This will be a fairly long post, but you make a lot of claims, just a lesson for next time.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Peace be upon who follows the right way,
Your Kai Habard said,
first and most, if the Bible has been corrupted, then the Koran is a book of error:
Quote:
“If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU” (Sura 10:94).
The Arabic word for book here is 'kitab' which means book, and the word Bible is Latin and means book.
If the Bible is corrupt, why is Muhammad commanded to CONSULT those who were reading the book (Bible) before him.
Is Allah really commanding his last prophet to consult a a corrupted book? Well gladiator you tell me?
And my reply to so smiply is
I think your studying for Arabic languange is so weak
let us see the translation for the meanings of the Quran for this verse,
(Surah 10, Verse 94)
{[94] So if you (O Muhammad (peace be upon him)) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, (i.e. that your name is written in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) then ask those who are reading the Book (the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it).}
The Quran said {then ask those who are reading the Book (the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) before you} which means those who converted and believed in Islam like the friend of prophet (Abdel Allah bin Salm),
Kai replies:
I fail to see that this proves anything despite your attempt, secondly you are interpolating the text; you are being dishonest
Muslimgladiator wrote:
the fifthful People of the Book who believed in our Prophet and they can read the other books. If the Quran means you Jews and Christian, the verse should be like that {then ask the People of the Book who are reading the Book (the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) before you}
If you want to know the meaning of the pharse, who are those reading the Book (the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) before you}
Kai replies:
I fail to see how your argument defends your position, the verse I posted said:
“If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU” (Sura 10:94).
The passage you post have been interpolated by human hands:
{[94] So if you (O Muhammad (peace be upon him)) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, (i.e. that your name is written in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) then ask those who are reading the Book (the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it).}
In the original writing, nothing is written about Muhammad’s name, neither is there any reference to the particular books.
The passage refers to those who were reading the book before Muhammad; these are clearly the people of the book:
“Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord” (Sura 5:68-71)
According to the Koran, they had received a portion of the book:
Hast thou not turned thy thought to those who have been given a PORTION OF THE BOOK? They are invited to the Book of Allah, to settle their dispute, but a party of them turn back and decline (Sura 3:23)
Hence they are called the people of the book
Clearly in this passage, Muhammad is doubting his own revelation, and what is the solution to the problem? Well ask those who read the previous Revelations.
Your conclusion is these individuals are converts to Islam, such as Abdel Allah bin Salm.
My challenge at this point is: show me a passage which relates this passage of the Quran to Jewish or Christian converts to Islam, particularly to Abdel.
Virtually nothing in the text reveals anything about the converts to Islam.
Hence you have failed to prove this, and even though you did, it would not prove the slightest thing, except that Muhammad doubted his revelation and needed help from the previous books.
In fact Muhammad trusted the previous revelations; you tell me why it was necessary for Muhammad to boost his confidence of prophethood on the Torah and Injeel if they were corrupted.
Why did the Koran not say:
“If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU but be careful they are corrupted, you can only trust so and so passage and so and so word” (Sura 10:94).
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Then go to (Surah 7, Verse 157), There is the translation of the meanings of the Quran for this verse.
[157] Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write (i.e. Muhammad (peace be upon him)) whom they find written with them in the Taurât (Torah) (Deut, xviii, 15) and the Injeel (Gospel) (John xiv, 16), - he commands them for Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained); and forbids them from Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief, polytheism of all kinds, and all that Islâm has forbidden); he allows them as lawful At-Taiyibât ((i.e. all good and lawful) as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons, foods), and prohibits them as unlawful Al-Khabâ'ith (i.e. all evil and unlawful as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons, foods), he releases them from their heavy burdens (of Allâh's Covenant), and from the fetters (bindings) that were upon them. So those who believe in him (Muhammad (peace be upon him)) honor him, help him, and follow the light (the Qur'ân) which has been sent down with him, it is they who will be successful.}
Kai replies:
Muhammad prophethood in the Bible, e.g. the Torah and Gospel of John has been dealt with several times in this forum, here is a thread I have posted on earlier occasions:
I have posted this one before, several times, without getting any reply from our Muslim brothers. So I just fealt that the time had come to post it again--and just see if we get any good response this time.
Is Muhammad predicted in the Bible?
The Koran itself makes this statement, and Muslims have strongly attempted to prove this point by referring to particular passages in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.
Muslims usually wonder why Christians reject Muhammad as a prophet, and the answer is obvious: 1) the Jewish and Christian Scripture refer nowhere to Muhammad, and secondly 2) Muhammad does not fulfil the standard of a prophet as set out in the Bible.
The Koran says:
“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures in the Taurat and he Gospel” (Sura 7: 157)
And remember Jesus, the Son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (Sent) to you, confirming the Taurat (which came) before me, and giving a glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad” but when he came to them with clear signs, they said “This is evident sorcery” (Sura 61: 6)
Thus the Koran states that Muhammad is predicted and found within the Torah and the Gospel as it was read and understood by the Christians and the Jews in the era of Muhammad.
I. Muhammad predicted in the Torah?
Muslims will usually claim that God’s blessing upon Ishmael was the prediction concerning Muhammad; however, taking a closer look, we find that there is virtually no prophetic blessing ascribed to Ishmael (Gen. 16:7-15; 17:17-21; 21: 13, 18; 25:12-18). Even the Qur’an itself confirms that the line of prophet-hood ran through the nation of Israel and its prophets (2:47; 29:47; 45:16-17).
The Muslim scholar Jamal Badawi seeks however, to argue his case on the issue by stating that a position of the kind always went to the firstborn first, which in this case is Ishmael, however:
1) this decision was taken before the law was inaugurated,
2) secondly God is above the law and
3) thirdly the context makes the whole setting understandable.
The Bible recognises the same to occur in terms of both David and Solomon (1 Samuel 16:6-13
1 Chronicles 29:23-25), and this is indeed accepted by the Koran:
We gave knowledge to David and Solomoon and they both said: ‘Praise be to Allah, Who has favored us above may of His servants who believe! And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: O ye people we have taught the speech of birds and we have been given of every thing: this is indeed grace manifest (from Allah)’ (Sura 27: 15-16)
The classic point referred to by Muslims is Deuteronomy 18:18 which says:
“I will raise up for them a prophet like you among their own brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I commanded you.”
The attempt of the Muslim is to state that compared to Moses, no prophet presented himself in the same close similitude as Muhammad. To prove their point Muslim scholars have listed a range of parallel elements, which mark the life and accomplishments of both individuals.
E.g. Ahmed Deedat in his booklet What the Bible says about Muhammed comes up with these points:
1) Moses and Muhammad were prophets, while Jesus according to the Gospels was the Son of God!
- however the Gospels do refer to Jesus as a prophet too (Mark 6:4)
2) Moses and Muhammad were both married, Jesus was not
- if that is important we also need to consider the number of wives Muhammad had in comparison to Moses, which proves to be highly unequal
3) Moses and Muhammad had both a father and mother, but Jesus had no father
- to use this argument a Muslim is simply referring to Jesus on a much higher level than Muhammad, and secondly if this is important why should we stop here, why not also consider the comparison between the parents of Moses and Muhammad?
4) Both Moses and Muhammad, were accepted by their people while Jesus was rejected
- actually Jesus was accepted by his followers, and secondly his mission is not over yet. The time is coming when he will receive global acceptation. Secondly, was Muhammad really accepted by all, or did he simply force his rule?
5) Moses and Muhammad were both rulers, Jesus never ruled a people or anyone
- Jesus stated that he is ruling already now over heaven and earth, however again, his mission is not completed yet, he will return to rule globally
6) Moses and Muhammad gave laws to the people Jesus did not
- wrong again, read the sermon on the mountain or Jesus words prior to his ascension (Matt.28:20)
7) Moses and Muhammad died a natural death, while Jesus’ according to the Gospel died as a sacrifice
- 1) Moses was killed by God himself, 2) Jesus died as a sacrifice and 3) Muhammad was possibly poisoned by a Jewish women; which of these three died a natural death?
8) Moses and Muhammad are both buried but Jesus according to the Gospel was taken to heaven
- Jesus was buried for a few days, as for Moses there is no grave, we are left ignorant.
This kind of approach is obviously formulated by an individual whose lack of Biblical knowledge simply leads him to pull verses out of context, combine them with other verses and add a slight of speculation. For example what has marriage got to do with the similitude of prophet-hood?
If this kind of approach lays the criteria, then the Muslim also needs to consider the elements which speak against Muhammad’s prophet-hood:
Similar argumentation proving Muhammad to be unlike Moses
1) Both Moses and Jesus were Israelites descending from the prophet line of Isaac of Jacob;
Muhammad was an Arab
2) Both Moses and Jesus were in Egypt; Muhammad was not
3) Both Moses and Jesus were saved as babies; Muhammad was not
4) Moses (Ex.33: 13-14) and Jesus (Matt.11) knew God personally, Muhammad did not!
5) Moses and Jesus could read, Muhammad could according to the Muslims not
6) Both Moses and Jesus did miracles, but according to the Qur’an Muhammad performed none (Sura 24: 13) (29: 50).
7) Jesus and Moses never advocated foreign gods, however Muhammad at one point encouraged the worship of the three daughters of Allah.
8) The passage in Deut.18: 18 cannot refer to Muhammad since the whole context deals with Israel and individual positions within society, such as prophets, who were to originate from the nation of Israel, that is: from among their own brothers, just like the kings (17:14-15) and priests (18:2).
The Actual context of Deut.18: 15-20
The argument falls to ground merely by considering the actual context of Deut.18, and this is where modern Islamic scholarship gets debunked.
“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your own brethren—him you shall heed (15). Just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die’ (16). And the Lord said to me, ‘They have rightly said all that they have spoken’ (17). I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth…(18)”.
In other words the promise of a prophet like Moses was an answer to Israel’s prayer. One who will succeed Moses and stand between the Israel as a nation and God; in this context it had no global or international implication; the matter concerns the nation of Israel only.
“And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him (19). But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death (20)”.
It becomes obvious from verses 19-20 that the prophet has a plural significance, in other words, the ‘prophet’ is a prediction of several prophets rather than a particular one.
Secondly, since the passage refers to the context of Israel and the function of prophets there within. In other words, the prophet like Moses begins with Joshua. Thus the most accurate interpretation reveals that the ‘prophet’ refers to the line of prophets, from Moses up to Jesus Christ.
It is vital here, that Muhammad did at one time through prophetical utterance permit the worship of idols. Later the verses (known as the satanic verses) were abrogated from the Quran by the angel Gabriel (Sura 17:73 – 75, Sura 22:52-53, Sura 52: 19-26 Bukhari 6: 385; Tabari vol 6: 107).
This one of the main reasons, why Christians refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet from God and certainly as the last prophet.
No true prophet of God ever did this! Even worse, the Suras, Bukhari and the Tabari, also reveal that God was not even able to correct his word while it is revealed. Now that is a problem, then how can we be sure that anything in the Koran is from God?
There is more, verses 21-22, speak of the actual sign which proves a prophet, that is the fulfilment of his predictions, say a prophet really speaks for God and Muhammad did fail in this area as well; e.g. Sunan Abu Dawud, book 37: Number 4283 (Did the Dajjal appear in the seventh year of the battle over Constantinople?).
II. Is Muhammad predicted elsewhere in the Old Testament?
Since the word mahamaddim is used in Song of songs 5:16 Muslims quickly assert that Muhammad is being predicted.
However mahamaddim is a Hebrew word, which simply refers to a ‘loved one’ (literary it means delights) in a romantic setting; the same noun is applied in several Old Testament passages such as Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25.
Secondly the passage does not describe Muhammad but possibly king Solomon or even a shepherd boy.
Often Deut.33: 2 and Habakkuk 3: 3 are used to claim that Paran refers to Mecca, however Paran is located in the Sinai Peninsula near Egypt. Secondly, the context of Deut.33 speaks of an event in the history of Israel, not Saudi Arabia in the era of Muhammad.
Some Muslims refer to the servant in Isaiah 42:1 to prove Muhammad, however the context clearly refers to a Jewish related individual, who is a peacemaker and fits the full context of the anointed Messiah.
The Muslim scholar Badawi postulates that Isaiah 21:13-17 is a reference to the battle of Badr, however the context speaks about the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions of Arabia.
Psalm 84:6 is often used to prove the pilgrimage to Mecca, however the name used, Baca, is located in northern Israel, as near as five miles from Jerusalem.
Isaiah 29: 11-12 is supposed to refer to the giving of the Quran to someone who is unable to read (Muhammad), however according to the context, it is the rebellious people of Israel (not God) provide the book. Thus, say Muhammad is the focus, then not Allah but the rebellious people of Israel provide Muhammad with the Koran (talk about corruption), and then again, how about the other individual who is literate? Who is he? Also we need to consider that the text is plural, and no particular individual seems to be in mind, and finally the book is sealed and can therefore not be read; is the Muslim thus willing to admit that he cant read his own holy book?
Isaiah 42-45 speak about a chosen anointed one, yet again we need to look at the context as; in Isaiah 42 the chosen anointed servant clearly is a Messianic prediction, in Isaiah 42-44, 48-49 it is Israel, in Isaiah 41 and 45 it is the Persian king Cyrus.
III. Is Muhammad predicted in the Gospels?
The classical example from the Gospels is the ‘Counsellor’ mentioned in Jesus discourse to the disciples (John 14-15).
1) The word used by Jesus in John 14: 16 and 16:7 is parakletos (counsellor), however Muslims assert that the word should be the Greek periklytos which means praised one, a common title used for Muhammad.
However this kind of argument simply builds upon speculation, since the word clearly is parakletos not periklytos as it is attested by every ancient document.
2) Secondly if the word indeed proved to be periklytos, so what? Why should it refer to Muhammad and not to someone else?
3) Thirdly, no ancient manuscripts contain the word periklytos, but parakletos
4) Fourthly the Muslim fails to consider the context, which would reveal that in case Muhammad was the parakletos or the periklytos:
- he was sent to Jesus disciples after Jesus’ ascension (14:15)
- he will be sent on behalf of the will of Jesus (14:16)
- he would remain with them forever (14:16)
- he would only be seen by Jesus followers, first of all the disciples (14:17)
- he will live with and in the disciples (14:17)
- he will be directly united with Christ (14:18-19)
In other words if this particular passage refers to Muhammad, then indeed Muhammad is God, which in the religion of Islam would be committing shirk, the unforgivable sin of comparing anyone or anything with God.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
You Kai Hagbard stated (Surah 29, Verse 46)
{[46] And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islâmic Monotheism with His Verses), except with such of them as do wrong; and say (to them): "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our Ilâh (God) and your Ilâh (God) is One (i.e. Allâh), and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims)."}
and I say,
and I do not know why did your state it? but, yes we believe there was a Bible but is has been changed. And we believe in Jesus or Isa as a good prophet. And we believe that Allah is our God and your God too.
Kai replies:
So you believe there is a Bible but it has been changed, you are certainly not a believer in the Koran then. We will debate this further down.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You Kai Hagbard Stated (Surah 4, Verse 136)
{[136] O you who believe! Believe in Allâh, and His Messenger (Muhammad (peace be upon him)) and the Book (the Qur'ân) which He has sent down to His Messenger, and the Scripture which He sent down to those before (him); and whosoever disbelieves in Allâh, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, then indeed he has strayed far away.}
And I say,
Yes we believe there were Holy books before Islam. And we believe in Jesus's Gospel which he had been given by God. But where it is?
Kai replies:
Exactly, where is, this what I should be asking you, since you make the claim; Christians do not believe in such a Gospel. Infact history, all the way down to the First century, reveals only the Four Gospels which were compilations of Jesus’ sayings and the Gospel account.
IF THERE WAS SUCH A GOSPLE AS YOU PROPOSE, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY HISTORY HAS GOT NO INFORMATION ABOUT IT, PLEASE ALSO EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE EARLIETS CHRISTIANS EVEN THE APOSTLES AND THEIR DISCIPLES KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT.
The early Christians quoted and referred to the Gospels and the New Testament frequently; I will quote myself again from an earlier occasion:
Justin Martyr (writing year 133 AD) refers to the four Gospels, the Book of Acts and the epistles 330 times
Irenaeus (living late second century) refers to the Gospels 1038 times, Acts 194 times, Paul’s epistles 499 times, the other epistles 23 time and the Book of Revelation 65 times, with a total of 1819 times
Clement of Alexandria (living 150-212) refers to the Gospels 1017 times, Acts 44 times, Paul 1127 times, Revelation 11 times, the other epistles 207 times, with a total of 2406 times.
Origin (living 185-254) refers to the Gospels 9231 times, Acts 349 times, Paul 7778 times, other epistles 399 times, Revelation 165 times, with a total of 17.922 times.
If the critic is correct in concluding that the New Testament books were merely fabrications up to middle fourth century, then how come:
(1) Clement of Alexandria (year 150-212) cites from all New Testament writings except three books.
Or to take an even earlier example:
(2) that of Ignatius (year 70-110 AD) who wrote seven letters containing quotes from: Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Galatians, Colossians, James, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy and I Peter.
This proves (just to mention two cases) the whole of the New Testament to be in the hands of theologians based in various places in the first and second century. Secondly this gives additional evidence to the reliability of the New Testament Biblical text.
It has been estimated that the quotations of the early theologians of the New Testament text up to the fourth century covers the whole of the New Testament except eleven verses.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
I can see Luke Gospel. Mark..etc. I really wish to see Jesus's Gospel.
Kai replies:
The only thing which the apostles new about was the Gospel account which was compiled into several books by various compilers such as Matthew, Mark (which in reality was Peter’s account), Luke who was a doctor and a historian and John.
If you bother to do your home work, here is a slight taster:
The early church-historian Eusebius () refers to some of the earliest insights into the Gospel material, the historical testimony of Papias (Eusebius dates Papias to Trajan’s reign (AD 98-117) and later AD 130-140. Bartlet dates Papias writing to take place about AD 100; in all honesty we may date his writings to AD 125). Papias was one of the earliest church fathers who according to the church father Irenaeus () was acquainted with the apostles. Irenaeus refers to Papias as being “a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp ()” (Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle). Eusebius in reference to Papias and Irenaeus’ reference to Papias in his Ecclesiastical History (History of the Church) 3.39.1-7, 14-17 writes:
1 ... And of Papias there are five treatises in circulation, and which were entitled, An Exposition of the Lord's Reports. Irenaeus also mentions these as his only writing, using the following words: And these things Papias, who has been a hearer of John and a colleague of Polycarp, an early man, corroborates in writing in the fourth of his books. For there were five books that he composed.
2 So wrote Irenaeus. Yet Papias himself, according to the preface of his volumes, in no way presents himself to have been a listener and eyewitness of the holy apostles, but teaches that he had received the articles of the faith from those who had known them, for he speaks as follows:
3 But I will not hesitate to supplement at any time for you too the interpretations with whatever I learned thoroughly and remembered thoroughly from the presbyters, since I am confident in the truth on their account. For unlike many I was not delighted with those who say many things but with those who teach the truth, or with those who remember not the commandments of others but those given by the Lord to the faith and derived from truth itself.
4 But whenever someone who had followed the presbyters came along, I would carefully ask about the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter had said or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and which Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord say too. For I did not assume that whatever comes from books is as helpful to me as what comes from a living and lasting voice.
5 It is also worth calling attention here to his listing the name of John twice, as he includes the first John with Peter and James and Matthew and the remaining apostles, clearly indicating the evangelist, but the other John, with separate wording, he places among the others outside the number of the apostles, and putting Aristion before him, he clearly calls him a presbyter;
6 so, by these words, he substantiates the story of those saying that two men were in Asia of the same name and that there were two tombs in Ephesus both still said to be John's. It is also necessary to turn our attention to this: for it is likely that the second, unless someone should prefer the first, beheld the revelation that is circulated under the name of John.
7 And the Papias being explained now admits that he had received the words of the apostles from those who followed them, and declares that he was an ear-witness of Aristion and the presbyter John. At any rate, he hands down their traditions in his treatises, often mentioning them by name. ...
14 And in his own writing he also hands down other accounts of the aforementioned Aristion of the words of the Lord and the traditions of the presbyter John, to which we refer those truly interested. Of necessity, we will now add to his reports set forth above a tradition about Mark who wrote the gospel, which he set forth as follows:
15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.
16 Now this is reported by Papias about Mark, but about Matthew this was said, Now Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could.
17 He himself used testimonies from the first epistle of John and similarly from that of Peter, and had also set forth another story about a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains. And let these things of necessity be brought to our attention in reference to what has been set forth.
From Eusebius reference to Papias several issues need to be pointed out. He confirms that the apostles particularly engaged in teaching the Gospel. Papias even considered the oral tradition from these apostles as more essential than the written record. This presents no problem. As a matter of fact this even strengthens the position of the written Gospels, as the oral tradition mentioned by Papias confirms the apostolic duty to be witnesses of the Gospel account. Secondly, Papias confirms that at this point both the oral witness and the written testimony are operating at the same time, 3) that he values the oral witness is obvious, and Papias would never use this terminology unless he linked the two to the same apostolic witness; notice that Papias refers to three of the Gospel compilers, Matthew Peter (Mark), and John:
4 But whenever someone who had followed the presbyters came along, I would carefully ask about the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter had said or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and which Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord say too.
It is essential that Papias a contemporary of the apostles confirms the names of Matthew, Peter (Mark) and John; her we possess the actual names of the Gospel compilers from an early external witness.
I say with Papias I would give anything to hear the Gospel account from the actual Apostles rather than reading them from the written accounts, however Apostles are mortal, and the Gospel accounts were written for the same reason; thus the Apostolic witness still remains through the written code, that has always been their intended purpose. Yet the fact remains that the oral tradition, the witness and the written testimony can be linked to the same Apostolic individuals.
Papias also confirms that at least two of these apostles were the actual sources behind the written Gospel accounts; concerning the Gospel of Mark he writes:
15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.
The Gospel of Mark
Papias confirms that there is a Mark’s Gospel, however, Mark’s Gospel is not to be considered as a Gospel compiled or composed by Mark. Papias notes that Mark served in dictating Peter’s teachings, or more correctly Peter’s testimony, possibly in the city of Rome. Additionally it is vital that Mark carefully sought to record everything which Peter had uttered. In other words, the Gospel of Mark is in reality the Gospel of Peter. It is interesting that Peter in his first Epistle writes from Babylon, which possibly refers to the city of Rome, and interestingly he is joined by Silas and Mark (1 Peter 5: 12-13)
Justin Martyr () a contemporary of Papias confirms Papias’ statement. He also reveals knowledge of a Gospel collection and if we possessed his work: ‘Against Marcion’, which was known to Irenaeus and Eusebius we would know more (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.2 and Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.11.8f). In his two works which have survived, his ‘Dialogue with Trypho’ and his two ‘apologies’ addressed to emperor Antonius Pius (138-161) and the Roman Senate (144-160). In the ‘Dialogue’ he refers to the ‘memoirs of Peter’ possibly Mark (Justin Martyr, Dialogue 106.3 and 100.4) and in his ‘First apology’ he refers to the ‘memoirs of the apostles’, and points out that these memoirs are called Gospels and are read in church along with the ‘compositions of the prophet’ (First apology, 66.3; 67.3).
Justin Martyr Dialogue 100:4
100.4 says:
Chapter C.-In What Sense Christ is [Called] Jacob, and Israel, and Son of Man.
"Then what follows-`But Thou, the praise of Israel, inhabitest the holy place'-declared that He is to do something worthy of praise and wonderment, being about to rise again from the dead on the third day after the crucifixion; and this He has obtained from the Father. For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: `All things are delivered unto me by My Father; 'and, `No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'381 Accordingly He revealed to us all that we have perceived by His grace out of the Scriptures, so that we know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures; likewise to be the Son of the patriarchs, since He assumed flesh by the Virgin of their family, and submitted to become a man without comeliness, dishonoured, and subject to suffering. Hence, also, among His words He said, when He was discoursing about His future sufferings: `The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.'382 He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David383 and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam384 was the father both of Himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear. For [Christ] called one of His disciples-previously known by the name of Simon-Peter; since he recognised Him to be Christ the Son. of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son, we have understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power and will (for He is addressed in the writings of the prophets in one way or another as Wisdom, and the Day,385 and the East, and a Sword, and a Stone, and a Rod, and Jacob, and Israel); and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God;386 and she replied, `Be it unto me according to thy word.'"387 And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.
106:
"The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: `I will declare Thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise Thee. Ye that fear the Lord, praise Him; all ye, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, `A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel; '410 and another Scripture says, `Behold a man; the East is His name.'411 Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.
Interestingly the text clearly confirms that John Martyr’s reference to Peter’s Gospel is in fact Mark’s Gospel, as also Papias confirmed earlier:
And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges.
As a Muslim, typically having no or little insight into Christian theology and doctrine except for the ideas which your own scholars asserts that Christians are to believe in, I am not surprised that you get the whole thing wrong:
Could I encourage you to read Matthew 28; John 14 and Act 1, where the Gospel mandate, that is the responsibility to convey the Injeel to us is given to the apostles.
In other words, we are not looking at
JESUS GOSPEL BUT THE GOSPEL ACCOUNT AS IT WAS CONVEYED TO US BY THE APOSTLES.
THE GOSPEL IS FIRST AND MOST NOT A BOOK, IT IS AN ACCOUNT, TO WHICH THE APOSTLES WERE EYEWITNESSES. IN THE VERY BEGINNING THE GOSPEL ACCOUNT WAS SIMPLY MEMORIZED, HOWEVER IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE QURAN, IT HAD TO BE COMPILED AND WRITTEN DOWN. THIS TASK WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE AND JOHN.
If you think about it, this has stronger proof than Islam which only relies on one witness Zaid Ibn
Let me just elaborate on this and make a comparison:
When you talk about Gospel and its authorships you already reveal your ignorance.
Actually there is no authorship on the first three Gospels (except John’s Gospel and we will get to that).
You may say: what are you talking about?
Well, to put it this way: the Gospel writers were not authors they were compilers, gathering the material of Jesus teaching and narratives in written form.
Thus they wrote down what was already there, already perceived.
Let me just illustrate this a bit further:
The whole idea about Mark’s Gospel or Matthew’s Gospel or Luke’s Gospel is no more accurate than to say: the Koran according to so and so, such as:
The Koran of Zaid ibn Thabit
The Koran Abdullah ibn Mas'ud
These individuals were known mainly as compilers, not authors (at least that is the claim, anyway):
Zaid bin Thabit was told to compile the Koran after much of it had been lost:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed. Then Abu Bakr said (to me): "You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle (saw). So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it (in one book)". By Allah! If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle (saw) did not do?" Abu Bakr replied "By Allah, it is a good project". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.477).
Notice also from the text of Bukhari that the Koran had never been compiled, even by Muhammad. In the same way as the Gospel writings had never been compiled or written down by Jesus or his followers (some however suggest that Matthew was a Gospel written along side the life and ministry of Jesus; of course such a theory is possible, but not confirmed, at least yet).
While Muslims maintain that four-fold Gospels compilation present a problem, they seem to forget that there were a multiple number of Korans before the standard copy of Uthman (or Uthman’s Koran).
One of these other Korans had been compiled by Abdullah ibn Mas'ud.
As the early Muslims realised the problem of inconsistency in these Korans, Uthman the Caliph ordered all of them burned except the Zaid Ibn’s Koran. Even the Koran of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud was ordered to be destroyed:
"I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah?" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.15).
What was it which Abdullah ibn Mas’ud had to give up which he had acquired from Muhammad but which obviously dmust have differed from Zaid’s.
Anyway here is a further Hadith on the particular occurrence in Islamic history:
Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).
My whole point is, if the Gospels of the Bible are corrupted because they are compiled by the followers of Jesus, then the same criteria must be counting for the Koran.
According to Sahih Bukhari, vol. 6, p.479 the Muslim scholars who sat down to recreate or rewrite the Koran had to follow Zaid ibn. In other words, the Koran we possess today is virtually depending upon the compilation of one man.
Again the Koran was thereafter written into Quraishi dialect as it was revealed as such; do we not detect some problems here.
Further, how can we be sure that these individuals did not add or manipulate the standard Koran.
And Thirdly, how do we know whether any of this even took place, since Bukhari was written more than a hundred years after Muhammad’s death or so (Talk about evidences).
AS A MATTER OF FACT IS SEEMS TO ME THAT MUSLIMS EXPECT US CHRISTIANS TO REJECT THE GOSPEL OF MARK, FOR THE KORAN OF ZAID IBN
Nothing proves that the present Koran is the Koran of Allah, but the Koran of Zaid ibn, at least according to the Muslim criteria. Yet further the sources which provides the details about Zaid ibn are documented 100 to 200 years after the incident from mere hear-saying, and that is what Muslims tell us Christians to put our faith in. I simply don’t think so!!!!!!!!!
This is indeed vital because Abdullah in copying from Osama Abdallah’s website considers the Gospels to be corrupted since they were not documented until 100-150 years after Jesus went to heaven.
This whole idea about documentation even hundred years after is false, I will come back to that later. However if we are to follow Abdullah criteria, then Bukhari’s writings do not confirm the authorship of the Koran to be accurate, thus we have no evidence for Zaid ibn’s authorship and therefore the Koran is false.
Secondly, the whole Muslim concept about the Gospel is misunderstood and wrong.
Jesus was never given a book, Jesus never wrote a book, according to the Gospels the responsibility was given to the apostles (And may I then explain that these men were apostles and are valued by Christians in the same way as Muhammad is value by Muslims).
In Luke 24: 45-49 we read:
45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
In Matthew 28 we read:
18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
In other words the Gospels are the apostolic confirmation of witness.
In John 14 this is further elaborated:
25“All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you
And in John 16:
12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
Thus the Gospels are the witnesses of the apostles inspired and by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Further, this can be confirmed by the earliest Christian historical manuscripts:
In which the Gospels are referred to, not as Gospels but the memoirs of the Apostles:
In his historical book of early Christianity ‘The History of the Church’ (260) Eusebius refers to Papias (110-140) who refers to the Gospel of Mark dictating the Apostle Peter, without omitting or adding anything (Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.3.39.15). Papias also confirms that Matthew wrote a Gospel mainly to the Jews (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. , 3.39.16)
Papias also provides a list in which at least two compiled Gospel information:
Papias bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (125), refers to the written tradition but was also significantly in favour of oral transmission:
‘If ever any one came who had been a companion of the elders, I would inquire about the elders words. “What” I would ask “did Andrew or Peter say, or Philip or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples”? “And what do Aristion and John the elder, the Lord’s disciple, say”?’ (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.4. Taken from Papia’s Exegesis of the Dominical oracles)
Justin Martyr (100-160) confirms similar facts in his Dialogue with Trypho where he mentions the memoirs of Peter (Dialogue 106.3 and 100.4), and later in his two apologies to emperor Antonius Pius (138-61) and Roman Senate (144-160); in which he refers to the memoirs of the apostles, which he also calls Gospels, which he states are read along the compositions of the prophet (First apology, 66.3; 67.3)
Here is the actual text, I have underlined the important phrases but I post the whole passage so anybody can look at it within its full context:
Justin Martyr Dialogue 100:4
100.4 says:
Chapter C.-In What Sense Christ is [Called] Jacob, and Israel, and Son of Man.
"Then what follows-`But Thou, the praise of Israel, inhabitest the holy place'-declared that He is to do something worthy of praise and wonderment, being about to rise again from the dead on the third day after the crucifixion; and this He has obtained from the Father. For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: `All things are delivered unto me by My Father; 'and, `No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'381 Accordingly He revealed to us all that we have perceived by His grace out of the Scriptures, so that we know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures; likewise to be the Son of the patriarchs, since He assumed flesh by the Virgin of their family, and submitted to become a man without comeliness, dishonoured, and subject to suffering. Hence, also, among His words He said, when He was discoursing about His future sufferings: `The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.'382 He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David383 and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam384 was the father both of Himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear. For [Christ] called one of His disciples-previously known by the name of Simon-Peter; since he recognised Him to be Christ the Son. of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son, we have understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power and will (for He is addressed in the writings of the prophets in one way or another as Wisdom, and the Day,385 and the East, and a Sword, and a Stone, and a Rod, and Jacob, and Israel); and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God;386 and she replied, `Be it unto me according to thy word.'"387 And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.
106:
"The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: `I will declare Thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise Thee. Ye that fear the Lord, praise Him; all ye, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, `A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel; '410 and another Scripture says, `Behold a man; the East is His name.'411 Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.
So here we have the memoirs of the apostles (the Four Gospels) and the memoirs of Peter (Mark’s Gospel)
In the next passage Justin Martyr reveals that these memoirs are in fact (not a Gospel), but the Gospels:
First apology 66.3 and 67:3
Chapter LXVI.-Of the Eucharist.
And this food is called among us Eu0xaristi/a143 [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.144 For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,145 this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
NOTICE THAT JUSTIN MARTYR REFERS TO THE MEMOIRS AS GOSPELS, ALSO HE CONFIRMS THAT THE GOSPELS WERE NOT WRITTEN WORKS BUT COMPOSITIONS (if you look at it the compositions of sayings and narrative).
AND WE CONTINUE
Chapter LXVII.-Weekly Worship of the Christians.
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday,146 all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability,147 and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given,148 and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
One of Justin Martyr’s students Tatian even introduced the Diatessaron in 170 which was a harmony of the four Gospels. In which the earliest fragments we possess today dates the third century and a full commentary on it written by Ephrem (306-73) in Greek.
This proves that the four Gospels were considered to be the accepted standard to what the church considered to the Gospel.
Later the church rejected the use of the Diatessaron as the church preferred the four Gospels to be read as individually separated.
Hyppolytus from Rome (200-215) also confirms that 50 years later the memoirs are mainly known as, not Gospel but Gospels.
A Refutation of all heresies book 8, Hippolytus of Rome (200-215)
CHAP. XII.--THE MONTANISTS; PRISCILLA AND MAXIMILLA THEIR PROPHETESSES; SOME OF THEM NOETIANS.
But there are others who themselves are even more heretical in nature (than the foregoing). and are Phrygians by birth. These have been rendered victims of error from being previously captivated by (two) wretched women, called a certain Priscilla and Maximilla, whom they supposed (to be) prophetesses. And they assert that into these the Paraclete Spirit had departed; and antecedently to them, they in like manner consider Montanus as a prophet. And being in possession of an infinite number of their books, (the Phrygians) are overrun with delusion; and they do not judge whatever statements are made by them, according to (the criterion of) reason; nor do they give heed unto those who are competent to decide; but they are heedlessly swept onwards, by the reliance which they place on these (impostors). And they allege that they have learned something more through these, than from law, and prophets, and the Gospels. But they magnify these wretched women above the Apostles and every gift of Grace, so that some of them presume to assert that there is in them a something superior to Christ. These acknowledge God to be the Father of the universe, and Creator of all things, similarly with the Church, and (receive) as many things as the Gospel testifies concerning Christ. They introduce, however, the novelties of fasts, and feasts, and meals of parched food, and repasts of radishes, alleging that they have been instructed by women. And some of these assent to the heresy of the Noetians, and affirm that the Father himself is the Son, and that this (one) came under generation, and suffering, and death. Concerning these I shall again offer an explanation, after a more minute manner; for the heresy of these has been an occasion of evils to many. We therefore are of opinion, that the statements made concerning these (heretics) are sufficient when we shall have briefly proved to all that the majority of their books are silly, and their attempts (at reasoning) weak, and worthy of no consideration. But it is not necessary for those who possess a sound mind to pay attention (either to their volumes or their arguments).
That the four Gospels were recognised as Scripture from the very beginning is also evident from the early manuscripts and Church fathers, and here I will post what I have posted before:
An even more significant source is Irenaeus who was trained under Polycarp (a disciple of John the Apostle), and becomes a presbyter in Lyons.
He quotes from almost the whole NT on the basis of its authority, and asserts that all the apostles were endowed with power from on high, having equal measure and each one singly the gospel of God (Against Heretics, 3:3).
He writes:
“The word…gave us the gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit”.
What does all this prove to us? It proves that we possess the background of the compilation of the Gospels.
A Second and even more significant piece of historical evidence is the discovery of ancient Biblical manuscripts and fragments.
Some of these are:
Codex Vaticanus, dated earlier than year 350, containing the whole Bible up to Hebr.9:15
Codex Sinaiticus, dated around year 350, containing the entire New Testament of the Bible
Bodmer Papyri, dated year 175, containing almost the full Gospel of John, and large parts of the Gospel of Luke chapter 3 up to John 15
Chester Betty Papyri, dated year 90-300, with the Four Gospels and Acts dating 150-200, and the epistles of the apostle Paul by some dated between year 90 and 100
The Death Sea Scrolls (Cave Seven) the findings of several New Testament fragments, e.g. the Gospel of Mark (fragments from chapters 4, 6 and 12), also fragments from the book of Acts, Romans,
Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter and James.
The Magdalen Papyrus (P64), which is Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23 and 31, dated before 66 A.D
Dead Sea Scroll (MSS 7Q5) which is Mark 6:52-53, dated 68 A.D, some would even say 50 AD
Dead Sea Scroll (MSS 7Q4), which is 1 Timothy 3:16-4:3, dated before 68 A.D.
The Barcelona Papyrus (P67), which is Matthew 3:9, 15 and Matthew 5:20-22, 25-28, dated before 66 A.D.
The Paris Papyrus (P4), which is Luke 3:23, 5:36, dated 66 A.D.
The Bodmer Papyrus (II) (Johannine Codex P66), which is the Gospel of John, "a near complete ma