Three Quran Verses Every Christian Should Know ( David Wood )

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Three Quran Verses Every Christian Should Know ( David Wood )

  1. θ says:

    The simple purpose of Q.5, v.47 is the invalidation of both the writer’s unnecessary commentaries and the Pauline epistles, since they are not the verbatim Gospel coming from Jesus’ own words that contain the eternal life.

    The term “Gospel” in Islam actually refers to the Arabic Gospel at the hands of the 7th century Arabs – such as what Ibn Ishaq reports as Injil of Yuhannis – as well as the verbatim Gospel, that is what we know nowadays as the “Red Letter Gospel”, plus what the scholars consider as the “earliest” manuscripts.
    Hence, verses John 20:28, John 1:1, John 1:14, John 3:16, Luke 1:35, and Matt 28:19 are not what Qur’an calls the Gospel.
    The earliest manuscripts of Gospels do not contain today’s Trinitarian version of Mt 28:19 but rather a shorter version Mt. 28:19: Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name. Moslems believe that the most authentic verses of Gospels are the earliest written ones.

    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_letter_edition
    Red letter edition Bibles are those in which words spoken by Jesus, commonly only while he was on the Earth, are printed in red ink.

    Qur’an is detailed and explained by the Sunnah as Q.41, v.44 responds the demand of the Arabs over a necessary Qur’anic commentary, such as “Sallu” of Allah, that is in the form His mercy of love, as well as narrative verses which are started by the command of making more elaboration further, namely “illustrate it”, “remind it” (Q.7, v.176, Q.19, v.56).
    Q.41, v.44 And if We had sent it Qur’an in a foreign language other than Arabic, they would have said: Why are not its verses explained in detail? Isn’t foreign language and an Arab? Say: It is for those who believe, a guide and a healing. And as for those who disbelieve, there is heaviness in their ears, and it is blindness for them. They are those who are called from a place far away.

    Qur’an also compares its style with a literary pattern of the Bible that has guided the previous believers, such as the use of alphabets – such as Nun, Qaf, Sad – when opening a verse or chapter without giving any meaning at all, except that for a basic teaching of alphabet.

  2. θ says:

    This is a trick the Christian apologists used to make when debating the authenticity of the NT Book:
    (i) On the contents of Matt 28:19 they just refer to what the early apologists say rather than what is written on the real manuscripts or on the papyri.
    (ii) Using less than a half surviving manuscripts (having missing verses) coming from 2nd century to make a marking-up generalisation that the “additional” verses contained in latter manuscripts *must be* also contained by the 2nd century manuscripts – by adssuming them as exactly the genuine missing verses – without any dispute.

    For example, Manuscript P105 comes from 6th century (year 500s) containing Matthew 27-28, yet it only has the verses 2-5 for Matt 28, meaning just 25% of today’s 20 verses. Hence from where do the verses Matt 28:6-20 come? Curiously.

    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
    “Early” manuscripts are manuscripts from the fourth century or earlier. Roughly half of the papyri are “early”. Some manuscripts contain content from more than one New Testament book, so the numbers above do not directly correspond to the total number of manuscripts.[10]
    NT Book — Total — Early
    Matthew –23 — 11
    Mark — 3 — 2
    Luke — 10 — 6
    John — 30 — 19
    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_105
    Papyrus 105 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), designated by P105, is a copy of the New Testament in Greek. It is a papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew. The surviving texts of Matthew are verses 27:62-64; 28:2-5, they are in a fragmentary condition. The manuscript has been paleographically estimated to date back to the 5th or 6th century CE.[1]

  3. θ says:

    Here are tricks the Christian apologists used to produce when debating the authenticity of the NT Book:
    (i) On the contents of Matt 28:19 they just refer to what the early Christian apologists say rather than what is written on the real manuscripts or appeared on the papyri during two centuries CE.

    Moreover, mostly the verses of the Gospel just come from “reconstruction” derived from the quotations of early Christian apologists rather than the real evidence of the written manuscripts on papyri.

    The existing NT manuscripts till 200 CE:
    P52, 125 CE: John 18:31-33; 18:37-38 (5 verses)
    P90, 150 CE: John 18:36-19:1; 19:1-7 (12 verses)
    P104, 150 CE: Matthew 21:34-37; 21:43,45 (6 verses)
    P98, 150 CE: Revelation 1 (20 verses)
    P75, 175-225 CE: Luke 3-18,22-24; John 1-15
    P4, 175-250 CE: Luke 1-6
    P21, 200 CE: Matthew 12 (50 verses)
    P32, 200 CE: Titus 1:11-15; 2:3-8 (11 verses)
    P46, 200 CE: Rom 5-6,8-16; 1 Cor; 2Cor; Gal; Eph; Php; Col; 1 Th; Heb

    For example, Matthew’s Gospel until 2nd century just consists of 56 verses, hence how could such a little amount give a large authentication for entire verses of Matthew’s Gospel in the 4th century codices?

    (ii) The apologist’s tactic of generalising. They are just using less than a half surviving manuscripts from 2nd century (just half a total) to make a marking-up “generalisation” for the credence of later codices. It means the larger verses from 4th-5th uncial codices borrow (or snatch precisely) authentication from a *smaller fragments* of the 2nd century manuscripts.

    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
    “Early” manuscripts are manuscripts from the fourth century or earlier. Roughly half of the papyri are “Early”. Some manuscripts contain content from more than one New Testament book, so the numbers above do not directly correspond to the total number of manuscripts.[10]
    NT Book — Total — Early
    .Matthew – 23 — 11
    .Mark — 3 — 2
    .Luke — 10 — 6
    .John — 30 — 19

    (iii) Making a blind-supposing. The apologists claim that whatever verses added by the later codices of 4th and 5th century must be as exactly genuine as the missing or non-existing verses of manuscripts or papyri of the 2nd century.
    Christians just argue – backward and circular fallacy – that the “additional” verses contained in later (4th-5th century) codices *must be* also contained by the previous 2nd century manuscripts simply because the later codices contain the surviving verses of 2nd century. In other words, the latter determines contents of the previous in absurd way.

    Versions of Matt 28:19.
    Matthew chapter 28 (consisting 20 verses) does not appear in any earlier written manuscript on papyri. But, then suddenly the chapter 28 of Matthew’s Gospel just pops up from nowhere on the 4th century codices. Hence, who invents them?

    Importantly, one particular verse of Matt 28:19 just came out from “reconstruction” of the quotations of early Trinitarian apologists who talk about the method of baptism. Nevertheless, there’s also a shorter version from Eusebius (using “in my name” instead), as well as other codices of 5th century that do not have Matt 28:19 (considered as textual lacunae), such as codex of Ephraemi and codex of Bezae.
    Also fragment of manuscript P105 – that comes from 6th century, hence it is no longer authentic – contains a particular Matthew 27-28, but it only has four verses (2-5) for Matt 28, meaning just 25% of today’s 20 verses. All these facts just invalidate the authentication of today’s Matt 28:19.
    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Ephraemi_Rescriptus
    Lacunae
    Gospel of Matthew: 1:1–2; 5:15–7:5; 17:26–18:28; 22:21–23:17; 24:10–45; 25:30–26:22; 27:11–46; 28:15-fin.;
    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae
    Lacunae
    Matthew 1:1-20, 6:20-9:2, 27:2-12; John 1:16-3:26; Acts 8:29-10:14, 21:2-10, 21:16-18, 22:10-20, 22:29-End
    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_105
    Papyrus 105 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), designated by P105, is a copy of the New Testament in Greek. It is a papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew. The surviving texts of Matthew are verses 27:62-64; 28:2-5, they are in a fragmentary condition. The manuscript has been paleographically estimated to date back to the 5th or 6th century CE.[1]

  4. Sam Shamoun gives a rebuttal of the issue whether Christians are required to observe the Law of Moses.
    Is there an Islamic Demand for Obedience to the OT Laws?
    Sam Shamoun
    1. In light of Jesus’ severe rebuke of the Jewish rulers in Matthew 23, certain scholars are convinced that Jesus was being sarcastic when he told the disciples to listen to the Pharisees because they sat on Moses’ seat. As reformed scholar and apologist Dr. James R. White puts it:

    We first note interpreters such as Jeremias and Carson view this passage as engaging in biting irony. The Jewish leaders have presumed to sit in Moses’ seat, as suggested by Merx, Moulton, and Zahn, focusing on the use of the aorist tense of the verb “to sit.” They sat themselves in this place, but improperly. Such an understanding is certainly in line with the biting attack that follows immediately in the rest of the chapter.

    But I am more prone to accept Gundry’s understanding, in which he rejects the satirical interpretation and instead notes,

    So long as sitting in Moses’ seat qualifies the speaking of the scribes and Pharisees, “all things whatever” does not include their interpretative traditions, but emphasizes the totality of the law. “Therefore” establishes the qualification. They do keep their traditions. But they do not practice what they speak while sitting on Moses’ seat. Hence their traditions are not in view. Though elsewhere Matthew is concerned to criticize the scribes’ and Pharisees’ interpretations of the law, here he is concerned to stress the necessity of keeping the law itself. As usual, his eye is on antinomians in the church. (Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 454-455.)

    Indeed, the Lord’s unwillingness to become an “ecclesiastical rebel” is in perfect harmony with the Scriptural teaching on the subject of authority in the church. There was nothing in the tradition of having someone read from the Scriptures while sitting on Moses’ seat that was in conflict with the Scriptures, and hence, unlike the corban rule which we saw earlier in Matthew 15, Jesus does not reject this traditional aspect of Jewish synagogue worship. He does not insist upon anarchy in worship in the synagogue anymore than His apostle Paul would allow for it in the worship of the church at Corinth. It is quite proper to listen to and obey the words of the one who reads from the Law or the Prophets, for one is not hearing a man speaking in such a situation, but is listening to the very words of God. Indeed, when Ezra read the law to the people in Nehemiah chapter 8, the people listened attentively, and cried “Amen! Amen!” at the hearing of God’s Word. And who can forget the result of Josiah’s discovery of the book of the covenant in 2 Chronicles 34? It is proper to have men in positions of authority in the synagogue, just as in the Church. But Jesus points out that the listener is still to exercise a critical eye, for he is not to imitate the evil behavior of those who have been entrusted even with the sacred duty of leading the people of God in worship. (White, The Catholic Verses: Matthew 23:1-3 (Part I), January 22, 2005; source)

    Whatever the interpretation, this point is clear from the context: Jesus was not endorsing the blind acceptance of everything that the Jewish elders taught, since he both rebukes them and promises to send to his followers inspired spokespersons who would explain the true meaning of God’s Law.

  5. θ says:

    Qur’anic verse Q.5, v.47 persuades Christians to judge the matters by the Law of God in the Gospel, but otherwise Jesus “weirdly” confirms the man-made authority of the Rabbinical teachings (Oral Torah), which is a fallible precept, rather than the written Torah.

    Most of Jesus’ teachings were derived, borrowed, and repacked from the Rabbinical idea.

    In Islam, the Rabbinical precepts can be as far flawed as the laws of Jahiliyya, and the act of judging the cases based on it is termed as being “Fasiq” (rebellious).

    Mt 15:9
    But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

    Versus:

    Rabbi’s action becomes a criterion?
    Mt 23:3
    All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

    Rabbi’s principle of “Pikuach Nefesh” is approved?
    Mk 2
    25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

    Rabbi’s idea of several aides of resurrection is approved?
    Jn 5
    28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

    //www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12697-resurrection
    The resurrection will be achieved by God, who alone holds the key to it (Ta’an. 2a; Sanh. 113a).
    At the same time the elect ones, among these first of all the Messiah and Elijah, but also the righteous in general, shall aid in raising the dead (Pirke R. El. xxxii.; Sotah ix. 15; Shir ha-Shirim Zuta, vii.; Pes. 68a; comp. “Bundahis,” xxx. 17).

    Rabbi’s idea of the “First Resurrection” (of the just ones only) is approved?
    Lk 14:14
    And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
    Rev 20:6
    Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the First Resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.