testament is described by the textual critics as "the period of relative freedom" or "the period of relative creativity." During this period the majority of changes to the text of the New Testament, both accidental and intentional, originated.
The New Testament scholar Harry Gamble says:
Complaints about the adulteration of texts are fairly frequent in early Christian literature. Christian texts, scriptural and nonscriptural, were no more immune than others from vicissitudes of unregulated transmission in handwritten copies. In some respects they were more vulnerable than ordinary texts, and not merely because Christian communities could not always command the most competent scribes. Although Christian writings generally aimed to express not individual viewpoints but the shared convictions and values of a group, members of the group who acted as editors and copyists must often have revised texts in accordance with their own perceptions. This temptation was stronger in connection with religious or philosophical texts than with others simply because more was at stake. A great deal of early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities, and even documents that were not polemically conceived might nevertheless be polemically used. Any text was liable to emendation in the interest of making it more pointedly serviceable in a situation of theological controversy. [H. Y. Gamble, Books And Readers In The Early Church: A History Of Early Christian Texts, 1995, Yale University Press: New Haven & London, pp. 123-124.]
Therefore, to assume a tahrif (corruption) in the way Muslims claim is purely a matter of faith, because historically, in this case (and in various others, such as the crucifixion and tahrif itself), there is no way to confirm such corruption. Also, note that much of what Muhammad says that contradicts the Old Testament emphasizes Arab identity, the theology he wants to teach, and Islamic morality. I can give examples if you want, because the "intentionality" behind them is very clear.
I will the whole message from this topic here. >A great deal of early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities, and even documents that were not polemically conceived might nevertheless be polemically used. Any text was liable to emendation in the interest of making it more pointedly serviceable in a situation of theological controversy. [H. Y. Gamble, Books And Readers In The Early Church: A History Of Early Christian Texts, 1995, Yale University Press: New Haven & London, pp. 123-124.]
Again, there are some misunderstandings I would like to clarify. The New Testament is composed of copies of copies, and this is to be expected—all ancient texts without exception (Plato, Homer, Tacitus, etc.) exist in this way. Plato’s works survive in copies made over 1,200 years later, whereas New Testament manuscripts appear only 50–100 years after the originals, which is historically extremely close. Manuscripts like P52, P66, and P75 are extremely close to the originals, and their content testifies to what Christianity believes today.
P52, dating around 125 AD, contains portions of the Gospel of John—the Gospel that most emphasizes the divinity of Jesus—so it already existed at that time. It includes the account of Jesus’ trial before Pilate, confirming the crucifixion. P66 (c. 200 AD) contains a large portion of John’s Gospel and describes the crucifixion, the divinity, and the pre-existence of Jesus (“the Word”), among other things. P75 (c. 175 AD) confirms the life, crucifixion, resurrection, and divinity of Jesus, especially since Luke traveled with Paul. Note that P75 is independent of P66.
All of these manuscripts predate the supposed “corruptions” you mentioned (bizantine and etc) and already affirm central points of the Christian faith, such as the divinity of Christ. I will clarify further the other missconceptions and technical mistakes of the whole argument further.
Regarding the Byzantine texts… First, just with the three manuscripts I mentioned earlier, we already have about two-thirds of John and Luke. These texts were used as primary references to reconstruct the New Testament and already emphasized the resurrection, crucifixion, and divinity of Jesus. When these passages are compared with the Byzantine manuscripts, they show incredible stability, with textual variants amounting to less than 1%. And within that 1%, the differences are mostly grammatical, word order, and minor details. So even if the Byzantine texts are considered the “worst” (which is an exaggeration), the ancient manuscripts demonstrate that they were still remarkably well preserved.Firstly, we need to point out that the New Testament manuscripts are copies and copies of copies; they are not independent texts that have been written by original authors. Most of these manuscripts were copied many centuries (some over a millenium) after the writing of the New Testament. Moreover, with regard to the Greek New Testament manuscripts that are available, some 80-90% represent the Byzantine or the 'Majority' text which is almost universally considered to be the worst text-type. Bearing this in mind, even if it is true that the manuscripts are 99% the same, this is not reassuring considering their poor quality. But the modern day textual critics seem to give quite a different picture of the accuracy of the New Testament
I had to point out this part because it’s a technical error. The UBS evaluates variant readings, not the entire text. For example, Imagine a text with 100,000 words and 1,400 places with variants. The UBS says that in 83.5% of those variants we have high confidence, and in 16.5% the decision is less certain. This does not mean that 16.5% of the text is uncertain—only that a small fraction of variants have a slightly lower level of confidence. And these variants affect less than 1% of the total text, and no Christian doctrine depends on them.For instance, the committee of textual critics for the United Bible Societies' The Greek New Testament suggested textual certainty to be about 83.5% (which is way off from "99%" agreement between the New Testament text in the manuscripts).
Also, remember that forged texts (which you mentioned) were not included in the canon; they were rejected. Regarding John 7:53–8:11, it is well known that this passage does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. Even so, it does not establish any doctrine, change the message, or deny the crucifixion and resurrection—which, if they were false, would undermine the entire Christian faith.
You are right my friend, maybe I exaggerated on this point. But, even if was not the "same", it was extremely close and the core message would stay the same (most importantly the cross and ressurection as i said).The key point though, is that textual transmission involved interpretation and editing, not just copying. Earlier you claimed that 'the Bible was recognized exactly as it is today by the primitive church around two centuries after Christ', yet now you admit there are entire passages that have been added!
In his remarks on the Revised Version (1881 A.D.), Alexander Gordon declared, “These two passages [end of Mark and the woman caught in adultery passage], put together, contain more matter than the Epistle to Philemon; while they embrace unique affirmations both of theological and of ethical doctrine. It is plain that the raising of unavoidable doubts as to the canonicity of considerable and important sections of the text, opens the way to an inquiry more fundamental than is suggested by the mere excision of isolated verses; though this in itself is sometimes startling enough.”
The “early Christians” and “figures” you are referring to were actually Jesus’ own brothers. John does state that they did not believe in Him, but the earliest Christian creed—which emerged 2–5 years after Jesus through Paul (setting aside Paul’s theology for the moment and focusing on the historical account and the creed he claims to have received, probably through oral tradition)—says that Jesus appeared to His brother James, after being crucified.Remember we are talking about where did JESUS ever say 'I am God' or 'worship me'. All that you have posted simply suggests how early Christians honoured Jesus with exalted titles and authority; this doesn't by itself prove Jesus is God. It's also worth pointing out that these figures do not appear at all as having anything to do with Jesus’ mission and story. Both James and Jude were allegedly skeptical Jesus during his lifetime (with James thinking he was mad) yet suddenly became revered church leaders. Later church legends, of course, filled the gap with stories of their miraculous conversions.
Well, 'shocking'? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. In fact, this is the position of Christian and non-Christian scholars (including the greatest critic of Christianity, who is an atheist, and agrees with this) who know much more than both of us. Remember that the Islamic narrative is a corruption on a very large scale, not just isolated verses that alter doctrines. The tahrif implies that the resurrection, the divinity of Christ, Christ being the Son of God, redemption, and even the apostles’ understanding were systematically (because the manuscripts are independent from each other) and massively altered to the point of literally creating all these doctrines. None of this is related to isolated verses.I think I have understood it sufficiently. So you admit that deliberate changes were introduced in the Bible to avoid or alter statements that the copyist found unsound. This is truly shocking.
If Paul could have been a false prophet, Muhammad could 100% have been one as well (by the same logic). John even said in Apocalipse not to a single comma to the message. And I have already studied the Qur’an and say this with all respect and reverence for your faith, but I was not able to see the miracle of the Qur’an as Muslims claim. In fact, all the miracles that friends told me about (or that I researched) were exaggerations or falsehoods. In reality, the greatest logical improbability ever seen in human history is found in the Bible, where there are about 50 explicit prophecies that refer to Jesus, and all of them were fulfilled literally, word for word. Peter Stoner was a mathematician, astronomer, and science professor, and he calculated the probability of one man fulfilling only 8 prophecies, and the result was 1 in 10¹⁷Whilst it is true that many 'false prophets' have arisen in the course of history, Paul quite possibly being one of them, none of them brought anything close to the miracle of the Qur'an and proved the truth of his claim.
Does the fact that a creed does not mention the Trinity imply that it is an invention? Christian theology must be analyzed comprehensively and deeply through the Word, not based on a single creed. I personally do not like to use the term 'Trinity,' because it was coined after the Bible, but this does not mean that the concept is absent from the Gospels or, especially, from the accounts of the early church recorded in the Book of Acts. The term serves more as a label than as a doctrine in itself.The earliest Christian creed lacks Trinitarian reference so I find it strange you think these verses should be reinterpreted in view of a doctrine that Jesus didn't preach.
In John 16:7-15, Jesus explains that it is advantageous for him to go away because if he does not go, the Comforter (The holy spirit) will not come; but if he goes, Jesus would send him. In Matthew 10:20, Jesus says, 'For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.' In Matthew 28:19, he instructs to baptize in the name of the three “beings” of the Trinity. Mark 13:11 says that the Holy Spirit would even speak through the disciples during persecution. Luke 12:12 states that the Holy Spirit will teach them what to say. John 14:26 says that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, who would be sent in Jesus’ name, would teach all things and remind them of everything Jesus said. In Acts 1:4-8, Jesus appears to the disciples after his resurrection and tells them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father: 'You have been baptized with water by John, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' Shortly afterward, Acts 2 records the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Im bein super simple here in the description, the "trinity" is a much more complex topic then only the Holy Spirit itself.
Great point, you are correct, but there are some very interesting aspects of the new covenant. First (for conceptual purposes), the new covenant is related to the covenant prophesied by Jeremiah 31:31-34, where he speaks of a new covenant made by God with His people, promising a close relationship with God and inner transformation.Bringing a new covenant is the role of a Prophet; it does not prove one's divine nature.
Notice that the covenant brings salvation through Christ. In John 3:16-18, Jesus says, 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life... He did not send His Son to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned; whoever does not believe is condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.'
The covenant also brings complete forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:28 states, 'This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.' This is a clear replacement of the old covenant based on animal sacrifices, offering definitive and eternal forgiveness.
Furthermore, as I mentioned in John 14:16, John 14:17, and Acts 1:4-8, this covenant establishes that the Holy Spirit dwells within believers, guiding and teaching them. Therefore, Jesus’ death also brought about a permanent and personal presence of God in each believer.
You didn’t understand the text I cited. 'In my name' (onoma in Greek) implies not only authority but also representation. So, to pray in Jesus’ name means that you are approaching God with Jesus’ authority (as you mentioned) and His mediation (He is the agent who carries out the action). No prophet ever promised that whatever is asked in their name would be guaranteed—only God can do that.Jesus’ 'mediatorial' role is different from a claim of being God. These passages simply suggest that Jesus is giving his disciples authority to approach God through him.
Christianity emerged with the apostles, direct disciples of Christ, and the Bible itself affirms His divinity (as I have already shown extensively above) and attributes clear divine roles to him.This argument doesn't make sense because the Jews were already very familiar with the concept of Prophethood and that a human could not be God. The same message of monotheism was preached by all the previous Prophets. That is why the burden of proof lies on Christians who allege that a completely new creed emerged that was previously unheard of, which they themselves debated for centuries to come.
Therefore, my point remains: as a 'prophet' who is a mediator between God and humanity, who can even send the Holy Spirit, whose salvation comes through faith in this prophets name, who also receives and allows worship, forgives sins, He is also the eschatological judge, who is also pre-existent according to the Bible, why He would not have said only once not to confuse him with God himself? He predicted His death three times in the Gospels, foresaw the destruction of Jerusalem, and various other events. Why would He not have specifically corrected Christianity, which arose immediately after His death and would become the largest religion in the world (as it is today)? So he caused a disaster—if He were not truly God. Such a claim would be one of the greatest blasphemies imaginable against the Creator. He has extensive messages, parables and conversation, and not even in a single one he alerts for such a thing. Even when John worships an angel who appeared to him in Patmos, the angel immediately stops him and corrects him, why would such a 'prophet' would never do the same? Jesus was a liar, lunatic or God, there's absolutely no other option.
Let’s start by noting that less than 1–2% of Christians are Unitarians, and even they accept the resurrection of Jesus, that He is the Son of God, and that He had a special relationship with God. And It is impossible that they misunderstood Him; for that to happen, dozens of statements and events in Jesus’ life would have had to be widely and systematically fabricated (not merely textually 'corrupted'), such as the crucifixion, for example. An event that, if it were as Muslims claim (forged or substituted), would imply that Jesus (or God) literally deceived billions of people throughout history, since this is the foundation of the Christian faith (in addition to being a historical event, of course).There are at least two other possible alternatives: 1) Jesus' words are not to be understood as him claiming to be God, therefore making the position of Muslim apologists and Unitarian Christians who argue that Jesus did not claim to be divine to be a possibility and 2) Even if the New Testament does clearly show that Jesus claimed to be God, these words may be falsely attributed to Jesus.
Hypothesis 2 faces immense historical and logical coherence problems, since the Gospels describe a person with a concrete historical existence, crucified under Pontius Pilate, with disciples who believed He had risen (facts supported by historical evidence outside the Bible). And remember that the Gospels are independent sources, all specifically attributing these words and actions to Jesus. The disciples died for the message about Jesus, not for a 'substitute' or a non-existent figure.
Similar Threads
Add to Homescreen
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.