You write:
‘Paul never indicates Cephas or anyone else was a disciple of Jesus. Apostle doesn't mean disciple.’
Indeed, it does not.
‘Disciple’ is a Biblical term meaning learner or pupil. The word ‘apostle’ defines one who has been given a specific mission or purpose (that – in Greek – is the literal meaning of the word ‘apostle’) .
Paul does not refer to Cephas, and the others, as ‘disciples’ for the simple reason that by the time he met them they were no longer pupils, but leaders – teachers.
‘Then God, who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother's womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his Son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord.’ (Galatians 1: 15-19).
You will see that Paul refers to several ‘apostles’ of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām); naming both Cephas (Peter) and James, the ‘brother of the Lord’.
He goes on:
‘I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders - not that their importance matters to me, since God has no favorites - these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So, James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and them to the circumcised.’ (Galatians 2: 5-9).
In these verses Paul reaffirms Peter as an apostle and (by virtue of his status as apostle) names him as one of the leaders of the community in Jerusalem. A ‘disciple’ (‘pupil’) no longer.
Paul also refers to James and John as ‘leaders’ (and, by implication, as fellow apostles).
Paul writes: ‘The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans.’ This person, of course, is Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām).
It is quite clear that Paul recognises the historical existence of Yeshua; and the fact that he (Yeshua) was the one who had commissioned the apostles to convey his message to others; who had given them a specific mission.
- - - Updated - - -
You write that the Shema is ‘not a teaching of Jesus (but) ‘plagiarized from the LXX.’
‘Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Eḥad’ – ‘Hear, O Israel: the LORD is our God, the LORD is One.’
This is the central creed of Judaism; found in the Taurat; the Holy Book given to Moses by Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla). It pre-dates the Septuagint, and would have been recited by Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) every day of his life. He was, after all, a devout Jew.
- - - Updated - - -
You write: ‘ Islam claims Jesus performed miracles. Islam claims Jesus had a mother called Mary. These things are from the Gospels.’
These things are also from the Qur’an; a confirmation of that which is stated in the Gospels. The Qur’an does not – after all – teach that everything in the Gospels is false.
- - - Updated - - -
You write: 'Islam claims that the Gospels were originally true'.
It does not.
The Arabic word ‘ʾInjīl’ is translated ‘Gospel’ by those writing in English. However, in the Qur’an the word is always in the singular, and is never used to describe the four Gospels of the New Testament.
There is no doubt that the New Testament Gospels were written after the lifetime of Yeshua. Therefore they cannot be the ‘ʾInjīl’ mentioned in the Qur’an. The Exalted says: ‘We sent Yeshua, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Torah that had been sent before him: We gave him the Gospel (ʾInjīl) with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Torah already revealed - a guide and lesson for those who take heed of Allāh.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 46).
It is quite clear from this verse that Yeshua was given the ʾInjīl (Gospel) complete; how else could it have been ‘a guidance, light and confirmation of the Torah’?
First example of Gospel falsehood:
The King James Bible (including the American Version); the King James 2000 Bible; the Jubilee Bible 2000; the Douay-Rheims Bible; the Webster’s Bible Translation; and the Young’s Literal Translation contain what is known as the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. This is shown below in capitals:
‘For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.’
Anthony and Richard Hanson write: ‘It (the ‘Comma Ioanneum’) was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament.’ (‘Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith; page 171).
The ‘Comma Ioanneum’ is spurious, and yet for centuries the Church insisted it be included in 1 John 5: 7-8; on the grounds that it had become official Church teaching.
In 1927, the Holy Office (Guardian of Catholic orthodoxy; and once named the ‘Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition’) declared: ‘After careful examination of the whole circumstances that its genuineness could be denied’ (Ludwig Ott: ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, page 56).
This is why one of my Bibles (the Jerusalem Bible - a Catholic version) reads: ‘So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide.’ Another Catholic version of mine – the Douay-Rheims – does contain the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. So which of these two is the uncorrupted: the former or the latter?
Second example:
The story of the woman caught in adultery (found in John 7) has been a source of much controversy for decades. Is it authentic; or is in a later insertion into the text?
The King James Version (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the ‘pericope adulterae’ as an original part of the Gospel. On the other hand, more modern translations – such and as the ESV, NIV, RV; NRVS; and GNB – include the ‘pericope adulterae’, but bracket it as not original; while others print it in a smaller font (TNIV), or place it at the end of the gospel (REB), all with notes of explanation. This is because the story is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.
It certainly seems as if, somewhere along the way, a scribe added this story into John’s Gospel in a place he thought it would fit well. Most likely, the story had been circulating for a long time – as an oral tradition – and a scribe (or scribes) felt that, since it was already accepted as truth by consensus, it was appropriate to include it in the text of Scripture. The problem is that truth is not determined by consensus (witness the ‘Comma Ioanneum’ debacle).
The omission of the ‘pericope adulterae’ from the early manuscripts has been explained as an attempt by early church leaders to prevent scandal; to prevent the impression that adultery is acceptable (for Yeshua is said to have forgiven the woman). Concerned for the moral welfare of their flock these leaders are said to have ordered the story’s removal. If this is true, then they tampered with the Gospel!
The fact remains that the ‘pericope adulterae’ is not supported by early manuscript evidence (and some might say, the best manuscript evidence); there is, therefore, serious doubt as to whether it should be included in the Bible at all.
Third example:
Mark 16: 9-20: ‘Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.’
Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include, after verse 8, the following: ‘But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.’ These manuscripts then continue with verses 9-20.
Conclusion:
An acknowledged spurious text – justifying the belief in a Trinitarian deity – and still present in at least six current versions of the Bible; the insertion of the ‘pericope adulterae’; and the changes to Mark.
Perhaps now you can understand why scholars (both Christian and Muslim) speak of a corrupted New Testament!
