Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 252852 comments on the The Brussels Journal story from Aug 24, 2007, titled Who Is Allah?. In it, The Brussels Journal reports that:

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? [...] What does God care what we call him?”

From the desk of Soeren Kern on Fri, 2007-08-24 11:56 Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society. via The Brussels Journal

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Brussels Journal.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#193053 Oct 21, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is true that there is only one God but it is also true that Jesus was not that God. 
Just remember that Jesus was only a slave or a servant of God.
If you use common sense then you will throw away all false man-made claims that Jesus claimed to be this and that.
And the problem is that Christianity does not allow you to think or use common sense at all.
Here is what we tell you to do. Just follow Jesus' golden words to Satan.
Just saw this nice picture showing Jesus talking to modern people. You in there, Shamma?
http://bibleencyclopedia.com/goodsalt/John_8_...
You don't understand a word you posted.
Jesus came to die on the cross not to die by Stoning.

I am – In the Greek language,“I am” is a very intense way of referring to oneself. It would be comparable to saying,“I myself, and only I, am.” Several other times in the Gospels we find Jesus using these words. In Matthew 22:32 Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6, where God uses the same intensive form to say “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” In John 8:58, Jesus said “Truly, truly I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.” The Jews clearly understood Jesus to be calling Himself God because they took up stones to stone Him for committing blasphemy in equating Himself with God.

In Matthew 28:20, as Jesus gave the Great Commission, He gave it emphasis by saying “I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

(John 18:4-6). These words "I Am" reflect the very name of God in Hebrew, Yahweh, which means “to be” or “the self-existing one.” It is the name of power and authority, and Jesus claimed it as His own.

The way – Jesus used the definite article to distinguish Himself as “the only way.” A way is a path or route, and the disciples had expressed their confusion about where He was going, and how they could follow. As He had told them from the beginning, Jesus was again telling them (and us)“follow me.” There is no other path to Heaven, no other way to the Father. Peter reiterated this same truth years later to the rulers in Jerusalem, saying about Jesus,“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved”(Acts 4:12). The exclusive nature of the only path to salvation is expressed in the words “I am the way.”

The truth – Again Jesus used the definite article to emphasize Himself as “the only truth.” Psalm 119:142 says “Your law is the truth.” In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reminded His listeners of several points of the Law, then said “but I say unto you...”(Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44), thereby equating Himself with the Law of God as the authoritative standard of righteousness. In fact, Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17). Jesus, as the incarnate Word of God (John 1:1) is the source of all truth.

The life – Jesus had just been telling His disciples about His impending death, and now He was claiming to be the source of all life. In John 10:17-18, Jesus declared that He was going to lay down His life for His sheep, and then take it back again. He spoke of His authority over life and death as being granted to Him by the Father. In John 14:19, He gave the promise that “because I live, you also will live.” The deliverance He was about to provide was not a political or social deliverance (which most of the Jews were seeking), but a true deliverance from a life of bondage to sin and death to a life of freedom in eternity.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193054 Oct 22, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for saying the first part honestly. So, who screwed Matthew 4:8-11?
I asked because knowing what Jesus said told Satan, clearly showed that he was neither the son of God nor God in any way.
How does it show he was not the Son of God? I don't remember Jesus telling Satan he was not the son of God and correcting Satan when he said this. "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down". And as far as being God, I have explained before how Jesus could be considered God on earth, and the son of God, and yet God is also greater. But you don't like my explanation even though you can't tell me why it is wrong or impossible. I do not interpret the NT as saying that God literally left heaven to come down and live on earth, Jesus was God on earth because everything he did and said was God doing it THROUGH Jesus. When it is not you doing and saying the things you do, but rather God, one becomes God in physical form, because it is not you doing these things, but rather God.

7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

“Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

49 For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. 50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

32 but Jesus said to them,“I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied,“but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them,“Is it not written in your Law,‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said,‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

16 Jesus answered,“My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

23 But he continued,“You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

28 So Jesus said,“When you have lifted up[a] the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

42 Jesus said to them,“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me.

45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him,“and you have seen Abraham!”

58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered,“before Abraham was born, I am!”

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#193055 Oct 22, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Qur'aan wants the Christians to know that God has no son and that God is not a trinity.
It wants the Christians to know that Jesus was no more than a man and that he was simply the son of Maryam. Many prophets came before him and passed away and so did Jesus. So, what is the bid deal?
That is shameful!
The Quran is just a story book about a man that claimed he got revelation from an angel.

While Gods Holy bible is the inspired Words of God direct from God Himself.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193056 Oct 22, 2013
I think that one logical consideration should be kept in mind while everybody is so positive that the NT quotes of Jesus are merely man made fabrications. If someone wants to make up quotes or a story, they want people to believe it, right? And to get people to believe it, they need to make their quotes and story as clear and self evident as possible. I think that much can be said with a lot of surety. That's just basic logic. So why would they make up such cryptic quotes that perhaps even they themselves do not fully understand? What would be the benefit?

I would expect them to invent very clear statements that would easily lead people to believe what they want them to believe. But obviously, the Gospels are anything but clear and easy. That's what the Quran is. That is a good example of what someone should write if they want to make something up to get people to believe something. Make it as clear as possible. And the Quran is definitely quite clear, very easy to understand and also quite shallow.

So people often ask, why didn't Jesus just come out and say he is God, or even the Son of God? Let's take John for example, which has the most references to Jesus' divinity. If they were just making all of that up to show Jesus as divine, what would be the problem of having Jesus just come out and clearly state I am God? Why didn't they do that and make their story as clear and easy to believe as possible?

In my opinion, when it comes to matters of God, if it is very abstract, cryptic or even weird, then there's a good chance that it does come from God. The whole notion of what God is is very abstract in of itself. There is no "neat package" way to explain what is beyond words.

When it is very clear, easy to understand and in a nice neat package, you can bet it was written by a man. And that man wrote it that way because that man wants you to believe his story.

A liar always wants you to believe him. Otherwise, he would never even bother to attempt to craft his story. So if the liar wants you to believe him, why would the liar ever make up things that are confusing or difficult to understand that would make it difficult for people to believe him? So strangely enough, if something is very abstract and difficult to understand, there is a good chance that it is the truth because a liar wouldn't make something like that up. But if it's simple, and easy to understand, there's a good chance that it was made up by a liar.

Has anybody ever pondered this logical consideration? It doesn't just apply to the situation of religion, it applies to anything. It makes no sense for a liar to present abstract, difficult to understand or even confusing things if the liar wants people to believe him.

But the truth can often be quite abstract or even confusing, even when we are not talking about the subject of religion. As is said, the truth is often stranger than fiction. And in the situation where we are talking about something as abstract as the notion of God, which in reality, is beyond the conceptual mind's ability to ever fully understand, this becomes even more true that it could be expected to be strange and hard to understand.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193057 Oct 22, 2013
BMZ wrote:

"It wants the Christians to know that Jesus was no more than a man and that he was simply the son of Maryam."

It is interesting that on the one hand, Jesus was no more than a regular human being, just like Muhammad was and all of us are. But on the other hand, he still has to be called the son of Mary, rather than the son of Joseph. So while I could see someone saying that he was simply the son of Joseph, I don't know how someone can say that he was simply the son of Mary, as there is no simply about that statement. That statement alone separates Jesus from "simply" being a regular man.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193058 Oct 22, 2013
So when we get to the Quran'a account of the crucifixion and apply the same rules that I mentioned above, one can ask why the Quran's account of the Crucifixion was so confusing if it was merely a liar trying to make up a story to get you to believe him? Shouldn't the fact that it is confusing rather than a nice neat package point to the fact that it is actually true? So I am fairly applying the same concept that I said about the Gospels to the Quran.

But the answer in this case is that the Quran's account of the crucifixion is actually not strange or confusing at all. It actually makes perfect sense. Muhammad thought that it doesn't make any sense for God to allow Jesus to be crucified, but at the same time, he thought that the Jews thought they DID crucify Jesus.

So what to do? Say that although they thought he was crucified, he actually was not. That is how Muhammad had to work this contradiction out, where he needed to say that Jesus was a prophet, but also no more than a mere man such as himself. Obviously, if Jesus was what Christians claimed, and was crucified and resurrected, then Muhammad could not follow that up, so Jesus had to be knocked down to Muhammad's level. But, to take care of the problem of God allowing Jesus to be crucified, he needed to invent what he invented.

But like often, Muhammad did not see the underlying implications to what he was inventing and the logical problems they would cause. So by not thinking his story through enough, we now have the problems of either God being a deceiver, and his deception leading to the largest religion in the world, or we have Jesus ultimately being a deceptive coward who pulled a fast one, ran away and spent the rest of his life refusing to preach for fear of his life. So in that case, apparently a Prophet cares more about his own life than preaching about God.

And all the while, as Muhammad made this story up, and as Muslims make up stories to make the problems with this story work, they either cast God as a deceiver or Jesus as a deceiving coward. And yet both Muhammad and Muslims claim to have so much honor and respect for Jesus. But after we look at things like this, I do not believe either Muhammad or Muslims, as they would not make him out to be a deceptive coward who cared more about his own life than preaching about God, if they really had respect for him.

Then, there is the idea that Jesus merely failed in his mission. And once again, Muslims do not think about what they are saying. They are saying that God sent the wrong guy and the mission failed. Therefore, God made the wrong choice and God's plan itself was a failure. God can fail and make faulty plans that don't end up working.

Muslims are so eager to craft any story that they need to, that they often don't step back and think of the logical implications of what they are inventing.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193059 Oct 22, 2013
And along the same lines, not only did God's mission for Jesus fail, and therefore God himself failed, God failed in delivering the scriptures the correct way from the beginning. God could not create non corruptible scriptures in the beginning, but God learned from his mistake of Jesus' failed mission, and sending down faulty corruptible scriptures, by sending the Quran and choosing Muhammad as his Prophet. God failed by choosing the Jews as his chosen people and making the Prophets come from them. He failed in delivering scriptures in the right way. But he used an Arab, not a Jew, and the Arabic language to correct all of those past errors, and suddenly God finally got it right, just when Muhammad needed him to. Hmmmm.....

Apparently, the Arabic language is actually God's chosen language, but he just waited for thousands of years to tell us that. And, apparently, Mecca was always the right direction to face when praying, not Jerusalem, but he waited for thousands of years before he told us that.

And, apparently, the Kaaba was the true Holy place and Abraham built it, but he waited for thousands of years before he told us that. And, the black stone was always Holy, but he waited for thousands of years to tell us that. So instead of telling the Jews from early on to face Mecca when praying, to honor the Kaaba and the black stone, God told the Arab pagans this instead, because that was who revered these things before Muhammad incorporated them into Islam, after borrowing what he needed from the Jews and Christians so that he could have a foundation for his religion.

He had to use the ideas and scriptures of Christians and Jews as his basis or foundation, because there were no scriptures that came from the descendants of Ishmael that he could use. But, after he used enough of them to build his foundation, it was time to start tweaking and altering them, so that they could confirm that he was a legitimate Prophet. But he couldn't do that unless he first leveled the charge of corruption against both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. This way, if there was something in them that might be problematic for his claim of being a Prophet, they could easily be over written. And that is exactly what he did. The actual, final goal was to use Judaism and Christianity where he needed to, and then to ultimately turn around and bury the two religions after he stole enough from them.

Now, that is admittedly conjecture, but it sure adds up pretty well. It's not hard to see.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193060 Oct 22, 2013
It really seems to me, that Muhammad liked the idea of monotheism and also had a certain admiration for the Jews and Christians over the pagans, so he needed to invent a monotheistic religion for the Arabs, written in Arabic, for the Arabs. I think he probably thought "where is the piece of the pie of these good ideas for the Arabs?". And so he set out to create it. And then, to court the Christians and Jews, he had to have what he thought would be just enough of an appeasement to both, for them to both follow him. This is why the Quran does not state that Mecca is the proper direction to face when praying right from the beginning of the Quran, it was Jerusalem, and strangely enough, this change came about after Muhammad was convinced that the Jews would not follow him. And to attect the Christians enough appeasement had to be given to Christians that Jesus was indeed a prophet to be respected, and even born of a virgin birth, but when it came time for Crucifixion and resurrection, he could not go that far because that is an impossible act to follow up on. So while Jesus was on the one hand, born of a virgin, on the other hand, he was just a normal man, because that is what Muhammad was.

And to attract the pagans, their Kaaba, Black Stone and their concept of the Jinn had to be added to Islam. It seems to me that this guy was building a strange hybrid religion and was willing to add whatever it took into the religion to attract each group of people.
El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#193061 Oct 22, 2013
bmz wrote:
The Church has no record of anything for the first 400 years.
You've outdone yourself in willfully ignorant/stupid comments!

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT-Chrono...
El Cid

Saint Albans, WV

#193062 Oct 22, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I am the one, who is trying to make you thoughtless guys think hard, Buford.
Of course you are, and failing miserably.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193063 Oct 22, 2013
And next, to consistently apply the same exact logic that I applied to the Gospels, this is why I believe the Hebrew scriptures are true.

Much of the Hebrew scriptures were written in a narrative form, where it is somebody retelling the story of what happened between God and the Jews (for lack of a better word). So we have many many verses where it says things like "and then God said or did XYZ, and then Moses said or did XYZ"{ These passages are all in the form where it cannot either be God nor Moses writing them, but is instead in the form of a third person retelling the story and writing about it. So who was this third person? We don't know and it is the topic of much discussion and speculation. Was this person a witness? When was this written? These are the same exact questions that are asked about the Bible.

So why do I still believe the Hebrew scriptures are true? For the same reasons I gave for the Gospels. In the Hebrew scriptures, the Prophets were far from perfect. Even Moses. Moses made mistakes and for this reason he was not allowed to enter into the Holy Land. That was God's punishment for his mistakes. And then there was Solomon. We don't even need to talk about all of the mistakes he made.

But if a liar was merely inventing stories, we would expect the Prophets to never make all of the clear mistakes they made. But they are there, which suggests to me that these books were willing to tell everything, both good and bad. That strikes me as the truth, as there usually is good and bad to the truth.

But in the Quran, we have no such imperfections of the Prophets that I can remember. And this is what a liar would do if he was merely crafting a story that makes sense to him. Make everything neat and clean and only mention the good while omitting the bad about the Prophets.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193064 Oct 22, 2013
El Cid wrote:
<quoted text>
You've outdone yourself in willfully ignorant/stupid comments!
http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT-Chrono...
The interesting thing is that these are merely the earliest possible dates that they can know of, but nowhere does it actually say that they know that these are definitely the earliest dates, they are only the dates that the limited information they have can point to. So there is actually very little that could ever prove that it is impossible that the earliest dates could have been even earlier. This is merely as far back as they can go with the limited information they have. Everybody takes this dating stuff as undeniable fact, but even the more honest historians admit that it is just their best guess based on the limited information they have. There is nothing definitive about these being the earliest dates.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193065 Oct 22, 2013
El Cid wrote:
<quoted text>Of course you are, and failing miserably.
No he's not. Just ask him. He'll tell you. And if he says so, then it's true. If he says he is doing well, then he must be doing well. If it makes sense to him, then it must make sense. LOL!!!
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193066 Oct 22, 2013
Then we have all of the talk about the Gospels merely being creations of Nicea and others. So let's ask a logical question. If all of these people were merely writing what they want, then why didn't they explicitly write the Trinity into these scriptures so that it is written in stone? And that would be because they weren't just writing whatever they felt like. They were dealing with the scriptures they had, and there were varying interpretations about what ideas could be extrapolated from them because they are very cryptic in many ways. And that was what Nicea was about. Is one supposed to extrapolate a Trinity from the scriptures or not? Was Jesus divine or not? Some verses might suggest that is true, some do not, so this was what all of the heated discussion was about. If they just wanted to fabricate exactly what they wanted in the exact words that they wanted to make the scriptures mean what they wanted, why didn't they just write their own version to make them clearly mean that? For example, why not put a clear reference to the Trinity in there and even use that exact term and a clear explanation of what it means? Now, there is some evidence that occasionally a few verses might have been added, but even that comes from the only the earliest copies that we can find. Nobody actually knows what the very first versions said because nobody has the earliest books. Sometimes things may have been omitted or mistranslated. How many copies do they have of the earliest version they can find. How do we know that the copy they found was complete and that the entire thing was transcribed in that one particular copy? But if they were just wholesale making up whatever they please, then why not just come out in clear language and have Jesus proclaiming himself as God and explicitly mentioning the Trinity? One would think they would do that while they were at it. So it looks like these people were dealing with the scriptures they were dealt, rather than just making wholesale rewrites to suit whatever ideas they were inventing.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193067 Oct 22, 2013
I just thought I would mention something that may or may not have been mentioned here in the conversation about Codex Vatinicus not having "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". Personally, I'm not bothered if it is actually true or not one way or the other as I do not find it significant to the general message and meaning behind what Jesus was really saying.

It is my understanding that the Sinaiticus is even older than Vatinicus, but nobody really has any final, authoritative copies. They have what they have, and that's it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

"Luke 23:34a, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" – it was included by the first scribe, marked by the first corrector as doubtful, but a third corrector removed the mark"

Is it possible that this WAS in the earliest Gospels, but some people decided to remove it because it asks the Jews to be forgiven?

I haven't read the whole conversation about this here because it is too long and makes one's eyes start to water and is filled with all sorts of conjecture and I am more about understanding concepts rather than nitpicking over every single word. So I don't have much interest in it because often people on forums with an agenda can merely offer what they want and omit what they want.

But I do know that often when authors, even historians, write books, they like to be controversial to sell books and often they don't even agree with each other. So is it possible that some authors might raise a problem, using only one codex, but purposefully omit mention of other codexes that would call their questions or criticisms into question?

This stuff can often become too complex to where one has to trust what the author is suggesting because one can't spend years studying this stuff. But don't automatically take one author's opinion as truth just because it says what you want to hear.
Alex WM

London, UK

#193068 Oct 22, 2013
El Cid wrote:
<quoted text>Ex-Lax,
I dare you to follow your logic to its natural conclusion. Admit that if Jesus didn't exist, then your "prophet" Mohammad was both deceived and deceiving.
Hello logical Christian oxy-moron,
You do insist on walking into the little booby traps!!

You are the one who says that the MOST Holy Prophet Mohammed PBUH was a deceived and a deceiving person. By saying this, you also deny his claim that a man of God by the name of Jesus PBUH existed!!!

You can't have it BOTH ways, you ignorant fool!!

You will be struggling to prove that Jesus PBUH existed without the backing of the MOST HOLY PROPHET PBUH and 2Billion Muslims because Atheists/Agnostics, Sikhs, Hindus and many others don't believe that Jesus PBUH ever existed.

I REPEAT...BJ the invented mythical "one-eyed" Satanic whispering naked pagan mangod member of the Trinity, did NOT exist and THE MOST HOLY PROPHET MOHAMMED PBUH WAS NEITHER DECEIVED NOR A DECEIVING PERSON!

WAS THE MOST HOLY PROPHET MOHAMMED PBUH CORRECT WHEN HE CONFIRMED THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS PBUH?

We are waiting for you dear deadwood worker!lol..

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193069 Oct 22, 2013
pg 9100
First this give th discussion on Deut. 18:18
The full chapter for proper understanding who and what and when.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9...

post 193037 (if people stay rude the mod will remove posts so this number may actually change)
MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
I told you before to read up.
We can't go and do all discussions again because you can't keep up.
Satan is primarily understood as an "accuser" or "adversary" in the Hebrew Bible, and is not necessarily the personification of evil that he would become in later Abrahamic religions.

SEEKER:
You criticized the NT for presenting him as a person, didn't you? Personification and person do not mean the same things in the context we are speaking of, or even in many other contexts.

MAAT:
I would call this moving the goalpost but again i only read opinion without sources.

O they will surely be followed with sources and with the request to take up the discussion with the providers of the sources, should i disagree.
e.g.Post 193032
But this is a truly weird way of having any discussion here. It's not a discussion at all.
You are apparently not eve evolved.
The cause might be that you can't unhinge your person from the opinion you present.
Therefore it's not that interesting to discuss with you. Or rather there is nothing to discuss.
Opinions are many and varied and may change.
Rabbeen Al Jihad

Salt Lake City, UT

#193070 Oct 22, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is true that there is only one God but it is also true that Jesus was not that God. 
Just remember that Jesus was only a slave or a servant of God.
If you use common sense then you will throw away all false man-made claims that Jesus claimed to be this and that.
And the problem is that Christianity does not allow you to think or use common sense at all.
Here is what we tell you to do. Just follow Jesus' golden words to Satan.
Just saw this nice picture showing Jesus talking to modern people. You in there, Shamma?
http://bibleencyclopedia.com/goodsalt/John_8_...
SalaamZ most venerable one. Just saw the new and improved picture of you in your new white robe trying to teach some logic and common sense to the modern islamophobes.LOL! great picture! I had no idea you had facial hair and were so handsome! just looking at you makes my palms swet! LOL! CheerZ

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193071 Oct 22, 2013
I'm not even sure we are discussing the same context.
That's to put it mildly.

Ad hominem...context see wiki, discuss with them.

o-O
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#193072 Oct 22, 2013
Here would at least "appear" to be a perfect example of where even historians appear to disagree.

In this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

We find this
Luke 23:34 – "And Jesus said: Father forgive them, they know not what they do." This omission is supported by the manuscripts \mathfrak{P}75, Sinaiticusa, D*, W, &#920;, 0124, 1241, a, d, syrs, copsa, copbo.[33]

And the reference says this:
^ Metzger, Bruce M.(2001). A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. p. 154. ISBN 3-438-06010-8.

So this article claims that Metzger supports the fact that the omission is supported by Siniaticus

But then, when we look at this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

It says this.
Luke 23:34a, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" – it was included by the first scribe, marked by the first corrector as doubtful, but a third corrector removed the mark.[35]

And here is the source it cites
^ Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece 26th edition, Stuttgart 1991, p. 239.

So either the two authors of the articles do not fully agree, or the author of the Vatinucus article is purposefully omitting something. Or the two different reference sources that the two articles use do not agree.

But this is an example of how these things can often go. So often, one can't just cite one article that uses one information source, and consider the matter settled. And often, they cannot even cite one book by one historian, and consider their word as fact and consider the matter settled. Especially if that article or reference source or book says exactly what someone WANTS to hear.

But if I understand the different claims between the two articles, one claims that Sinaiticus supports the ommission of the phrase, while the other one does not and states that the first scribe put that phrase in there.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Archaeology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Origin of Hindu Brahmins (Aug '08) Jun 7 MUQ2 194
News If Captain Cook's ship is found, whose is it? R... Jun 1 Hostis Publicus 24
News Who Is Allah? (Jul '08) May '16 Joel 13,168
News Giant sphere sparks debate Apr '16 Phyllis Schlafly ... 1
News Did Islam reach France 1,300 years ago? DNA and... Apr '16 Muslim Bounty Hunter 19
News Send in the archaeologists to help restore Palm... Mar '16 Ostreology 1
Stunning 2200-Year-Old Mosaics Discovered in An... Mar '16 west38 1
More from around the web