DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**JTS_tv** · 10-14-2010, 04:22 AM

No it's not. As I already said: The huge manuscript evidence proves the reliability of text of the Bible. You must believe that your book was faithfully preserved too and when it comes to Qu'ran, you don't have any proof for it before Uthman's time.

There wasn't any good reason to corrupt the text in the early church. The earlier we go, the less we have significant variations, e.g. Comma Johanneum is a late addition and it is found in only one familiy of manuscripts. It doesen't really matter whether the number is 666 or 616 as we can identify the antichrist by Paul's second letter to Thessalonians.

The reason, why I appealed to this canon is that it at least shows that the core of the canon was there as early as the second century. Some books were desputed for a long time, but the gospels and the pauline letters were there from the start.

The followers of Jesus are different from prophets, because, according to Christianity, they were witnesses of the resurrection. They saw what the prophets foretold. Jesus personally tought them. I don't know where's the huge difference that makes NT unreliable.

We do have proof for the fact that the Quran has not been corrupted and this is acknowledged in the East and West. If you want to start a discussion on that, please start a new thread. Regarding the 'huge manuscript evidence' of the New Testament; all it shows is that the core message of the original Gospel writers has remained and can be found in the current day New Testament (according to you). Even if we accept that claim to be true, this does not make the New Testament to be the Word of God- you would have to prove that it is. Can you do that? In addition to the fact that whoever wrote the original Gospel accounts found today in the NT weren't disciples; why would we even believe what they had to write? Some of their stories may be true, some may not (of what Isa

actually did)

There is an abundance of evidence showing that there were many different churches in the early days of Christianity, so to talk about just one unified church is out of the question. They all had their manuscripts, all of them apparently written by disciples, all of them teaching greatly different things.

The huge difference between the NT and the OT is theological as well as the obvious pointed out by brother Mujahid- that the NT is considered the Word of God although it is the word of anonymous writers, along with some famous writers (Paul). How is that the Word of God? Anyway, your answer to this particular objection of the brother was given according to Christianity but if Christianity is false...

10-14-2010, 04:22 AM	#15
JTS_tv Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 572 Senior Member	No it's not. As I already said: The huge manuscript evidence proves the reliability of text of the Bible. You must believe that your book was faithfully preserved too and when it comes to Qu'ran, you don't have any proof for it before Uthman's time. There wasn't any good reason to corrupt the text in the early church. The earlier we go, the less we have significant variations, e.g. Comma Johanneum is a late addition and it is found in only one familiy of manuscripts. It doesen't really matter whether the number is 666 or 616 as we can identify the antichrist by Paul's second letter to Thessalonians. The reason, why I appealed to this canon is that it at least shows that the core of the canon was there as early as the second century. Some books were desputed for a long time, but the gospels and the pauline letters were there from the start. The followers of Jesus are different from prophets, because, according to Christianity, they were witnesses of the resurrection. They saw what the prophets foretold. Jesus personally tought them. I don't know where's the huge difference that makes NT unreliable. We do have proof for the fact that the Quran has not been corrupted and this is acknowledged in the East and West. If you want to start a discussion on that, please start a new thread. Regarding the 'huge manuscript evidence' of the New Testament; all it shows is that the core message of the original Gospel writers has remained and can be found in the current day New Testament (according to you). Even if we accept that claim to be true, this does not make the New Testament to be the Word of God- you would have to prove that it is. Can you do that? In addition to the fact that whoever wrote the original Gospel accounts found today in the NT weren't disciples; why would we even believe what they had to write? Some of their stories may be true, some may not (of what Isa actually did) There is an abundance of evidence showing that there were many different churches in the early days of Christianity, so to talk about just one unified church is out of the question. They all had their manuscripts, all of them apparently written by disciples, all of them teaching greatly different things. The huge difference between the NT and the OT is theological as well as the obvious pointed out by brother Mujahid- that the NT is considered the Word of God although it is the word of anonymous writers, along with some famous writers (Paul). How is that the Word of God? Anyway, your answer to this particular objection of the brother was given according to Christianity but if Christianity is false...
	Quote