Know Islam

Know Islam, Know Paradise

Misgoded reading continued

February 12, 2018 Book Reading Events 0

Click here for previous session

 

 

32.  Acts 9:7 and Acts 26:14 – Paul’s companions fell to the ground or
remained standing?
Acts 9:7: And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless,
hearing a voice but seeing no one.
Acts 26:14: And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a
voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, “Saul, Saul, why
are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”*
33) Matthew 1:6­16 and Luke 3:23­31—twenty­six or forty­
one generations in the lineage between David and Joseph?
These two lineages simply don’t gibe. No two names correspond
in sequence except for the last, Joseph, who by no stretch of the
imagination was the true father of Jesus. Furthermore, God’s name is left
out, which is significant. After all, if Jesus were the “Son of God,” would
God have left His name out of the lineage, not once but twice?
The mismatch in the list of names is as follows (from the New
King James Version):
MATTHEW 1:6­16  LUKE 3:23­31
DAVID DAVID
1)  SOLOMON NATHAN

2)  REHOBOAM MATTATHAH
3)  ABIJAH MENAN
4)  ASA MELEA
5)  JEHOSHAPHAT ELIAKIM
6)  JORAM JONAN
7)  UZZIAH JOSEPH
8)  JOTHAM JUDAH
9)  AHAZ SIMEON
10)  HEZEKIAH LEVI
11)  MANASSEH MATTHAT
12)  AMON JORIM
13)  JOSIAH ELIEZER
14)  JECHONIAH JOSE
15)  SHEALTIEL ER
16)  ZERUBBABEL ELMODAM
17)  ABIUD COSAM
18)  ELIAKIM ADDI
19)  AZOR  MELCHI
20)  ZADOK NERI
21)  ACHIM SHEALTIEL
22)  ELIUD ZERUBBABEL
23)  ELEAZAR  RHESA
24)  MATTHAN JOANNAS

25)  JACOB  JUDAH
26)  JOSEPH (husband to Mary)  JOSEPH (no relation toMary)
27)  SEMEI
28)  MATTATHIAH
29)  MAATH
30)  NAGGAI
31)  ESLI
32)  NAHUM
33)  AMOS
34)  MATTATHIAH
35)  JOSEPH (no relation to Mary)
36)  JANNA
37)  MELCHI
38)  LEVI
39)  MATTHAT
40)  HELI
41)  JOSEPH (husband to Mary)
Christian apologists defend this imbalance with the claim that one lineage is that
of Jesus through his mother, and the other is that of Jesus through his mother’s husband,
Joseph. However, many consider this defense just one more of the unacceptable “believe
what I say, not what you see with your own two eyes” claims, for the Bible clearly
defines each lineage as the bloodline through the Virgin Mary’s husband, Joseph.

 

 

Inconsistencies in the New Testament – Part 2

 

The best, when corrupted, becomes the worst. —Latin Proverb (Corruptio optimi pessima) 231
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, many Christians believe that the New
Testament is the unadulterated word of God. Even Paul refuted this claim in
1 Corinthians 7:12: “But to the rest I, not the Lord, say …”—indicating that what follows
was from him, and not from God. So if nothing else, this section of the Bible, by Paul’s
own admission, is not the word of God. 1 Corinthians 1:16 points out that Paul could not
remember if he baptized anybody other than Crispus, Gaius, and the household of
Stephanas: “Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.” Now, does this sound
like God talking? Would God say, “Paul baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of
Stephanas, and there may have been others. But that was a long time ago, and, well, you
know, so much has happened since then. It’s all kind of fuzzy to Me right now”?

1 Corinthians 7:25­26 records Paul as having written, “Now concerning virgins: I
have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His
mercy has made trustworthy. I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present
distress …” (italics mine). 2 Corinthians 11:17 reads, “What I speak, I speak not
according to the Lord, but as it were, foolishly …” Again, does anybody believe that God
talks like this? Paul admitted that he answered without guidance from God and without
divine authority, and that he personally believed himself to be divinely trustworthy in one
case but speaking foolishly in the other. Paul justified his presumption of authority with
the words, “according to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God”
(1 Corinthians 7:40). The problem is that a whole lot of people have claimed the “Spirit
of God,” while all the time doing some very strange and ungodly things. So should Paul’s
confidence be admired or condemned? However we answer this question, the point is that
whereas human confidence wavers at times, such is not the case with the all­knowing, all­
powerful Creator. God would never say, “I suppose …” as Paul does.  Whereas one man may have assumed “perfect understanding of all things,” lifted
pen and authored a gospel because “it seemed good to me” (Luke 1:3), lots of people
have written on religion assuming “perfect understanding” and because it seemed good to
them. But such lofty sentiments do not a scripture make.
The fallback position of the Bible defendant is to assert that the New Testament is
not the literal word of God, but the inspired word of God. Such an assertion takes support
from 2 Timothy 3:16, which states the obvious: “All scripture is given by inspiration of
God …” That is not to say that something becomes scripture just by naming it as such.
Just because an ecumenical council canonized four gospels, to the exclusion (and destruction) of the other thousand or so gospels, that does not make any one of them
scripture. The proof is not in the opinion of men, even if unanimous, but in the divinity of
origin, as indicated by the internal and external evidence. Those books which fail the tests
of divine origin and/or inspiration can be assumed to either have been impure from the
outset, or corrupted. It is simply not in God’s perfect nature to reveal or to inspire errors.
Isaiah 40:8 helps to define one measure by which authenticity of revelation may
be determined: “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands
forever.” We need not question the source of Isaiah 40:8, for the truth of the statement is
self­evident, timeless and undeniable—the word (that is, the teachings) of God does stand
forever. The point, however, is that not all books “stand forever,” as is obvious from the
lengthy list of corruptions in the previous chapter. And if “the word of our God stands
forever” means it doesn’t get lost, where is the original gospel of Jesus, if not lost? There
is not a true biblical scholar alive who would dispute the fact that not even a single page
of the original Gospel of Jesus is known to exist. Scholars aside, we can realize this
conclusion on our own by recognizing that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. 232 The oldest
known manuscripts canonized as “gospel truth” date from the fourth century CE, and are
predominantly written in a language Jesus never spoke—Koiné Greek!
Largely written by unknown authors, with unknown motivations and peppered
with easily identifiable and ungodly mistakes, the void left by the loss of the original
gospel of Jesus is readily apparent and poorly compensated.
The mistakes and inconsistencies encountered in even the oldest surviving
manuscripts are so numerous as to have prompted C. J. Cadoux, professor of church
history at Oxford, to write, In the four Gospels, therefore, the main documents to which we
must go if we are to fill­out at all that bare sketch which we can put
together from other sources, we find material of widely differing quality as
regards credibility. So far­reaching is the element of uncertainty that it is
tempting to “down tools” at the outset, and to declare the task hopeless.
The historical inconsistencies and improbabilities in parts of the Gospels
form some of the arguments advanced in favor of the Christ­myth theory.
These are, however, entirely outweighed—as we have shown—by other
considerations. Still, the discrepancies and uncertainties that remain are
serious—and consequently many moderns, who have no doubt whatever
of Jesus’ real existence, regard as hopeless any attempt to dissolve out the
historically­true from the legendary or mythical matter which the Gospels
contain, and to reconstruct the story of Jesus’ mission out of the more
historical residue. 233
Cadoux is not alone in his opinion. Any serious seeker quickly recognizes the
frustration that exists among Christian theologians, largely owing to the lack of original scripture, identifiable authors and definitive guidance.

 

 

.….continue reading…..

386 total views, 0 views today

Comments

comments



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *