Bible authenticity and transmission,fully detailed argument.

[Ibn-Ahmed Herz]

If you had read my first post a little more carefully you would already have the answer to your question.

1.Unfortunately for you I did read your post thoroughly and your UBS edition of the bible has nothing to do with my argument. The UBS edition is based on the same sources that NIV version and TNIV version use.It also uses the "Eclectic" method meaning you DO NOT have the sources in your hands but just another finished product.

Luke Mounsey -The more recent translations such as the NASB and the NIV, claim to use an 'eclectic' text that combines all the known readings and supposedly uses the most prevalent one. It is claimed that they did not use the Alexandrian manuscripts or the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament at all.

Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament = Sinaticus and Vaticanus

The Bible I referenced is my UBS edition of the Greek NT, with critical apparatus listing the variant readings. Thus by reading the apparatus I can compare whether a variant is supported by Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, both or neither. And yes, I did go all the way through Matthew and was only able to identify 25 instances in the entire Gospel in which one variant was supported by Sinaiticus and a different one was supported by Vaticanus. This actual count that I made this evening is so significantly different from the numbers you gave as to cause me to question the integrity of your source, that or your understanding of their meaning, especially since you have yet to cite your source.


You said: You corrected yourself to say you had meant not one but 10 contradictions per page.

So, I'm checking your math. If referring to the whole Bible (both OT and NT) then the bible on my shelf average 1500 pages. With 3000 supposed disagreements total that is only 2 per page, not 10. If you are referring to just the NT, then your math is a little better. But I still don't find any substantiation of your figures of 3000 disagreements between the Codexes Sinaiticus and Vacticanus in the pages of the NT.

Again, just using the Gospel of Matthew as a way of testing the accuracy of those numbers, I find only 184 variants listed in the UBS edition of the Greek Text of Matthew total. On 159 of those occassions Sinaiticus and Vaticanus actually AGREE with each other, leaving only 25 in which they disagree -- roughly 1 every 3.5 pages. It seems highly implausible to me that with only 25 disagreements between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in Matthew that there would be 2975 more in the rest of the NT which is what would be necessary to achieve the counts you were providing. That is why I asked for the source for your numbers.
[/QUOTE]

The UBS greek version of the bible does not use SINGLE sources but a mixture of different sources from the entire Alexandrian manuscript collection. Meaning your UBS version if compared to the codex vaticanus would be different.

You counting in your little UBS greek edition means nothing because it is not a SOURCE but a mixture from different sources.



You haven't provided that source. And I haven't time to quibble more than I already have. I'm off to bed and will see if you've added anything significant when I return next week.[/QUOTE]

I Gave you charts from Bruce Metzger,I gave you his BOOK source from where is chart is located.I gave you the scholars who numbered the errors to 3,000, Bert Ehrman,etc. And I even gave you the book name and page number where it was said, How much more sources do you want?


Please read-

[3]Greek text of the New Testament, the Preface says:The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one using VARIOUS SOURCES.

[3] K. L. Barker (ed.), The NIV: The Making Of A Contemporary Translation, 1991, International Bible Society: Colorado Springs, pp. 46-47. (Download).

From 1963 onwards, K. Aland worked on a revision of the ‘middle’ text established by Nestle.... The new text was the work of an international committee made up of K. Aland, M. Black, B.M. Metzger, A. Wikgren, and, after the first edition, C.M. Martini. The first edition was published in 1966 by the United Bible Societies (The Greek New Testament). The apparatus contains very few variant readings but, for each one, a large number of witnesses is regularly given. READ HERE ALSO -The choice of variants is based on the majority vote of the committee, and the proportion of votes obtained is indicated by a letter placed at the head of each variation unit. The most notable effect of this combination of philological and democratic processes is that previous choices tend to be repeated.[17]

[17] L. Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An Introduction To The New Testament Textual Criticism, 1986, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (UK), p. 166.



Conclusion-You do not have a single source,but a mixture from different variants among Alexandrian texts. So you counting in your bible for errors doesn't mean anything.

 

[Trumble]

I didn't say 10 words per page,I said 10 contradictions per page in the SOURCES for the bible. So its basically 10 concepts that conflict with each other on each page.

I am baffled by this. The Bible is primarily narrative in nature and I'm struggling to think of a page that even has ten 'concepts' susceptible to falsification or conflict. Different words, maybe.

Could you provide a few actual examples of passages that include such conflicting concepts? That would be much more helpful to your argument than numbers that must always be purely speculative, and really need backing up with something concrete.

 

[YusufNoor]

i actually dabble "in the study of" the study of historical criticism and textual criticism. i doubt a post or two could explain it to anyone.

let me paraphrase Bart Ehrman, of the 5,700 Greek manuscripts that we now have, NO TWO are alike! HOWEVER [according to Ehrman] the VAST MAJORITY of the differences [and there are more differences than there are words in the NT!] are spelling errors and word placement in the Greek, which according to Ehrman CANNOT be replicated in English. there ARE differences that affect what a text might mean, but it would be better to stick to what is generally believed by those that do study the field.

now, Professor Luke Timothy Johnson is also highly aware of textual and historical criticism. UNLIKE Ehrman, Professor Johnson's faith is not diminished by this, at least he says as much. the belief is that [and i'm paraphrasing] we still understand the [original] Message in spite of all of the complications. Ehrman would retort that it is impossible to to know what the original message was if you don't know what the original words were!

surprisingly, [and i haven't read Jesus Interrupted yet, but i am reading Misquoting Jesus and iv'e either watched or listened to all but one of Ehrmans lecture sets from the Teaching Company (found here http://www.teach12.com/storex/professor.aspx?ID=150 )] i prefer the approach of Professor Johnson WHEN EXPLAINING just what textual criticism is. (his set is here http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=6252 ) so let me ask:

just what is textual criticism and how did it come about and why should a Christian OR ANYONE care?

:wa:

just bumping for now

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you YusufNoor;

so historical criticism is needed as well as textual criticism.

All the law and the prophets of God hang and depend on the two greatest commandments, of loving God with all our heart, soul mind and strength. And to love our neighbours as we love ourselves.

The Bible says much about the law and the prophets of God. If you can find something wrong or something greater than the greatest commandments, then the whole of the Bible makes little sense.

In the spirit of searching for a loving, merciful and forgiving God

Eric

 

[YusufNoor]

Greetings and peace be with you YusufNoor;

All the law and the prophets of God hang and depend on the two greatest commandments, of loving God with all our heart, soul mind and strength. And to love our neighbours as we love ourselves.

The Bible says much about the law and the prophets of God. If you can find something wrong or something greater than the greatest commandments, then the whole of the Bible makes little sense.

In the spirit of searching for a loving, merciful and forgiving God

Eric

are you smoking something?

this isn't about favorite quotes from the Bible. it's about the authenticity of the Bible, BUT only IF someone wanted to discuss it, preferably in a constructive manner. to that end, i've pretty much listed my sources in case someone wanted to check those and discuss it here or NOT. i find the topic fascinating now that i'm not so much attached to it as i was before.

IF it was about:

All the law and the prophets of God hang and depend on the two greatest commandments, of loving God with all our heart, soul mind and strength

then it would of need by of EXTREME importance to find out what those Prophets actually said about The Law and how that law would dictate how to obey and worship that God, wouldn't it?

and if we include the 2nd part:

And to love our neighbours as we love ourselves.

then why did Christians invent antisemitism [and is that Scriptural?] and why was Scripture used by Christians to subjugate the black race for Centuries?

see what i mean?

:wa:

 

[Grace Seeker]

then why did Christians invent antisemitism [and is that Scriptural?] and why was Scripture used by Christians to subjugate the black race for Centuries?

:wa:

Because humans are basically sinners who frequently take God's good gifts and pervert them to their own ends. Christians are no better than other human beings in this regard, one might even say they are worse for they should know better, because throughout history we've taken God's word and twisted it to mean things that I'm sure God never intended it to be used for -- antisemitism and subjugating the black race are only two of a much longer list I am sad to say.

 

[rpwelton]

Greetings and peace be with you YusufNoor;

All the law and the prophets of God hang and depend on the two greatest commandments, of loving God with all our heart, soul mind and strength. And to love our neighbours as we love ourselves.

The Bible says much about the law and the prophets of God. If you can find something wrong or something greater than the greatest commandments, then the whole of the Bible makes little sense.

In the spirit of searching for a loving, merciful and forgiving God

Eric

I don't want to spiral this thread off-topic, but I've had a question related to this burning in the back of my mind.

There is an instance in the Bible where Jesus is asked what the greatest commandment is:

"One of the teachers of the Law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, 'Of all the commandments, which is the most important?' 'The most important one', answered Jesus, 'is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." (Mark 12:28-29)

it continues...

(Jesus says) "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these" (Mark 12:30-31)

Now, here's my question. Whenever I ask Christians what the greatest commandment is, they quote from this portion of Mark, but they begin at Mark 12:30, which means they skip over the part where Jesus explicitly says that God is One God (note that Mark 12:29 is a direct reference to what Moses says in Deuteronomy 6:4, which says the exact same thing).

Now, the two passages certainly aren't contradictory, but it does raise an interesting flag. Christians seem to skirt around the idea of "God is One" when making explicit statements explaining their faith, as though they find it counter-intuitive to the notion of the trinity. Yet when a Christian is asked if God is One, he or she says yes.

Any Christian care to explain this very interesting phenomenon?

 

[Trumble]

Whenever I ask Christians what the greatest commandment is, they quote from this portion of Mark, but they begin at Mark 12:30, which means they skip over the part where Jesus explicitly says that God is One God (note that Mark 12:29 is a direct reference to what Moses says in Deuteronomy 6:4, which says the exact same thing).

And that's something you do often, is it? Over lunch? In the super-market? Come on, this just says STRAWMAN.

Christians seem to skirt around the idea of "God is One" when making explicit statements explaining their faith, as though they find it counter-intuitive to the notion of the trinity.

And that positively screams it! As, at least, a former Christian (albeit it a very long time ago) may I respectfully suggest the "interesting phenomenon" exists only in your imagination?

 

[rpwelton]

^^

Why are you getting so bent out of shape over this as a former Christian? All I'm trying to do is explain my observations from hearing Christians speak about their concept of God and what they understand their religion to be. I've spoken to a number of Christians (being a former Christian myself) and watched numerous debates and lectures by Christians and they more or less all tend to quote the passage in the same way.

I'm just throwing my thought out there; I never said it's the trump card that disproves Christianity or anything like that. I'm just wondering why this passage is nearly always quoted starting halfway through.

Come on, now. If you'll read Eric H's post just above mine, he does the exact same thing I'm talking about.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you rpwelton;

When you stop and reflect on the bible passage you quoted, it seems incomplete.

The Lord is one, but what is he one off, is he one in purpose, is he one God, or one of something else. It seems left open to interpretation.

In Islam, I think it says there is no other God than Allah.

God is so far beyond our understanding, and I feel he only reveals a part of himself in any of our holy scriptures. It seems strange in Mark 12:29, that Jesus talks about what is most important, and then describes the commandments as greatest, why the subtle difference?

Holy scriptures are open to interpretation, and are intended to inspire us and keep us searching for all our life, generation after generation. The Holy Bible fills that need for me despite all the things said about it and against it.

In the spirit of searching for a loving and merciful God

Eric

 

[rpwelton]

Greetings and peace be with you rpwelton;

When you stop and reflect on the bible passage you quoted, it seems incomplete.

The Lord is one, but what is he one off, is he one in purpose, is he one God, or one of something else. It seems left open to interpretation.

In Islam, I think it says there is no other God than Allah.

God is so far beyond our understanding, and I feel he only reveals a part of himself in any of our holy scriptures. It seems strange in Mark 12:29, that Jesus talks about what is most important, and then describes the commandments as greatest, why the subtle difference?

Holy scriptures are open to interpretation, and are intended to inspire us and keep us searching for all our life, generation after generation. The Holy Bible fills that need for me despite all the things said about it and against it.

In the spirit of searching for a loving and merciful God

Eric

OK, I can understand that. Certainly the whole passage together makes the most sense; so why do most people start mid-way through? Again, it's late at night and maybe I'm picking up on things that aren't really there, but surely it would make more sense for Christians to always start at the beginning (Mark 12:29) instead of one verse later.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you rpwelton;

OK, I can understand that. Certainly the whole passage together makes the most sense; so why do most people start mid-way through? Again, it's late at night and maybe I'm picking up on things that aren't really there, but surely it would make more sense for Christians to always start at the beginning (Mark 12:29) instead of one verse later.

When it says the Lord is one, which is just a statement; the greatest commandments then explain a greatest way to live with this knowledge. I guess I am guilty of starting mid way through the passage, because the greatest commandments tell me what I have to do, and I seem to focus more on the doing part.

Maybe in future, I should start with the Lord is one, when I mention the greatest commandments, my apologies if I have added to your confussion

In the spirit of searching for a loving and merciful God

Eric

 

[YusufNoor]

Because humans are basically sinners who frequently take God's good gifts and pervert them to their own ends. Christians are no better than other human beings in this regard, one might even say they are worse for they should know better, because throughout history we've taken God's word and twisted it to mean things that I'm sure God never intended it to be used for -- antisemitism and subjugating the black race are only two of a much longer list I am sad to say.

but these were institutionally done. antisemitism has it's roots in the teaching's of Paul, or maybe better stated as a result of Paul. from non circumcision, which looks innocent, to and i'll paraphrase, you cannot achieve any righteousness, because we are only righteous because Jesus died for us. it's an interesting theory, one that i disagree with [but that's irrelevant], but when you start to say that adopting ANY form of Judaism is a sin because you are trying to be righteous...that's where it begins.

by the time you get to the "Epistle" of Barnabas, it's near full bloom. carrying it forward, the "Church" tried for Centuries to "stamp out Jews and [the] "Jewishness" [of Christians] that it brings us up to the age of the African Captivity in Europe and America.

Luther & Company only went as far back as those Scriptures. for me, not nearly far enough back.

i listened to Erhman's 24 part lecture course From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity and i was struck by how much i had either forgot or never quite realized. then when i listened to After the New Testament: The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers i was further struck by how much it was "Christians" writings that fueled the fire along with [what i can only refer to as] the dramatic attempts by some sects of Christians to claim the [what i can only call] "conscientious objector" status that the Jews held in Pagan Rome. amazingly, they even attempted to "hijack" the TaNaK and make it their own. [which is why the call the TaNaK, the "Old Testament!"]

it's one of those things that prove FOR ME [i hope everyone see the emphasis there], that those folks were NEVER on the path that Jesus was.

now if i could only convince the folks that the "hatred of the Jews" is a Christian "sunnah".....

 

[Grace Seeker]

Having already risked going off topic with my above post, I now plunge fully into the sea of alternative discussion.


No doubt that much of the evils of Christianity are of institutional origins. But why would that be surprising? Institution are, afterall, human inventions. And thus the product of sinful humans working cooperatively together in creating/developing an institution is just as likely to be sinful as any singular act by one individual human.

I will even agree that antisemiticism has (some of) its roots in the teachings of Paul. There are also roots in the book of John, and in the prevailing racism existant in the first century. But I think that is a far cry from saying that the NT (or any part of it) actually espouses racism. Rather, I think it is that people look to it to justify actions and ideas that they already possessed and found it in some things that they then would build upon -- all of it contrary to the actually intent of God or even the ethics of the biblical writers.

Likewise, some would see mysoginistic texts, child beatings, and a whole host of other evils scattered about in various verses and because their own hearts were inclined toward those evils twist those expressions around to substantiate that which I believe the Bible is actually against. I've often heard that you can prove most anything from the Bible. I'm not sure what the original meaning was behind such a comment, but today I find it true in that if one is seeking for a particular prooftext, that use of a concordance and a willingness to practice eisegesis along with selective quotes that ignore context one probably could get the Bible to say about anything one wanted even absurdities such as grass is blue and the sky green. So, that people have used the Bible to conclude some of the terrible things that they have doesn't really mean that the Bible supports those positions, only that people were willing to misuse even God's word for their own evil purposes. Sadly, at times it hasn't just been individuals who have so perverted the text, but the church itself has been guilty of such sin. About the only thing I can say in response to that today is to ask that God might forgive us and preserve from making the same mistakes again.

Whether those folks were on ever on the path that Jesus was, I can't say. I don't think they were on those issues, but they might have trying and simply failed for reasons that are beyond my understanding today. Would Jesus recognize Chrsitianity, Muhammed recognize Islam, or Buddha recognize Buddhism were they to return today? Even if on the whole the probable answer is Yes, I suspect that in each of them there are things that we are blind to how we have changed them from what the original meaing/understanding was. The problem is that being blind to those changes we can't even identify what they are in order to correct our present day mistakes.

 

[YusufNoor]

Having already risked going off topic with my above post, I now plunge fully into the sea of alternative discussion.

I will even agree that antisemiticism has (some of) its roots in the teachings of Paul.
THAT is what i am saying, PLUS a little bit more...

There are also roots in the book of John, and in the prevailing racism existant in the first century.
the letters of Paul were written before the Gospels, though each Gospel tends to assign a bit different weight to the fault of the Jews for the [apparent] crucifixion

But I think that is a far cry from saying that the NT (or any part of it) actually espouses racism.
i didn't say it initiates it as a cause célèbre. but rather it is the [unintended?] consequence.

Rather, I think it is that people look to it to justify actions and ideas that they already possessed and found it in some things that they then would build upon -- all of it contrary to the actually intent of God or even the ethics of the biblical writers.

Whether those folks were on ever on the path that Jesus was, I can't say. I don't think they were on those issues, but they might have trying and simply failed for reasons that are beyond my understanding today.
what about Barnabas, is he not considered an Apostolic Father?

Would Jesus recognize Chrsitianity,
methinks no...

Muhammed recognize Islam,
we have a strong hope, but would expect a lot of anger...

or Buddha recognize Buddhism
not relevant

were they to return today? Even if on the whole the probable answer is Yes, I suspect that in each of them there are things that we are blind to how we have changed them from what the original meaing/understanding was. The problem is that being blind to those changes we can't even identify what they are in order to correct our present day mistakes.

as i appended the thought, antisemitism is a result of Paul. as Paul struggle to deal with the "vision" he had when he fell of his horse and tried to make sense of the [apparent] crucifixion in his writings. the next group has to deal with his letters! i see no other destination once he pens[in Galations 5]:

2 Behold I, (D)Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to (H)keep the whole Law.
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.


while this is directed at the Gauls, consider it's impact on the NEXT generation of of Jews, do you circumcise them? if you do, they are now, "severed from Christ!?" and if ANY observance of the Law "severs you from Christ" this pretty much mandates a separation of the Jews and the Christians. [despite the fact the other NT writers hint at keeping the law, especially Peter in Acts 10.] thus, let's call it the mustard seed, eventually leads to, Barnabas 4:6-8

6 ...And yet again, I am asking you this as one who is from among you and who loves each and every one of you more than my own soul: watch yourselves now and do not become like some people by piling up your sins, saying that they covenant is both theirs and ours.
7 For it is ours. but they permanently post it, in this way, when Moses had just received it[!] For the Scripture says, "Moses was on the mountain fasting for forty days and forty nights, and he received the covenant from the Lord, stone tablets written with the finger of the Lord's own hand."
But when they turned back to idols they lost it. For the Lord says this: Moses, Moses, go down quickly, because your people. whom you lead from the land of Egypt, has broken the law . Moses understood this and cast the two tablets from his hands. And their covenant was smashed - [that the covenant of his beloved, Jesus, might be sealed in our hearts, in the hope brought by faith in him.]

which seem a blatant lie that casts dispersions of the Jewish faith of the last millennium. [not that the Jews/Hebrew/Israelites didn't do enough of that themselves] but if there were no longer any Covenant with the Hebrews/Jews, then there is no expectation of the Messiah either!

to show Barnabas' error:

The Covenant Renewed Exodus 34

10Then God said, "Behold, I am going to make a covenant Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all the earth nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you.

11"Be sure to observe what I am commanding you this day: behold, I am going to drive out the Amorite before you, and the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite.
12"Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst.
13"But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim
14--for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God--
15otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone might invite you to eat of his sacrifice,
16and you might take some of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters might play the harlot with their gods and cause your sons also to play the harlot with their gods.
17"You shall make for yourself no molten gods.
18"You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread For seven days you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the )month of Abib, for in the month of Abib you came out of Egypt.
19")The first offspring from every womb belongs to Me, and all your male livestock, the first offspring from cattle and sheep.
20"You shall redeem with a lamb the first offspring from a donkey; and if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck You shall redeem all the firstborn of your sons None shall appear before Me empty-handed.
21"You shall work six days, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during plowing time and harvest you shall rest.
22"You shall celebrate the Feast of Weeks, that is, the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.
23"Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.
24"For I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your borders, and no man shall covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the LORD your God.
25"You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread, nor is the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover to be left over until morning.
26"You shall bring the very first of the first fruits of your soil into the house of the LORD your God. "You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk."
27Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."

28So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

so Barnabas loves the them so much that he distorts the truth, not only about the Hebrews/Jews, BUT about GOD as well!

this plays a part in History as the Christians try to convince the Pagans that the Old Testament belongs to them and NOT the Jews and that is THEM who should be granted excuse from sacrificing to the Emperor. and further more, according to Barnabas, the Jews are some kind of "friggin" morons and degenerates for not realizing that they have been so clueless for the last 1300 years! [that's rather simplified, but as i've been typing for over an hour, i'll just end...]

i think that even Bugs Bunny treated Elmer Fudd better than that.

i'm just saying...

 

[جوري]

^^ I can't rep you for that, but I have read every word and I certainly appreciate the distillate of your many hours worth of effort.. I know what it is like to waste hours writing and quoting with the other party uninterested or distorting as I have experienced on the authenticity of the Quran thread.. Jazaka Allah khyran

 

[Follower]

rpwelton- the Christian concept of who GOD is is different then the muslims. To the Christian GOD is ONE.

Ibn Ahmed Herz - "The Gnostic gospels were gospels rejected by the early church before and during the advent of the council of nicea. The council of nicea was held during 325 AD."

Are you saying that Muslims believe the Gnostic scriptures to be the correct one?

What about the fact that the students of the original Disciples way before 325 AD knew which scriptures were correct and these were passed down to their students and the earlist church fathers? The Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Synoptic Gospel was always considered true and not just decided on in 325 AD.

Do you believe Christianity would have been "better off" by destroying the Gnostic, false and Apocrypha scriptures?

 

[Follower]

Paul was not promoting antisemitism so much as trying to get Jews to allow Gentiles to worship with them without going through the pains- literally LOL! of fufilling the Law that was meant for the Jews.

If you read Acts 15 you see that a whole group met to figure out how to deal with the situation and follow Jesus' teachings-

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

 

[rpwelton]

rpwelton- the Christian concept of who GOD is is different then the muslims. To the Christian GOD is ONE.

Ibn Ahmed Herz - "The Gnostic gospels were gospels rejected by the early church before and during the advent of the council of nicea. The council of nicea was held during 325 AD."

Are you saying that Muslims believe the Gnostic scriptures to be the correct one?

What about the fact that the students of the original Disciples way before 325 AD knew which scriptures were correct and these were passed down to their students and the earlist church fathers? The Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Synoptic Gospel was always considered true and not just decided on in 325 AD.

Do you believe Christianity would have been "better off" by destroying the Gnostic, false and Apocrypha scriptures?

LOL, and the Muslims don't claim that God is One?

And when did I ever mention Gnostic gospels? I've never even read a gnostic gospel, so I can claim zero authority on saying anything about those.

 

[Uthman]

Please stick to the topic. Thank you.