The Injil

[Al-manar]

but its just a narration I read in a book called (The Sahih of Quran stories)

I trust your words sister Danah,indeed what you wrote is written in such work.....

and that narration was for Ibn Kathir May Allah have mercy on his soul that Jesus peace be upon him asked one of his disciple to be at his place.

yes it is ..but more interesting is that you in your post never made a mistake.....

Ibn kathir have the contradictory betrayel narration as well


قال ابن جرير: وقد روي عن وهب نحو هذا القول، وهو ما حدثني المثنى، حدثنا إسحاق، حدثنا إسماعيل بن عبد الكريم، حدثني عبد الصمد بن معقل أنه سمع وهباً يقول: إن عيسى بن مريم لما أعلمه الله أنه خارج من الدنيا، جزع من الموت، وشق عليه، فدعا الحواريين، وصنع لهم طعاماً، فقال: احضروني الليلة، فإن لي إليكم حاجة، فلما اجتمعوا إليه من الليل، عشاهم، وقام يخدمهم، فلما فرغوا من الطعام، أخذ يغسل أيديهم، ويوضئهم بيده، ويمسح أيديهم بثيابه، فتعاظموا ذلك، وتكارهوه، فقال: ألا من رد عليّ الليلة شيئاً مما أصنع، فليس مني، ولا أنا منه، فأقروه، حتى إذا فرغ من ذلك، قال: أما ما صنعت بكم الليلة؛ مما خدمتكم على الطعام، وغسلت أيديكم بيدي، فليكن لكم بي أسوة، فإنكم ترون أني خيركم، فلا يتعاظم بعضكم على بعض، وليبذل بعضكم نفسه لبعض كما بذلت نفسي لكم، وأما حاجتي الليلة التي أستعينكم عليها، فتدعون الله لي، وتجتهدون في الدعاء أن يؤخر أجلي، فلما نصبوا أنفسهم للدعاء، وأرادوا أن يجتهدوا، أخذهم النوم حتى لم يستطيعوا دعاء، فجعل يوقظهم ويقول: سبحان الله، أما تصبرون لي ليلة واحدة، تعينوني فيها؟ فقالوا: والله ما ندري مالنا، لقد كنا نسمر فنكثر السمر، وما نطيق الليلة سمراً، وما نريد دعاء إلا حيل بيننا وبينه، فقال: يذهب الراعي وتفرق الغنم، وجعل يأتي بكلام نحو هذا ينعي به نفسه.
ثم قال: الحق ليكفرن بي أحدكم قبل أن يصيح الديك ثلاث مرات، وليبيعني أحدكم بدراهم يسيرة، وليأكلن ثمني. فخرجوا وتفرقوا، وكانت اليهود تطلبه، وأخذوا شمعون أحد الحواريين، وقالوا: هذا من أصحابه، فجحد وقال: ما أنا بصاحبه، فتركوه، ثم أخذه آخرون، فجحد كذلك، ثم سمع صوت ديك فبكى وأحزنه، فلما أصبح أتى أحد الحواريين إلى اليهود فقال: ما تجدون لي إن دللتكم على المسيح؟ فجعلوا له ثلاثين درهماً، فأخذها ودلهم عليه، وكان شبه عليهم قبل ذلك، فأخذوه فاستوثقوا منه وربطوه بالحبل، وجعلوا يقودونه ويقولون له: أنت كنت تحيي الموتى، وتنهر الشيطان، وتبرىء المجنون، أفلا تنجي نفسك من هذا الحبل؟ ويبصقون عليه، ويلقون عليه الشوك، حتى أتوا به الخشبة التي أرادوا أن يصلبوه عليها، فرفعه الله إليه، وصلبوا ما شبه لهم



That is why I said it is a problem included with the other problems of such concept...

I wonder if you can read Arabic

I stated that I read Tafsir Alkashaf (which available only in Arabic).

I just wanted to know how far the two sources agreed upon that matter "IF" there is any similarity.

The simliarity between them is that they both a conjecture...

I just wanted to know more about that matter

I have more details regarding such matter and other similar (walls) ,just I'm afraid the discussion may go further and further offtopic....
I can PM you with more on the topic if you would like,just let me know.....

And I'm pleased to share my thoughts with such knowledge seekers as you......


May Allah bless you


:wa:

 

[Al-manar]

Greetings,

Now I'm happy that the discussion is going to the right direction (the text itself)

Why should we disbelieve what the gospels say? Why do you think they are unreliable?

And

Whoever wrote the New Testament is a moot point,

Indeed, Whoever wrote the New Testament is a moot point,and that is what i was waiting you to get into.....

It is not who wrote the text ,but what the text itself claims...

the NT is the only (possibly) reliable evidence we have about the disciples

And I would say the NT is not such reliable evidence ...... It has enough problems to reject the notion that it is from cover to cover reflects a divine message or even events to be taken with certainity...


Is it reliable to make one believe in a crucifiction resurrection?
Not till you clear up the contradictions therin...


Is it reliable if it claims The second coming of Jesus would be in the first century?

Is it reliable when its writers claim Jesus as the messiah king,and never show us a reliable proof for that?

why(Allah) reveal His Word to people who can't be trusted to preserve it ?

Why would Allah allow evil?

plz, let's discuss predestination and free will ,in another occasion...

but let's agree at the moment on:

Does Allah make mistakes? No ,people do.

Does Allah corrupt his own word? No ,some people did.

Regards

 

[Al-manar]

peace Euthyphro


It came to my mind idea to make my criticism more specific:


A claim

the NT writers are reliable and trustwothy in every word they wrote

Objection:

the NT writers are not reliable and trustwothy in every word they wrote

clues?

Just some :

The writer(s) of the gospel of Matthew:


1- Put on the mouth of Jesus a false prophecy

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."(matthew/16-28)


2- Misquoted the Old Testament several times.... eg,Isaiah 7:14.


3- contradicts the writer of the gospel of John in the resurrection narratives.

compare


Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5 But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

With

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"



I think those three problems is a good way to begin textual verification to the reliability of the accounts of the NT books...


Regards

 

[Danah]

I trust your words sister Danah,indeed what you wrote is written in such work.....



yes it is ..but more interesting is that you in your post never made a mistake.....

Ibn kathir have the contradictory betrayel narration as well


قال ابن جرير: وقد روي عن وهب نحو هذا القول، وهو ما حدثني المثنى، حدثنا إسحاق، حدثنا إسماعيل بن عبد الكريم، حدثني عبد الصمد بن معقل أنه سمع وهباً يقول: إن عيسى بن مريم لما أعلمه الله أنه خارج من الدنيا، جزع من الموت، وشق عليه، فدعا الحواريين، وصنع لهم طعاماً، فقال: احضروني الليلة، فإن لي إليكم حاجة، فلما اجتمعوا إليه من الليل، عشاهم، وقام يخدمهم، فلما فرغوا من الطعام، أخذ يغسل أيديهم، ويوضئهم بيده، ويمسح أيديهم بثيابه، فتعاظموا ذلك، وتكارهوه، فقال: ألا من رد عليّ الليلة شيئاً مما أصنع، فليس مني، ولا أنا منه، فأقروه، حتى إذا فرغ من ذلك، قال: أما ما صنعت بكم الليلة؛ مما خدمتكم على الطعام، وغسلت أيديكم بيدي، فليكن لكم بي أسوة، فإنكم ترون أني خيركم، فلا يتعاظم بعضكم على بعض، وليبذل بعضكم نفسه لبعض كما بذلت نفسي لكم، وأما حاجتي الليلة التي أستعينكم عليها، فتدعون الله لي، وتجتهدون في الدعاء أن يؤخر أجلي، فلما نصبوا أنفسهم للدعاء، وأرادوا أن يجتهدوا، أخذهم النوم حتى لم يستطيعوا دعاء، فجعل يوقظهم ويقول: سبحان الله، أما تصبرون لي ليلة واحدة، تعينوني فيها؟ فقالوا: والله ما ندري مالنا، لقد كنا نسمر فنكثر السمر، وما نطيق الليلة سمراً، وما نريد دعاء إلا حيل بيننا وبينه، فقال: يذهب الراعي وتفرق الغنم، وجعل يأتي بكلام نحو هذا ينعي به نفسه.
ثم قال: الحق ليكفرن بي أحدكم قبل أن يصيح الديك ثلاث مرات، وليبيعني أحدكم بدراهم يسيرة، وليأكلن ثمني. فخرجوا وتفرقوا، وكانت اليهود تطلبه، وأخذوا شمعون أحد الحواريين، وقالوا: هذا من أصحابه، فجحد وقال: ما أنا بصاحبه، فتركوه، ثم أخذه آخرون، فجحد كذلك، ثم سمع صوت ديك فبكى وأحزنه، فلما أصبح أتى أحد الحواريين إلى اليهود فقال: ما تجدون لي إن دللتكم على المسيح؟ فجعلوا له ثلاثين درهماً، فأخذها ودلهم عليه، وكان شبه عليهم قبل ذلك، فأخذوه فاستوثقوا منه وربطوه بالحبل، وجعلوا يقودونه ويقولون له: أنت كنت تحيي الموتى، وتنهر الشيطان، وتبرىء المجنون، أفلا تنجي نفسك من هذا الحبل؟ ويبصقون عليه، ويلقون عليه الشوك، حتى أتوا به الخشبة التي أرادوا أن يصلبوه عليها، فرفعه الله إليه، وصلبوا ما شبه لهم

I didn't know that there is a narration for Ibn Kathir about that!! Is there anywhere else we can find that narration?

I remembered reading about the sleeping of disciples at that night and the betrayer which was mentioned in the narration of Ibn Kathir was also mentioned in the quotes quoted from the bible in the book of Ahmed Deedat "Crucifixion Or Crucifiction" if you heard about that book.

I have more details regarding such matter and other similar (walls) ,just I'm afraid the discussion may go further and further offtopic....
I can PM you with more on the topic if you would like,just let me know.....

Yes please, jazakAllah khair I am interested in that topic as well

 

[Euthyphro]

Salaam Al-manar,

In response to your three points:

1) This is certainly the most difficult issue about the gospels: "eschatology". The difficulty is the interpretation of such passages, written in highly apocalyptic language, and based on equally apocalyptic literature like the book of Daniel. I hold the orthodox preterist view, that the "Son of Man coming in his kingdom" is a prediction of judgement on Israel (specifically Jerusalem and the Temple) in AD 70. I recommend Andrew Perriman's book "The Coming of the Son of Man" for a good argument for this based on interpretation of the various "eschatological" passages (such as Mark 13, Matt 24).

2) How does this relate to historical reliability?
Anyway, with Isaiah 7:14 the writer simply quotes the variant known to him (and I think it's actually the oldest variant...but don't quote me on that).

3) I see no problems with the resurrection narratives - especially if they are from different eyewitnesses (as I would be happy to argue) who have different perspectives on the events. Historical reconstruction is always about putting the pieces together between different witnesses with different perspectives - just as happens in Law with numerous witnesses (often apparently conflicting). In fact, these surface "problems" are great evidence that the writers of the gospels weren't simply involved in a great conspiracy, making up the resurrection story!

Here is a highly plausible chain of events which makes sense of the different resurrection narratives and the actions of the various participants:

"Very early a group of women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, and Joanna set out for the tomb. Meanwhile two angels are sent; there is an earthquake and one angel rolls back the stone and sits upon it. The soldiers faint and then revive and flee into the city. The women arrive and find the tomb opened; without waiting, Mary Magdalene, assuming someone has taken the Lord's body, runs back to the city to tell Peter and John. The other women enter the tomb and see the body is gone. The two angels appear to them and tell them of the resurrection. The women then leave to take the news to the disciples. Peter and John run to the tomb with Mary Magdalene following. Peter and John enter the tomb, see the grave clothes, and then return to the city, but Mary Magdalene remains at the tomb weeping, and Jesus makes His first appearance to her. Jesus next appears to the other women who are on their way to find the disciples. Jesus appears to Peter; He appears to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; and then appears to a group of disciples including all of the Eleven except Thomas." (Quoted from Casteel, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.)

 

[Al-manar]

Peace Euthyphro

1) This is certainly the most difficult issue about the gospels: "eschatology". The difficulty is the interpretation of such passages, written in highly apocalyptic language, and based on equally apocalyptic literature like the book of Daniel. I hold the orthodox preterist view, that the "Son of Man coming in his kingdom" is a prediction of judgement on Israel (specifically Jerusalem and the Temple) in AD 70.

Matthew 24:29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory,And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


Revelation 1:7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him.

2 Peter 3:1-12 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder, that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

what happened,exactly, in AD 70 that fulfilled these prophecies?

If Jesus did not mean that the heavenly signs in his prophecy would literally happen, what did he mean?

2) How does this relate to historical reliability?
Anyway, with Isaiah 7:14 the writer simply quotes the variant known to him (and I think it's actually the oldest variant...but don't quote me on that).

Not historical reliability ,it is a writer(Mathew) reliability...

The man made a claim in the very beginning of his gospel ,and we think that he exposed his true face very early before he goes on in his gospel....
before going into details ,would you ,plz answer that quesion:


Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

may be getting the whole context would help better...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+7&version=NIV.


The Question: who is the word in bold (the boy)according to the context of Isaiah refers to?

I know the answer for sure,just would like to get yours....

3) In fact, these surface "problems" are great evidence that the writers of the gospels weren't simply involved in a great conspiracy, making up the resurrection story!

the resurrection story has surface problems eg,(how many angels talked to the women),which i would skip,and has core problems

which i would show soon, just I need an answer to another question:



Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5 But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."


What does the word in bold (the women) refers to according to the context ?



Regards

 

[Euthyphro]

Salaam, Al-Manar, and apologies for the long time between posts. As much as I love discussing the gospels, this had to take a back seat for awhile so I could catch up on things I had to do in the "real world"! You raise some good points; my answers here will be very brief, so do ask me about the details if you're interested.

Firstly, the prophetic passages. I will ignore Revelation and 2 Peter for the time being (since we are talking about the reliability of the gospels), and focus on Matt 24:29-31.

I strongly recommend the exegesis of R.T. France for this passage (and indeed Matthew as a whole) in his commentary "The Gospel of Matthew" (New International Commentary on the New Testament). France interprets the apocalyptic imagery (note that this is clearly symbolic language) in v. 29-31 on the basis of its allusions with Old Testament passages in Isaiah and Daniel (each passage being related to God's earlier judgement on pagan cities and nations).

Secondly, Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14. Of course, this passage originally referred to Ahaz's son - but like with many of the passages Matthew quotes, he is using the typology of a previous prophecy and applying it to the present. This was (and is) a common way to use prophetic passages in Scripture.

Finally, the resurrection passage. I agree, a plain reading of the passage gives the impression that "the women" refers to the two Marys. However, I find John Wenham's comments on the matter helpful:

"Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary at the burial and as setting out for the tomb. The angel speaks to "the women," who "ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them."(27:55f.,61;28:1,5,8f.) If we had only Matthew we should take "the women" and "them" to be the Marys. But complicated movements of five women were apparently involved--Mary Magdalene left before the women entered the tomb, and the notifying of disciples required visits both to John's house and to Bethany. Probably only "the other Mary" was present at every point in the story and "the women" and "them" do not refer precisely to the two mentioned by name. Matthew is giving the detail necessary to convey his message, further elaboration would have been pointless distraction. He could of course have avoided any question by saying at verse 1 'certain women', but this would have been unnecessarily vague. His mention of Mary Magdalene and Mary of Clopas would have been suitable for three reasons: 1. It was they who set out together from Bethany as described at the beginning of his account. 2. Mary Magdalene was of special importance since she was the first person to see Jesus. 3. Mary of Clopas, however, was the one who was present throughout his whole narrative. Although he leaves out many details his is a judicious and accurate statement of what happened." (Wenham, "Easter Enigma")

I find this approach to be the most honest historically and exegetically. We have to take into account the historical details Matthew wants to convey to his particular audience.

Yours,
Euthyphro

 

[Al-manar]

Peace ,Euthyphro

Salaam, Al-Manar, and apologies for the long time between posts. As much as I love discussing the gospels, this had to take a back seat for awhile so I could catch up on things I had to do in the "real world"!

That is a wise thing.....

Ignoring the real world and addiction to books, reading etc... Could be a damage to one's life....

Real life should have the priority always.. I'm afraid my addiction to
Reading and writing will affect me once I will have a stable family life....
I hope to deal with this matter with wisdom inshaAllah....

I strongly recommend the exegesis of R.T. France for this passage (and indeed Matthew as a whole) in his commentary "The Gospel of Matthew" (New International Commentary on the New Testament). France interprets the apocalyptic imagery (note that this is clearly symbolic language) in v. 29-31 on the basis of its allusions with Old Testament passages in Isaiah and Daniel (each passage being related to God's earlier judgment on pagan cities and nations).

I think some direct quotations from the exegesis of R.T. France ,would help the readers of the post to get the full image?...

I find John Wenham's comments on the matter helpful

And I found no commentary,theory that solved such serious problem ....
John Wenham use the multiple visits theory ,but the fact such theory been refuted totally :

This early-departure quibble is nothing but another straw that inerrantists have grabbed to try to find consistency in the maze of inconsistencies that run throughout the resurrection narratives.

they try hopelessly to make John's Mary Magdalena consistent with the Mary Magdalena in Matthew's account

Is it is possible that Mary M left the tomb before she heard the angel's message?

The grammatical structure of Matthew's narrative requires readers to understand that Mary Magdalene was present from 28:1 through 28:10, and so she had to have both heard the angel announce the resurrection and experienced the personal encounter with Jesus after the women had run from the tomb. "Matthew" named only Mary Magdalene and the other Mary in his narrative; therefore, the reference to "the women" whom the angel spoke to in verse 5 by necessity had to include Mary Magdalene, and the plural pronouns they and them thereafter, which referred back to "the women," also, by grammatical necessity, had to include Mary Magdalene. No other conclusion can be obtained from the grammatical structure of this passage.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5 But the angel answered and said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, saying, "Rejoice!" So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came and held Him by the feet . 10 Then Jesus said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

he grammatical structure of Matthew's text will not allow this early departure of Mary Magdalene or the other Mary. If she departed before "the angels popped in," then just who the hell were the women whom the angel spoke to in Matthew 28:5? The two Marys were the only women that Matthew mentioned in his narrative.


The grammatical structure makes it so that it's impossible to divorce Mary Magdalene from not only having been there the whole time but also, necessarily makes her one of the women who saw a vision of angels who said that Jesus was alive!


Aside from this, there is a fact that I have already established: if the gospel writers were indeed "inspired" by the omniscient, omnipotent "Holy Spirit," then they were not the ones deciding what to include and what to exclude. That decision was being made for them; otherwise, there would have been no logical purpose at all for the "Holy Spirit" to have "inspired" them.

what sense is the Bible the "word of God." If, for example, Mark wrote what Mark chose to select, then the gospel of Mark would not be "the word of God" but the word of Mark. If not, why not?
If the "inspiration" of the omniscient, omnipotent "Holy Spirit" did not so guide and direct the writers that what they wrote was truth, then what was the purpose of inspiration? Was the "Holy Spirit" just wasting his time exercising an influence called "inspiration" that accomplished nothing more than what they writers could have accomplished on their own through reliance on oral traditions and their own personal experiences and choices?
If the Bible is indeed "the word of God," as biblical inerrantists claim, then it can be the word of God only if it is the word of God and not the word of Isaiah or Jeremiah or John or Mark or the apostle Paul . If the gospel of Mark contains only what Mark knew from his own personal experiences or familiarity with "oral traditions" and included by choices that he himself made, then what was the purpose of divine "inspiration"?

If the gospel writers were indeed "inspired" by the omniscient, omnipotent "Holy Spirit," then they were not writing what they chose to write or what they knew from "oral traditions" or their own personal experiences but were writing what they were directed by the omni-one to write. If the apostles, when they were brought before kings, did not speak their own words but what the "spirit of the Father" spoke through them, then why, when they were writing the New Testament, did they not write what the Holy Spirit was writing through them? Unless this was the case, then the gospel of Mark was not "the word of God" but the word of Mark, and the gospel of Matthew was not "the word of God" but the word of Matthew. If not, why not?


1. By names, who were “the women” who went to the tomb in Matthew’s narrative?

2. What is your textual basis for this answer?

3. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 1, what was your textual basis for this exclusion.

4. By names, who were “the women” whom the angel told that Jesus had risen (v:5)?

5. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 4, what was your textual basis for this exclusion?

6. By names, who were “the women” who ran from the tomb and encountered the resurrected Jesus (vs:8-10).

7. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 6. what was your textual basis for this exclusion?

8. If you included Mary Magdalene in your answers, how do you explain Mary Magdalene’s telling Peter and John that the body of Jesus had been stolen if she had by this time encountered both the angel and the risen Jesus?

Secondly, Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14. Of course, this passage originally referred to Ahaz's son but like with many of the passages Matthew quotes, he is using the typology of a previous prophecy and applying it to the present. This was (and is) a common way to use prophetic passages in Scripture.

There is something positive and another negative from your part

The positive thing is that you (as few Christians) respected the context and wasn't seduced by the common way bible apologetics try to defend the passage and insisting on the claim that it simply refers to future fulfillment.....


The negative thing is that you resort to a new apologetic dodge to risk the gospel writers...

Their argument is that: if A deceptive dishonest interpretation been used by some Jews in the past and been accepted then, we as modern readers should accept it as well….

In other words they try to prove biblical inerrancy by assuming inerrancy


Let me elaborate more for the readers

And let me also introduce some Quranic material which is closely related to the serious critical point we are discussing now:

The Holy Quran affirms the human tampering with the bible ,It condemns those who write from their own mind a material claiming it to be inspired from God

Holy Quran 6:93 Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none.

Holy Quran Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price! - Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.


Though the previous verses condemn the general act of fabrication to the word of God…
The following verses highlight a special kind of tampering, it is a device been used basically by the Jews:


Holy Quran 5:41 O Messenger. let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places


The accusation is clear; it is the game of playing with words applying them to the wrong time and place ….

Such technique is called Pesher:

Pesher Hebrew for ‘commentary’ and particularly used for commentaries on the OT in the Dead Sea scrolls, which looked for hidden meanings in the text which were seen to apply to and to justify the community's way of life. The NT use of OT texts has some similarity with this method: over and above the original sense, a passage is said to have a special meaning for the present time (e.g. 1 Cor. 10: 11). Another, similar, method of interpretation was midrash (‘study’), which was essentially oral exposition in the synagogue to elucidate difficulties.

A Pesher is a kind of commentary on the Bible that was common in the community that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. This kind of commentary is not an attempt to explain what the Bible meant when it was originally written, but rather what it means in the day and age of the commentator, particularly for his own community. In the Isaiah Pesher, or commentary on the book of Isaiah, a verse or verses from Isaiah are quoted. Then the commentary begins, often introduced by the word "pesher," or "the interpretation of the word..." If we were to write a commentary in this way today we might quote a bible verse and then say, "and the meaning of the verse is..." and go on to show the significance of the verse for our own church, synagogue, or society.
We know from other scrolls at Qumran that the people who wrote many of the scrolls had serious conflicts and disagreements with the religious leaders in Jerusalem over the proper way to conduct worship in the Temple. Most scholars think that the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls was led by a group of priests who thought that the Jerusalem priests were corrupt. The group at Qumran therefore started their own community in which they tried to live pure and righteous lives, away from the corrupting influence of Jerusalem.

The Jewish Christians of Matthew's community believed that in
following the teaching of Jesus the messiah they were the authentic Jews
and the “true 1srael.”" Yet Matthew and his community also seem to
realize that their viewpoint is not the dominant one and that the Pharisaic
perspective was beginning to hold sway in “formative Judaism"-thus
the hostility and urgency of the gospel in attacking the Jewish leaders and
Claiming righteousness for those who would follow Jesus. The intention of Matthew page,23 By David E. Garland


-The eleven Matthian editorial quotations of the Old Testament, should be understood as pesher treatments of the Old Testament, And in dealing with them, the following factors should be constantly kept in mind (1) the Jewish concepts of corporate solidarity and typological correspondences in history (2) the Christian convictions of eschatological fulfillment and messianic presence (3) the treatment of certain prophecies and biblical events in the analogous eschatological and charismatic community at Qumran :and (4) the realization that prior to the standardization of the consonantal text at jamina there probably exited more versions and recessions of the old testament than are now extant ,as the discoveries at Qumran seem to indicate …..
Biblical exegesis in the apostolic period, page,127 By Richard N. Longenecker





- The community which the gospel writers belong to, though being a Jewish group but just as the Qumran group applied quotations from the book of Habakkuk to their founder (the teacher of righteousness) they were convinced that these prophecies found their fulfillments and their ultimate meaning in this person and the community he founded. The quotations they used in the book of Habakkuk indicate that the Qumran group felt free to adapt and shape the text in the light of their convictions about its fulfillment .this type of pesher method is what Matthew and his school exercised with the formula quotations. Matthew’s school shaped and rendered these key quotations to fit the contours of their traditions (a mixture of true and false hearsay accounts) about Jesus and his teachings.
What are they saying about Matthew?p,230 By Donald Senior


- The pesher like methods (which is condemned clearly in the Quran) is found wherever you find human desires and a purpose of indoctrination…..once you find a quest for religious legitimacy and status, once you find either modifying the text, and if not possible then to twist, distort, pervert, and concoct its verses as expediency dictated…. Such crime of deception in the name of religion have been practiced by the Jews, Christians and even in the Sufi sect who make The division of textual knowledge into exoteric, or manifest, esoteric, or hidden …. Thuse their priests interpret the Qur'anic verses in ways not only different from the apparent meanings, but contradict them.



- There are only two options to Christians:
Literal or nonliteral interpretation .If the literal method is accepted, one thereby falsifies the New Testament use of the Old Testament .If one accepts a nonliteral approach, then any interpretation is possible, and the whole operation becomes meaningless. Anthony Collins


-The true colors of the creators of Christianity come through in their entire radiant splendor. Examples of their perfidious display of propagandistic propensities are abundantly evident to anyone with a reasonably critical eye....
we have provided more than enough evidence to prove that NT writers have misquoted, misinterpreted, twisted, distorted, perverted, misapplied and misunderstood a sizable number of OT verses. They have even gone so far as to manufacture OT verses that don't even exist. Anyone who looks for objective scholarship in the field of biblical apologetics has embarked upon a journey into the realm of myth and fantasy in which people search for the nonexistent. Nothing is so biased as someone whose heart precedes his head, whose desire precedes his discretion, whose wish precedes his wisdom.. Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy


And finally the Quranic advice :

5:77 Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people (the gospel writers and the desires of their deviant communities)who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.

Peace and guidance

 

[Al-manar]

I've yet to see facts be laid out, Historians currently accept that there was an early gospel coming after Jesus' crucifixion and death called the Q gospel

the theory of Q gospel is a well established one .... and if proven with absolute certainity it (besides the gospel of Thomas)would support the Quranic view of (the saying gospel aka Injil) ...

Parts of the injil (according to the Quran) has to be parts of (Q) and could be parts of the gospel of Thomas as well......

the injil is not a work that been lost completely... we find necessarily part of it in the 4 gospels and any saying gospel,discovered or still to
be discovered.....

what we have now is the true infallible Word of God

my previous posts suggests that what we have now is the false contradictory word of man.

Jesus received 0 words of God

really?!!

He was Immanuel (God With Us).

In light of the pesher game ,the writer of Matthew played with Isaiah 7(as I showed in previous posts) ,sorry to tell you Jesus was not Immanuel.
and I would add he is neither God nor with us.

I also believe that John comes first and all the Gospels were written before 70AD. (Less than 40 years after Christ's death).

When or who wrote it ,it doesn't matter ....

what matters (me at least) what it does say.....

Regards

 

[Al-manar]

Wikipedia:

Good News is the English translation of the Koine Greek ευαγγέλιον (euangelion) (eu "good" + angelion "message").The Greek term was Latinized as evangelium, and translated into Latin as bona annuntiatio. In Old English, it was translated as gōdspel (gōd "good" + spel "news"). The Old English term was retained as gospel in Middle English Bible translations and hence remains in use also in Modern English.