Is the bible today the true word of God?

[huria]

Pandora, I go away, and come back hoping you have answered my questions, and you did not even answer the simplest of them, who wrote your bible?? That you are basing your salvation on ?

Quote

If we're going to dispute the position that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John we need to provide credible evidence to the contrary.

Who are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? What is their surnames ? you surely would know that since you claim you know who wrote the bible.

[Burninglight]

Quote

Pandora, I go away, and come back hoping you have answered my questions, and you did not even answer the simplest of them, who wrote your bible?? That you are basing your salvation on ?

Who are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? What is their surnames ? you surely would know that since you claim you know who wrote the bible.

They were disciples of Jesus.
We base our salvation on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God's grace and faith. We are saved by God's grace through faith. Faith is the substance of the things we hope for and evidence of the things not seen. What do you base your salvation on?

[pandora]

Quote

Pandora, I go away, and come back hoping you have answered my questions, and you did not even answer the simplest of them, who wrote your bible?? That you are basing your salvation on ?

Who are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? What is their surnames ? you surely would know that since you claim you know who wrote the bible.

Huria... I have answered your questions.. To the best of my ability and as to my understanding.. Except for the final question, which I now wonder weather it's worth my time to bother :( such is your attitude. I have given you information in honesty and truth according to my belief and I get back from you petty derision. Your reply above tells me what kind of person you are. I do not think you took the time to look at any of my answers in any detail because you are not interested or care. I have been wasting my time or rather you have been wasting my time.. I see now you never intended to answer my questions, because you have no answers.

It it doesn't matter what the surnames of the writers of the Gospel are.. Or even if they had surnames. It doesn't even matter to me weather they actually penned the words themselves... And where pray tell did I ever claim to know who wrote the Bible??? My salvation is based on the redeeming work of Jesus Christ and Gods grace.

I am disappointed in your responses.. I thought you were going to take things seriously and not joke around. I see now you have nothing in the way of proof just the same tired refutes. It's a shame, but I can't see this dialogue serving any further useful purpose.. Do you?

I wish you well. May God look kindly upon you and guide you to the truth.

Peace.

[pandora]

Quote

Well you already admitted in my conversation above that you have no evidence that the Bible was kept pure within the 150 years gap between manuscripts we have now and the time of Jesus, how come you are say again that the Bible holds great manuscript evidence?
As for the early church fathers, you'd better read this article which tells that they had many unorthodoxy opinions:
http://jesus-is-muslim.net/church-fathers-bible/

I thought we already agreed that the gap you refer to was more like 70 years and not the 150 years.. and the Bible does have a wealth of evidence behind it. For the original autographs you are talking of a period of 2000+ years ago... Materials rot and disintegrate with age. That's why copies were made of the autographs.. What you need to ask is how reliable were the scribes and methodology of of the copying process. We have absolutely no reason to believe they were not thorough in their work.. After all the scribes involved believed they were dealing with divine revelation.. What! So you think they would not have approached this work with due diligence and care befitting of such a task! Also as the Bible claims that guidance is given by the Holy Spirit in such matters I have the utmost faith in God.. That God did indeed inspire the Bible.. It is a divine work.. And it is all mankind needs for guidance and understanding in spiritual matters. What does the Quran add to the original message we already have in the Bible?

Quote

So because there is a manuscript referring to five verses in John you assume that this is an evidence that the whole NT with its canon were present the same way it is present now as 27 books? To have some verses doesn't mean that this is the whole Bible, what is the proof that these verses were in another book other than Gospel of John and the writer of John took it from the source of this fragment whom we don't know who wrote it or which book did it refer to. Even if it really represented the whole NT, there is still a gap of about 70 years, even 1 year gap is not enough to prove that every thing was ok and no changes occurred

[M.Khaled]

Quote

M.Khaled if you have no evidence then what pray are we talking about! Jesus confirmed the Torah ..Pentateuch if you wish.. Jesus did not confirm anything in the Quran.

Well, Jesus never confirmed YOUR Torah, the Quran doesn't say that the Torah Jesus confirms is the same as yours. It may have some similarities and common points but it is not all true. We are already discussing the evidence.

Quote

If not related to the Bible then they have there foundation in the Gnostics. There are many references to the Gnostics in relation to Mohammed and in the Quran. This is not a mystery the Gnostics were in wide circulation as was the Bible canon that is in Arabia at that time. It is naive to think Mohammed never heard about them. There is reason why the Gnostics were not considered to be part of the Bible canon.. Generally they were not considered to be the inspired word of God. That died not mean they have no importance and because they are not in the Bible canon does not mean they are either lost or hidden away.

And this draws us to another subject, the case is you are not the only people who claim to have gospels, there are many other gospels whom you consider as apocrypha, and there were many sects other than yours, and this was as well the case in the Old Testament, so why do you want to force us on believing that the Quran was actually talking about what your sect actually believed when there are actually many other sects, till Constantine came and suppressed them by arrest or exile or forcing them to change their belief.

Quote

What better way than to put the onus on the person and their honesty. :) maybe God had faith in some more than others. Are we to think God had more reason to suppose His message would not be safe in the hands of muslims and so needed that extra safeguard.. ? I don't think so.. As you say there are many people of all religions who disobey God. That is a freedom of choice God blessed us with. Some choose wrongly some don't but either way we all answer for our actions at the judgement.

That's not the point, but the case is that when people go astray from God's way and distort His message, He sends them prophets, till the final message which is Islam came, and since it is the final universal message, it must be preserved.

Quote

This evidence exchange is not a two way thing then? Is that why my questions go unanswered?

I am not sure what are these unanswered question, but I am talking here about the logic in the argument, you came to me and said that the Bible is the word of God and these Gospels refer to the disciples of Jesus, you are the one who is supposed to back your claim with evidence not me.

Quote

As the Quran is the latest in the line of scriptures that claim to be revealed by God.. As the Quran claims to confirm the aforesaid scriptures.. Is it therefore not reasonable for me to ask for some evidence that the Quran is correct, because if it is then it would appear that God made a huge error with His previous revelations? Because whatever you say or think the Quran does not confirm the message of the Bible.

Again, the Quran is talking about Torah and Injil of Jesus. I don't see enough evidence that the Bible is what the Quran is talking about. If you are asking about evidence that the Quran is correct, you can take your time reading these:
http://jesus-is-muslim.net/the-quran/

Quote

What is important to me is if you claim that man came along and changed the word of God or that God somehow sent the wrong message the first time sending billions of souls awry.. Then I would wish to see proof of such claims.

Well, I have already gave you two examples of what two church fathers who are not Muslims but actually devout Christians said. I can give you another one here:

Adam Clarke, a Christian commentator where he shows another intentional corruption made by the Jews against the Samaritans. He said in his commentary on Deu 27:4 -
“Set up these stones – in Mount Ebal – So the present Hebrew text , but the Samaritan has Mount Gerizim. Dr. Kennicott has largely defended the reading of the Samaritan in his second dissertation on the present state of the Hebrew text , and Dr. Parry has defended the Hebrew against the Samaritan. Many still think Dr. Kennicott’s arguments unanswerable, and have no doubt that the Jews have here corrupted the text through their enmity to the Samaritans. “
So here again Adam Clarke didn’t just accuse the Jews for corrupting the manuscripts due to their hostility with Christians only, but also they did the same with Samaritans, and with Muslims when they changed the name of Abraham’s offered son to Isaac.

Quote

It's not enough to just say on the basis of a few ambiguous verses in the Quran and hadiths that some Jews changed some verses.. We need to know ..what was changed? When it was changed? Why it was changed? A bonus would be who did the deed.. But that would be impossible to ascertain.

Quote

Well, again for me it's enough to know that there is a problem in the writings of the people of the Book and they are not reliable and that the Quran and Sunna are enough for me. If you are talking as a Christian, then it's enough to show you evidence through the poor evidence of the Bible, anonymous Bible writers, acknowledgements by Christians, Bible difficulties. If these were proven, then I see it enough.

Quote

The early church fathers were at times known to be anti Semitic.. Shameful to say so but it was so. The two ECF you quote above were of this opinion. If you read the nature of there articles that is fairly clear. On that basis one has to take that into account when judging their opinions. Which are likely to be negative towards the Jews. Jesus never said or had reason to doubt the scriptures He had with Him were not as God had meant them to be. The New Testament confirms this fact. At the end of the day who's opinion carries more weight Jesus or the ECF?

Well, actually what you are saying totally disproves Christianity, since these church fathers are a main outline in your history, when you look at them that way, then you have no basis for understanding your Bible, and understanding through the Holy Spirit or Jesus is a joke rather than a scientific way of understanding, since the result of the holy spirit is clear through the church fathers who went astray and the denominations of Christians. If the church fathers who were too close to the disciples of Jesus were astray, and for sure they had much more access to documents and events than what you have now, then you must be more astray.

Quote

The Holy Spirit enforces this message. However, as we are all free to personal choice some may interpret it differently.. As is what importance does one place on the words of theologians in interpreting the word of God.

Well, actually the Holy Spirit is supposed to guid you to the whole truth as Jesus says, which I see not applicable at all within Christians.

[M.Khaled]

Quote

I thought we already agreed that the gap you refer to was more like 70 years and not the 150 years

Actually they are 150 years except for the few verses found in these manuscripts. And even 70 years prove there is a gap.

[pandora]

Quote

Well, Jesus never confirmed YOUR Torah, the Quran doesn't say that the Torah Jesus confirms is the same as yours. It may have some similarities and common points but it is not all true. We are already discussing the evidence.

But you have no evidence except what the Quran claims that you are correct in this assumption. I see this is ok for you and muslims but for someone who does not see the Quran in the same terms as yourself I think you can understand that this kind of evidence is lacking. It really brings us back to the same points I thought would be addressed right at the start of this thread.. Which friend Huria said he would answer with proof. Which are.. when were the scriptures corrupted? Why was it felt necessary? And what was changed? The bonus question was by whom?

Quote

And this draws us to another subject, the case is you are not the only people who claim to have gospels, there are many other gospels whom you consider as apocrypha, and there were many sects other than yours, and this was as well the case in the Old Testament, so why do you want to force us on believing that the Quran was actually talking about what your sect actually believed when there are actually many other sects, till Constantine came and suppressed them by arrest or exile or forcing them to change their belief.

It does indeed... The 39 books of the Old Testament. These are also the Jewish Scriptures... Which are included in the Bible and date from about 1400-400 BC. The 27 books of the New Testament are the writings of the early Christian church. Some churches (Roman Catholics, and also the Eastern Orthodox Church) also include the Old Testament apocrypha... Hence the "extra" books some denomination use.. As those above.. They consist of Jewish writings from between 400 and 100 BC. This isn't any cause of great dispute between denominations because they most important element in Christianity is not the book ..The Bible... but the person.. Jesus Christ. All Christians agree that we are saved through the work of Jesus, not because we do or do not have exactly the right book. We do not need a perfect book to be saved. We have been saved by the perfect person. Maybe that's why the idea you have of corruption to the text does not carry as much importance for us as it seems to for you. I think this stems from the fact we each view our respective Books differently.


Another reason is that the most important part of the Bible for Christians is the New Testament, because it's here Jesus' mission is revealed..not that the Old Testament is not valued, it is because it gives us an historical context and prepares the way for the New Testament. God's way of dealing with people is different in the New Testament. Therefore, any doctrine in the Old Testament must first be checked against what is in the New Testament, seeing as we believe the Old is fulfilled in the New. The Jews did not and still don't... At least to my understanding ..regard the Apocrypha as Scripture. The New Testament never quotes the Apocrypha.


However, the Gnostics were slightly different in as much for the most part came into being long after Jesus and the majority of scripture had already been accepted into Bible canon. Many were judged to be heretical in nature and had no provenance or could be proven any link to Jesus or His teachings. This did not mean they were in wide circulation.. Jesus talking from the cradle and the clay birds were found in the Gnostics.

Quote

That's not the point, but the case is that when people go astray from God's way and distort His message, He sends them prophets, till the final message which is Islam came, and since it is the final universal message, it must be preserved.

Well, Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet from God, and he attracted a large number of followers who still believe in him today. I as a Christian looked at his message and like Mohammed chose not to accept him as a prophet because IMHO neither message confirmed the message Jesus brought to mankind. Who is to say Joseph Smith was a not true prophet of God? He could have been... Just as Mohammed could have been. But, we can only judge on what we see, hear and understand. Because we are different we see, hear and understand things differently... Each as we are seeing our truth as the truth.

Quote

I am not sure what are these unanswered question, but I am talking here about the logic in the argument, you came to me and said that the Bible is the word of God and these Gospels refer to the disciples of Jesus, you are the one who is supposed to back your claim with evidence not me.

Actually.. I said the Bible is the inspired word of God.. :) and the Gospels do refer to Jesus.. His birth, mission, earthly death and resurrection. As it is you making the claims against my book.. Then surely you should be able to back up these claims with evidence. This evidence should not just convince yourself and other muslims of your belief in the Bible... Because let's face it.. I think it safe to say almost all muslims to a man would agree with your claims that the Bible is corrupted. This evidence should be strong enough to convince one who believes in the truth of the Bible of your claims. I don't ask you to provide evidence of the truth of your Quran.. That you believe it and have faith in it.. Is enough for me. I don't seek to destroy your faith.

Quote

Again, the Quran is talking about Torah and Injil of Jesus. I don't see enough evidence that the Bible is what the Quran is talking about. If you are asking about evidence that the Quran is correct, you can take your time reading these:
http://jesus-is-muslim.net/the-quran/

I am reading through your article.. :) it all takes time. It takes so long to have any dialogue on this forum it's good to read something :)

Quote

Well, I have already gave you two examples of what two church fathers who are not Muslims but actually devout Christians said. I can give you another one here:

Adam Clarke, a Christian commentator where he shows another intentional corruption made by the Jews against the Samaritans. He said in his commentary on Deu 27:4 -
“Set up these stones – in Mount Ebal – So the present Hebrew text , but the Samaritan has Mount Gerizim. Dr. Kennicott has largely defended the reading of the Samaritan in his second dissertation on the present state of the Hebrew text , and Dr. Parry has defended the Hebrew against the Samaritan. Many still think Dr. Kennicott’s arguments unanswerable, and have no doubt that the Jews have here corrupted the text through their enmity to the Samaritans. “
So here again Adam Clarke didn’t just accuse the Jews for corrupting the manuscripts due to their hostility with Christians only, but also they did the same with Samaritans, and with Muslims when they changed the name of Abraham’s offered son to Isaac.

as I said before every author will have a personal agenda they work towards be it fiction or non fiction.. I know this my work is books. :)

Quote

Well, again for me it's enough to know that there is a problem in the writings of the people of the Book and they are not reliable and that the Quran and Sunna are enough for me. If you are talking as a Christian, then it's enough to show you evidence through the poor evidence of the Bible, anonymous Bible writers, acknowledgements by Christians, Bible difficulties. If these were proven, then I see it enough.

This is because we see our respective Books differently. Because you believe the Quran to be perfect and faultless.. You measure the Bible in the same way. Christians accept that as the Bible was at some point written by men and no men.. (As in mankind.. Not being sexist.. ;) ) we see textual errors but these do not detract from the core message.. As that comes from God and is divine.. Then it cannot be changed.. Even by the words of men.

Quote

Well, actually what you are saying totally disproves Christianity, since these church fathers are a main outline in your history, when you look at them that way, then you have no basis for understanding your Bible, and understanding through the Holy Spirit or Jesus is a joke rather than a scientific way of understanding, since the result of the holy spirit is clear through the church fathers who went astray and the denominations of Christians. If the church fathers who were too close to the disciples of Jesus were astray, and for sure they had much more access to documents and events than what you have now, then you must be more astray.

I will beg to differ with you here.. I don't see anyone who follows in the footsteps of Jesus could ever be astray. :) with all this logic muslims seem to demand Islam conforms to.. Is there any room for spirituality?

Quote

Well, actually the Holy Spirit is supposed to guid you to the whole truth as Jesus says, which I see not applicable at all within Christians.

First and foremost Christians are human.. I know.. Hard to believe!!! :)) as humans I'm sure you understand we cannot ever be perfect. Some are given the guidance and either do not or cannot see it.. Doesn't mean it's not there.

Peace and blessings.

[pandora]

Quote

Actually they are 150 years except for the few verses found in these manuscripts. And even 70 years prove there is a gap.

This holds more significance for you than it does for me I feel.. :)

[M.Khaled]

Quote

It does indeed... The 39 books of the Old Testament. These are also the Jewish Scriptures... Which are included in the Bible and date from about 1400-400 BC. The 27 books of the New Testament are the writings of the early Christian church. Some churches (Roman Catholics, and also the Eastern Orthodox Church) also include the Old Testament apocrypha... Hence the "extra" books some denomination use.. As those above.. They consist of Jewish writings from between 400 and 100 BC.

Well, so what about the apocryphal books in found in Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls? What makes me believe in the Old Testament over these books? What makes me believe that the gospels of your church over the other gospels? Many sects emerged from Christianity in a very early age, and I see a huge gap which is about 150 years between oldest manuscripts and Jesus' time, with all these numbers of sects, I don't see you really have an evidence that you are the real followers of Jesus or that your books are the true ones.

Quote

This isn't any cause of great dispute between denominations because they most important element in Christianity is not the book ..The Bible... but the person.. Jesus Christ. All Christians agree that we are saved through the work of Jesus, not because we do or do not have exactly the right book. We do not need a perfect book to be saved. We have been saved by the perfect person. Maybe that's why the idea you have of corruption to the text does not carry as much importance for us as it seems to for you. I think this stems from the fact we each view our respective Books differently.

And how did you know Jesus? Wasn't it through the Bible? If there is a problem in the Bible then there is a problem with your faith, otherwise there is no need for the Bible.

Quote

However, the Gnostics were slightly different in as much for the most part came into being long after Jesus and the majority of scripture had already been accepted into Bible canon. Many were judged to be heretical in nature and had no provenance or could be proven any link to Jesus or His teachings. This did not mean they were in wide circulation.. Jesus talking from the cradle and the clay birds were found in the Gnostics.

Well, I see no much difference between you and them as they actually emerged in the second century or may be before, not talking about many other sects at that time. I don't see you have an evidence through this time that overwhelms the claims of other sects.

Quote

Actually.. I said the Bible is the inspired word of God.. :) and the Gospels do refer to Jesus.. His birth, mission, earthly death and resurrection.

Ok, I may write a book and say it refers to Jesus as well, then I say that you are the one who is supposed to give me evidence that it doesn't refer to. This is not logic. You are saying that the Bible is inspired and refers to Jesus, you are supposed to give me historical evidence that it really refers to Jesus, but you acknowledge that there is a gap for at least 70 years, which is a lack of evidence, and ask me evidence that this book doesn't refer to Jesus, how come? I have already gave some evidence through the quotes of some Christians that manipulation occurred in the Old Testament, there are other acknowledgements that some books are written by anonymous writers, Bible difficulties other than you really have no historical evidence that these books refer to the disciples of Jesus, how do you think that there is no evidence that these books don't refer to Jesus or that a manipulation occurred in the OT?

Quote

as I said before every author will have a personal agenda they work towards be it fiction or non fiction.. I know this my work is books. :)

Well, actually if it comes that devoted Christians and church fathers acknowledge that something occurred, I think this is much more than just personal agenda.

Quote

This is because we see our respective Books differently. Because you believe the Quran to be perfect and faultless.. You measure the Bible in the same way. Christians accept that as the Bible was at some point written by men and no men.. (As in mankind.. Not being sexist.. ;) ) we see textual errors but these do not detract from the core message.. As that comes from God and is divine.. Then it cannot be changed.. Even by the words of men.

Well, weren't these writers inspired by the Holy Spirit? If so, then an error is not accepted as it is supposed to be inspired by God. If not, then this couldn't be a trusted book from God, but an ordinary book as any other book.

Quote

I will beg to differ with you here.. I don't see anyone who follows in the footsteps of Jesus could ever be astray. :) with all this logic muslims seem to demand Islam conforms to.. Is there any room for spirituality?

Well, we believe in Jesus as well, and many other sects believe in Jesus in a different way, so you must have a claim over others that you are the real follower of Jesus, but actually as I see the case is that you have no solid evidence as you even accuse your church fathers and the Bible who were a means of transmission of the faith to you of adopting false errors and that the Bible writers who are supposed to be inspired by God of having errors in the books inspired by God. Then how can you think you are really following the footsteps of Jesus? We as Muslims don't reject spirituality as it is a main item in the Islamic faith, but spirituality should be backed up with historical evidence, otherwise it will convert to a fable. If it is really measured by spirituality, then the Hindus and the Buddhists are on the right way.

Quote

First and foremost Christians are human.. I know.. Hard to believe!!! :)) as humans I'm sure you understand we cannot ever be perfect. Some are given the guidance and either do not or cannot see it.. Doesn't mean it's not there.

Then what is the Holy Spirit doing? What is the difference between your case and our Muslim case? Actually there is a difference between a normal sin which a man knows he is doing a sin as stealing or fornication, or a sin resulting from saying against orthodoxy faith. There is no problem in the former, the problem is in the latter, because if it occurred from a church father whom you consider as an orthodoxy one, then it means that either the Holy Spirit didn't guide him which is against scriptures, or that the Holy Spirit guided him but he rejected which means that he is no more orthodoxy and you should not rely on him or take from his writings.

[pandora]

Quote

Well, so what about the apocryphal books in found in Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls? What makes me believe in the Old Testament over these books? What makes me believe that the gospels of your church over the other gospels? Many sects emerged from Christianity in a very early age, and I see a huge gap which is about 150 years between oldest manuscripts and Jesus' time, with all these numbers of sects, I don't see you really have an evidence that you are the real followers of Jesus or that your books are the true ones.

What about them? I expect you have waded through much material on the DSS.. What I found most amazing that the DSS confirmed the Old Testament we have in the Bible canon today which was translated from the Masoretic Text. Until the discovery of the DSS.. the oldest Hebrew text of the Old Testament was the Masoretic Aleppo Codex which dates to A.D. 935. With the discovery of the DSS we now had manuscripts that predated the Masoretic Text by about one thousand years!! Just think on that timespan... And also the consequences to our Old Testament canon.. Which is under constant accusations of corruption and change, not least from yourselves. If a significant amount of differences were found, we could conclude that maybe you may have fair point and the text of the Old Testament had not been well preserved.

However, after years of study it turns out that the DSS give substantial confirmation that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved... And are almost identical with the Masoretic text we have. A comparison study with the Isaiah Scroll written around 100 B.C. found among the Dead Sea documents and the book of Isaiah in the Masoretic text... Where found that the two were practically identical. Most variants being minor spelling differences, and none affected the meaning of the text. Higher than 95% accuracy which I find quite amazing after such a timespan. It shows that contrary to some opinion the Jewish scribes took very seriously the copying of scripture. It's considered valuable evidence that the Old Testament Canon we have in our hands now was the same text Jesus knew and confirmed. You spend an inordinate length of time proving what we don't have or never existed as being truth whilst choosing to ignore the evidence we do have for the Old Testament.

When talking of heretical sects .. Do you see the Shia's a sect or denomination of Islam? As within Christianity we have say Catholics and Protestants.. What of the Sufis and the Ismailis.. Would you consider these heretical? Or the Wahhabis... Where do they fit within mainstream Islam? At some point one has to define what is considered "mainstream" doctrine. That has to be done by studying scripture and adopting the doctrine that is widely held to conform to the revelation from God. You see this in Mohammed as Prophet of Islam.. I see this as Lord Jesus in Christianity. There will always be "sects" who will hold another point of view and they will believe they are right.. Jesus was clear in His teachings.. That He and only He is the way, the Truth and the Light. As a Christian anyone or anything that takes one away from that is heretical and takes one down a dangerous road.. Possibly to damnation. You take that chance if you wish to... It's not for me. :)

Quote

And how did you know Jesus? Wasn't it through the Bible? If there is a problem in the Bible then there is a problem with your faith, otherwise there is no need for the Bible.

Yes..it was through the Bible. But the problem with the Bible is your problem .. Not mine. For me there is no problem because I have faith that God protects all His Word.

Quote

Well, I see no much difference between you and them as they actually emerged in the second century or may be before, not talking about many other sects at that time. I don't see you have an evidence through this time that overwhelms the claims of other sects.

Of course you don't.. Bit like I don't the differences between the sects within Islam. I take your word for it as a Sunni Muslim that your view is the correct one. I expect if I was talking with a Shiite or Sufi etc. They would be convinced of their truth.

Quote

Ok, I may write a book and say it refers to Jesus as well, then I say that you are the one who is supposed to give me evidence that it doesn't refer to. This is not logic. You are saying that the Bible is inspired and refers to Jesus, you are supposed to give me historical evidence that it really refers to Jesus, but you acknowledge that there is a gap for at least 70 years, which is a lack of evidence, and ask me evidence that this book doesn't refer to Jesus, how come? I have already gave some evidence through the quotes of some Christians that manipulation occurred in the Old Testament, there are other acknowledgements that some books are written by anonymous writers, Bible difficulties other than you really have no historical evidence that these books refer to the disciples of Jesus, how do you think that there is no evidence that these books don't refer to Jesus or that a manipulation occurred in the OT?

Lets be honest here.. No evidence in the world would make any difference to you. :) You have already decided Christianity is false and all you wish to see is evidence to back up this belief of yours. I thought I had addressed issues in this thread in regards to Bible corruption and why I don't believe the case you have is that strong. Certainly not strong enough to dissuade me from my belief in the Bible as the enduring inspired revelation of God. Maybe my faith is stronger than your need for logic. If you build your belief on logic and someone one day comes along and destroys that logic with some scientific discovery or something.. What then? Whereas a belief built on faith cannot be broken.

Quote

Well, actually if it comes that devoted Christians and church fathers acknowledge that something occurred, I think this is much more than just personal agenda.

As you say ;)

Quote

Well, weren't these writers inspired by the Holy Spirit? If so, then an error is not accepted as it is supposed to be inspired by God. If not, then this couldn't be a trusted book from God, but an ordinary book as any other book.

Depends what you mean by error. The Holy Spirit does not deal in error.. If you are talking of Gods revelation then there is no error. If you are talking of mans theological deliberations then as they are born from a mans interpretation.. Then as we know no one is perfect. :)

Quote

Well, we believe in Jesus as well, and many other sects believe in Jesus in a different way, so you must have a claim over others that you are the real follower of Jesus, but actually as I see the case is that you have no solid evidence as you even accuse your church fathers and the Bible who were a means of transmission of the faith to you of adopting false errors and that the Bible writers who are supposed to be inspired by God of having errors in the books inspired by God. Then how can you think you are really following the footsteps of Jesus? We as Muslims don't reject spirituality as it is a main item in the Islamic faith, but spirituality should be backed up with historical evidence, otherwise it will convert to a fable. If it is really measured by spirituality, then the Hindus and the Buddhists are on the right way.

To believe in Jesus one has to believe what He said about Himself and His teachings. I don't see how you can say you believe in Jesus because you don't really know Him. What are Jesus teachings according to the Quran..? To know Jesus is to love Him. I could not love Issa of the Quran there is nothing of substance to know the person. I don't wish that to sound disrespectful, and I truly apologise if it comes across that way. It's just how it appears to me.

Quote

Then what is the Holy Spirit doing? What is the difference between your case and our Muslim case? Actually there is a difference between a normal sin which a man knows he is doing a sin as stealing or fornication, or a sin resulting from saying against orthodoxy faith. There is no problem in the former, the problem is in the latter, because if it occurred from a church father whom you consider as an orthodoxy one, then it means that either the Holy Spirit didn't guide him which is against scriptures, or that the Holy Spirit guided him but he rejected which means that he is no more orthodoxy and you should not rely on him or take from his writings.

Not sure what you mean.. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? I didn't think you did. I don't see any difference in sin. The only sin that counts is a sin against God. Sin isn't decided by a church father... But by God. Do you mean a sin against some religious doctrine? Sorry.. Think I will have to think longer on this last point of yours because the meaning is not clear to me. :) to be honest I would be concerned about a sin against God.. That bits clear to me.. :)

Peace to you