Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

[Al-manar]

Item :7

Biblical Errancy vs Quranic Inerrancy P.2

Another problem with accepting the supernatural claims of a book that proved fallible in areas of the natural,is that such approach would turn all world myths into facts and the supernatural claims of such scriptures would turn into facts too ,One religion is as true as another !....

The claim that the gospels were written by eye witnesses eg, disciples ?

That is simply false:
Not only the narrators making themselves anonymous to the readers ,but also the text itself suggests strongly that the writers(whatever who were) were not eyewitnesses….
Not only the writer suggested himself aware of the things Jesus said and done , the Events the followers of Jesus do not know about (eg,the trial of Jesus), but also knows the inner feelings, thoughts of both jesus and others in the new testament ……
Besides ,it is totally absurd if we assume that the writers wrote their eye testimonies, if we have areas in the gospels that requires logically a reaction from them……
just for example: The writers supposedly witnessed the resurrection , and assuming that true, would raise lots of questions
Where were they during the resurrection and the visit of the women? The text suggests that they know what was inside the tomb…… if so ,that necessarily requires them accompanying the women inside ,if so were they silent ? no contact from any kind between them and the women? No reaction at all none ever was struck in the process.?!!!!!
Their master been resurrected and not one word or reaction ,from them, in the event?!!!

To get the matter worse ,though claimed to be eye witnesses, they would later contradict each others in almost every detail in the story !!!!!

With all due respect, It is foolishness ,accepting the whole narrations of the gospels as based on eye witnesses…

To sum up , not only the bible directly claims to be the verbal inspiration ,but that is something to be inferred as ,besides the quotation mentioned before, the text itself suggests strongly to be either verbally inspired by God or based on a hearsay account (which would include both truth and falsehood)and the writer own imaginary production…….



Till next Part

peace\

 

[Hugo]

The elementary reading is the one that you should do, to open the first page of the gospel of Matthew and learn that Matthew not merely recording a story about Jesus but tried to infuse some old testament verses making the impression that it has a connection and meaning applied to what happened in his narrative regarding Jesus.

Eg; He began falsely claiming that the virgin birth of jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament ,passing by other passages eg; Jeremiah 31:15 Psalm 22; Isaiah 53 etc… the same did the other writers of the gospels ….

As far as I know there is only one ref to the OT in Matthew chapter 1 in verse 23 which recalls Isaiah 7:14. Now you of course can argue that Isaiah is not referring to Jesus but you cannot argue it is false and ultimately it is a matter of faith. I fail to see that this has anything to do with Jeremiah 31:15 which practically everyone agrees is referring to the murder of children committed by Herod and Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are about the suffering of Jesus. Again you can decide that these passages are about something else but just because YOU say so will not make it true.

If David(just as ALL of the writers of the new testament) tried to twist the text applying it to the wrong time and place then he surely used a pesher like technique .....

David was NOT a NT writer. But here you are not it seems to me being honest, anything that does not quite fit your view means that Biblical writers 'twisted' the text - hardly an open minded view is it.

I don’t think Jesus referred to the Old Testament the way it depicted in the gospels, cause if that is true then we have no choice but to accuse him as a big deceiver. But that is not the way we muslims think… we instead give the lie for the writers not Jesus peace be upon him….

The is just absurd and now you are substituting evidence with your own opinion. If you know so much about Jesus and you regard the NT gospels as unreliable where do you get your information?

 

[Hugo]

The claim that the gospels were written by eye witnesses eg, disciples ?That is simply false: Not only the narrators making themselves anonymous to the readers ,but also the text itself suggests strongly that the writers(whatever who were) were not eyewitnesses. Not only the writer suggested himself aware of the things Jesus said and done, the Events the followers of Jesus do not know about (eg,the trial of Jesus), but also knows the inner feelings, thoughts of both jesus and others in the new testament Besides ,it is totally absurd if we assume that the writers wrote their eye testimonies, if we have areas in the gospels that requires logically a reaction from them just for example: The writers supposedly witnessed the resurrection , and assuming that true, would raise lots of questions Where were they during the resurrection and the visit of the women? The text suggests that they know what was inside the tomb…… if so ,that necessarily requires them accompanying the women inside ,if so were they silent ? no contact from any kind between them and the women? No reaction at all none ever was struck in the process.?!!!!! Their master been resurrected and not one word or reaction ,from them, in the event?!!!

I cannot follows this argument. It is true that two women were this first witnesses to the resurrection but do you think they they kept it to themselves? If you bother to read the accounts you will see that they told the disciples and some of them saw the empty tomb and later we read the Jesus also appeared to them.

To get the matter worse,though claimed to be eye witnesses, they would later contradict each others in almost every detail in the story ! With all due respect, It is foolishness ,accepting the whole narrations of the gospels as based on eye witnesses. To sum up , not only the bible directly claims to be the verbal inspiration ,but that is something to be inferred as ,besides the quotation mentioned before, the text itself suggests strongly to be either verbally inspired by God or based on a hearsay account (which would include both truth and falsehood)and the writer own imaginary production

It is nonsense to say there is disagreement in almost every detail - no one but you thinks that. It does not even seem to occur to you that sometimes even those that witness the same event will recount it with variations - in fact if they did not then I would suspect it was fix up of the text. Therefore, if the are variations then to me that is strong evidence that they are indeed eye witness accounts.

 

[Al-manar]

David was NOT a NT writer.

you misunderstood me ,i didn't mean he is NT writer....

As far as I know there is only one ref to the OT in Matthew chapter 1 in verse 23 which recalls Isaiah 7:14. Now you of course can argue that Isaiah is not referring to Jesus but you cannot argue it is false and ultimately it is a matter of faith.

I can argue it is false and it is not ultimately a matter of faith !!!

there is nothing supernatural in Matthew's treatment of the text,in order to call it a matter of faith.......
he wasn't claiming something extraordinary.... the man made it simple:
Jesus was born of a virgin and such birth was predicted in the Old testament, Isaiah 7:4
our task to verify his claim is very easy...we don't need a time machine to get to Isaiah ,just to read the text which he quoted from,in context.....

I accept that after you get reading the context and still believe that Matthew was truthful,inspired ,to be a matter of faith but the blind one.....

I fail to see that this has anything to do with Jeremiah 31:15 which practically everyone agrees is referring to the murder of children committed by Herod and Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are about the suffering of Jesus. Again you can decide that these passages are about something else but just because YOU say so will not make it true. .

don't worry we are going to have a long run with such passages to find out how solid the accusation against the writers....

 

[Hugo]

I can argue it is false and it is not ultimately a matter of faith !!! there is nothing supernatural in Matthew's treatment of the text,in order to call it a matter of faith.......
he wasn't claiming something extraordinary.... the man made it simple: Jesus was born of a virgin and such birth was predicted in the Old testament, Isaiah 7:4 our task to verify his claim is very easy...we don't need a time machine to get to Isaiah ,just to read the text which he quoted from,in context..... I accept that after you get reading the context and still believe that Matthew was truthful,inspired ,to be a matter of faith but the blind one.....

Yes of course you can argue it is false but you cannot prove it one way or the other that is why it is a matter of faith - I accept the Gospel accounts as a trustworthy witness and of course like any scripture it has to be interpreted and I guess you are disposed to only see the context of the Isaiah verse as being about Ahaz and therefore can't or will not even consider other interpretations.

Let me give an example, Muslim message boards are replete with stories of scientific miracles hidden in the Qu'ran and I guess you have no difficulty accepting them and in so doing accepting an interpretation so why the difficulty here?

 

[Al-manar]

I cannot follows this argument. It is true that two women were this first witnesses to the resurrection but do you think they they kept it to themselves?

Thanx for giving the christian endorsement on my previous point; none of the gospel writer(s) ever witnessed ,at least,the resurrection....they wrote ,according to you,what they heard ,not what they've seen.... and that is what we need to agree on,at least,in that moment....

It is nonsense to say there is disagreement in almost every detail - no one but you thinks that.

the coming dozens of scholary quotes would prove otherwise..

It does not even seem to occur to you that sometimes even those that witness the same event will recount it with variations .

variations from what kind? complementary or contradictory (as those in the narratives) ?

if the are variations then to me that is strong evidence that they are indeed eye witness accounts.

"...but if the witnesses are inspired of God then there is no reason for their disagreeing on anything, and if they do disagree it is a demonstration that they were not inspired...." Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 11, p. 295

"These contradictions are gross and palpable and demonstrate that the NT is not inspired, and that many of its statements must be false." Ibid., p. 276

I guess you are disposed to only see the context of the Isaiah verse as being about Ahaz and therefore can't or will not even consider other interpretations.

that is a false accusation...... If you read my posts in the thread(for eg;in the trinity issue) you will find out easily that I'm not that guy who reject the idea that sometimes a text has more than one possible meaning ....
but to shift from the literal meaning ,there must be strong reasons to do so....
the problem with the writer of Matthew (also Mark,luke,joh,Paul,peter) is that they neither follow the literal nor the metaphorical..... they have passed all the limits of interpretation ,proving themselves unworthy of trust.......

well..... that serious matter needs introduction and background (at least for the muslim bro&sis) who read the thread...... now I take the matter step by step and trying as much as possible to be consistent.....

Let me give an example, Muslim message boards are replete with stories of scientific miracles hidden in the Qu'ran .

that is ,indeed, a false analogy

you compare the un-inspired muslim X who interpret the verse Y in the Quran

with

M the inspired writer of the gospel who interpret the verse N in the bible ?!!

Are you serious ?!!!

the interpretation of the muslim X would never be (the word of God) but HIS understanding of the word of God) which can be verified and questioned......

while the interpretation of the writer of the gospel is claimed to be the inspired word of God and above criticism........

clear?

 

[Hugo]

Thanx for giving the christian endorsement on my previous point; none of the gospel writer(s) ever witnessed ,at least,the resurrection....they wrote ,according to you,what they heard ,not what they've seen.... and that is what we need to agree on,at least,in that moment....

The trouble is that when like you all the research (if you can call it that) is done by recycling what is found in websites its obvious you are just cherry picking the bits you want and never actually go to a source. For example, in post 138 you used 12 different websites and you must know how unreliable web sites as no checks are made on what people say there. Let us now look through the resurrection witnesses and I only do it now because you clearly have not read even one of the Gospels accounts all the way through for your self. I will use the accounts to summarise:

1. There is no doubt that Jesus died on the cross and was buried in a tomb. If one reads Matthew chapter 27 we have the details including that a guard was placed there so no one could move the body.

2. In Matthew chapter 28 we have the two Mary's finding the empty tome, the guards gone and meeting the risen Jesus.

3. In John chapter 20 we have the famous story about Thomas; who when the other disciples told him they had seen the risen Jesus flatly refused to believe it. A week later when they were all indoors, including Thomas Jesus appeared to them.

4. In Luke chapter 24 we have another famous story of Jesus meeting two men on the road to Emmaus.

5. Peter in Acts chapter 2 said "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact".

6. Paul lists several witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Among Jesus' disciples, there were 500 other witnesses and one might note the Jewish Law of Moses required at least two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6).

So how credible were all the "witnesses" claiming to have actually seen the resurrected Son of God? Their accounts have withstood the test of time (over 2000 years). Many of them were put to death since they could not renounce their testimonies of His resurrection. If you wish to dismiss these accounts then that is a matter between you and God and no amount of scholarly quotes would prove otherwise.

but to shift from the literal meaning ,there must be strong reasons to do so....
the problem with the writer of Matthew (also Mark,luke,joh,Paul,peter) is that they neither follow the literal nor the metaphorical..... they have passed all the limits of interpretation ,proving themselves unworthy of trust.......

Nothing can be simply read as literal there must always be interpretation and in fact this principles was annunciated by one of Islam's most famous scholars - Ibn Rushd and it agrees with how both Jews and Christians see the Bible and what you simply cannot accept is that the gospel writers were just reporting what they saw and heard either directly or from other witnesess.

Whether something is inspired or not is a matter of faith not a matter of a few rules that you invent so making you own tiny mind the measure of all things and setting limits on what God might do or how he works. We see this in what you say about Islam, Islamic writers are inspired and Biblical ones are not. You draw a line around your early scholars and impute or more precisely decide that they have immutability without a thought and certainly not a shred of evidence - does it not even occur to you how biased your whole outlook is?

 

[Al-manar]

you must know how unreliable web sites as no checks are made on what people say there.

My knowledge is both through books in my library , books on Pc ,sites , whenever I quote a book I make the reference.. ,such books I doubt you ever read or will ever read one day....

Let us now look through the resurrection witnesses .

No my dear, let's now look through the resurrection itself(at least for the moment)...

There is no doubt that Jesus died on the cross and was buried in a tomb..

If I ask how you know such statement be true, you would say because it is in the Bible. instead of asking yourself is the Bible true?
have you ever heard of the saying: Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid, truthful and reliable. ?

In Matthew chapter 28 we have the two Mary's finding the empty tome, the guards gone and meeting the risen Jesus.

yes, and In Matthew 28 we have Mary Magdalena been informed by an angel that Jesus had risen besides she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb ....
if that is true , why the other inspired writer of John (20:1)made her telling Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?
your witnesses now in trouble , would you help them gaining some credibility, answering that question?

waiting for your answer(supported by the bible).................

 

[Hugo]

My knowledge is both through books in my library , books on Pc ,sites , whenever I quote a book I make the reference.. ,such books I doubt you ever read or will ever read one day....

It might be but every single post of yours I have checked shows that almost exclusively you quote from websites - I can give you full listings if you wish and will do so from now on so there is no misunderstanding.

No my dear, let's now look through the resurrection itself(at least for the moment)... as we agreed before NONE ever supposed to be witnessed a so called resurrection wrote ONE word about it.... you know better than me that ,the ears are “more mistrustful” than the eyes....

No one agreed, that was just your faulty reading of what was written and in my post I gave you Biblical reports of eye witness accounts to the resurrection - for example Peter was a witness and in Acts he says so. You can decide they are not reliable, you can put your own interpretation on what is there but you cannot deny what is actually written in the NT unless you wander off into corruption then we have nothing in common and you have no basis of knowing anything much about Jesus

If I ask how you know such statement be true, you would say because it is in the Bible. Instead of asking yourself is the Bible true? have you ever heard of the saying: Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid, truthful and reliable?

No Christians don't do that, they believe these accounts are true because the accounts have all the hallmarks of truthful eyewitnesses but no one can prove it one way or the other and now it's a matter of faith. What you are suggesting about books and proof is a paradox, a circular argument and it is therefore valueless. This form of fallacious argument is ancient and well known and was first debunked by Socrates who said "Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy".

In the case of the Bible we have to read it and consider what it says as well as test the message to see if its consistent through all 66 books and of course see how its message plays out in the lives of those who believe. But even to begin that process one has to believe in God and so we are back to faith as there is no possible way to prove that God exists. Similarly, there is no way to prove the Qu'ran is from God and its just fallacious to invent supposed tests such as saying its grammatically perfect therefore must be from God.

yes, and In Matthew 28 we have Mary Magdalena been informed by an angel that Jesus had risen besides she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb .... if that is true , why the other inspired writer of John (20:1)made her telling Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen? your witnesses now in trouble , would you help them gaining some credibility, answering that question?

In Matthew 28 we first read that an Angel told her Jesus had risen from the dead and later we read she came face to face with Jesus so I see nothing problematic there. In John 20 we have the same story of Mary finding the empty tomb and then telling Peter now I cannot see how that precludes Mary later coming face to face with Jesus - it is not necessary that all these events happened within seconds of each other is it? One might ask why John did not report the meeting between Mary and Jesus or why Matthew did not tell us about Peter but those would be conjectures and are unanswerable - but they are very convincing proof that these are genuine accounts and that no one has fiddled with the records to make them agree.

The trouble with the way you look at all this is that if indeed they did agree word for word letter for letter you would conclude it was a conspiracy because you have decided what you want to believe before you have examined the evidence. Of course the same thing can afflict us all unless we think it all through with care and honesty. In any discussion one brings assumption and presuppositions and the only guard against this is to try as hard as one can to be aware of them otherwise you end up in effect lying to yourself.

I guess you bring to this discussion an unshakable trust in the Qu'ran and that colours everything you say and that is problematic and it may help you (and me) if you keep these two aphorisms in mind because they both point to the very worst in research:

If facts do not conform to theory, they must be disposed of.
Researchers should always state the opinion on which their facts are based​

.

 

[جوري]

It might be but every single post of yours I have checked shows that almost exclusively you quote from websites - I can give you full listings if you wish and will do so from now on so there is no misunderstanding.

Quoting from articles or websites doesn't make him incorrect in fact that is how one loans their opinion some factual credence.. instead of leveling the charges against your book, you'd derail another thread into this endless meaningless drivel?.. no one is interested in your personal opinion.. people are only interested in the facts.. if you have opposing tales in your book you hold as 'inspired by God' and your entire faith rests on shaky arguments uncorroborated in more than one text, and with nameless authors, as well in defiance of all possible logic that the mind can conceive then by God you are in alot of trouble!
deflecting away doesn't answer the pertinent questions Hugo!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Quoting from articles or websites doesn't make him incorrect in fact that is how one loans their opinion some factual credence.. instead of leveling the charges against your book, you'd derail another thread into this endless meaningless drivel?.. no one is interested in your personal opinion.. people are only interested in the facts.. if you have opposing tales in your book you hold as 'inspired by God' and your entire faith rests on shaky arguments uncorroborated in more than one text, and with nameless authors, as well in defiance of all possible logic that the mind can conceive then by God you are in alot of trouble! deflecting away doesn't answer the pertinent questions Hugo!

Oner can of course debate this but I don't know any any University or Journal that would allow free quoting from any website. If they allow it at all it is always based on them being for example online Journals, Government papers or academic bodies but certainly not the kind of recycled drivel that often flows endlessly through web sites of the kind we see here. How can you even suggest that it is acceptable as there is no possible way to know if its reliable or not. People say they are quoting from a book but does it not is strike you as odd that invariably that exact same quote is found on several Muslim apologetic sites. I can and do check postings and in general I know where most of the quotes comes from and I cannot recall a single case where the site would be regarded as reliable in ANY scholarly sense. One does not of course expect high scholarly standards on a discussion boards as it would be virtually impossible to police but we can expect simple honesty and readers need to understand that if they want to shall I say become expert in some topic then they cannot do it here and must research it through well respected sources.

All faith is in some way shaky because they can never have what might be called material evidence to support them and Islam is no different and never can be. Let's face it who would believe that God sent an angel to a man in a cave who remembered what the angel said and later got people to write it all down only to find that all the stories were just copies of things found elsewhere - do you see the point, do you see its impossible to verify - you see it as fact I see it as fable.

 

[جوري]

All faith is in some way shaky because they can never have what might be called material evidence to support them and Islam is no different and never can be. Let's face it who would believe that God sent an angel to a man in a cave who remembered what the angel said and later got people to write it all down only to find that all the stories were just copies of things found elsewhere - do you see the point, do you see its impossible to verify - you see it as fact I see it as fable.

I know you want Islam to be 'no different' but that isn't the case, and your refusal to accept that is more to do with your own personal agenda and dilemma than the fact of the matter.. We can always put God's word to the test and see the Quran as the inimitable unadulterated word of God, but such isn't the case with the bibles.. and I know you have attempted to discredit the Quran before in several threads but failed to do so.. should leave you with two conclusions either accept the obvious or find a shallow hole for one in which to hide your head..

all the best

 

[Hugo]

I know you want Islam to be 'no different' but that isn't the case, and your refusal to accept that is more to do with your own personal agenda and dilemma than the fact of the matter.. We can always put God's word to the test and see the Quran as the inimitable unadulterated word of God, but such isn't the case with the bibles.. and I know you have attempted to discredit the Quran before in several threads but failed to do so.. should leave you with two conclusions either accept the obvious or find a shallow hole for one in which to hide your head..

It is not a question of wanting anything but from a proof positive point of view it is no different from any other faith and in my view much weaker and holds on to its followers more through fear of the hereafter that faith in a living God. It is simply disingenuous to talk about putting Gods word to the test as if there is some way to prove unquestionably his existence so if we cannot get past that obstacle its pointless drivel to try to show that something is the "inimitable unadulterated word of God" by inventing tests and then demanding they can ONLY be used in the Qui'ran and never based on falsification as would be proper scientific practice, you simply assume it is God's word, think up a test and then rejoice when lo and behold it agrees with you supposition - re-enforces your certainties but can never be allowed to dent them and if it does its the evil West or that person is not a scholar or he has blue eyes or anything but face up to the truth.

 

[Al-manar]

Peter was a witness and in Acts he says so.

Peter(if we assume him as a disciple) is not the writer of Acts,have you any doubt about that?

You can decide they are not reliable,.

the matter of reliability is in your hand now,just clear up the obvious contradiction,between the so called witnesses, I shew.

In Matthew 28 we first read that an Angel told her Jesus had risen from the dead and later we read she came face to face with Jesus so I see nothing problematic there.

yes,in other words let's say Matthew is not VS Matthew in that point....

In John 20 we have the same story of Mary finding the empty tomb and then telling Peter now I cannot see how that precludes Mary later coming face to face with Jesus

I see,you need some help here,as it is obvious you didn't get the nature of the problem yet !

let's quote the text (both Matthew and John):


Matthew 28

1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, 2and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it, 3and his countenance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow, 4and from the fear of him did the keepers shake, and they became as dead men. 5And the messenger answering said to the women, `Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek; 6he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying; 7and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.' 8And having gone forth quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to tell to his disciples; 9and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.



The narrative of Matthew is clear:
Sunday morning Mary Magdalena came to the tomb ,found the tomb empty, was informed that Jesus was risen ,then while going to tell the disciples she met Jesus ,talked to him,touched him .....

Now get a look at the narrative of John that throws the table on Matthew's narrative:


John 20

1And on the first of the sabbaths, Mary the Magdalene doth come early there being yet darkness to the tomb, and she seeth the stone having been taken away out of the tomb, 2she runneth, therefore, and cometh unto Simon Peter, and unto the other disciple whom Jesus was loving, and saith to them, `They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we have not known where they laid him.'


Did you get the problem? I talk about the contradictory and you resort to the complementary!!!!
My English is not that perfect but I think I provided the problem in clear,direct terms....

I didn't say the problem ,is that Matthew says something that John decided to skip (which is another kind of problem) or vice versa.....

plainly put it, why Matthew says Mary was informed that jesus was risen and met him before going to the disciples ,contradicts John saying that she neither been informed nor met jesus before going to the disciples?

solution ??????

 

[جوري]

and in my view .

Like I said no one is interested in your point of view with additives and preservatives.. people are interested in facts!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Peter(if we assume him as a disciple) is not the writer of Acts,have you any doubt about that? the matter of reliability is in your hand now,just clear up the obvious contradiction,between the so called witnesses, I shew.

Can we just pause here - you accuse me of not understanding but I think I see your arguments but before I give a fuller answer may I just recite them and perhaps you will confirm my understanding.

1. Witnesses and writers may not be the same person. If we take a case in point we know that Acts clearly records Peter as an eyewitness but since Peter did not personally write that report it is therefore second or third hand. That is you observation of the facts and one supposes your conclusion is that therefore the report in this case of Peter seeing the risen Jesus is either false or unreliable? One might draw a further conclusion that if the report had been personally written by Peter it must necessarily be true or more generally your argument is that all second hand accounts are false or unreliable and all first hand ones are true and may be trusted?

2. Lack of agreement between resurrection accounts. Your observation is that the resurrection accounts do not match perfectly and a case in point is that of Mary Magdalene as recorded in Matthew and John. From this you conclude that the accounts are fabricated in some way and therefore the Bible cannot be trusted or be God's word. Again generalising your argument it becomes if accounts of some event differ one must at least suspect fabrication and moreover in such a case it can never be possible to take an alternative view.

 

[Al-manar]

Can we just pause here - you accuse me of not understanding but I think I see your arguments but before I give a fuller answer may I just recite them .

waiting for your fuller answer,before giving my fuller comment...

 

[Hugo]

waiting for your fuller answer,before giving my fuller comment...

Let us be clear, I have asked you to confirm that I have understood your argument as you accused me of not being able to follow it, since it would be pointless to supply a fuller answer to your allegations unless we have some common ground - do you agree?

 

[Al-manar]

it would be pointless to supply a fuller answer to your allegations unless we have some common ground - do you agree?

The only common ground ,is when you answer,directly without philosophy my simple question....
why you give me the impression that you Evade answer ?

Do you agree that Matthew 28 and John 20 contradicting each others ,if not what is your textual support?

by the way,any next excuses not to answer would get the readers of the thread to be sure that you try by all means to avoid answering by using such tactic...

 

[Hugo]

The only common ground ,is when you answer,directly without philosophy my simple question....why you give me the impression that you avoid answer like the plague?
Do you agree that Matthew 28 and John 20 contradicting each others ,if not what is your textual support?

It seems you refuse to confirm your argument and I can only wonder why. I will make two posts (so that each is not too long) on on the issues and assume, I can do no other, that my understanding of your argument is correct.

Your Argument 1 - Witnesses and writers may not be the same person so reports are unreliable. If we take a case in point we know that Acts clearly records Peter as an eyewitness but since Peter did not personally write that report it is therefore second or third hand. That is you observation of the facts and one supposes your conclusion is that therefore the report in this case of Peter seeing the risen Jesus is either false or unreliable? One might draw a further conclusion that if the report had been personally written by Peter it must necessarily be true or more generally your argument is that all second hand accounts are false or unreliable and all first hand ones are true and may be trusted?

Assuming you accept the Acts account then there is no disagreement on the facts; Peter's report of seeing the risen Jesus is not first hand, he did not write it.

Firstly, the fact that Peter's experience is recorded as a second hand report does not make it untrue or necessarily unreliable. In a court of law for example, one often hears a witness recounting what someone said so it is not unusual and perfectly acceptable as evidence if it is corroborated.

Secondly, there is no reason why the writer of Acts did not confirm the facts with Peter and others, since there were many witnesses, the resurrection facts. Ipso facto there is no reason to suspect that Peter's experience was a fiction.

If I now turn to the more general point of logic. If you say second hand reports are untrue or unreliable it cannot just apply to the Bible but must be generally true. I would argue that it is perfectly acceptable to doubt a report first or second hand and that is why we always seek corroboration.

It might help you to see this point more clearly if we consider the Qu'ran. Firstly, it is without doubt a second hand report, first from the angel and then from Mohammed. Secondly, there was no corroboration, no one else saw the angels or heard anything - no one checked or could check with the angel or God. Ipso facto it must be regarded as false or unreliable. Indeed one might regard the case for authenticity as worse since the Qu'ran reports the same Biblical stories but the accounts do not agree and since the Biblical ones are much much older much more reliable.