Who is the comforter

Have you ever read the Bible from cover to cover? It doesn’t appear so, but If so, you need to read it again and that way you will begin to understand verses in their overall literary context. Rather than you wasting time choosing random verses that are easy to be viewed idiomatically, I suggest you spend your time applying your self to the discipline of hermeneutics, (definition- the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.). From this you will learn about the “canons of interpretation” which are essential to understand and apply if there is to be any hope of you getting to the truth if you ever read the Bible. You need to understand the Bible contains language used for every purpose for which language is designed. There is narration, lists, salutations, conversation, poetry, song, fiction, parable, allegory, history, prayer, etc. Principles of interpretation vary according to which of these literary forms a passage is written in.Anyway let me outline some canons of interpretation for you. Firstly there is the rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? 

Secondly the rule of USAGE or TARGET AUDIENCE.ie  who was it written for. Then there is the  rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense?

The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent.  The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).

The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. THE RULE OF INTERPRETING THE BIBLE LITERALLY (or normally) allowing for normal use of figurative language. Take the plain meaning of the text at face value. When the literal does not make sense you probably have a figure of speech. Use the Bible to help interpret itself. Interpret difficult passages with clear ones. This is sometimes called the law of non-contradiction. It will only be figurative if both the textual context and overall literary context indicates it.

In your posts you have demonstrated flaws in many of the above canons of interpretation .ie. context, usage / target audience, logic, precedent, unity, inference, literal interpretation and target audience. The Bible was not written for unbelievers, but for those willing to search diligently for the truth. Some of the language of Scripture is written with the specific intent of confounding those like yourself who either do not have ears willing to hear or who are unwilling to be diligent in their study (Prov. 2:1-5; 25:2; Matt. 13:10-13).

You ask why do I think a Muslim would quote a Biblical verse ? And what’s my criteria to determine “truth and lies” ? This is your problem not mine. As you have been the one quoting the Bible but you believe it is not reliable the onus is on you to explain what is “truth and what is lies”. And you don’t seem sure of yourself considering you have moved the goal posts for first saying there was only one reason and then contradicting yourself by trying to broaden your defence with a second reason. Like I say the onus of explanation is on you.

Are you saying that I only take John 15.5 because I have a biased interpretation? As I have demonstrated above I understand the ‘canons of interpretation’ better than you.

Because I have read the Bible from cover to cover in its total literary context I have a better understanding of what is literal or what is figurative than you. You do not have the overall literary context or see how adequately to apply the principles of usage, logic, precedent, unity, inference, literal interpretation and target audience.

As a result of the above your idiomatic interpretation of John 15.5 is faulty. To “remain in me”, means …. to remain in ME. If Jesus had meant to say “continue in my preaching” he would have said …  “continue in my preaching”.  But he didn’t. Just stick to how it reads and quit trying to reinterpret it. And “Guidance circle”? what on earth is a “guidance circle” .  Whats more you have not even addressed or refuted John 10.30 and 17.21.

John 5.24 cannot be read in isolation from the further verses as far as 5.30. Interesting you ignore or evade the point that Jesus refers to himself in the third person as the Son of God. Twice her refers to himself as Son of God. Pretty significant don’t you think? Not just a mere prophet obviously. And after that he refers to himself with the eternal and divine qualities as the Son of Man as prophesised by the Prophet Daniel where he will judge the world. By referring to himself as The Son of God and The Son of Man in these verses it is obvious he is referring to himself.

Regarding John 11.25 your explanation is rambling. Also read on to John 11:27 where Martha says -

“Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

What does this mean. It means Martha recognises Jesus as … The Son of God and the Messiah. And any one who knows the Jewish prophesies regarding the Messiah knows The Messiah has divine and eternal qualities. This is far more than just Jesus saying he is a “sign of the resurrection”.

You make the mistake of ignoring the canon of interpretation in viewing a verse in the context of its target audience. The target audience here is Jewish. Not Muslim or Christian and Martha knew exactly what Jesus was saying and that it was than just a “sign”.

You make further mistakes of interpretation by not ignoring the canons of unity and taking a verse literally at face value without cause to view it as a figure of speech. Jesus did not say “I am a prophet of God and a sign of the resurrection. He said I am The Son of God and The Resurrection and the Life. No matter how you try to ramble the clarity of this away, it doesn’t change what he said.

In regards to the rule of interpretation of unity cross reference to John 6:40, John 8.58 and Exodus 3.14. The "I am" reference in John's Gospel offer a clear look at Christ's identity.

For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” John 6.40.

In John 8:58, he answered the religious leaders, saying, "Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." This was a clear reference to Exodus 3:14, where God revealed His name to Moses as "I AM."

As stated earlier the reason the religious leaders wanted to kill Him was because Jesus claimed to be The Son of God.

In regards to the use of a small ‘s’ or a capital ‘S’ I have proven through the Greek I understand it better than you and the word is “huios” means … Son … not servant ! The large or small s in the English is irrelevant. You have not even referred to the original Greek or Hebrew in your arguments.

In regards to what verses you have been unable to refute, the answer is all of them. The best you have been able to do is resort to idiomatic convoluted riddles without adhering to the canons associated with scriptural interpretation.

You ask what contradictions exist between what Jesus said and Muslim doctrine. The answer being – Christ Jesus The Messiah as The Son of God was crucified and resurrected. This conflicts with Muslim doctrine.

You ask should I believe what other people claimed of what Jesus said in the Bible. The answer is yes. Of course. The writers of the Gospels were eye witnesses, or drew on eye witness accounts. Why would I believe a Muslim version of events that only came more than 600 years later.

You ask for my elaboration that sin goes deeper than mere disobedience. As already explained sin is actually a “state of being”. Ive already explained this to you with the relevant verses in depth in our discussions on the doctrine of original sin.

You ask about a seeming contradiction where you say  “if Jesus is God the Son, so there must be 2 Gods, but Jesus said God is one”. Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. Think of the sun in the sky. The sun has heat and light. Heat and light are different but come from the same source. They are different but One.

You asked who was talking about the world not being a 50/50 playing field. The answer being – me. As already explained the doctrine of original sin is only a … doctrine. And I have given many biblical verses where it is implicitly inferred. You have not even addressed them let alone refute them.

Regarding Luke 11.13 it was me that quoted it in the first place, so why are you asking me to read it in context with all of Luke 11 ? beside the context of Luke 11 doesn’t change Luke 11.13.

Regarding original sin and it never being preached by Jesus I have explained many times to you this is simply a doctrine based on implicit revelation, not explicit revelation.

I broke down the Hebrew in Proverbs 22.15 and your only response then was “rambling conjecture” rather than addressing the evidence. And as well as provide you with relevant verses around the doctrine of original sin I have provided a detailed explanation in the Greek terms of poneroi hyparchon-tes. You have not been able to refute what I have provided and simply made a pathetic response of “reading scriptures out of context” and now a response of repeating  what other people preach to me and not what Jesus preaches. Like I say you have not been able to refute Proverbs 22.15 or the Greek terms of poneroi hyparchon-tes. This is all in the Bible. Not what other “people have preached to me”. Besides this is hypocritical special pleading on your behalf as you have not proven to me where Mohamad said “I am the Comforter”.

You ask if I understand why Jesus’ words can be taken figuratively or literally, depending on the literary context, then why can’t I understand that Bible can also be a book of truth and lies, depending on the context and whose sayings are being narrated. That’s my point. If you were to take the time to read the Bible in its totality and apply canons of interpretation, understanding the Bible is straight forward. Besides you are confusing figurative truth with literal truth. They are both truth. No lies about it.

Regarding John 10.34 you ask exactly who was making the claims of Jesus claiming to be God? Jesus himself ? The answer is yes.  Jesus said it implicitly ( definition - suggested though not directly expressed) not explicitly. The Jewish elders simply confirmed what he was saying. So what Im saying is that if Jesus said it implicitly and the Jewish elders confirmed it in their response then your claim that Jesus never said it is not true.

And your point that if people claim that I claim to be Satan then it must be true, is ignorant of the fact that Jesus proved himself through miracles, wonders and signs and the fulfilment of prophesy. That’s the difference.

And as I have said should I believe what other people claimed of what Jesus said in the Bible. The answer is yes. The writers of the Gospels were eye witnesses, or drew on eye witness accounts. Why would I believe a Muslim version of events that only came more than 600 years later.

I have adequately proven that in the Greek the word is “huios” means Son … not servant. And all you can say is “capitalizing all the letters as ‘S-O-N’ don’t make Jesus God the Son – never did and never will.” You miss the point. Im not even talking about a capital S but the Greek word “huios”. Let me ask you a question. What does the Greek word ‘huios” mean. Does it mean son or servant ? Can you answer that ?

Your further elaboration on John 10.36 is based on a faulty premise. Jesus simply quoted Psalm 82.6 as a means of explaining his Sonship to the Jewish elders.  If you are wondering why the Jews accused him of blasphemy even though it is written in their law you need to remember that Jesus understood their law better than them, but also many of them who did know their law believed Jesus fulfilled their law. All of Jesus’s first believers were Jews.

My point about your hypocrisy in you using capitals in English stands.  Your attempt to discredit the “gospelists” influence on my understanding falls apart when one refers to the original languages of Hebrew and Greek.

I have explained many times you need to refer to the original Hebrew or Greek, not the English. Rather than referring to capitals you need to refer to the Hebrew term “Adonay” and you have not explained why would the “us” be the people of King Uzziah when He is asking Isaiah to go and preach to people of King Uzziah ?

Regarding Isaiah 53 the site you have linked to is a Jewish site and not a Christian site as you claim! Apart from stating Jesus first believers were Jews who fully understood Isaiah 53 I could explain Isaiah in more depth to you but Im not sure I can be bothered considering you cant even do your home work properly. You need to take better care in referencing your links!

As I have said while there is a link between Mathew 3.17 and Isaiah 42.1 the point of this discussion is whether the “ gospelists ” as you call them, have any Old Testament precedent to refer to Jesus as the Son of God. I take it you are arguing that the doctrine that Jesus was the Son of God was invented by the early Christians and that the God of the Old Testament had no Son ? If so you must understand there are a number of Old Testament verses that speak of God's Son. For example Isaiah 9:6-7, Micah 5:1-2, Isaiah 7:14, and Proverbs 30:4. And as much as you may wish to contend these verses they are indicative that Christian doctrine regarding the Sonship of Jesus has a basis ( contestable or not ) on the Old Testament and is more than just a theological bias of the “ gospelists”.

Also as I previously told you Christians have been well aware since the beginning of Christianity he is also a servant. Being a servant and being the "Son of God" are not mutually exclusive. The term "servant" does not mean that Jesus, who is God The Son cannot serve the people whom God the Father sent him to redeem. This is clarified further in Mathew 20.28 - "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many," (Mathew 20:28). The purpose of the Son of God is to serve. Interesting Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man here in reference to the Son of Man in Daniel 7.13.

Regarding Daniel 7 you don’t seem to understand the historical time difference between the Old Testament Book of Daniel and what Jesus was referring to in Daniel 7.13. If you knew that you would know Jesus could not possibly have been speaking in Daniel 7.13 because he wasn’t born until centuries later. And of course it as a dream. That is obvious. God often spoke to prophets through dreams. So the point being Jesus came to serve by being a ransom. Not just preaching like a normal prophet. And the human figure referred to in Daniels dream has eternal and divine qualities.

In my statement of Isaiah 40.3 and Psalm 2.7 being closer to Mathew 3.17 my point was about the Messianic theme not the actual text. Psalm 2.7 needs to be read in the context of the Davidic Covenant. Read on to Psalm 2:8 and you will note David never did receive the nations as an inheritance or the ends of the earth as a possession. That was and is reserved for the Messiah who is the line of David. This was further validated when Jesus confirmed his own status, even over that of King David, when he questioned the Pharisees saying “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is He?” (Matt 22.42 -45). Here Jesus answered His own question by quoting Psalm 110.1, and concluded “If David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how then can the Messiah be his Son?” (22.45); Jesus was David’s Son by lineage, and yet David’s Lord by position (Mathew 22.44). Jesus’ reasoning is this: “Son of David” is your title for the Messiah, yet David himself calls Him “Lord.” The Messiah, then, must be much more than just a son—a physical descendant—of David. So let me put the same question to you. If David calls Him ‘Lord,’ in Psalm 110.1 how then can the Messiah be his Son?

Anyway like I say as much as you may wish to contend these verses they are indicative that Christian doctrine regarding the Sonship of Jesus has a basis ( contestable or not ) in the Old Testament and is more than just a fanciful construction of the “ gospelists”.

Your response regarding Luke 22.42 only reflects your limited ability to read the Bible in context and interestingly it also displays an inability to understand Islam. You say Jesus expected  “to be put on a false trial and put to death by crucifixion”. You don’t seem to realise Muslims don’t even believe Jesus was crucified !

And yes sure Jesus prayed to God to remove the sufferings and about the whole ordeal of his predicament. However you need to remember the whole point to this in which you will grasp if you read the Book of Luke in its entirety, is the reason Jesus was crucified was due to the Chief Priests accusing him of blasphemy. You have provided no proof the Chief Priests did not believe this. 

Can I explain what Jesus meant by” not my will be done but your will be done”. Sure it demonstrates the dynamic between the human and divine elements of Jesus. The hypo -static union.

You ask if Im telling you Jesus was accused of blasphemy as the Son of God in Luke 22.66. Yip. That’s right. Read on to 22.71 and it obvious. Read it for yourself -

“At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. “If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer.

But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”

They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You say that I am.”

Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.” Luke 22:71

You say Jesus is not God the Son because he said in Luke 22.70 that it was them saying it and not him. Once again you demonstrate you have not read the Bible from cover to cover to appreciate the overall literary context. You need to cross reference to Mathew 22.42 – 45.-“He (Jesus) questioned the Pharisees saying “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is He?”  (Matt 22.42 -45).

Anyway  the point here being that both Pilate and the Sanhedrin all took it as a lack of denial from Jesus that he was making Himself equal to God. It was enough for them all to have him condemned.

You are wrong in saying Jesus most of the times spoke in parables. Obviously you haven’t read the Gospels. He often spoke in parables, and not just the Jewish elders, but mostly he did not speak in parables at all. You accuse Christians of always taking the Bible literally. As I explained at the start, there is a rule to interpret the Bible literally but allowing for normal use of figurative language. Take the plain meaning of the text at face value. When the literal does not make sense you probably have a figure of speech. It will only be figurative if both the textual context and overall literary context indicates it.

Most Muslims are just like New Age Pagans and mentally unwell people when they come to interpret the Bible. Their overly figurative approach is an attempt to forcibly twist it to fit their own ideas which only turns it into a fairy tale.

You have provided no scriptural evidence to prove the Chief Priests did not believe Jesus was guilty of blasphemy. I have however. All you have is a conspiracy theory.

As to who wrote the Gospel of John there is strong evidence John the disciple wrote the Gospel. But whether he did or not it was still based on eye witness accounts that go back to the ministry of Jesus. For you to even tentatively consider that John the Baptist may have written it betrays your ignorance. As I said these eye witness accounts have far my credibility than you.

You ask which sayings of Jesus, directly or indirectly  implied he was claiming to be God. Have you even be reading the posts I send ? Talk about “ always hearing but never perceiving ” (Mathew 13.14). Anyway, refer to John 6.35, Mathew 12.40, John 2.19, 6.40, 10.9, 11.25-27,14.6, 15.5, 8.58,5.24-30,10.34 – 36. Plus there were all the references Jesus made to Daniel 7.13 as the eternal Son of Man.

In regards to me missing the fact that Jesus said, “By myself I can do nothing … I think you missed the earlier outlined fact about the hypostatic Union.

You say if he’s killed for blasphemy then, he’s not God, but only someone who claimed to be God, which was what the Jews accused him of. So you agree then, he claimed to be God ? You ask can God be killed ? Jesus was God The Son in human form. The human form died but rose again.

You are the one making the claim the Jews and Romans wanted to kill Jesus for simply preaching to them to worship only the One true God whom he called ‘Father’. As you are the one making this claim, and that it is different from the Christian interpretation, then the onus is on you to provide the proof. Also your argument fails because you forget the Jews already did worship God The Father. So why would they accuse Jesus of blasphemy for preaching to worship God The Father?  You need to stop interpreting the Bible with your Muslim sunglasses on.

I would have thought that you as the Bible expert would know the story of Jonah and that the Jewish Temple was the centre of Jewish atonement rituals.

Jesus said in Mathew 12.40 – “ just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. “

And in John 2.19 he said –

"Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

And yes, it was Jesus that said that. In these two statements Jesus was alluding to his death and resurrection 3 days later. Again just take your Muslim sunglasses off.

And as you continue to argue against the validity of the “gospelists” lets return to this in the light of the Quran. As I have stated you have no basis to question the validity of the  Gospels / Injel due to your Quran stating the Gospels / Injel are truth.

You say regarding the New Testament that the Quran only confirms the Gospels / Injel but our current Gospels are not the reliable originals. What you don’t appear to realise is the modern Gospels we have today are exactly as they were before your “prophet” Mohamad was even born. Just look to the Diatessaron and Muratorian fragment if you want proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment

And its pretty rich of you to say the oldest Biblical manuscripts are copies not the originals when Muslims don’t have original copies of the Quran. Remember? Uthman burnt them all ! What exactly was Uthman hiding ? Evidence points to more than version of your Quran ‘miracle book’ that Uthman had to standardise. You may be interested to know the oldest and most comprehensive Quran found in Sanaa in the 1970s doesn’t line up with your standard modern version. Any way good luck in trying to twist and riddle around in explaining the “truth and lies” in the Injel.

In regards to your claim Mathew 28.19 is a verse that was added later there is no evidence for this either from the earliest manuscript evidence or from the writings of the early church leaders. The Bible is the most reliable of any ancient writing. There are more ancient copies in existence than any other ancient writing, for example the Roman history of Julius Caesar, and others. Plus these copies cover a huge and wide geographic area that prevents them from being gathered together and falsified. there are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity). There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.

In regards to any contradiction with Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15 it is not important. While baptism is a sacrament in many churchs it is not a core biblical doctrine for salvation. An interesting point around this is to ask in what name to John The Baptist baptised Jesus ? This is a mystery which only proves not to get too dogmatic about baptism.

While your borrowing from Christian theological and debate is interesting you would not even have this information if it were not for the transparency and robustness of Christian debate.  Compare this to Islam. In Islam if such debate were to occur then people would have been accused of apostasy and executed by now. This just shows the open mindedness of the Christian world compare to the closed and insecure Muslim world.

And like I said earlier regarding the unreliability of the Quran. Muslims don’t have original copies of the Quran due to Uthman burning them due to variances and the oldest and most comprehensive Quran found in Sanaa in the 1970s doesn’t line up with your standard modern version proving its unreliability.

Regarding Mathew 20.19 Jesus did more than just expect to be arrested and condemned to death. He explained it to them in depth to the point he even knew he would be raised again on the third day.

And tell me just what is the point in me needing to show you that when Jesus said he will be betrayed and killed, he was totally unaware that the Jews hated him and wanted to capture and kill him ? What on earth are you talking about ?

Quit your evasive quibbling and just admit You are wrong in saying Jesus meant he had to suffer, not about the crucifixion, but as all prophets endured sufferings, persecutions or death. Mathew 20.19 clearly proves you wrong. Mathew 5.12 simply adds a wider context to Mathew 20.19. Mathew 20.19 is far more precise and detailed than Mathew 5.12.

Regarding proof from the Quran where Mohamad himself said he was the Comforter. Its true. I don’t believe in the Quran. But that’s not the point. I challenged you for proof in terms of your own Muslim scriptures that Mohmad directly said “I am the comforter”. Where is it? Can you show it or not? If not your position is hypocritical special pleading in expecting the same from Christians. I’m waiting.

Your use of Christian scripture to correct a perceived lack of understanding implies a degree of objective integrity. However to use Christian scripture to support a Muslim proposition is circular reasoning as I have discussed above. Let me define circular reasoning for you. Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The point being here you analyse the Bible with the premise the Quran is true. So any analysis of the Bible must end with the Quran as true. You are unable to remove your Muslim bias to approach truth with an open mind.

Any analysis with integrity would not start with such a premise. It should begin with an objective open mind and focus on the textual integrity of a manuscript, the history associated with it, ethics and previous revealed truth. You are not doing this. Your whole argument from the beginning has been biased with your Muslim perspective.

And who are you to say  truth for Christians must be in accordance with what Jesus himself said and not what other people said. Who are you to tell Christians how to approach truth when you don’t even understand canons of interpretation ?

You ask which teachings of Jesus are not in accordance with Muslim doctrine. Yip that’s right that he (Jesus) as God the Son died for the sins of mankind. Refer to my points above.

Regarding Mohamad as a violent tribal war lord you need to know hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries. These works are referred to in matters of Islamic law and history to this day. Hadith are categorized as �£aḥīḥ (sound, authentic), ḍaʿīf (weak), or mawḍūʿ (fabricated). Other classifications used also include: ḥasan (good) and the science in categorising them is sound and sophisticated. Other  factors that contribute to the credibility of a piece of a hadith rather than just the chain of transmission (isnad) is the time line or timeliness of scholarly compilation of such writings is important as an example. So don’t try to minimise their importance Jerry. The hadith I quoted to you about Mohamad having his enemies tortured was Sahih Bukhari which is the most reliable of hadith.

I agree the moral characteristics of Mohamad are well documented in the Quran. For example his violence, his marriage to a 9 year old girl when he was in his 50s and his sanctioning his men to take women sex slaves ! the point being there was nothing special about Mohamad. There was nothing particularly Godly about him to give him the title ‘prophet’. He was simply a man of his times.

In saying the violent verses in the Quran should only be viewed in the historical context of the day is an admission from you that your Quran is not the absolute Word of God for all times to all people!

In regards to Jesus fulfilling the verses about the Messiah and God becoming man. Please refer to Daniel 7, Isaiah 53, Psalm 2.7-8, Isaiah 9:6-7, Micah 5:1-2, Isaiah 7:14, and Proverbs 30:4

Prophetic meaning regarding Jeremiah 8.8 ?! What are you talking about prophetic meaning ? There is no prophesy associated with Jeremiah 8.8

You say the Bible made no mention the scribes had truly abandoned their traditions of editing what they are copying from the original. What you fail to see is that it was only one group of scribes being referred to by Jeremiah. You need to know that other godly men also had copies of the Torah in their possession. Eg. the prophet Daniel. Plus other prophets affirm that the book of Moses was still available during their day.eg. Nehemiah 8:13-14,18. This occurred approximately 430 B.C., nearly 180 years after Jeremiah.

Also Jeremiah said …“ If you do not listen to me and follow MY LAW …. So how could Israel follow the Law, i.e. the Torah, if it had been corrupted? Jeremiah 26:4-6

Even Jeremiahs enemies knew that the Law could never disappear. Jeremiah 18:18. 

If you read Jeremiah 36: 1-7, 20-32, 27-32.You will see that If God was capable of restoring the revelation given to Jeremiah after it had been destroyed, then God would also have been capable of restoring the original Torah.

Finally Jesus / Isa (PBUH) quoted from the Torah as we know it today and never thought that it was corrupt (cf. Matthew 4:4,7,10; 22:31-32d.3.

And in terms of Matthew 28:19 I have already addressed this above. Plus I have adequately proven the transmission of the New Testament is incredible reliable as also mentioned above.

Also as mentioned if you want to make allegations against the Bible remember the Quran is not reliable. Muslims don’t have original copies of the Quran. Uthman burnt them all ! Evidence points to more than version of your Quran ‘miracle book’ that Uthman had to standardise. As I said the oldest in most comprehensive Quran found in Sanaa in the 1970s doesn’t line up with your standard modern version proving it is not reliable.

Your claim that Jesus was motivated not to fight as he knew it would be suicidal is nothing but pure conjecture. I have already proven to you Jesus said to love ones enemies and “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword” Mathew 26.52 . Also refer to Mathew 16.23 and 5.44. My argument is supported by scripture. Your response has no scriptural basis and as well as being hypothetical is defensive in tone which only proves you cannot refute it.

In terms of Jesus saying to “love ones enemies” and telling his disciples to get swords there is no contradiction. And I’ve already explained why Jesus asked his followers to get swords. Not for violent reasons.

Who are you to say true prophesies are not fulfilled intentionally? What’s your criteria for prophecy ? You thought Jeremiah 8. 8 is a prophecy when it obviously isn’t. Jesus is obviously more qualified than you to define what is and what is not prophecy. Also you forget Jesus said a number of times he would consciously fulfil prophecy. Take his baptism by John the Baptist for instance in Matthew 3:13-16.

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfil all righteousness.”

Obviously Jesus knew he had to consciously act in a way to “fulfil all righteousness.”

Anyway it is obvious Jesus was referring to the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12 when he instructed his disciples to get swords. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about Me is reaching its fulfilment.” So they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” He answered.  Luke 22.37 -38

Interesting he said two swords are enough. Not exactly enough for a revolution is it?  Also see he said “this scripture must be fulfilled in me “ Just because you don’t like the answer is no reason to keep quibbling about it. As I said Jesus is obviously more qualified than you to define what is and what is not prophecy. The hypothetical conjecture is all yours. I’ve provided the scriptural basis to my position. You have provided nothing!

So coming back to your question was Jesus ever a transgressor in his lifetime on earth and if so, how was he a transgressor? He was counted as a transgressor because he instructed his disciples to get swords (only two! ) to be classified as a law breaker, he was accused of blasphemy and he was crucified between two criminals.

Is my argument silly that maybe Jesus didn’t want them to pull a sword because he might have dropped it on his foot and they didn’t have ambulances back then? Sure its silly. As Im sure you are aware it is a simple illustration of how your idiomatic, figurative interpretation of the Bible just leads into a silly fairy tale in what ever direction a person wants to take it for their own purposes.

Am I saying Jesus who would never ask his disciples to get swords as “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword” ? Yes. And not just because of that Biblical verses but others as well.  And don’t play games with Isaiah 53.12 in him instructing his disciples to get swords. There is no contradiction her when you consider his motives. You are just quibbling and being evasive because you can’t refute it.

You are wrong in saying Jesus never set an example not to fight. He said it implicitly rather than explicitly in John 18.10 -11, Mathew 5.44 and Mathew 26.52.

Also please refer to Luke 22:49 -51 where Jesus demonstrated his pacificism by healing the servants ear. -  When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. Luke 22:49 -51.

Your use of non Sequitur is a fact. You have provided no scriptural basis to your position or refuted the verses I have provided. I have provided John 18.10,  Mathew 5.44, Luke 22:49 -51 and Mathew 26.52. Please refute them and provide your own alternative argument based on scripture. I await your response.

Regarding Christian pacificism and “loving ones neighbour”. Hey guess what I’m guilty of a typo!  It wasn’t love ones neighbour that he said. He said, “love ones enemy”. Extremely high ethics there. Can Mohamad match that? No.

And whether loving ones neighbours or ones enemy is the second most important commandment or not is not the point. The point being Jesus never had ideas of violent revolution as you try to claim.

And in regards to the Muslim world being in a mess, refer to below -

 “Cardiff imam jailed for 13 years after abusing girls during mosque Quran lessons. Mohammed Haji Saddique sexually touched the girls as they were reading from the holy book”.

Port Coquitlam imam convicted of sexual assault sentenced to three and a half years in jail. Saadeldin Bahr prohibited from owning firearms for 10 years, placed on Sex Offender Registry for 20 years.Roshini Nair · CBC News · Posted: May 22, 2017 12:16 PM PT | Last Updated: May 22, 2017.

Moroccan Imam Sexually Assaults Children in a Mosque By Morocco World News -  February 21, 2018. Moroccan Imam Sexually Assaults Children in a Mosque. By Hajare el Khaldi.

Rabat – An imam in the Temara region has been accused of raping six children inside of a mosque. Amid the parents’ outrage and the childrens despair, the authorities have little help to offer.

And besides, Muslims are falling over themselves to leave their failed Muslim countries and migrate to Western countries. Why is that? Because their Muslim countries have failed them!

You ask Christians should just smile and watch loved ones be abused and not defend ourselves if capable ? Much has been written on the ethics of self-defence for Christians and I could go on for years. However, what I will say is that the whole Christian life is based on conscience, not outward performance. We all fall short of the ideal. However the ideal still exists as a goal to work towards.

And should the “Christian nation” of the USA  not have defended itself from Bin Laden after 911 ? What you don’t understand is that the USA is not a Christian nation. It like all western nations is a secular nation. Unlike Islam, Christianity makes a separation from religion and state. Jesus never preached to establish a theocracy ( def - A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god). The only responsibility on a government is to maintain law and order and maintain justice. So my point being “ to turn the other cheek” is a directive for the individual Christian, not the state government.

Any way my advice to read the Bible from cover to cover and approach the Bible with a clear mind and read to understand it without the preconceived mindset of your Mullahs.

Educate yourself and follow the canons of interpretation particularly the canon of talking the Bible literary unless otherwise indicated by the literary or textual context. Your overly figurative and idiomatic interpretation is similar to psychiatric patients or New Age Pagans who just want to twist the Bible to suit their own views.

In your posts you have demonstrated flaws in many of the above canons of interpretation .ie. context, usage / target audience, logic, precedent, unity, inference, literal interpretation and target audience. Regarding usage / target audience particularly, the Bible was written for Christ believers, not for unbelievers such as yourself.  As a result you lack a scriptural perspective based on a Christ experience. However for those willing to search diligently for the truth you can gain understanding. Some of the language of Scripture is written with the specific intent of confounding those who either do not have ears willing to hear or who are unwilling to be diligent in their study.