Who Has the Real Jesus - the Bible or the Qur'an (v2)

New film in response to Jay's video that speaks more to the history than personal beliefs. Words i may have mispronounced are spelt: hellenistic, Platonism, Stoics, Gnosticism, Docetism, Logos, aureole

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• pfander
• films
• jay
• smith
• islam
• christianity
• debate
• speakers
• corner
• Arab
• arabic

[Darc5155]

Um, sir, if it was written in 70 CE then it was written about 37 years after the fact because Jesus died and was crucified at age 33 the Bible does not pick up until he's about 30, 31, because none of the Disciples knew him before then

[naliakbar]

if i remember correctly the CE started after the death of christ, this is why it is also called AD for After Death.

[AchreousD]

LOL, Matthew was an eye witness, written 60 AD, if you are going to try and correct you need to have your facts correct. Matt, Mark, Luke and John do not contradicts each other. The God of the Bible love mankind, "Allah" loves those who love him. Jesus said does not even sinner do that? The trinity is in the OT. Mohammed is the only prophet before him there are none who testify of him, or confirm what He wrote. Jesus was prophecies about by Isaiah, Moses, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and more.

[sexyarii]

You claim that the New Testament presents a savour inline with Hellenistic thought that was not human but simply appeared to be human. This is simply not in line with the Gospel of John which presents a divine Jesus who "became flesh" (John 1:14).

Just to reiterate, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[sexyarii]

Regarding the claim that the 'logos' was nothing but Greek thought - another grossly erroneous claim. The logos or Word as used in John 1:1 is based on the Word of God in Genesis 1. It was through the eternal Word of God through whom all things were made. This is not a stoic or platonic concept - but a thoroughly Jewish idea of first century Palestine.

[sexyarii]

You start with John and assert that it is not history whilst providing no proof. Similarly, you claim that the trinity was Pagan and provide no proof.

Now we get to the interesting bit - you start mentioning stuff that almost sounds like evidence. You claim that John was Hellenistic and not Hebraic - that is simply false. Most scholars today recognise the Gospel of John as thoroughly Jewish, especially in light of the Jewish documents of Qumran.

[sexyarii]

Also, Mark was based on the preaching of the Apostle Peter.

You claim that God, law and Temple as part of the first century Palestinian context is nothing but a matter of opinion yet we know that the religious discourse of the period was dominated by these factors.

[sexyarii]

Wow. What a pathetic video.

You say we don't have any history of Jesus but only "the synoptic gospels". The synoptic gospels are biographical history (specifically Mark and Matthew) with Luke-Acts being a two volume monograph. These are historical documents.

You go on to claim that Mark was written "70 years after the fact" - why are you doing engineering if you can't even take 30 away from 70?

[Limbsy]

Lol, you don't understand what Jesus was saying then.

[Antoniowish]

as always you cannot compete with Jay,,