بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
قام احد المنصرين بكتابة رد على رد الدكتور سامي عامري في كتابه هل اقتبس القران من كتب اليهود و النصارى بخصوص شبهة اقتباس القران قصة خلق المسيح عليه الصلاة و السلام من الطين كهيئة الطير من انجيل الطفولة لتوما . و الحقيقة ان رده احتوى على جملة من المغالطات الرهيبة و العبثيات السقيمة ومن ذلك :
اقتطاعه لكلام الدكتور سامي عامري في بعض الاحيان
عدم فهم اصل الاستدلال الذي يحتج به الدكتور في سياق كلامه
الزامه -بمنطقه- الدكتور بضرورة تبني جميع افكار من يقتبس منه !!!
الزام الدكتور سامي عامري بما لم يقله
و سينقسم ردي عليه ان شاء الله في النقاط الاتية :
اولا : بيان حجية الابوكريفا عند الجماعات المسيحية الاولى بل و بعض اباء الكنيسة
ثانيا : الرد على تحدي المنصر و اثبات ان انجيل الطفولة لتوما له تراث شفهي يرجع الى القرن الاول.
ثالثا : استخدام نفس المنطق السقيم للمنصر و بيان اسطورية قصص الطفولة في انجيلي متى و لوقا عند عامة النقاد .
رابعا : الرد على اغاليط اغاليط المنصر في اقتباساته
خامسا : الرد على بعض اغاليط المنصر الاخرى
سادسا : تشابهات المسيحية مع العقائد الوثنية .
نبدا بحول الله وقوته
اولا : بيان حجية الابوكريفا عند الجماعات المسيحية الاولى بل و بعض اباء الكنيسة .
اقول: و هذا امر معلوم ذكره النقاد حيث ان الجماعات المسيحية الاولى كانت تعتبر كثيرا من اناجيل الابوكريفا و الاسفار الابوكريفية للعهد الجديد بمثابة اسفار قانونية لا فرق بينها و بين الاناجيل الاربعة حيث كان موضوع القانونية امرا خاضعا للنقاش لفترة طويلة داخل الكنيسة .
نقرا من كتاب بارت ايرمان Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament المقدمة :
((When was this New Testament finally collected and authorized? The first instance we have of any Christian author urging that our current twenty- seven books, and only these twenty-seven, should be accepted as Scripture occurred in the year 367 ce, in a letter written by the powerful bishop of Alexandria (Egypt), Athanasius. Even then the matter was not finally re* solved, however, as different churches, even within the orthodox form of Christianity, had different ideas—for example, about whether the Apoca* lypse of John could be accepted as Scripture (it finally was, of course), or whether the Apocalypse of Peter should be (it was not); whether the epistle of Hebrews should be included (it was) or the epistle of Barnabas (it was not); and so on. In other words, the debates lasted over three hundred years))
https://scontent.fjed5-1.fna.fbcdn.n...2g&oe=6247FE4D
و نقرا من نفس المصدر السابق ((Scholars have never devised an adequate term for these “Lost Scrip* tures.” Sometimes they are referred to as the Christian “Pseudepigrapha,” based on a Greek term which means “written under a false name.” But some of the books are anonymous rather than pseudonymous. Moreover, in the judgment of most New Testament scholars, even some of the books that were eventually included in the canon (e.g., 2 Peter) are pseudonymous.
And so, more often these texts are referred to as the early Christian “Apocrypha,” another problematic term, in that it technically refers to “hidden books” (the literal meaning of “apocrypha”), hidden either because they contained secret revelations or because they simply were not meant for general consumption. A number of these books, however, do not fit that designation, as they were written for general audiences. Still, so long as everyone agrees that in the present context, the term “early Christian apocrypha” may designate books that were sometimes thought to be scrip*ture but which were nonetheless finally excluded from the canon, then the term can still serve a useful function.....purpose of the present collection is to provide the non-scholar with easy ac* cess to these ancient Christian documents that were sometimes regarded as sacred authorities for Christian faith and practice. I have organized the col* lection in traditional rubrics, based for the most part on the genres that even* tually came to comprise the New Testament: Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses (including in the final two categories related kinds of writings). I have also included several “canonical lists” from the early centuries of Christianity—that is, lists of books that were thought by their authors to be the canon. This final category shows how even within “orthodox” circles there was considerable debate concerning which books to include.))
https://scontent.fjed5-2.fna.fbcdn.n...zw&oe=6249319Chttps://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39....hQ&oe=62480019
و يؤكد الدكتور بارت ايرمان ان انتحال الكاتب اسم توما ككاتب للانجيل ان قصد منه انه توما الاخ التوام للمسيح عليه الصلاة و السلام فهذا يعني ان الكتاب كان في ذلك الوقت له سلطة كبيرة .
نقرا من المصدر السابق الصفحة 57 :
(( Early Christians were naturally curious to learn the details of Jesus’ life. As stories circulated about the inspired teachings and miraculous deeds of Jesus’ public ministry, some Christians began to speculate on what he said and did before it began. Only a couple of incidents involving Jesus prior to his baptism are found in the New Testament Gospels: the narratives of his birth and infancy in Matthew and Luke and the account, unique to Luke, of his pilgrimage to the Jerusalem Temple as a twelve-year old (Luke 2:41– 52). Other stories of Jesus as a youth, however, were soon in circulation. Behind many of these legends lay a fundamental question: if Jesus was a miracle-working Son of God as an adult, what was he like as a child?The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, not to be confused with the Coptic Gospel of Thomas discovered near Nag Hammadi Egypt, is one of the earliest accounts of these legends. The book was allegedly written by “Thomas, the Israelite.” It is not clear whether the author intended his readers to recognize him as Judas Thomas, thought by some early Christians to have been Jesus’ own brother. If he did, then his accounts of Jesus as a youth, needless to say, would have been based on an impeccable authority))
https://scontent.fjed5-2.fna.fbcdn.n...qQ&oe=6247D047
اما اباء الكنيسة فحدث و لا حرج اذ نجد ان بعضا منهم اعتمدوا فعلا على بعض ابوكريفا العهد الجديد في اعمالهم حيث كانوا يقتبسون منها في كتاباتهم .
من الموسوعة الكاثوليكية
Yet it must be confessed that the early Fathers, and the Church, during the first three centuries, were more indulgent towards Jewish pseudographs circulating under venerable Old Testament names. The Book of Henoch and the Assumption of Moses had been cited by the canonical Epistle of Jude. Many Fathers admitted the inspiration of Fourth Esdras. Not to mention the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of St. Paul (at least in the Thecla portion) and the Apocalypse of St. Peter were highly revered at this and later periods. Yet, withal, no apocryphal work found official recognition in the Western Church. In 447 Pope Leo the Great wrote pointedly against the pseudo-apostolic writings, "which contained the germ of so many errors . . . they should not only be forbidden but completely suppressed and burned" (Epist. xv, 15).
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm#III
و نجد ان من هذه الاسفار سفر الراعي هرماس حيث اعتمد عليه ايريناوس و ترتليان و اوريجانوس و اقليمندس السكندري في كتباتهم بل نجده ضمن اسفار العهد الجديد في الخطوطة السينائية !!!
نقرا الترجمة الرهبانية اليسوعية الصفحة 12:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07268b.htm
(( و العهد الجديد كامل في الكتاب الخط الذي يقال له ((المجلد السينائي)) لانه عثر عليه في دير القديسة كاترينا. لا بل اضيف الى العهد الجديد الرسالة الى برنابا و جزد من الراعي لهرماس و هما مؤلفان لن يحفظا في قانون العهد الجديد في صيغته الاخيرة ))
و نقرا من كتاب Jesus Not a Myth الصفحة 120 :
(( The Shepherd of Hermas, a strange allegory written sometime in the second century, had a great vogue in orthodox circles and was even included in some copies of the New Testament (it is found in the Sinaitic Codex). The theology of the Church must have been very elastic at a time when such a book could enjoy popularity and implicit, if not explicit, ecclesiastical sanction, for its Christology does not seem to square with any of the Christologies of the New Testament, or with those of contemporary theologians whose occasional documents have reached us))
و نقرا من المدخل الي العهد الجديد الصفحة 153:
(( في سنة 1749 اكتشف احد الاثريين Muratau بعض القصاصات التي وجد قائمة بالكتب المقدسة في العهد الجديد و يلوح انها قائمة كتبت ضد مارسيون. هذه القصاصات تجمع اربع اناجيل، سفر اعمال (واسمه اعمال كل الرسل ) ثم ٩ رسائل لبولس للكنائس و اربعة لاشخاص يهوذا رسالتان ليوحنا وسفر الرؤيا ورسالة لبطرس وراعي هرمس ( وقد قال انه يستحسن ان يقرا في الكنائس و لكن لا يوضع في مستوى الكتب الباقية) )).
ونقرا من كتاب اقدم النصوص المسيحية الجزء الاول تعريب الاب جورج نصور الصفحة 79-80 :
(( الف هرماس احد رعايا كنيسة رومة كتابه المعروف باسم ((الراعي)) في السنوات المتراوحة بين 140 و 150 في الذي كانت فيه شقيقة البابا بيوس الاول يدير شؤون الكنيسة.... وقد لاقى الكتاب نجاحا كبيرا ورواجا منقطع النظير بحيث ان ايريناوس و ترتليانوس و اقليمندس الاسكندري و اوريجنوس كانوا يضعونه في مستوى الكتب المقدسة. وفي اوائل القرن الرابع ذكر اوسابيوس ان الراعي يتلى في بعض الكنائس و يستخدم في تعليم الموعوظين او طالبي العماد))
و نقرا في الموسوعة الكاثوليكية :
(((First or second century), author of the book called "The Shepherd" (Poimen, Pastor), a work which hadgreat authority in ancient times and was ranked with Holy Scripture. Eusebius tells us that it was publicly read in the churches, and that while some denied it to be canonical, others "considered it most necessary". St. Athanasius speaks of it, together with the Didache, in connection with the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, as uncanonical yet recommended by the ancients for the reading of catechumens. Elsewhere he calls it a most profitable book. Rufinus similarly says that the ancients wished it to be read, but not to be used as an authority as to the Faith. It is found with the Epistle of Barnabas at the end of the New Testament in the great Siniatic Bible Aleph (fourth century), and between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus. In accordance with this conflicting evidence, we find two lines of opinion among the earlier Fathers. St. Irenوus and Tertullian (in his Catholic days) cite the "Shepherd" as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria constantly quotes it with reverence, and so does Origen, who held that the author was the Hermas mentioned by St. Paul, Romans 16:14. He says the work seems to him to be very useful, and Divinely inspired; yet he repeatedly apologizes, when he has occasion to quote it, on the ground that "many people despise it". Tertullian, when a Montanist, implies that Pope St. Callistus had quoted it as an authority (though evidently not as Scripture), for he replies: "I would admit your argument, if the writing of the Shepherd had deserved to be included in the Divine Instrument, and if it were not judged by every council of the Churches, even of your own Churches, among the apocryphal and false." And again, he says that the Epistle of Barnabas is "more received among the Churches than that apocryphal Shepherd" (On Pudicity 10 and 20). Tertullian was no doubt right, that the book had been excluded at Rome from the Bible Instrumentum, but he is exaggerating in referring to "every council" and to a total rejection, for the teaching of the "Pastor" was in direct contradiction with his own rigid views as to penance. ))
يتبع
