John 1

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.

The claim is that the Bible was not written testimony of the events, according to scholars, but the scholars were not present when the written testimony was created. Their testimony is hearsay, the same as the Bible, according to your own standards.

It’s like you are saying that historians can’t really establish that WWI took place between the years 1914-1918 because they were not present at that time!


What I mentioned about the Bible is not new, it is something obvious to all Bible scholars who have spent years doing nothing but studying the existing copies of the manuscripts. These facts are even known to pastors and preachers and it is taught in USA seminars and divinity schools, however very few of them who have the courage to speak out about what exactly happened and how the books of today’s Bible made it into the Canon.

But if we are to believe scholars, there has always been an oral tradition coexisting with a written tradition. Only the elite could write, as you mentioned. So if someone from the elite wrote down the oral tradition, it does not make it any less true.

Part of what you said is true, but you have to remember also that some critics used to alter that which was ‘<i>true’ </i>to make it say what they want it to say; and this practice was very common in early Christianity. And so, we can’t guarantee that the text remained untouched by critics and scribes after it left the hand of the original author.


I also agree that Christianity spread through oral traditions, which was the only way to convert pagans and bring them to the one true God, and the did this through stories, telling how Jesus taught about loving one another etc, and once someone converted, he too will relate a story to others, once they join the faith, they would also tell stories, and so the whole religion was spread by word of mouth. And those who were relating stories about Jesus knew nothing about him or those who knew him. This is how Christianity found its future, year after year, decade after decade until someone started to write down these stories. so what do you expect from stories told over the years? <b>They get changed, they get lost</b>.

If the scholars are correct that the apostles were lowerclass illiterate,

It seems that you are unsure of the fact that Jesus’ apostles were illiterate and low class! The fact is that illiteracy was widespread throughout the Roman Empire at that time, even Jesus who is said to know how to read, there is no mention at all in the entire Bible that he could write, because back then, reading and writing were totally different skills. You can read ‘<i>Ancient Literacy </i>by <b>William Harris </b>for more information.

then it would make sense that their testimony was cataloged by another. Rather than refuting the Bible, it would seem to affirm it, since there are multiple corroborations of certain events.

Yes but those who told the stories, were not eyewitness either. So you can’t really ensure that this is what happened.

Then there is the issue of Paul, who like Muhammed was given insight by being chosen by God. Not a terribly good witness by this standard. But if we are to accept the testimony of one, then why not the other?

We can’t accept the testimony of Paul, because many books were forged in his name.

It isn't hard to find a scholar that will say what you want to believe

But it is very easy to investigate his words and come up with your own conclusion.

Just as a scholar cannot write everything he is thinking or knows about a particular subject, why should we expect to find all the answers in one book, and none in another? Both books were written with a purpose to teach.

BTW, I believe that some of the Biblical verses are God’s words, maybe not verbally the words of God, but it mean what God wanted to say. However, other narrations and stories I regard as a fabrication.

People only knock if they have unanswered questions. Those who are sure of their answers don't knock.

Yes, like how Jesus used to ask questions to his disciples, though he knew the answers for sure, yet he kept on asking them what we consider by our standard as <i>‘silly questions’ </i>but they were not actually silly, this was his way to teach them, to make them reflect over what he wanted to say.


Salam


Wael.