• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The Gospel According to the Gospels

sadanyagci

sadanyagci

Member
Real Person
Hey everyone. It's been a long time since I posted, but I've been around, just watching the forum mostly. I'm posting this now because I need some help from men of truth.

A few months ago, when I was working at a local company, I was talking with different people in the company about Christianity, the Bible, Islam, etc. One in particular was sort-of interested. They were all trying hard to make me Muslim. I tended to use my main defense against it. That being that Islam uses Christianity and Judaism as its foundational history, and while TRUE Christianity directly follows from TRUE Judaism, Islam does not. The Quran contradicts the Bible, and yet upholds it. Even more directly, it claims that the New Testament was GIVEN TO Jesus. It also claims that everything in the Bible that doesn't contradict the Quran is true, and everything that contradicts the Quran shouldn't be believed.

Because of that they claim that the Bible we have, both new and old testaments, is not the Bible. They claim that it was changed. They have to. If the Bible is true, the Quran is false. They took me to numerous religious leaders, none of which could prove that the Bible was changed, when it was changed, how it was changed, what was changed. They all claimed it was changed though. It is, of course, an undeniable tenet of Islam.

Then I was taken to one other Islamic religious leader. This man had many, many Bibles. Spent most of his time reading them. His tactic of spreading Islam is to talk to Christians about the Bible, bringing up every little textual problem, making us feel like idiots and sheep for believing it... and then provide the "truth" of Islam to fill in the huge hole he just made. A lot of his statements I couldn't answer. Textual problems have to be taken one at a time, slowly, and sometimes take a lot of time to figure out. Having a whole bunch thrown at you all at once is just overload. But I've spent a lot of time researching many of the things that contradict in our Bibles, and each one I go over God provides the answer to... even the most difficult ones you think can never be solved. I came to call them "apparent contradictions" as they only looked that way.

That man charged me with a task. He wanted me to go through the story of Jesus' death and resurrection, in all 4 gospels, and try to combine them into one non-contradicting story. He said it can't be done. I looked it over, and as I thought about it I couldn't simply do that part. These are 4 letters... to be taken each as a whole by themselves. I took on the task of combining them all, from chapter 1 of each, to the end. I will speak with him again when I have done this.

I have a long ways to go in this, but have started along in the NIV, just because it's widely used and I can recall the most textual corrections to it. But I do know that a task like this is best done by the Church and not all decisions made by the individual. I am a flawed man. What I want is help in knowing what translation to use for this task, as well as assistance in what each person knows as textual problems in that translation, and solutions to those problems. Remember, this is only regarding the Gospels. I do intend on doing the OT eventually though. Eventually I'd like to combine historical OT books (such as Samuel, Kings, Chronicles), with their respective prophets interspersed based on time progression. But that's for the future, if God allows. This is now. The Gospel According to the Gospels.

What does everyone think? What version should I use for a textual basis?
 
I don't know weather its useful to you or not but here is one of the better tables I've seen recently. http://www.abdicate.net/timeline.aspx Unfortunately it doesn't record its references in the table, or else it would be more useful.

The largest perceived contradiction I know of deals with the order of events after the empty tomb. What else in particular does he say contradicts?

Version shouldn't matter as long as it isn't a JW or LDS modified edition. I don't know of any substantial text corrections or changes regarding the crucifixion between versions, the changes (esp in the NIV) deal mostly with tangent issues like details on fasting or trinitarianism.

I used to have some better resources on this particular topic but it was on my old computer, I'll try to see if I can re-find any of it.

I'm sure you know these harmonizations have been done (and where done first before Islam arose), and you can look up timeliness and things at your leisure if you want too. But this kind of work is good for the soul, have a good time at it.

* I think that reference was better than I thought, it also has http://www.abdicate.net/kings.aspx#example which is a harmonization of Kings and Chronicals that is actually quite detailed and technical, I haven't double checked much of it yet though.
 
Tlaloc said:
The largest perceived contradiction I know of deals with the order of events after the empty tomb. What else in particular does he say contradicts?
Click to expand...
One of his main comments was regarding the angels at the empty tomb.

Tlaloc said:
I'm sure you know these harmonizations have been done (and where done first before Islam arose), and you can look up timeliness and things at your leisure if you want too. But this kind of work is good for the soul, have a good time at it.
Click to expand...
I do know of many similar things that have been done, but nothing exhaustive, that I know of.
 
I was getting into writing a much longer thing, but I know you are a great researcher of scripture yourself so much of what I wrote would be redundant to you.

On the angels, the quantity is normally the problem.

Note Mark 16:5 in strongs

AndG2532 enteringG1525 intoG1519 theG3588 sepulchre,G3419 they sawG1492 a young manG3495 sittingG2521 onG1722 theG3588 right side,G1188 clothed inG4016 a long white garment;G4749 G3022 andG2532 they were affrighted.G1568

Quantity is not actually mentioned in this passage, its added passively. Same with Matthew 28:2

And,G2532 behold,G2400 there wasG1096 a greatG3173 earthquake:G4578 forG1063 the angelG32 of the LordG2962 descendedG2597 fromG1537 heaven,G3772 and cameG4334 and rolled backG617 theG3588 stoneG3037 fromG575 theG3588 door,G2374 andG2532 satG2521 uponG1883 it.G846

Once again, no quantity, its assumed. Luke and John both use the word duo to specify quantity. Matt and Mark use general terms for angel or young man which mean at least one but does not exclude two, while Luke and John address the specific number. In all cases only one does the talking. John 20:13 says 'they say unto her' that is also written in, as the root word translates to he\she\it\they\those\them its kind of a ubiquitous identifier.

As far as I can see the confusion here is standard fare for semi-independent translators (different members of the same team) writing apparent immediate context in without have the time to check the largest scale context. Matt and Mark mention no specific quantity so all the grammar is corrected to the most basic assumption (that there is one) while John specifies a quantity of two so the grammer is corrected to the assumption of 2 without any further contextualization (checking the other gospels). Only Luke is sufficiently detailed (you can see he wrote the most about it) to come across with what seems to be a perfect context translation.

I hope that helps, and I hope its pertinent. God bless you in your endevour.
 
Check out a (very lengthy) video presentation by Michael Rood, Sadan -- "The Jonah Code". It is based not on 'standard Christian timetables', of course, but on the Biblical Feast dates. He goes into great detail to combine the accounts into a consistent whole, and in particular to deal with what appear to be 'problems' that are based on distortions of the calendar and culture which were applied to the stories later.


Perhaps the most inflammatory claim that he documents in that series is that His ministry was NOT the oft-accepted three and a half years, nor does it end on a 'Friday'. That chronology simply does not work. (The "Jonah Code" reference is to His prophecy that He would, like the example of Jonah, be in the earth for precisely "three days AND three nights", from just before sundown after His execution on "fourth day", now called Wednesday, and a resurrection at the end of the weekly Sabbath: dusk on Saturday evening.)

The details won't fit here, of course.

Blessings,
Mark
 
This may or may not be helpful, Sadan, but ...

My answer to this man would be to quote the passage that says Holy Men of old wrote as they were inspired. That no-one claims letter by letter inspiration to the scripture, although the Jews do as regards Torah. It came through men. With that in mind, ...

If 4 people witness the same incident, they will produce 4 different eye witness accounts. This is well documented humanity. So where's the problem? And why the focus on the minor issue? The true issue of importance is ...

Did Mohammed die for his sins? And not only his, but those of his wives and children and siblings and parents and yes, the whole world? Jesus did. And since all have sinned and and are in need of a Savior, as sin is much too awful for us to make up for by good works, Jesus is the only hope. He'd best hook up, himself.

And while he's at it, what holds a family together and makes for joyful fellowship> Love or fear? Which of the two, Jesus or Mohammed, most consistently taught love in all areas of life? And which was willing to mix in Love's arch enemy, Fear? (1 Jn 4:19?) So which, by practical logical definition builds family and society, and which tears it down? Or sets it on a poor, fear based footing?

But even those are side issues, which merely help to understand the importance and character of those involved. I still come back to, ""Did Mohammed die for YOUR sins? Jesus did! Better hook up!"
 
CecilW said:
This may or may not be helpful, Sadan, but ...

My answer to this man would be to quote the passage that says Holy Men of old wrote as they were inspired. That no-one claims letter by letter inspiration to the scripture, although the Jews do as regards Torah. It came through men. With that in mind, ...

If 4 people witness the same incident, they will produce 4 different eye witness accounts. This is well documented humanity. So where's the problem?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put it that way, because I can't. The words in the Bible, even when they look wrong, always prove to be right on careful examination. That is a constant. All the "Christian" teachings these days... this is one that always proves faithful. How ever it was written, however it was compiled, and whatever people think of it or have tried to put into it... it's still always right... even when it looks wrong. At times I question certain scriptures, at times I question certain books... at times I question the whole thing. But it always proves itself. Yes, people can add to it and take away from it. It admits that even... in multiple places. It says that WILL happen and THIS is what will happen to those that do that. No, God didn't write it with His own hand. Neither did God ask us to house-sit for a British family in Cyprus... but there we were, and that point just happened to be on a 1300 mile long strait line that God said He would lead us down. That is truth, and word-for-word, so is the Bible... as it was written. And Jesus did say that not one line or dot would by any means pass from the law. That would mean that every line and every dot was of God... even though it was written by Moses.

CecilW said:
And why the focus on the minor issue? The true issue of importance is ...

Did Mohammed die for his sins? And not only his, but those of his wives and children and siblings and parents and yes, the whole world? Jesus did. And since all have sinned and and are in need of a Savior, as sin is much too awful for us to make up for by good works, Jesus is the only hope. He'd best hook up, himself.
...
But even those are side issues, which merely help to understand the importance and character of those involved. I still come back to, ""Did Mohammed die for YOUR sins? Jesus did! Better hook up!"
Click to expand...
This tactic tends to result in a "huh?". Their concept of God isn't a "you sin you go to hell" version. It's a scale. You do bad things, then you do good things to even out the bad things. They don't understand the concept of dying for sins.

They are also taught that Jesus wasn't crucified. Basically, you can't get anywhere, most of the time, until you can establish the reliability of the Bible. They don't understand the concept of or need for a savior. They understand what is proclaimed over loudspeakers 5 times a day, across the continent, from the day of their conception to the day of their death.

CecilW said:
And while he's at it, what holds a family together and makes for joyful fellowship> Love or fear? Which of the two, Jesus or Mohammed, most consistently taught love in all areas of life? And which was willing to mix in Love's arch enemy, Fear? (1 Jn 4:19?) So which, by practical logical definition builds family and society, and which tears it down? Or sets it on a poor, fear based footing?
Click to expand...
They think they have more love. Pretty much anything you claim you have, they claim to have version 2.0
 
Tlaloc said:
I was getting into writing a much longer thing, but I know you are a great researcher of scripture yourself so much of what I wrote would be redundant to you.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with a little redundancy. It helps as much to have known ideas confirmed and agreed upon as it does to have unknown concepts and information revealed.

Tlaloc said:
On the angels, the quantity is normally the problem.

Note Mark 16:5 in strongs

AndG2532 enteringG1525 intoG1519 theG3588 sepulchre,G3419 they sawG1492 a young manG3495 sittingG2521 onG1722 theG3588 right side,G1188 clothed inG4016 a long white garment;G4749 G3022 andG2532 they were affrighted.G1568

Quantity is not actually mentioned in this passage, its added passively. Same with Matthew 28:2

And,G2532 behold,G2400 there wasG1096 a greatG3173 earthquake:G4578 forG1063 the angelG32 of the LordG2962 descendedG2597 fromG1537 heaven,G3772 and cameG4334 and rolled backG617 theG3588 stoneG3037 fromG575 theG3588 door,G2374 andG2532 satG2521 uponG1883 it.G846

Once again, no quantity, its assumed. Luke and John both use the word duo to specify quantity. Matt and Mark use general terms for angel or young man which mean at least one but does not exclude two, while Luke and John address the specific number. In all cases only one does the talking. John 20:13 says 'they say unto her' that is also written in, as the root word translates to he\she\it\they\those\them its kind of a ubiquitous identifier.

As far as I can see the confusion here is standard fare for semi-independent translators (different members of the same team) writing apparent immediate context in without have the time to check the largest scale context. Matt and Mark mention no specific quantity so all the grammar is corrected to the most basic assumption (that there is one) while John specifies a quantity of two so the grammer is corrected to the assumption of 2 without any further contextualization (checking the other gospels). Only Luke is sufficiently detailed (you can see he wrote the most about it) to come across with what seems to be a perfect context translation.

I hope that helps, and I hope its pertinent. God bless you in your endevour.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Yes, that does help. Though that wasn't the only angel problem.

Also, the main issue on his heart was the Trinity, which he loved to bash, compare to paganism, etc. He also failed to understand what it means to be "the anointed one". Islam acknowledges that that is what Jesus is, but thinks it means "anointed priest" rather than its true meaning of "anointed king". He mocked Jesus being king. I can see that this guy's heart is into mocking, finding problems, etc... not caring for truth. But there are open hearts that use him and his knowledge as their defense. And that's the thing about Islam. The people aren't individuals. Religiously, they are a collective. Can't take the sheep without dealing with the guard dog.
 
Mark C said:
Check out a (very lengthy) video presentation by Michael Rood, Sadan -- "The Jonah Code". It is based not on 'standard Christian timetables', of course, but on the Biblical Feast dates. He goes into great detail to combine the accounts into a consistent whole, and in particular to deal with what appear to be 'problems' that are based on distortions of the calendar and culture which were applied to the stories later.


Perhaps the most inflammatory claim that he documents in that series is that His ministry was NOT the oft-accepted three and a half years, nor does it end on a 'Friday'. That chronology simply does not work. (The "Jonah Code" reference is to His prophecy that He would, like the example of Jonah, be in the earth for precisely "three days AND three nights", from just before sundown after His execution on "fourth day", now called Wednesday, and a resurrection at the end of the weekly Sabbath: dusk on Saturday evening.)

The details won't fit here, of course.

Blessings,
Mark
Click to expand...
I'm looking into these things, Mark. Thanks. Quite interesting. Don't know whether to trust Rood though. But as for the 70 weeks rather than 3.5 years, I never did find any backing for the common view of 3 and a half. Never put research into it though. It's about time, I suppose. :mrgreen:

What is your view of Michael Rood?
 
Cecil,

A lot of that is trying to apply Christian convictions to an unchristian mind. Its putting the cart before the horse. Harmonizing scripture is of utmost importance, and not only is it important to harmonize it, but the challenge gives us an open stage to expound upon scripture which is very powerful. The suppositions are different in Sadan's case, but the nature of the situation is almost identical to what darwinists throw here. They know how important scripture is or else they wouldn't come at it first, let us not back down and say these things are unimportant.

Sadan,

Glad I can help. I'll try to help a little more latter. I can't remember offhand what the other angel problem was, though I do recall something. Anyway, if you give me something to address I will work on it. Feel free to assign me something, I can generally take about an hour a day on research.
 
Wow, Sadan! Guess that's why you're there, and I'm not.

I wonder if it is possible to attack that sliding scale concept.

If I tell my son to do something, and he refuses, but helps an old lady across the street later that day, should I be satisfied if he comes home that evening and says, "Yo, Pops!! Didn't do what you told me to do, but hey! I did help Mrs. Jones across the street, so don't mind that I just completely disrespected you by refusing to do the task you set me."

I don't think so. Helping the old lady is fine, but doesn't fix the rift caused in our relationship by his flagrant disobedience.

Is it possible to work with some variation of this to attack the "I make it up by my good deeds" cncept?
 
I'm looking into these things, Mark. Thanks. Quite interesting. Don't know whether to trust Rood though. But as for the 70 weeks rather than 3.5 years, I never did find any backing for the common view of 3 and a half. Never put research into it though. It's about time, I suppose. :mrgreen:

What is your view of Michael Rood?
Click to expand...

I've never found an earthly teacher yet that I agree with 100%, "trust" unconditionally, or accept without "searching out the Scriptures for myself", Sadan. Rood is blunt, can be controversial, and - like many of us - has made mistakes in the past (but has been quite open about them, to his credit). He tends to be a lightning rod.

Having said that, I find that each of the best teachers I know -- of which Michael Rood is definitely one -- has a forte at which they excel. In the case of Rood, I will say that he is perhaps without peer when it comes to teaching about the importance of the Biblical Feasts, and outlining the pagan roots of many "Christian" traditions (which is why some seem to hate him so much).

Lastly, The Jonah Code set of lectures is, IMO, simply superb at what it set out to accomplish. (When I saw it live, several years ago, many of the conclusions he reached and taught took the form of a "second witness" to things I had been studying elsewhere already; I believe it to be sound. Since then, it has been my experience that his DVD set is a wonderful tool for those who struggle with exactly the type of issues you seem to be outlining.)

I had already begun to doubt the "three and a half year" chronology, but his analysis of the timetables seems to fit all the pieces in place better than any single commentary I have seen. I am not aware of a superior summary to answer your questions.
 
Is it possible to work with some variation of this to attack the "I make it up by my good deeds" cncept?
Click to expand...

Isaiah 64:5-7 (New International Version)

5 You come to the help of those who gladly do right,
who remember your ways.
But when we continued to sin against them,
you were angry.
How then can we be saved?

6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

7 No one calls on your name
or strives to lay hold of you;
for you have hidden your face from us
and made us waste away because of our sins.

Romans 3:20 (New King James Version)

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

For some reason, I don't think the "good deeds" option is scripturally supported.

Dave
 
I know this is a long time after the last post, but I want to say, Thank you, Sadan, for pointing out some very important needs on the part of us believers in our so called "Christian nation". We are in greater need for practical apologetics as any time in our national history. We have come to rely on Pablum based easy replies rather than rightly dividing the Word of Truth and such reveals our unpreparedness to give an answer to those who ask regarding the hope that is within us. I trust the Lord and our friends here have enabled you to confound the Muslim mocker. I for one have been challenged, by reading this thread, to be prepared to better answer the skeptics.
 
Sadan,

I realize your post is being revived, and you might not even be checking on responses at this late date, but a couple of things occurred to me that might be helpful when it comes to ministering to Muslims. When I was in Iraq, (and having to be reeeeeeeeeeal careful when it came to witnessing,) I found that if I held them to what Isa said about Himself, there was no place for them to go. By that I mean, Muslims will admit that Isa was a prophet (and even do the "blessed be his name" tag when referring to Him,) but get real squirmy when it comes to His own statements about being the Way, Truth, Life, dying, resurrecting, and most importantly, being the Son of God.

So, like a broken record, I would say "Well, Isa cannot be a 'blessed prophet' if He is not telling the truth. Either what He said about Himself was true, or it wasn't, and if He was lying or crazy, He cannot be blessed by Allah. He can't then even qualify to come back with the 12th Madi and convert Christians to following Allah because He himself would be a false prophet." I had to keep at it, but it was helpful in some cases where hearts were open. I am not sure that the guy with whom you have been dealing actually is open, but only God knows that. Keep at it, Bro, as you feel led by the Ruach Hakodesh, but don't get roped into "endless disputations." :) And, please say hi to your Mom. I miss seeing her on the board.
 
Actually there are indeed some Muslims who see Yeshua as claiming to be the Son of God and even the son of God in the ideological sense. One of them is even a friend of mine. As he said to me: "you like your Jesus are sons of the lower God but there is only one true Allah and Jesus is not him."

One professor of missions who has served as a missionary to Muslims for years (I think now at Fuller Theological Seminary) has even written a full scale book on the various degrees of Muslims ideology in regard to Judeo-Christian theology. He classifies them as Q1 status (hard core fundamental Muslims) to Q4 to 5 who are those closer to true Judeo-Christian faith but still not fully Christian. His "q" stands for quadrants or phases of faith development.

The real divide however is that they think Allah is the one true God whereas Judeo-Christians claim that Yeshua is God in the flesh. That is the real divide as some Muslims will even admit Christ did arise from the grave as they accept miracles as a real possibility. But they, like all cults and false world religions, stop short of claiming Jesus to be Lord/God because the one constant theme for all Muslims is that Allah is the true God and thus since Yeshua/Christ claimed that they refuse to go that far. Allah is the claim of Muslims as the true God and for Judeo-Christians Yeshua/Jesus is the claim as the one true God. Thus that is the ultimate essence of the divide.
 
Novum Testamentum Gracae (also known as the NA-27 text, for Nestle-Aland 27th Edition Greek New Testament)

Whenever they mention "variants" to discount historical facts such as the crucifixion being in the original "books" (by books, I mean the books within the book which might not have been in "book" form) ask them which variants convinced you that......

For instance if they say 1 Corinthians 15 does not mention the death and ressurection ask them

Which variant convinced you that this was omitted and show them the NA-27 text.

If they say "I can not speak Greek." Simply say exactly :)

And mention there are books and professors who can teach you Greek if you really are serious otherwise.......

And if they insist that you do not know Arabic (which you might or might not know) tell them, "I would have no objection to learning Arabic if someone would teach me." And ask them when they are planning on learning Greek :P

By the way a book full of errors perfectly copied without one copying error is still a book full of errors, because it is exactly the same book it originally was. ;)

Ask them, "if the book of Mormon was copied perfectly from what Joseph Smith originally said would that make it God's perfect word?" If they respond yes....

Right an essay about why the Quran is not true and make sure someone copies it perfectly ;) since it is a perfect copy of the essay it must be true ;)

By the way Uthman burned a lot of documents

The difference between Christianity having manuscript variants and Islam

Is Uthman burned the documents with variants :oops: :twisted: that were there from the beginning so we can not see what was originally there. And many documents were destroyed both accidentally and intentionally. :o :shock:

But Christians tried to keep the documents with variants allowing for an honest investigation. :D And many documents were destroyed accidentally.

Islam is "flawless" because they burned the evidence ;)

It must be from god because we burned some of the evidence earlier on where as Christianity must not be from god because they did not burn enough of the evidence. :roll:
 
http://www.hotm.tv/shows/aretheychristian.htm

It is about Mormons not Muslims but......

We could still compare each of the different claims in their branch of Islam with the Bible and say claim A lines up with the Bible but claim B does not line up and claim C is tricky to determine because I do not see the Bible saying one way or the other etc.

Many people in Christian denominations labeled as "saved" do not line up with the Bible....... so why not Mormons, Muslims, etc..... I am not saying to embrace Islam or Mormonism anymore than to embrace the false doctrines in mainstream Christian denominations, but the true parts of whatever religion can be embraced.

And we could still emphasize the difference between labeling yourself as such and such a religion and being born again.

This person believes he was born again while continuing to be in a sense a Mormon until he realized........

I believe that John teaches the same message of salvation as in the other books but it is easier for me to understand when reading John.

When I read John it seems to me that it is about reject Jesus or accept Jesus. Reject God or accept God. "Same difference" It seems to me that the other books do not disagree with this concept and often enforce it, yet it is more straightforward and to the point in John to me personally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top