First Corrupted Verse

[YusufNoor]

To continue with my scholarly knowledge:

Both gospels say he died.


if your scholarly knowledge is that there are 2 Gospels in the NT, i suggest you find another part of the forum to frequent!

Christians response: He died !

Muslims response: 2 people both said he died but because they got their days mixed up he never died!

PLEASE respond to the question!

-

the days ARE NOT mixed up! 1 author DELIBERATELY changes it! he's making a point!

and btw, while Friedman is my guru on OT stuff, Bart D Ehrman is my NT "go to" guy.

there are corruptions in the Gospels, they come 1st, but the letters have them as well.

and while NOT the 1st [the Gospels come 1st, so lets go with those], most scholars agree that "Mark" was written 1st, around 70 - 75 CE. EDIT: OK, 65 - 75 CE!

Mark ORIGINALLY ended with

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

4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

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. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

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

so, NO Jesus sightings at all! in fact, is says the women "said nothing to anyone!"

and yet, YEARS later, someone adds:


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

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

14Later 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.

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they 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."

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

and we know this because study bibles will tell you:

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

THAT, is a corruption!

 

[Grace Seeker]

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Skye, no one is presenting any new ideas. Shoes and I are both saying the same thing. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. The only thing we've failed at is opening your eyes to what we've been saying all along. But our posts are not so obtuse. So, I suspect the problem is neither in our writing nor our logic.

really?
let's leave your words unadulterated by my response for all to see, and let others judge the sense of what you are saying:

That's fair. Though you did leave out the context of your own comment that I was replying to. So to set the context you need the following to preceed my comment:

I see no concordance between this:

But goes God need us? Does he need to sustain us? No. He does not.

and this:

Just as the world was created by his Word, so it continues by viture of his Word. Were he to quit doing so, the world itself would cease to be.

And then in that context we'll leave it for others to see whether or not they understand the following comment I made:

If you assume that having created us that God has a responsibility or obligation to sustain us you would not [see any concordance, as per your comment above]. But I do not see such a condition being placed on God. Thus he does sustain us. But he does so not because he needs to but because he wills to. This does not mean that we don't need him to sustain us, we do. But a need on our part is not necessarily a need on God's part.

 

[Grace Seeker]

there are corruptions in the Gospels, they come 1st, but the letters have them as well.

and while NOT the 1st [the Gospels come 1st, so lets go with those], most scholars agree that "Mark" was written 1st, around 70 - 75 CE. EDIT: OK, 65 - 75 CE!

Mark ORIGINALLY ended with



so, NO Jesus sightings at all! in fact, is says the women "said nothing to anyone!"

and yet, YEARS later, someone adds:


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

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

14Later 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.

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they 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."

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

and we know this because study bibles will tell you:

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

THAT, is a corruption!

I just want to be clear on this. Are you saying that if you have a set revealed text of scripture and then later God reveals that it is not complete and more needs to be added to it, that all of the added text is a corruption?

Mind you I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to be sure I understand the rationale (the standarda) by which you determined that the longer ending, which admittedly is not found as part of the earliest extant copies of Mark) is a corruption.

 

[جوري]

That's fair. Though you did leave out the context of your own comment that I was replying to. So to set the context you need the following to preceed my comment:

And then in that context we'll leave it for others to see whether or not they understand the following comment I made:

Greetings,

with or without full text (i.e including my responses) it is nonsensical especially in relation to all I have written..

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

Greetings,

with or without full text (i.e including my responses) it is nonsensical especially in relation to all I have written..

all the best

Well, that's fine if you think so, but I highly doubt that you will find any of your brothers or sisters in Islam who will think that it is nonsense to say that God is self-sufficient. I fully expect those who actually think and don't just automatically respond in the negative to anything a Christian says to agree with us Christians who contend that God/Yahweh/Allah does not need us nor does he need anything else either. If he does anything, it is not because he needs to, for being self-sufficient and the creator of all he has no needs, but he does what he does because he wills to do so and for no other reason. That would include both creating and sustaining the world and all that is in it.

 

[Joe98]

Mark ORIGINALLY ended with ;

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?"

When Jesus's body was placed in the tomb, how come, nobody, including his mother, noticed it was actually somebody else.

This is one of the great weaknesses of Islam. You cannot explain how his mother did not recognise him.


-

 

[جوري]

Well, that's fine if you think so, but I highly doubt that you will find any of your brothers or sisters in Islam who will think that it is nonsense to say that God is self-sufficient. I fully expect those who actually think and don't just automatically respond in the negative to anything a Christian says to agree with us Christians who contend that God/Yahweh/Allah does not need us nor does he need anything else either. If he does anything, it is not because he needs to, for being self-sufficient and the creator of all he has no needs, but he does what he does because he wills to do so and for no other reason. That would include both creating and sustaining the world and all that is in it.

pls tell me do you read what you write? do you understand how your words are understood in the posts I have quoted? It almost becomes a tedium to respond to you when you evade, put a spin on meaning, misconstrue or unhappy with replies given you so you concoct some cockamamie story to drown us in that has no relation at all to what is written but your desired whims, a person almost has to give up just because of how much you wear them and of time wasted in vain discourse.. have a look at one of your earlier posts again:
I see no concordance between this:

But goes God need us? Does he need to sustain us? No. He does not.

.

and this:

(Hebrews 1:3). Just as the world was created by his Word, so it continues by viture of his Word. Were he to quit doing so, the world itself would cease to be.
.

also, I am sure you have a good grip on English given your verbose and sometimes extremely ineffective debates, that you can tell the difference between needing us and sustaining us.
the things that work on their 'own volition' as in everything in creation, isn't really on its own volition sustained.

all the best

 

[جوري]

When Jesus's body was placed in the tomb, how come, nobody, including his mother, noticed it was actually somebody else.

This is one of the great weaknesses of Islam. You cannot explain how his mother did not recognise him.


-

rofl.. show me where in Islam it says his mother went to look into his tomb didn't recognize him..

why not stick with the atheist debates you are doing very poorly on this thread!

 

[YusufNoor]

I just want to be clear on this. Are you saying that if you have a set revealed text of scripture and then later God reveals that it is not complete and more needs to be added to it, that all of the added text is a corruption?

i don't see where i said that!

Mind you I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to be sure I understand the rationale (the standarda) by which you determined that the longer ending, which admittedly is not found as part of the earliest extant copies of Mark) is a corruption.

well, i don't think that you understand my rationale.

are you saying God forgot to reveal something?

are you saying that "Mark" added the text?

what are you saying?

 

[Grace Seeker]

are you saying God forgot to reveal something?

are you saying that "Mark" added the text?

what are you saying?

I am not SAYING anything, other than agreeing that the earliest extant copies of Mark do not include the longer ending.

I am ASKING by what rational you determine that this makes for a corruption?

 

[YusufNoor]

When Jesus's body was placed in the tomb, how come, nobody, including his mother, noticed it was actually somebody else.

This is one of the great weaknesses of Islam. You cannot explain how his mother did not recognise him.

have you ever seen the way they wrapped those bodies up? :blind:
-

by the way Mr Scholar, are you going to tell me on what day Jesus died?

is it too difficult a question?

are you stumped?

do you need help?

i'll let you use 1lifeline!

 

[Grace Seeker]

I see no concordance between this:

You're going to have to be specific, because I don't see any discordance between those two remarks.

 

[جوري]

Adjective: corrupted
1-Containing errors or alterations
2-Ruined in character or quality
3-Place under suspicion or cast doubt upon
4-Alter from the original


do you have a different definition for the term corruption than the rest of us?

 

[YusufNoor]

I am not SAYING anything, other than agreeing that the earliest extant copies of Mark do not include the longer ending.

I am ASKING by what rational you determine that this makes for a corruption?

tell me when the extra verses were added and by whom, and who wrote them and i'll answer your question, In Sha'a Allah!

 

[Grace Seeker]

Adjective: corrupted
1-Containing errors or alterations
2-Ruined in character or quality
3-Place under suspicion or cast doubt upon
4-Alter from the original


do you have a different definition for the term corruption than the rest of us?

True, but still doesn't answer the question.

What are you suggesting is the nature of the corruption?

 

[Grace Seeker]

tell me when the extra verses were added and by whom, and who wrote them and i'll answer your question, In Sha'a Allah!

So, you are saying that they are extra verses. Does that in and of itself make them a corruption?

 

[YusufNoor]

Adjective: corrupted
1-Containing errors or alterations
2-Ruined in character or quality
3-Place under suspicion or cast doubt upon
4-Alter from the original


do you have a different definition for the term corruption than the rest of us?

i think we can agree on those definitions, but i think our triunists might not like them!

they might reply:

1) what's wrong with alterations? and why do they mean errors?

2) they STILL like the quality

3) change it a zillion times, i still believe it!

4) it's original each time that you change it! just different!

 

[جوري]

True, but still doesn't answer the question.

What are you suggesting is the nature of the corruption?

you are very funny man.. altered from original for starters fits the definition of corruption!

all the best

 

[YusufNoor]

So, you are saying that they are extra verses. Does that in and of itself make them a corruption?

i rest my case

wouldn't that depend on:

when the extra verses were added and by whom, and who wrote them?

methinks so!

so please kind sir please tell us the answer!

 

[جوري]

i think we can agree on those definitions, but i think our triunists might not like them!

they might reply:

1) what's wrong with alterations? and why do they mean errors?

2) they STILL like the quality

3) change it a zillion times, i still believe it!

4) it's original each time that you change it! just different!

rofl, I got them from the dictionary.. will probably ask me for references of the linguist who came up with those definitions..
it is dreadfully wearisome.. can't make the distillate some other product than what it actually is.