Orthodoxy & Scripture 3A: History of the New Testament

[KeroroGunsouTX]

If God really exists and wanted his will to be known he could have made a YouTube video explaining himself.

[davidpwithun]

@KeroroGunsouTX Thank God that he doesn't reveal himself to someone with such an attitude and misunderstanding!

[IanMillsN]

Its not a matter of Islamic Scripture vs Christian Scripture, as the Bible is not the center of the Christian Faith. Rather it is a matter of whether or not Jesus Christ was the Son of God as He and all of the apostolic and early Christian witnesses claimed.

It is upon this, that the claims of Christianity are staked and with this that they shall rise or fall.

[vasilyjc1955]

@IanMillsN What Islamic scripture? The Koran is full of inaccuracies and is not historically based. Whereas in Scriptures there exists historical facts. Christ is the center of Christianity.

I highly recommend a recent book: Facing Islam, by Ralph H. Sidway. Klayve of Blessed Seraphim Press.

This book confronts the fallacies of Islam and the truths of Orthodox Christianity.

[prophecyunveiled]

I WOULD CALL YOUR SAYINS ABOUT WHAT OTHER WRITERS WROTE IS FALSE! BECAUSE NO,NOONE IOS SPEAKING OF THE;"BOOKS OF "MOSHE"!! WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY TELLING PEOPLE IS THAT THOSE WRITERS ;"ALTERED THE TRUE BOOKS" AND REVISED THEM! WHICH MEANS TO A WISE MAND;"CHANGED"!! CONCLUDING THAT ;"LIES" HAVE REPLACED THE TRUTH! "THE ;"TARES" MIXED IN THE;"WHEAT"!

[MyBetty111]

Slow down, you read too fast. The jumble of words is like an avalanche fogging the brain, driving one to "insanity."

[davidpwithun]

@MyBetty111 Then watch it again :)

[1MoreMuslim]

You have said that one criteria of chosing a scripture, is orthodoxy or "right belief" . But how do you know what is the right belief if you don't have a scripture to begin with? Kind of circular reasonment. How do you know what is orthodoxy in this multitude of Christianities? Orthodox Christianity is an acronistic term in that period.

[davidpwithun]

1. The early Christians learned the Faith directly from the Apostles and others who had heard Christ; the generation after learned from the people who had known Apostles; etc. I think it's safe to say that learning directly from an expert in a given subject (the Apostles in the Faith, for instance) is better than simply reading a book about it ;)

2. It's not very difficult to sort the Orthodox from the heretical in early Christianity, as the "rival" Christianities of the 2nd century, such as

[davidpwithun]

Gnosticism, Marcionism, and Ebionitism, have clear beginnings in the post-Apostolic age, meaning they came about after the Apostles had passed away. The Orthodox Faith, however, comes directly from the Apostles themselves. Scholars are in agreement that the writings of groups like the Gnostics and Marcionites are forgeries dating to much later periods than the New Testament writings and other early Fathers, and these sects broke from the original Faith: the Orthodox Faith.

[1MoreMuslim]

Ebionitism I doubt it very much. We don't have evidence that Ebionites were there in the first Century, but that is an argument from ignorance. You can't affirm that.

How do you know what is the Orthodox faith, if you don't have scriptures in the first place. Remember, the goal of your video is to find what is scripture, that is our aim. You still dodn't answer the question.

There is no evidence at all that the apostle saw Jesus as God in the flesh, that is a later development.

[orthodox4eva]

Before scripture. The apostles ordained there sucessors in the tradition they received from Jesus. Also if you read the worship services of James or Mark that we still have today, you can get an understanding of the tradtion of the apostles, which helped the church later on choose the correct scripture.

Maybe the 10,000's of christian martys in the 1st century stand as a witness to Jesus ressurection. From scripture we do know at least a minimum of 500 saw Jesus after the ressurection.

[davidpwithun]

That the Apostles saw Jesus as God can only be viewed as a later development if we completely and outright dismiss all of the evidence -- namely, that the earliest Christian writings, most of them by Apostles, which are contained in our New Testament are all in agreement about that point.

Ebionitism is clearly of a later date than Orthodox Christianity, though it may have begun in the [late] 1st century. Again, the writings of the New Testament predate Ebionism and declare Christ as God.

[davidpwithun]

In answer to your other statements -- as I already explained, the Orthodox Faith is that taught by the Apostles. One can have the Orthodox Faith and not the Scriptures, just as you may have the right math but not a textbook on the subject. In fact, this was true of most of Christian history, as most Christians were illiterate for most of Christian history and so could not read the Scriptures.

[1MoreMuslim]

"The Orthodox Faith, however, comes directly from the Apostles themselves"

Do you mean that the apostle were believer in a Triune God? Three persons in one being? Original Sin? Salvation through Faith alone? No historian would say that.

What is Orthodox Christianity today, is called proto-orthodox by Historians, because each Gospel represent a different view on what is to be Christian.

You admit yourself that many early fathers dont have the same Books that we have today.

[orthodox4eva]

Becuase the apostolic worship services are full of triniatrian prays, thats how the faith in a trinitarian God was maintained.

Again with the sacraments, they where handed down through liturgical worship, to maintain the tradtion.

Alough the canons, of the early fathers varied. They all had the same liturgical worship services. Theology and worship are one in the same thing in orthodoxy. We all have our unity, when we share the Lords supper together. That matters the most.

[1MoreMuslim]

You can't have the same "Orthodox Christianity" Without the Late Gospel of John. We know that Each of the Gospel was read in a different cirlcle of believers, in different places. Christians who doesn't have John, cannot see evidence of Jesus being Fully divine. That is why the matter of Jesus nature, the jewish, was so disputed among Christians. We see Paul blaming Christians for following the jewish law. How do you know who is orthodox and who is not? Many early christ saw Paul as Heretic..

[davidpwithun]

1. You can have Orthodox Christianity with the Gospel of John -- it was so for about 60 years.

2. The Gospel of John isn't that late -- it was written in about AD 95 -- and by a direct eyewitness to the events described.

3. Christians who didn't have John clearly did believe Jesus to be Divine, as St. Paul teaches the Divinity of Christ throughout his Epistles. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all also teach the divinity of Christ.

4. "Many" is a misnomer -- a very few felt this way.

[1MoreMuslim]

60 years not that late? How old are you? I am 30, that is twice my age!

Paul is not an apostle, that is a statement of faith, Paul never met Jesus historicaly speaking. So his writing cannot be qualified as Apostolic writings.

Who are the eye whitnesses who wrote John in 95AD?

You are not a Catholic nor a protestant , what are you?

[davidpwithun]

1. 60 years really isn't that late. The holocaust ended 65 years ago, and yet there are still eyewitnesses to that event alive today. In fact, World War I ended 92 years ago and there are still men alive today who fought in that war. There were plenty of eyewitnesses around by that time.

2. Paul did meet Jesus, historically speaking (see Acts 9). He also met the various Apostles and others who knew Christ during His earthly ministry (Acts 9:27)

3. Even with Paul aside (whose writings, by the

[1MoreMuslim]

I don't mean to insult you but, you need to make a difference between a Historical event and Hallucinations and visions. Paul have never met Jesus. Paul's writing are the earliest, but we know from his writing that there were rivals to his preaching, that is why he wrote letters to convince them to join him and leave their belief.

You are Eastern Orthodox? How many books are there in your Bible?

[davidpwithun]

1. Muhammad had a vision in which he was transported from Arabia to Jerusalem (specifically to the rock upon which the Dome of the Rock is built) and ascended into heaven. Was this a historical event or a hallucination?

2. There were not "rivals" to Paul's preaching; there were disagreements amongst Christians in the early Church (see Acts 15), but not "rival" Christianities per se.

3. There are 76 books in the Orthodox Bible; 49 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament.

[davidpwithun]

way are amongst the earliest contained in the New Testament) the rest of the New Testament writers all confirm the Divinity of Christ as well.

4. The eyewitness who wrote the Gospel of John is the Apostle John.

5. I am an Orthodox Christian. The Orthodox Church is the original Church founded by the Apostles. The Roman Catholics broke from us in 1054. The Protestants broke from the Roman Catholics later, in the 1500s and 1600s. Most Orthodox Christians live in Eastern Europe, North Africa,

[davidpwithun]

and the Middle East today, although we are spread out all over the world.

[1MoreMuslim]

60 years not that late? How old are you? I am 30, that is twice my age!

Paul is not an apostle, that is a statement of faith, Paul never met Jesus historicaly speaking. So his writing cannot be qualified as Apostolic writings.

Who are the eye whitnesses who wrote John in 95AD?

You are not a Catholic nor a protestant , what are you?

[davidpwithun]

I do not say this to insult you, but you need to do a whole lot more research on Orthodox Christianity before you start criticizing it, otherwise your criticisms will not be taken seriously.

1. Yes -- the Apostles taught the Triune God; Three Persons in one essence.

2. Orthodox Christians do not believe in Original Sin.

3. Orthodox Christians do not believe in salvation by faith alone.

In order to properly raise criticisms, one must understand what a group believes. Please do the research.

[1MoreMuslim]

Where did the Apostle taught the Triune God? I want an external Source, because we didn't establish what is the "Right Scripture" yet.

" Orthodox Christians do not believe in salvation by faith alone"

That is the point! I don't need to be expert, Millions of Protestants say that " sola fide" is Orthodox. And they have good argument for that matter.  Who is wrong and who has the "Right belief"?

What book do you recommand for "Early Christianities"

[davidpwithun]

1. You want a source "external" to what? To the NT? I can provide you with several 1st and early 2nd century sources, written by people who knew and personally studied under Apostles, which teach the Trinity. I can direct you to no sources written by the Apostles themselves, though, as all of their writings on written in the NT. And, yes, the NT does teach the Trinity in all of its books.

2. The right belief is the one which can be traced to the Apostles -- sola fide cannot be traced to the

[1MoreMuslim]

But It's Bart Ehrman is the one among those who say that Jesus divinity is a later development, Like MOST of the scholars.

Have you actually read the book, Lost Christianities?

[davidpwithun]

1. Indeed he does say that. I've read his arguments on the matter and found them weak at best. Nobody said that I accept everything he says in toto.

2. I respect Bart Ehrman as a scholar -- and he's a great one -- but that doesn't mean I agree with everything the man says. I use my faculties of reason.

3. Who is "most" scholars that say the Divinity of Christ is a later development. That is a bold claim. Have you polled all scholars on the matter? In fact, "most" make no such claim.

[davidpwithun]

4. Yes, I have read the book Lost Christianities -- in fact, I read it twice ;) as well as its companion volume "Lost Scriptures."

5. Even more than any scholar, I recommend that you actually read the source documents for yourself. The writings of Christians, as well as pagans and Jews writing about Christ and Christianity, from the 1st and 2nd centuries are readily available both online and in book form.

[davidpwithun]

Apostles. It is a very late invention. I assume that you are Muslim. Apply the same question to your own religion -- who is an orthodox Muslim -- the one who clings to the teachings of Muhammad as he delivered them or the one who followed Baha'u'allah in the 1800s and believed him to be the next in the succession of prophets?

3. There are quire a few good books on Early Christianity. I recommend anything by Jaroslav Pelikan. Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" is also pretty good.

[1MoreMuslim]

You are comparing Islam with Christianity!! In Islam there was no disputes over who Muhammad was, who Jesus was, what is revelation and what is not. can easilly trace back what Muhammad taught in his life, and we have historical apostles with NAMES and names of their fathers and their grandfathers. You are comparing apples and oranges. No historian can prove who wrote the Gospels. We only guess how the Gospels look like in the First Century.

[davidpwithun]

1. I made the comparison because it's a decent one. You said that the Protestant and Roman Catholic belief in Original Sin somehow calls into question how there can be an Orthodox Christianity. I explained that later development like Baha'ism are comparable.

2. Actually, there were (and still are) quite a few disputes about who Muhammad was and what he taught. The split between the Sunnis and Shi'as is an obvious difference, in that they disagree over his appointed successor. At least

[1MoreMuslim]

No way, Baha'ism is not a decent com[arisiong at all. The Christian doctrines that you reject ( Sola Fide...) are derived from the same text that you consider holy. Faith alone is derived from Romans4. As for Baha'ism, it seems like you lack some knowledge of what is it. Bahais prays towards Palestine rather than Mekka, this in direct contradiction of the Quran. Bahais cannot point to the Quran to prove their belief. Protestants and others use your own scripture.

[davidpwithun]

1. You're proving my point. The Baha'i nonetheless accept the Koran as Scriptural, as do both Sunnis and Shi'as, as well as the Sufis, Ismailis, Kharijites, Ibadis, Alawites, Druze, etc.

2. Apparently you've forgotten the Hadith of Muhammad: ""Jews were broken up into seventy-one or seventy-two sects, and Christians were so, and my Ummah (Muslims) will be divided into seventy-three sects."

3. Protestants also contradict Scripture. See James 2.

[1MoreMuslim]

Yes the Bahai accepts the Quran as scripture, by they cannot point to a verse to prove their position.

I also believe that Protestant contradict James 2, but that is because Romans 4 contradicts James 2. How do you reconcile both?

I know that Hadith, but I know a more famous Hadith " I have left for you 2 things if you holld to them , you will never be lost, The Book of Allah and my Sunnah. The sects of Islam that you mention REJECTED some parts of the Sunnah.

[SuperJoseph1987]

Odd that you mention that Hadith because the Shia use the other Hadith that says follow the Quran and the Ahul Bayt.

And the Shia have texts and use Isnad just like the Sunnis do, what makes the Sunni claim any better than the Shia????

[1MoreMuslim]

The owner of this video have said erlier that you, protestants, are a deviant sect of Christianity and not orthodox. That "sole fide" is a heresy. You Christians don't agree how to gain salvation. Am I right or wrong?

[SuperJoseph1987]

Actually as a student of history I am agreeing with the Orthodox and Catholics more and more everyday.

Here is my understanding, we are justified by Faith alone that is what gets us started. Just like how Muslims have the Shahada, but after the profession of faith one can't just do what they want. You have to live right in accordance to God's teachings.

James taught that we show our faith by our works. We are also judged by our works too.

So it takes both, they are not separate.

[1MoreMuslim]

Dr James White, whom you admire, as I see many of his videos in your channel, disagrees with you. So basically, you Christians, do not agree how to gain salvation.

The way to salvation that you presented is a Muslim concept: Faith than Righteousness. It's amazing that you, starting from Islam, you went to christianity, then as you study and grow in knowledge, you came back to believe in an Islamic doctrine of Salvation.

[SuperJoseph1987]

I have recently left the reformed theology movement. I still respect Dr White on subjects such as textual criticism.

"The way to salvation that you presented is a Muslim concept"

No the way I presented is the Christian teaching for the past 2000 years, and is consistent with the Church Fathers. I presented to you it's similarities with Islam, however we do differ in many areas obviously

[SuperJoseph1987]

But yes many Protestants disagree with the Orthodox on if works play a factor. I say many because there are just as many Protestants who disagree and say works do matter.

Both sides however believe in salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ.

[1MoreMuslim]

"Both sides however believe in salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ"

The only difference is that one says that it's sufficient (protestants), Others believe that it's not ( Catholics and others). That is like the difference between night and day. Honestly, is it to compare such difference, with the differences in our prayers (hands down or folded).

[SuperJoseph1987]

One side says faith is sufficient, the other side says faith through works......well which side is the oldest??? Which is the consistent testimony of the Church since Pentacost

What about the many sects of Islam. Like the Quran only, they represent a teaching that has come along 1400 years later. This is the exact parallel of the Protestant reformation.....

[SuperJoseph1987]

"The sects of Islam that you mention REJECTED some parts of the Sunnah. "

Within Sunni Islam alone you have 4 Mahdabs who disagree on the very basics of things like how to perform Salat, to doing wudhu....

Again all use authentic hadith and fiqh texts to support their claims????

And again I would still like to see the evidence of any sect that predates the New Testament that taught exactly the Muslim perspective on Jesus

[1MoreMuslim]

These are school of thaughts. They represent different interpolation of the SAME Sunnah. and the four Madhhabs don't contradict each other, not true about what you said, we all pray the same way and make wudu the same way. These schools differ in very less important issues, and nobody rejects the other, like Christianities do. you call Catholics and protestants, who make 90 % of christians, deviant sects, I actually don't know what madhab I follow.

[SuperJoseph1987]

Actually no the Maliki pray with hands not folded, do not say Bismillah befor reciting Surah al Fatiha,......and yes their wudhu is performed differently

Please you apparently need to research on Islam and see how many theological and historical transformations it has taken to get in its current form.

[1MoreMuslim]

"Actually no the Maliki pray with hands not folded"

If you go to Masjid, you will find people praying hands folded and others hands down. The prophet may have prayed both ways. We are discussing about Christians who believe Jesus to be just devine and others to be devine and human, Chriatians who believe that Paul is heretical. Christians who kept praticing the Jewish law, and others who say that it's wrong to keep the law. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[SuperJoseph1987]

Can you name one sect that existed in the lifetime of Paul that believed Christ was a mortal Prophet????

Paul never wrote anything condemning the idea of someone saying Christ was not divine. In fact the only problem the New Testament seems to have is people thinking he was so divine that he could not have been a man.

Again there was no sect that existed prior to 100 ce that taught Christ was completely Human

[1MoreMuslim]

"there was no sect that existed prior to 100 ce that taught Christ was completely Human"

You cannot affirm that, that is an argument from ignorance. The Ebionites probably were there in the first century. We have very little of early "non-orthodox" writings, we know their existence because of the writing of the "Orthodox" condemning them. We can still find indications in the writing of Paul, in 2 Corinthians 11:4 for example.

[1MoreMuslim]

"the only problem the New Testament seems to have is people thinking he was so divine that he could not have been a man"

Not true, the real problem in the NT is the image of Jesus that becomes bigger and bigger as we go from Mark to John. If we ask a Christian to prove Jesus's Devinity, 99% of the quotes come from the Gospel of John.

If you take for example the incident of Jesus Baptism, read the passage in Mark then in luke and Mat finally in John. It's striking.

[SuperJoseph1987]

Your argument on Christ becoming bigger is absolutely not accurate at all. The earliest books of the New Testament are Paul's letters which present the divine Christ.

[SuperJoseph1987]

If you would like more info on the differences in Mahdabs or have a detailed discussion on some things that have evolved and lead to the faith Muslims find today feel free to message me.

I am a former Muslim myself. I hold no ill feelings towards Muslims. I just have a problem with the double standards applied to Christian history by Muslim apologists, usually this is done in ignorance

Which makes you wonder why Muslims spend so much time reading into Christian history rather than there own.

[1MoreMuslim]

It's irrelevant for a Muslim to know the four jurisprudence Madhhabs, I don't know which madhhabs I follow because they discuss side issues that doesn't make one a lesser muslim. Can you show me how the Muslim faith evolved? You are a former Muslim who believe in the absolute God, now you believe in a confusion called Trinity, Jesus being fully limited and fully unlimited at the same time? You came to believe in a book filled with unreconcilabe contradictions. What evolution in Islam?

[SuperJoseph1987]

So the proper way of performing Salat and Wudhu don't matter????

Actually yes I can show you a few areas where the Muslim faith evolved that's why I asked.

The Trinity is not confusion it's completely Biblical. And I think you are confusing the Trinity with Modalism. Most Muslims misunderstand it, like Muhammad did.

The Quran has contradictions, and is packed with abrogations. Does that make the Quran invalid? Again more double standards.

[1MoreMuslim]

Can you tell what Differences in making Salat between the different schools?

I want to have your thaught in something:

A muslim find the term God the Son a blasphemy and a noesense, the word SON means one who is generated by someone else, the word GOD means one is not generated by someone else. God the son makes no more sense than a married bachelor. Can you explain?

[SuperJoseph1987]

Yes the are differences on what you say when you prostrate, to say Bismillah before Surah al Fatiha, where to place the hands in Salat. How many Salams to give after Salat.

Things like that are the differences in prayer

[SuperJoseph1987]

Now on to the term Son of God. This is simply a finite term we use to describe the relationship between the Son and the Father.

You see the source of the Godhead is the Father, the Son is the Word or Logos which is eternally proceeding or begotten from the Father.

They are distinct but not separate. It is a great mystery in itself, but this is how God has revealed himself. You have the full right to reject it, that is your choice. But there is no confusion on my part trust me.

[1MoreMuslim]

"This is simply a finite term we use to describe the relationship between the Son and the Father"

Can we name the second person the Trinity, for example God the Liar? If no, then it should be no for God the Son. There are terms one cannot use to call God, whatever the reason is.

Second, There cannot be 2 absolute persons. Because if there 2 or more, one of them should rely on the other, that is why the second person became flesh not the Father.

[SuperJoseph1987]

We could not call Him God the Liar because he does not lie....You call Allah "Al-Haq" the truth. Your argument holds no ground.

There are 3 distinct persons, One Being. The Tri Unity is a state of existence. I said that you don't have to accept it, but the evidence is unanimous based on the testimony of the Bible and Church Fathers

[1MoreMuslim]

We cannot have two creators of Universe, we are told in Paul's writings that the Father created the world through Jesus. That makes God the Son a tool for creation and not an active creator, so he is a lesser God. There cannot be 2 equal and absolute persons.

[SuperJoseph1987]

We do not have two creators of the Universe, we have one.

God works in three distinct functions. The source acts through His Logos, and his prescence is in the Spirit.

Again it is simply a misunderstanding on your part working simply from a critical Muslim perspective

[1MoreMuslim]

There is no Muslim perspective in my argument. When we say two distinct persons created the Universe, means that one person created only part of the universe, only common sense.

If you say that One person acts through another person ( whatever that means) implies that these two persons are not equal, since each has only an assigned role. Can you say the Son created the world through the Father,? Can father incarnate and die for sins of the world? If no then the Father and the son are not equal

[1MoreMuslim]

If you say that the Father created the Universe through the Son, that can only mean that the Father NEEDS the Son to accomplish the act of creation. Again it contradicts what to be a God. It's ok if you say that in your concept of God, God can be dependent. But you have to believe in a pagan concept God, like the Greek Gods that have each an assigned role and depend on each other.

I can go on and on for several other theological and philosophical problems.

[1MoreMuslim]

" just have a problem with the double standards applied to Christian history by Muslim apologists"

You certainly know what standard Muslim follow to accept or reject Hadiths and Sunnah, you certainly know if we apply the same standard to the Saying of Jesus in the new testament, there will be no Saying that we can consider Sahih or authentic.

Yes we use double std, we are much more severe regarding Muslim tradition than the Christian tradition.

[SuperJoseph1987]

No you're not. Again the Gospels and Pauline letters were written withing the lifetime of the Apostles. They reflect the teachings of Christ' followers. Which in Muslim standards, the Salaf are the best examples. We have no writings from the time of Abu Bakr, Ali, Uthman, that show what the Muslims believed.

All hadith came hundreds of years later, and the only support you have are people saying they heard so so from so and so. That doesn't make it any more reliable.

[1MoreMuslim]

"That doesn't make it any more reliable. "

That makes all the difference. Sorry that you don't see that. The Gospels as you have them are not the only Gospels around in the first century, read the opening of Luke's Gospel. Again, The gospels are pseudonymous, without authors until assigned in the second century.

Hadiths were there since the lifetime of the prophet, people cannot invent a chain of narration from nothing, we know who those people are, their fathers their trustworthiness...

[SuperJoseph1987]

Hadith Authenticity - people hundreds of years later say so so said such and such and because these people say this it is ok........

Well then the Gospels must be written by those whom the Church Fathers unanimously say wrote them....

You have double standards plain and simple.

[1MoreMuslim]

Can you tell who wrote the book of Hebrews? The church fathers say Paul, now we know they were wrong.

[SuperJoseph1987]

The book of Hebrews is anonymous. Not all church Fathers believed it to be written by Paul. Again you're stating things which you don't know about.

Also where is there evidence of sect of Christianity that existed in the times of the New Testament that agreed with Islam.

I would just like the name of the sect that existed that believed ALL the following

Christ was born of a virgin

was a mortal human

and did not die and raise from the dead

[1MoreMuslim]

I submit that point, not all the church fathers believe that the book of Hebrews is written by Paul, some Genius Church Fathers didn't believe that it's NOT, and still believe it's inspired word of God. At least the non Muslims say that Muhammad wrote the Quran himself.

[1MoreMuslim]

"Hadith Authenticity - people hundreds of years later say so so" Hadiths are related to companions of the prophet, you have to read about Bukhari. Bukhari didn't invent narrators, he traveled all over the middle east to collect those narrations. We have thousands of Hadith which have unbroken chain of narration, but still considered not true. Again if we use the same std, no saying of Jesus would be authentic.

Just the contradictions in the accounts make it fit in the FABRICATED category.

[1MoreMuslim]

Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani(r) narrates the following Hadith in Chapter 7, At-Talaq (Divorce), The Book of Marriage

Narrated Ibn Umar : Allahs Messenger (SAWS) said, The lawful thing which Allah hates most is divorce.

This Hadith, despite it's chain of narration, is considered WEAK. It look much more authentic than any of the church fathers affirmation about the NT.

[1MoreMuslim]

You see, Historians know about the early Christianities because the writings of the Pauline christianity who tended to refute them. It's difficult to find a record of all the sects in early christinity since what came out to be the orthodox Chxty DESTROYED everything else. We know about Galatians because Paul wrote to them. Where are those letters sent back to Paul, if we have them then we can judge who is right and who is wrong.

[SuperJoseph1987]

The sects Paul refuted were those who believed the resurrection of the dead already took place, and those who taught that people should still follow the Law in order to be Christian.

The other letters of the New Testament argue to those who taught that Christ was a phantom.

Paul and the Apostles of Christ were in complete agreement about the nature of Christ.

Again there is absolutely no evidence supporting that the apostles taught the same thing about Christ as Islam

[davidpwithun]

1. Romans 4 and James 2 do not contradict each other unless one attempts to make one or the other of them say something it does not. Hundreds of years of Greek Fathers, those who spoke the language of the NT as their own language, never saw a contradiction between the two; we're fooling ourselves, 2000 years later and reading a shabby English translation, if we think we see something they didn't. Romans 4 and James 2 are saying the exact same thing -- we are saved through fidelity to God.

[davidpwithun]

2. Exactly. Just as the sects of Islam departed from Islamic tradition as contained in the Sunnah, so the sects of Christianity departed from the Apostolic Tradition of Christianity, even while retaining the Bible (although they've also altered that, in the case of Protestants),

[davidpwithun]

Christians can agree who Christ's successors are: the Apostles.

3. The earliest written account of the life of Muhammad comes from Ibn Ishaq; it was written over a hundred years after Muhammad had died. Other, later accounts of Muhammad's life differ significantly from Ishaq's account. In addition, the Hadith were not compiled until several generations after Muhammad's death. Compare this with the dates of the Gospels as accepted by most scholars. Mark being written within about 30-40 years

[1MoreMuslim]

Hadith can be Historically authentified. Gospels cannot. Muslims were careful who transmitted the stories, we reject narration that have no chain of trusworthy narrators , if we apply the same standard, we have to reject all of the Gospels.

[SuperJoseph1987]

And where is the evidence that Abu Bakr or Ali ever said anything......All you have are people hundreds of years later who say that they heard from so so who heard from so so, who is trustworthy because so so said so.

Do you see the double standards you hold to Christianity that you don't hold to Islam.

Is there any evidence of a sect that taught exactly what Islam taught that pre dates the New Testament???

[davidpwithun]

1. As I pointed out, the Hadith were compiled several generations after Muhammad's death, while the Gospels were written within a single generation of the life of Christ -- the Gospels are clearly more historically reliable than the Hadith.

2. The Gospels have no need of a "chain" as they were written by firsthand eyewitnesses (in the cases of Matthew and John) or disciples of eyewitnesses (as with Luke and Mark).

[davidpwithun]

after Christ's earthly ministry; Matthew and Luke about 40-50 years later; and John about 60 years later. Then there are the numerous other writings contained in the New Testament, all of them written within 20-60 years after his death. Then there are those early Christian writings not contained in the New Testament, such as the Didache, coming about 30 later, St. Barnabas' letter, coming about 50 years later, St. Clement's letters, coming about 60 years after Christ's earthly ministry, ...

[1MoreMuslim]

Why do you accept the Book of Hebrews?

If John is 60 years later, and Didache 50 years later, why do you reject the latter, and accpet the former?

[orthodox4eva]

There was no tradition that one of the apostles or close associates wrote the didache, so it was not inclduded in most of the fathers canons. The person writting it might of been a 2nd or 3rd generation christian. even though John wrote late he was a 1st generation witness to Christ still. Thats what counted the most in choosing the new testament criterea.

[orthodox4eva]

Even though some books not in the NT are very orthodox in teaching. They were written at a time a lot of the heretical gospels were writeen, so it become a more difficult task to sort out what is legitimate or not. So the church kept it simple and chose out of 1st generation christian writting only.

Even though 1st and 2nd generation books overlap in timeline. That didnt matter.

[SuperJoseph1987]

To add on to that one brother there we no non orthodox Gospels or texts that we in existence until after 150 CE.

So it is natural that the earliest, consistent documents would have been the inspired ones.

Thank you for adding great insight to this discussion

[davidpwithun]

1. We accept the book of Hebrews because it was probably written by St. Paul or by either St. Luke or St. Barnabas, under Paul's influence. It clearly reflects Pauline methods and modes.

2. Nobody said that we "reject" the Didache; we do not. We accept it as an authentic Orthodox Christian writing; that does not, however, make it Scriptural, as it was not written by an Apostle or under the close direct supervision/influence of one.

[davidpwithun]

St. Ignatius' letters, coming about 70 years after Christ's earthly ministry, St. Papias' writings, coming about 90 years after Christ's ministry, St. Polycarp's letter, coming about 95 years after Christ's ministry... etc... and these are just a few of the many! Scholars have deemed the various traditions about Muhammad's life and sayings to be very unreliable for historical information.

5. Actually, we do know who wrote the Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We also know what they

[davidpwithun]

looked like in the first century, as there are fragments (though no complete manuscripts, unfortunately) that survive from that time, as well as numerous quotations found in the writings of others. In fact, scholars have averred that one might be able to reconstruct the entire NT based only on quotes from it which are contained in the early Christian writers. That's a lot of quotes! And guess what? They look just like the text we know today :)

[orthodox4eva]

David, for a man still so young, your knoweledge never ceases to amaze me.

[orthodox4eva]

Once again. All christian liturgical worship had trinitarian prayer and acknoledgement to the divinty of Jesus. All Christian worshipped the same then, and the tradition was contained in the liturgical worship. So what if Johns gospel was written late. They still believed in Jesus divinity before then from the worship they experienced.

[orthodox4eva]

I can also say that there is no proof of Islam either. I can easily say Mohammad borrowed from other religions and preached his own religion pretending he heard it from god. He just happened to be gifted in poetry and public speaking. Thats alot easier to belive, than your accusations to early christianity.

[1MoreMuslim]

The ones who followed Baha'ullah, have left the fold of Islam, since he accepted an other book written by Baha'ulah considered more holy than the Quran. One who believes that A prophet has come after Muhammad, is not a muslim since he ignores where the Quran says that Muhammad is the last propphet to mankind. I said, you are comparing apples and oranges. Christianities differ in doctrines but have almost the same scripture.

[LovedbyTheKing1990]

Which translation[s] of the bible do orthodox christians read?

[davidpwithun]

The KJV, NKJV and RSV are probably the most popular NT versions. There isn't a standard Orthodox NT text in English yet -- there's been attempts, but not very good ones so I won't recommend them. For the Old Testament, I can't recommend anything better than the excellent translation contained in the Orthodox Study Bible (which features the NKJV for the NT).

[LovedbyTheKing1990]

Okay, Thanks a lot.

Where can I get an Orthodox study bible?

[davidpwithun]

Your local Orthodox Church :)

Some (not many, unfortunately) book stores carry them as well. The easiest place to order one online is through Amazon. Make sure, though, that you get the one that has the Old Testament with it, as the original OSB only had a New Testament.

[LovedbyTheKing1990]

they will just give me a bible?

[davidpwithun]

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if they did ;) but I was referring to buying it at the Church -- most Orthodox Churches have a small bookstore attached, and I haven't seen one yet that doesn't have copies of the OSB.

[orthodox4eva]

Great video!!!

With St Justin. Its it possible he didnt include any of Pauls epistles, because Marcion approved them as scripture. So Justin could of hesitated?

[davidpwithun]

@orthodox4eva

I didn't think about that, but yours sounds like a good explanation. I have to wonder why he would have accepted Luke though, as Marcion also accepted that Gospel. Who knows? :-\

[orthodox4eva]

Im guessing he accepted Luke, because of its close resembences to Mathew and Mark.

Do you happen to know why Marcion liked Luke's gospel for?

[davidpwithun]

Marcion thought that from amongst the Apostles only Paul properly understood Christ's teachings. Luke was one of Paul's confidants and closest companions and, according to early authors, wrote his gospel based on what he had learned about Christ and Christ's life from Paul. So, for early Christians (Marcion included), Luke's gospel was, in fact, Paul's gospel.

I think you're probably right on Justin accepting Luke because it was so similar to the other gospels. Interesting stuff, thanks!

[thekingmaker10]

Yet again, fantastic work. Where do you find the time? I saw on your channel that you are a GI. I am as well (USAF), though I left active duty years ago and currently serve 1 weekend a month as a reservist.

[davidpwithun]

Thanks! I'm just happy that people are enjoying my videos and learning from them. I usually work on each video over a week, early in the morning (about 4 am) and late in the evening (9 or 10 pm). If I ever sound tired in my videos, now you know why!

[sirjohn2u]

Bravo!!! Well done...thanks...Pravoslavie!!!

[OrthodoxyIsTruth]

Another great video!

[davidpwithun]

Thanks! I'm actually not familiar with Doug Powell (maybe you can give me the names of some books or websites to send me in his direction). Most of my info comes from Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, Jeffrey Macdonald (who attends the same church as I do -- search "Orthodox Church History" at Google for his great website -- I'd post the URL but YouTube won't let me) and L. Michael White. I'm always looking for more to read on Church history (unfortunately, a lot of the books I find are GARBAGE).