Interfaith Dialogue - Answers from the Christians

Hello zulqarnain,

From you: Assalamualaikum. I have come to know about this forum. And I would like to hear logical answers from the christians of what I have to say. I refer to the dialogue between Dr Zakir Naik and William Campbell, there are more than 20 scientific errors in the bible, and still you take it as the Authentic book from God.

My comments:

I haven't heard the debate but I know of it. The conclusion is that Naik "won" the debate, mostly because he is a better debater and not because he refuted Dr. Campbell's points. There is one thing that you need to keep in mind when reading the Bible. It includes the thoughts of men along with God's. For instance, there is a verse in the Book of Job where someone says that the earth is supported by pillars. This is scientifically inaccurate, but it was the opinion of the man who said it. How could the earth stay up if not on pillars?

Without knowing what Naik considered a scientific error I have no way of responding. You might want to consider doing the following:

The reasons I believe in the authenticity of the Bible and what convinced me that it came from God comes from the following, among others:

1. The Bible

2. Prophecies

3. Archaeological evidence

4. Studying other religions

One thing that really impressed me was the continuity of the Bible. It has so many authors, but yet has a unity that is comforting. Jesus confirmed the Old Testament by quoting from it many times and by pointing to the prophecies about Him. And, I believe Jesus and His disciples. Jesus' disciples were persecuted and most died because of their faith in Him�that He was the Messiah, that He was the Son of God, that He was crucified, died and rose again. I believe them.

I read a lot of books that convinced me that I was on the right track. But, you can read the type of evidence I found in my books that helped me find my truth on some websites.

Authority of the Bible can be found at:

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D154247%2526M%253D200168,00.html - http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D15 4247%2526M%253D200168,00.html

The Inspiration of the Bible can be found at:

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D154248%2526M%253D200168,00.html - http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D15 4248%2526M%253D200168,00.html

Historical and Archaeological Evidence for Christianity can be found at:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/historical_evid.html - http://www.rationalchristianity.net/historical_evid.html

and the site above has many good links.

Bible prophecies can be found at the following:

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/prophecy.htm - http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/prophecy.htm

http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/prophecy.htm - http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/prophecy.htm

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch19/default.htm - http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch19/default .htm

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default.htm - http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default .htm

Science in the Bible:

http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/science.htm - http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/science.htm

http://www.av1611.org/amazing.html - http://www.av1611.org/amazing.html

From you: Secondly how can christians deny, that the newly found Gospel Of Judas's text is fake, but the book is original? The National Geographic itself is saying that the Church did not copy the bible word to word from the beginning, it selected some of it and later put in some of their own ideas? Still you stick to such a contradictory belief, that the Bible is the true book from God? I don't understand why?

Comments:

Nobody said it is a fake in the sense that I think you mean. It is a genuine example of 2^nd century Gnosticism. It was not written by Judas, who was one of Jesus' disciples.

You can read an English translation of the "Gospel" of Judas here: http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf - http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJ udas.pdf

It's not even mentioned in Philip Jenkins' book Hidden Gospels, which is one of the best on the subject on non-canonical Gospels today. I suspect it's just one more very late, poorly attested document.

Originally posted by Christianity Today:

"Until the release of the Gospel of Judas and other Gnostic texts discovered decades ago near Nag Hammadi in Egypt, we learned about Gnosticism mostly through the polemics of Christian apologists. Now thanks to the Gospel of Judas, we can further verify two major Gnostic teachings. According to many Gnostic teachers, Jesus either did not actually appear in the flesh, or he at least wanted to shed his skin as soon as possible. Jesus longed to return to the spirit world. Judas helped make that happen. ("You will sacrifice the man that clothes me," the "spiritual" Jesus tells Judas in th is document.) Also, Gnostics believed only a select few would truly apprehend the knowledge of heaven. The Gospel of Judas teaches that only Judas, Jesus' favorite disciple, fully understood."

The Gospel of Judas was referenced ca. 180 by Irenaeus in Adversus Hairesis (Against Heresy), where the gospel was quoted, not just mentioned, and condemned for being gnostic. The gnostic deviated from orthodox Christianity in a variety of ways, such as the concept of gnosis = insight, personal revelation, which is clear in the Gospel of Judas.

The gosple is hardly authentic in t he sense that it is written by Judas or based on an actual tradition originating from him. The Gnostics in the 2nd century were particularly fond of writing this kind of pseudepigrapha, so it fits into a certain environment.

It tells us something about the Gnostics and is valuable for that reason, but it tells us nothing about Jesus and his apostles.

The single homogenous belief system that you mentioned was in existence from the very first days after the resurrection of Jesus from the cross. The gospel was preached orally for years. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as other books in the New Testament represent it.

In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation.

Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

We can determine some of the very Christian beliefs by the Creeds.

Most of my information about the early Christian creeds comes from the book, "The Historical Jesus" by Gary R. Habermas. There is also a mention of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 in Lee Strobel's book, "The Case For Christ." Strobel's book is all interviews with noted historians and scholars and Craig L. Blomberg remarks on this creed. Habermas mentioned the works of Oscar Cullman, "The Earliest Christian Confessions" as "one of the classic works on this subject." I don't have that book but plan to try and get it. It was published in 1949.

The early creeds are important because they describe the nature of Christian thought before the writing of the New Testament. These creeds were communicated verbally years before they were written and preserve some of the earliest reports concerning Jesus from about 30-50AD. They are our earliest sources for the life of Jesus.

One of the earliest creeds in this one:

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

This creed is considered pre-Pauline and is recognized as such by virtually all critical scholars across a very wide theological spectrum. How do they know that it is old and pre-Pauline?

1. Paul's words "delivered" and "received" are technical terms for passing on tradition. So, Paul is saying that this material was not his own, but received from another source.

2. A number of the words are non-Pauline which indicates another source. They are: "for our sins," "according to the scriptures," "he has been raised," the "third day," "he was seen," and "the twelve."

3. The creed is organized in a stylized, parallel form, thereby indicating an oral and confessional nature.

4. There are indications that there may be a Semitic source, such as the use of the Aramaic "Cephas" for Peter, which would point to an earlier source before Paul's Greek translation.

5. Other indications of ancient Hebrew narration include the triple usage of "and that" along with the two references to the Scripture being fulfilled.

Some date this creed from 3 to 8 years after Jesus' crucifixion. This is Blomberg's logic for dating the creed:

Now think, if the crucifixion was as early as 30 AD, Paul's conversation was bout 32 AD. Immediately Paul was ushered into Damascus, where he met with a Christian named Ananias and some other disciples. His first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem would have been about 35 AD. At some point along there, Paul was given this creed, which had already been formulated and was being used in the early church.

Now, here with this creed we have the key facts about Jesus' death for our sins, plus a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected form�all dating back to within two or five years of the events themselves!! That's not later mythology from 40 or more years down the road. A good case can be made for saying that Christian belief in the Resurrection, though not yet written down, can be dated to within two years of th at very event!

It is also important to realize that this creed represents eyewitness testimony and to keep in mind that it is pre-Pauline.

By mid-second century Gnosticism was in full swing. Also prevalent were the fanciful books�I call them folklore�Jesus speaking as an infant. His first words were: "Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God, that word which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel Gabriel to thee, and my father hath sent me for the salvation of the world." Others have Jesus killing his playmates, making clay birds that could fly, blinding his teacher (or killing him, can't remember which), bringing a classmate back to life who fell off a roof; another has Mary doing miracles with Jesus' bath water after she gave him a bath; another has Jesus coming out of the tomb with his head touching the heavens and a talking cross following him. All folklore.

Bart Ehrman is a sad case. Essentially he thought that the Bible somehow came down on a string from heaven. When he found out that it hadn't, he became close to an agnostic. His conclusions are being misused.

Ehrman gave his permission to use this quote:

"I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world."

I've talked to Bart 4 or 5 times. He told me that the corrections in the NT need not affect anyone's faith and he agreed that Bruce Metzger was a perfect example.

You can read an review of his latest book here: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452 - http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452

And another here:

http://www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html - http://www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html

It seems to me that you would be much better off if you accepted that the text of the Bible and the Koran have both had human hands involved in its history and based your arguments on that fact instead of trying to discredit the Bible.

We are fortunate that we have so many copies of the NT in order to do textual criticism, unlike Islam who during the time of Ultman, all variant copies of the Koran were burned.

Even if a Christian decided not to be a Christian based on their interpretation of it the NT that does not mean that they should embrace Islam and the Koran. The Koran has to be able to stand on its own.

I would venture a guess that if Bart did a textual analysis of the Koran he would come to the same conclusion that he did of the New Testament. In other words, he would not become a Muslim.