Quote
Quote Originally Posted by M.Khaled View Post
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