Quote:
Originally Posted by EatingPie
Why is his record suspect? And while the tale could have grown in the telling, so to speak, John was an eyewitness. If we were, say, in a court of law, an eyewitness is considered one of the very best witnesses to a crime. Sure, there are suspect glossed sections in John (as discussed previously), but this is not one of them. This verse also exists on a pre-300AD fire manuscript (also referenced previously I believe). Hebrews -- authorship unknown -- also refers to the deity of Christ, as well as various "Son of God" and "Son of Man" references, interpreted as equating Jesus with God.
And while Jesus does not call himself "Son of God" in the synoptics, he accepts the phrase in Luke:
Jesus also uses the "I am" phrasing here (typically significant, it may or may not be here, as I don't have the Greek or notes handy.)
You certainly can draw your own conclusions. But what's important here is that Muhammed contradicts Christian Theology, and therefore the statement that the Koran is a continuation of Jesus' teachings cannot be true.
-Pie
|
in your belief is it possible for you to acknowledge and understand that almost certainly none of the new testament writings (with few exceptions were still debated) were not written by anyone who lived during the time of Jesus and witnessed anything?