Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Irony of the Qur'an (Surah 4:157-158)

HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:15:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
A popular passage of the Qur'an is Surah 4:157-158:

"...they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise"

This is the one passage in the Qur'an that denies the crucifixion of Jesus. This passage alone has numerous glaring errors in it. For example, no non-Christian Jew would boast about killing the Messiah. The Jews wanted him dead because they rejected his claims. Also, no disbeliever in Jesus would call him "the Messenger of God"; for the people who crucified him believed the opposite of that (these errors are besides my point). The verse further claims that those who affirm the Crucifixion of Jesus are following nothing but 'doubts' and 'conjecture'. The irony is that Muslims who read this passage are left wondering what exactly happened to Jesus. Some Muslims boldly claim that it was Judas who was made to look like Jesus, and he got crucified. Other Muslims say that someone other than Judas was crucified (e.g. Simon of Cyrene). Other Muslim apologists despite what the Qur'an says, claim that Jesus was crucified, but didn't die (Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, and Shadid Lewis). Yet some Muslims say they don't know how to make heads or tails of this passage.

So it is ironic that while the Qur'an claims we are in doubt, it is the Muslims themselves who are in doubt about what exactly happened to Jesus.

Not only is there not a shred of evidence to support the Quran's claim that Jesus wasn't crucified, but all of the historical evidence within the 1st hundred years of Jesus' death proves that Jesus was in fact crucified (from Christian AND non-Christian sources). Virtually all (99-100%) of Historical Jesus scholars and New Testament scholars affirm that Jesus death via crucifixion is the most certain fact about the Historical Jesus. And this is not just conservative Christian scholars, but rather ALL (99-100%) of scholars - Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals, Jewish, Agnostics, and Atheists, virtually everybody affirms that Jesus death by Crucifixion is an indisputable fact about the Historical Jesus. The only ones who really deny the crucifixion are Mythicists - those who deny Jesus existed; not really scholars that Muslims should be appealing to, for the Qur'an presupposes that Jesus existed.

I can say with certainty that Jesus was crucified because all the historical evidence supports it.

The Muslim on the other hand is left wondering what exactly happened to Jesus based on an ambiguous text in the Qur'an and no historical evidence to support their position.

Now you tell me who is 'full of doubts' and 'following only conjecture'.
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:41:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 4:15:35 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
A popular passage of the Qur'an is Surah 4:157-158:

"...they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise"

This is the one passage in the Qur'an that denies the crucifixion of Jesus. This passage alone has numerous glaring errors in it. For example, no non-Christian Jew would boast about killing the Messiah. The Jews wanted him dead because they rejected his claims. Also, no disbeliever in Jesus would call him "the Messenger of God"; for the people who crucified him believed the opposite of that (these errors are besides my point). The verse further claims that those who affirm the Crucifixion of Jesus are following nothing but 'doubts' and 'conjecture'. The irony is that Muslims who read this passage are left wondering what exactly happened to Jesus. Some Muslims boldly claim that it was Judas who was made to look like Jesus, and he got crucified. Other Muslims say that someone other than Judas was crucified (e.g. Simon of Cyrene). Other Muslim apologists despite what the Qur'an says, claim that Jesus was crucified, but didn't die (Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, and Shadid Lewis). Yet some Muslims say they don't know how to make heads or tails of this passage.

So it is ironic that while the Qur'an claims we are in doubt, it is the Muslims themselves who are in doubt about what exactly happened to Jesus.

Not only is there not a shred of evidence to support the Quran's claim that Jesus wasn't crucified, but all of the historical evidence within the 1st hundred years of Jesus' death proves that Jesus was in fact crucified (from Christian AND non-Christian sources). Virtually all (99-100%) of Historical Jesus scholars and New Testament scholars affirm that Jesus death via crucifixion is the most certain fact about the Historical Jesus. And this is not just conservative Christian scholars, but rather ALL (99-100%) of scholars - Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals, Jewish, Agnostics, and Atheists, virtually everybody affirms that Jesus death by Crucifixion is an indisputable fact about the Historical Jesus. The only ones who really deny the crucifixion are Mythicists - those who deny Jesus existed; not really scholars that Muslims should be appealing to, for the Qur'an presupposes that Jesus existed.

I can say with certainty that Jesus was crucified because all the historical evidence supports it.

The Muslim on the other hand is left wondering what exactly happened to Jesus based on an ambiguous text in the Qur'an and no historical evidence to support their position.

Now you tell me who is 'full of doubts' and 'following only conjecture'.

What historical evidence do you have that support your belief about the crucifixion of Jesus?
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:46:53 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 4:41:58 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 4:15:35 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
A popular passage of the Qur'an is Surah 4:157-158:

"...they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise"

This is the one passage in the Qur'an that denies the crucifixion of Jesus. This passage alone has numerous glaring errors in it. For example, no non-Christian Jew would boast about killing the Messiah. The Jews wanted him dead because they rejected his claims. Also, no disbeliever in Jesus would call him "the Messenger of God"; for the people who crucified him believed the opposite of that (these errors are besides my point). The verse further claims that those who affirm the Crucifixion of Jesus are following nothing but 'doubts' and 'conjecture'. The irony is that Muslims who read this passage are left wondering what exactly happened to Jesus. Some Muslims boldly claim that it was Judas who was made to look like Jesus, and he got crucified. Other Muslims say that someone other than Judas was crucified (e.g. Simon of Cyrene). Other Muslim apologists despite what the Qur'an says, claim that Jesus was crucified, but didn't die (Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, and Shadid Lewis). Yet some Muslims say they don't know how to make heads or tails of this passage.

So it is ironic that while the Qur'an claims we are in doubt, it is the Muslims themselves who are in doubt about what exactly happened to Jesus.

Not only is there not a shred of evidence to support the Quran's claim that Jesus wasn't crucified, but all of the historical evidence within the 1st hundred years of Jesus' death proves that Jesus was in fact crucified (from Christian AND non-Christian sources). Virtually all (99-100%) of Historical Jesus scholars and New Testament scholars affirm that Jesus death via crucifixion is the most certain fact about the Historical Jesus. And this is not just conservative Christian scholars, but rather ALL (99-100%) of scholars - Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals, Jewish, Agnostics, and Atheists, virtually everybody affirms that Jesus death by Crucifixion is an indisputable fact about the Historical Jesus. The only ones who really deny the crucifixion are Mythicists - those who deny Jesus existed; not really scholars that Muslims should be appealing to, for the Qur'an presupposes that Jesus existed.

I can say with certainty that Jesus was crucified because all the historical evidence supports it.

The Muslim on the other hand is left wondering what exactly happened to Jesus based on an ambiguous text in the Qur'an and no historical evidence to support their position.

Now you tell me who is 'full of doubts' and 'following only conjecture'.

What historical evidence do you have that support your belief about the crucifixion of Jesus?

What historical evidence do you have to say he wasn't?
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:55:44 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
What historical evidence do you have that support your belief about the crucifixion of Jesus?

What historical evidence do you have to say he wasn't?


so far, we, you and I, don't have any historical evidence to say either he was crucified or not.
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:13:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 4:41:58 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 4:15:35 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
A popular passage of the Qur'an is Surah 4:157-158:

"...they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise"

This is the one passage in the Qur'an that denies the crucifixion of Jesus. This passage alone has numerous glaring errors in it. For example, no non-Christian Jew would boast about killing the Messiah. The Jews wanted him dead because they rejected his claims. Also, no disbeliever in Jesus would call him "the Messenger of God"; for the people who crucified him believed the opposite of that (these errors are besides my point). The verse further claims that those who affirm the Crucifixion of Jesus are following nothing but 'doubts' and 'conjecture'. The irony is that Muslims who read this passage are left wondering what exactly happened to Jesus. Some Muslims boldly claim that it was Judas who was made to look like Jesus, and he got crucified. Other Muslims say that someone other than Judas was crucified (e.g. Simon of Cyrene). Other Muslim apologists despite what the Qur'an says, claim that Jesus was crucified, but didn't die (Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, and Shadid Lewis). Yet some Muslims say they don't know how to make heads or tails of this passage.

So it is ironic that while the Qur'an claims we are in doubt, it is the Muslims themselves who are in doubt about what exactly happened to Jesus.

Not only is there not a shred of evidence to support the Quran's claim that Jesus wasn't crucified, but all of the historical evidence within the 1st hundred years of Jesus' death proves that Jesus was in fact crucified (from Christian AND non-Christian sources). Virtually all (99-100%) of Historical Jesus scholars and New Testament scholars affirm that Jesus death via crucifixion is the most certain fact about the Historical Jesus. And this is not just conservative Christian scholars, but rather ALL (99-100%) of scholars - Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals, Jewish, Agnostics, and Atheists, virtually everybody affirms that Jesus death by Crucifixion is an indisputable fact about the Historical Jesus. The only ones who really deny the crucifixion are Mythicists - those who deny Jesus existed; not really scholars that Muslims should be appealing to, for the Qur'an presupposes that Jesus existed.

I can say with certainty that Jesus was crucified because all the historical evidence supports it.

The Muslim on the other hand is left wondering what exactly happened to Jesus based on an ambiguous text in the Qur'an and no historical evidence to support their position.

Now you tell me who is 'full of doubts' and 'following only conjecture'.

What historical evidence do you have that support your belief about the crucifixion of Jesus?

Christian sources: All 4 Gospels and virtually every other book in the New Testament talks about it.

Non-Christian sources: Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Serapion, Lucian of Samasota, and the Talmud.

All of the non-Christian sources are independent of one another.

The reason why the Crucifixion is so widely accepted among scholars is because of its multiple independent attestation, attestation by enemies of Christians, embarassing admission on the part of Christians (no Christian would make up the story of their Messiah being killed), eyewitness testimony (1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is considered by virtually all scholars to be based on eyewitness testimony; and it mentions the crucifixion), and most of all early testimony. The Gospels and NT documents were all written in the 1st century, yet they all presuppose that their audience would know that Jesus was crucified. The 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 creedal formula being quoted by Paul is dated by the vast majority of NT specialists to within 5 years of the event, some date it even earlier - which is extremely early historically speaking.

The crucifixion passes all the historical criteria of authenticity with flying colors, which is why no serious scholars doubts that it happened.

To quote from the most well known critic of Christianity - Bart Ehrman, who is by no means a friend of Christianity:

"One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate." (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press: 2011), pp. 261-262)
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:36:30 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
What historical evidence do you have that support your belief about the crucifixion of Jesus?

Christian sources: All 4 Gospels and virtually every other book in the New Testament talks about it.

Non-Christian sources: Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Serapion, Lucian of Samasota, and the Talmud.

All of the non-Christian sources are independent of one another.

The reason why the Crucifixion is so widely accepted among scholars is because of its multiple independent attestation, attestation by enemies of Christians, embarassing admission on the part of Christians (no Christian would make up the story of their Messiah being killed), eyewitness testimony (1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is considered by virtually all scholars to be based on eyewitness testimony; and it mentions the crucifixion), and most of all early testimony. The Gospels and NT documents were all written in the 1st century, yet they all presuppose that their audience would know that Jesus was crucified. The 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 creedal formula being quoted by Paul is dated by the vast majority of NT specialists to within 5 years of the event, some date it even earlier - which is extremely early historically speaking.

The crucifixion passes all the historical criteria of authenticity with flying colors, which is why no serious scholars doubts that it happened.

To quote from the most well known critic of Christianity - Bart Ehrman, who is by no means a friend of Christianity:

"One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate." (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press: 2011), pp. 261-262)

On which media Jesus was crucified? on the tree or on the stick or on the literal cross?
Christians are contradicted in this case.
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 6:06:49 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 5:36:30 AM, uncung wrote:
What historical evidence do you have that support your belief about the crucifixion of Jesus?

Christian sources: All 4 Gospels and virtually every other book in the New Testament talks about it.

Non-Christian sources: Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Serapion, Lucian of Samasota, and the Talmud.

All of the non-Christian sources are independent of one another.

The reason why the Crucifixion is so widely accepted among scholars is because of its multiple independent attestation, attestation by enemies of Christians, embarassing admission on the part of Christians (no Christian would make up the story of their Messiah being killed), eyewitness testimony (1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is considered by virtually all scholars to be based on eyewitness testimony; and it mentions the crucifixion), and most of all early testimony. The Gospels and NT documents were all written in the 1st century, yet they all presuppose that their audience would know that Jesus was crucified. The 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 creedal formula being quoted by Paul is dated by the vast majority of NT specialists to within 5 years of the event, some date it even earlier - which is extremely early historically speaking.

The crucifixion passes all the historical criteria of authenticity with flying colors, which is why no serious scholars doubts that it happened.

To quote from the most well known critic of Christianity - Bart Ehrman, who is by no means a friend of Christianity:

"One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate." (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press: 2011), pp. 261-262)

On which media Jesus was crucified? on the tree or on the stick or on the literal cross?
Christians are contradicted in this case.
The only so called "Christians" who deny Jesus was crucified on a cross are the Jehovah's Witnesses - who aren't Christians to begin with for they deny the Deity of Christ, and are thus not Christian.

Christians who actually believe what the Bible teaches (the Death, Deity, and Resurrection of Jesus) do not dispute that Jesus died on a cross. The claim being made by Jehovah's Witnesses is being made based on late or ambiguous evidence. The claim of Christ being crucified on a stake is exclusive to them and them alone, not to Christians.
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 7:30:20 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
On which media Jesus was crucified? on the tree or on the stick or on the literal cross?
Christians are contradicted in this case.
The only so called "Christians" who deny Jesus was crucified on a cross are the Jehovah's Witnesses - who aren't Christians to begin with for they deny the Deity of Christ, and are thus not Christian.

Christians who actually believe what the Bible teaches (the Death, Deity, and Resurrection of Jesus) do not dispute that Jesus died on a cross. The claim being made by Jehovah's Witnesses is being made based on late or ambiguous evidence. The claim of Christ being crucified on a stake is exclusive to them and them alone, not to Christians.

which verse states Jesus died on the cross then?
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 8:22:57 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 7:30:20 AM, uncung wrote:
On which media Jesus was crucified? on the tree or on the stick or on the literal cross?
Christians are contradicted in this case.
The only so called "Christians" who deny Jesus was crucified on a cross are the Jehovah's Witnesses - who aren't Christians to begin with for they deny the Deity of Christ, and are thus not Christian.

Christians who actually believe what the Bible teaches (the Death, Deity, and Resurrection of Jesus) do not dispute that Jesus died on a cross. The claim being made by Jehovah's Witnesses is being made based on late or ambiguous evidence. The claim of Christ being crucified on a stake is exclusive to them and them alone, not to Christians.

which verse states Jesus died on the cross then?
Easy...

"And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross."" (Matthew 27:39-40)
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 8:47:09 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
which verse states Jesus died on the cross then?
Easy...

"And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross."" (Matthew 27:39-40)
what about this?:

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." (Acts 5:30)
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 9:11:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Important Note for Christians:

the Apocalypse of Peter (the Revelations sent to Peter) was directly written and spoken by Peter himself. This Revelation clearly rejected the lies of crucifixion and even trinity!

---------------
...."Come therefore, let us go on with the completion of the will of the incorruptible Father. For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will be put to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst. Do not be afraid because of your cowardice. Their minds shall be closed, for the invisible one has opposed them."

When he said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

But I, when I had looked, said "Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place." But he said to me, "I have told you, "Leave the blind alone!" And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."

....

Please reflect that quote above.
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 9:35:02 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 8:47:09 AM, uncung wrote:
which verse states Jesus died on the cross then?
Easy...

"And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross."" (Matthew 27:39-40)
what about this?:

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." (Acts 5:30)
To say Jesus died on a tree isn't a denial that he died on the cross. In fact, this is clear proof that Jesus was crucified on a cross, as John Gill in his commentary on Acts 5:30 states:

whom ye slew and hanged on a tree; this is said in defence of themselves, being charged that they intended to bring this man's blood upon them; they therefore insist upon it that they had slain Jesus whom God raised up, inasmuch as they had condemned him to death in their sanhedrim, and had urged and importuned Pilate to crucify him, and had imprecated his blood upon them and on their children; and were not content to put him to any kind of death, but insisted on his being crucified, or hanged on a tree; that is, stretched out upon the cross, which was both a painful and shameful death, to which they were manifestly accessary, and therefore justly charged with it.

So no contradiction here. A cross is considered to be a tree.

This isn't really a big deal to be honest. All the ancient evidence supports the view that Jesus was crucified on a cross NOT a stake. Please stop using a Jehovah's Witnesses argument.
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 9:54:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 9:11:13 AM, uncung wrote:
Important Note for Christians:

the Apocalypse of Peter (the Revelations sent to Peter) was directly written and spoken by Peter himself. This Revelation clearly rejected the lies of crucifixion and even trinity!

---------------
...."Come therefore, let us go on with the completion of the will of the incorruptible Father. For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will be put to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst. Do not be afraid because of your cowardice. Their minds shall be closed, for the invisible one has opposed them."

When he said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

But I, when I had looked, said "Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place." But he said to me, "I have told you, "Leave the blind alone!" And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."

....

Please reflect that quote above.
You need to stop getting your information from Answering-Christianity.com. The man who runs this website and writes his information almost always never provides a scholarly work that supports his conclusions, and he also tends to misquote or takes people's statements out of context.

Secondly, the Apocalypse of Peter is a 2nd century forgery written in Peter's name. No Church Father writing in the late 1st century, early 2nd century (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp) quote from it or even acknowledge it's existence. This total silence from these early writers raises some big red flags about this so called work of Peter.

But even if we accept this work as authentic, you got problems Muhammad is a false prophet.

Notice that in this work, it refers to Jesus as "the savior" and God as "the Father". Muhammad on the other hand denied that Jesus was our Savior by denying his crucifixion and denied that God is a Father (Qur'an 5:18). Thus according to the Apocalypse of Peter, if genuine, proves Muhammad to be a false prophet; so stop quoting from it.

Stop quoting to me Answering-Christianity which is a joke of a website and actually quote to me reputable scholars (not a part-time apologist with no degree in NT studies or Early Christianity) who accepts the Apocalypse of Peter as a work of Peter. Not one scholar exists who affirms Peter wrote the Apocalypse of Peter.
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 9:58:22 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
You still haven't responded to all the evidence I gave for the Crucifixion of Jesus.

You also have failed to give any good evidence that supports the Muslim view of the Crucifixion.

Name me one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus if you can.
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:05:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 9:54:08 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:11:13 AM, uncung wrote:
Important Note for Christians:

the Apocalypse of Peter (the Revelations sent to Peter) was directly written and spoken by Peter himself. This Revelation clearly rejected the lies of crucifixion and even trinity!

---------------
...."Come therefore, let us go on with the completion of the will of the incorruptible Father. For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will be put to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst. Do not be afraid because of your cowardice. Their minds shall be closed, for the invisible one has opposed them."

When he said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

But I, when I had looked, said "Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place." But he said to me, "I have told you, "Leave the blind alone!" And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."

....

Please reflect that quote above.
You need to stop getting your information from Answering-Christianity.com. The man who runs this website and writes his information almost always never provides a scholarly work that supports his conclusions, and he also tends to misquote or takes people's statements out of context.

Secondly, the Apocalypse of Peter is a 2nd century forgery written in Peter's name. No Church Father writing in the late 1st century, early 2nd century (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp) quote from it or even acknowledge it's existence. This total silence from these early writers raises some big red flags about this so called work of Peter.

But even if we accept this work as authentic, you got problems Muhammad is a false prophet.

Notice that in this work, it refers to Jesus as "the savior" and God as "the Father". Muhammad on the other hand denied that Jesus was our Savior by denying his crucifixion and denied that God is a Father (Qur'an 5:18). Thus according to the Apocalypse of Peter, if genuine, proves Muhammad to be a false prophet; so stop quoting from it.

Stop quoting to me Answering-Christianity which is a joke of a website and actually quote to me reputable scholars (not a part-time apologist with no degree in NT studies or Early Christianity) who accepts the Apocalypse of Peter as a work of Peter. Not one scholar exists who affirms Peter wrote the Apocalypse of Peter.

Seem you are shocking by that quote.
Apocalypse of Peter was written directly by Peter who met Jesus direclty as well. This Revelation was widely accepted and believed in by the early Christians during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries. It implies this revelation is more eligible than any other the later writings.
Don't blame the site such Answering Christianity.com, rather blame your own ignorance on your religious scripture.
try to focus on the crucifixion topic.
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:05:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 9:58:22 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
You still haven't responded to all the evidence I gave for the Crucifixion of Jesus.

You also have failed to give any good evidence that supports the Muslim view of the Crucifixion.

Name me one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus if you can.

Apocalypse of Peter denied the crucifixion.
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:17:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 10:05:07 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:54:08 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:11:13 AM, uncung wrote:
Important Note for Christians:

the Apocalypse of Peter (the Revelations sent to Peter) was directly written and spoken by Peter himself. This Revelation clearly rejected the lies of crucifixion and even trinity!

---------------
...."Come therefore, let us go on with the completion of the will of the incorruptible Father. For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will be put to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst. Do not be afraid because of your cowardice. Their minds shall be closed, for the invisible one has opposed them."

When he said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

But I, when I had looked, said "Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place." But he said to me, "I have told you, "Leave the blind alone!" And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."

....

Please reflect that quote above.
You need to stop getting your information from Answering-Christianity.com. The man who runs this website and writes his information almost always never provides a scholarly work that supports his conclusions, and he also tends to misquote or takes people's statements out of context.

Secondly, the Apocalypse of Peter is a 2nd century forgery written in Peter's name. No Church Father writing in the late 1st century, early 2nd century (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp) quote from it or even acknowledge it's existence. This total silence from these early writers raises some big red flags about this so called work of Peter.

But even if we accept this work as authentic, you got problems Muhammad is a false prophet.

Notice that in this work, it refers to Jesus as "the savior" and God as "the Father". Muhammad on the other hand denied that Jesus was our Savior by denying his crucifixion and denied that God is a Father (Qur'an 5:18). Thus according to the Apocalypse of Peter, if genuine, proves Muhammad to be a false prophet; so stop quoting from it.

Stop quoting to me Answering-Christianity which is a joke of a website and actually quote to me reputable scholars (not a part-time apologist with no degree in NT studies or Early Christianity) who accepts the Apocalypse of Peter as a work of Peter. Not one scholar exists who affirms Peter wrote the Apocalypse of Peter.

Seem you are shocking by that quote.
Apocalypse of Peter was written directly by Peter who met Jesus direclty as well. This Revelation was widely accepted and believed in by the early Christians during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries. It implies this revelation is more eligible than any other the later writings.
Don't blame the site such Answering Christianity.com, rather blame your own ignorance on your religious scripture.
try to focus on the crucifixion topic.
I don't where to start....
Number one, I already stated that the Apocalypse of Peter is a 2ND CENTURY work, NOT written by Peter. Did you respond to that? Nope, you basically just repeated what you said.

Number two, just because some Christians accepted it does NOT mean it is written by Peter. It does not follow that because "some Christians accepted it" that Peter wrote it. What you have to show is that the majority of Christians accepted it, which is not the case.

Number three, I am ignorant of my own scripture? Yeah, I am ignorant of my own scripture when you are trying to argue that a 2nd century forgery is actually a work of Peter. No comment. LOL.

Number four, I am staying on the crucifixion topic, you are the one trying to argue that a forgery is a work by Peter, so I am responding to you.
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:26:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 10:05:56 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:58:22 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
You still haven't responded to all the evidence I gave for the Crucifixion of Jesus.

You also have failed to give any good evidence that supports the Muslim view of the Crucifixion.

Name me one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus if you can.

Apocalypse of Peter denied the crucifixion.
For the love of God, do you know who wrote this piece of fiction? It was written by a 2nd century docetic who denied that Jesus had a physical body, and therefore could not have died on the cross. These heretics believed that Jesus was ONLY God and couldn't have been human....are you really telling me this is who you're going to to confirm Islam? A bunch of demon-possessed maniacs who deny that Jesus even had a physical body? I am astonished at how desperate you are.

My challenge still stands....name one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus. I am still waiting.......
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:32:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I don't where to start....
Number one, I already stated that the Apocalypse of Peter is a 2ND CENTURY work, NOT written by Peter. Did you respond to that? Nope, you basically just repeated what you said.

Number two, just because some Christians accepted it does NOT mean it is written by Peter. It does not follow that because "some Christians accepted it" that Peter wrote it. What you have to show is that the majority of Christians accepted it, which is not the case.

Number three, I am ignorant of my own scripture? Yeah, I am ignorant of my own scripture when you are trying to argue that a 2nd century forgery is actually a work of Peter. No comment. LOL.

Number four, I am staying on the crucifixion topic, you are the one trying to argue that a forgery is a work by Peter, so I am responding to you.
Fromhttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
Apocalypse of Peter

The Apocalypse of Peter or Revelation of Peter is an example of popular early Christian apocalyptic literature. it was considered scripture by several ancient Christian authorities, but was lost to history for more the 1500 hundred years until its rediscovery near the turn of the twentieth century.

Written by a Christian author in Peter's name during the first half of the second century C.E., the rediscovered text exists in two versions, one Koine Greek, another Ethiopic.

The Apocalypse of Peter was apparently widely read in the Christian churches of the second century and was considered holy scripture by several authorities.

---
So, it is understandable this earliest scripture could be strange in some christian community since it was just found in 18th century.
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:34:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The funny thing is that the Apostle John refutes these docetics:

"and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already." (1 John 4:3)

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 7)
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:35:17 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 10:26:18 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:05:56 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:58:22 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
You still haven't responded to all the evidence I gave for the Crucifixion of Jesus.

You also have failed to give any good evidence that supports the Muslim view of the Crucifixion.

Name me one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus if you can.

Apocalypse of Peter denied the crucifixion.
For the love of God, do you know who wrote this piece of fiction? It was written by a 2nd century docetic who denied that Jesus had a physical body, and therefore could not have died on the cross. These heretics believed that Jesus was ONLY God and couldn't have been human....are you really telling me this is who you're going to to confirm Islam? A bunch of demon-possessed maniacs who deny that Jesus even had a physical body? I am astonished at how desperate you are.

My challenge still stands....name one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus. I am still waiting.......

Who said Apocalypse of Peter is a fiction?
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:38:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 10:35:17 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:26:18 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:05:56 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:58:22 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
You still haven't responded to all the evidence I gave for the Crucifixion of Jesus.

You also have failed to give any good evidence that supports the Muslim view of the Crucifixion.

Name me one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus if you can.

Apocalypse of Peter denied the crucifixion.
For the love of God, do you know who wrote this piece of fiction? It was written by a 2nd century docetic who denied that Jesus had a physical body, and therefore could not have died on the cross. These heretics believed that Jesus was ONLY God and couldn't have been human....are you really telling me this is who you're going to to confirm Islam? A bunch of demon-possessed maniacs who deny that Jesus even had a physical body? I am astonished at how desperate you are.

My challenge still stands....name one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus. I am still waiting.......

Who said Apocalypse of Peter is a fiction?
Who said it isn't? Name one scholar who says otherwise.
The fact that you are appealing to a 2ND CENTURY TEXT forged in Peter's name by a Docetic who believed that Jesus didn't even have a physical body just shows how desperate you are.
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 10:57:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 10:38:10 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:35:17 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:26:18 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:05:56 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:58:22 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
You still haven't responded to all the evidence I gave for the Crucifixion of Jesus.

You also have failed to give any good evidence that supports the Muslim view of the Crucifixion.

Name me one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus if you can.

Apocalypse of Peter denied the crucifixion.
For the love of God, do you know who wrote this piece of fiction? It was written by a 2nd century docetic who denied that Jesus had a physical body, and therefore could not have died on the cross. These heretics believed that Jesus was ONLY God and couldn't have been human....are you really telling me this is who you're going to to confirm Islam? A bunch of demon-possessed maniacs who deny that Jesus even had a physical body? I am astonished at how desperate you are.

My challenge still stands....name one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus. I am still waiting.......

Who said Apocalypse of Peter is a fiction?
Who said it isn't? Name one scholar who says otherwise.
The fact that you are appealing to a 2ND CENTURY TEXT forged in Peter's name by a Docetic who believed that Jesus didn't even have a physical body just shows how desperate you are.

What is the problem of 2ND CENTURY TEXT?
Why do not the scholar of Christians accept the Apocalypse of Peter?
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 11:08:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The Muratorian fragment, the earliest existing list of canonical sacred writings of the New Testament, which is assigned on internal evidence to the last quarter of the 2nd century (c. 175"200), gives a list of works read in the Christian churches that is similar to the modern accepted canon; however, it also includes the Apocalypse of Peter.

The intellectually simple Apocalypse of Peter, with its Hellenistic Greek overtones, belongs to the same genre as the Clementine literature that was popular in Alexandria. Like the Clementine literature, the Apocalypse of Peter was written for a popular audience and had a wide readership.
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 7:59:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 10:57:46 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:38:10 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:35:17 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:26:18 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:05:56 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:58:22 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
You still haven't responded to all the evidence I gave for the Crucifixion of Jesus.

You also have failed to give any good evidence that supports the Muslim view of the Crucifixion.

Name me one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus if you can.

Apocalypse of Peter denied the crucifixion.
For the love of God, do you know who wrote this piece of fiction? It was written by a 2nd century docetic who denied that Jesus had a physical body, and therefore could not have died on the cross. These heretics believed that Jesus was ONLY God and couldn't have been human....are you really telling me this is who you're going to to confirm Islam? A bunch of demon-possessed maniacs who deny that Jesus even had a physical body? I am astonished at how desperate you are.

My challenge still stands....name one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus. I am still waiting.......

Who said Apocalypse of Peter is a fiction?
Who said it isn't? Name one scholar who says otherwise.
The fact that you are appealing to a 2ND CENTURY TEXT forged in Peter's name by a Docetic who believed that Jesus didn't even have a physical body just shows how desperate you are.

What is the problem of 2ND CENTURY TEXT?
Why do not the scholar of Christians accept the Apocalypse of Peter?
Thanks for finally admitting Peter didn't write the text, glad we got that out of the way.

The reason why no scholar (Including the non-Christian schaolrs) don't accept it because it is a text that promotes the gnostic heresy, namely that since Jesus didnt have a pshyical body, he couldn't have been crucified. That's the only reason they deny the crucifixion, not because it didn't happen, but because to them Jesus had no physical body so his crucifixion was only an 'illusion'. The Apostle John says quite plainly that these gnostics are "deceivers" and "Antichrists" (1 John 4:1-3 and 2 John 7).

Yet the gnostics despite their strange beliefs, still believed in the Deity of Christ, which Islam denies. Not a group you should be appealing to for Islam or accurate historical information.

It is funny how Muhammad got his view of the crucifixion from the gnostics, a group that the Apostle John called "deceivers" and "Antichrists".
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 12:10:43 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 7:59:42 PM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:57:46 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:38:10 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:35:17 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:26:18 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:05:56 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:58:22 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
You still haven't responded to all the evidence I gave for the Crucifixion of Jesus.

You also have failed to give any good evidence that supports the Muslim view of the Crucifixion.

Name me one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus if you can.

Apocalypse of Peter denied the crucifixion.
For the love of God, do you know who wrote this piece of fiction? It was written by a 2nd century docetic who denied that Jesus had a physical body, and therefore could not have died on the cross. These heretics believed that Jesus was ONLY God and couldn't have been human....are you really telling me this is who you're going to to confirm Islam? A bunch of demon-possessed maniacs who deny that Jesus even had a physical body? I am astonished at how desperate you are.

My challenge still stands....name one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus. I am still waiting.......

Who said Apocalypse of Peter is a fiction?
Who said it isn't? Name one scholar who says otherwise.
The fact that you are appealing to a 2ND CENTURY TEXT forged in Peter's name by a Docetic who believed that Jesus didn't even have a physical body just shows how desperate you are.

What is the problem of 2ND CENTURY TEXT?
Why do not the scholar of Christians accept the Apocalypse of Peter?
Thanks for finally admitting Peter didn't write the text, glad we got that out of the way.

The reason why no scholar (Including the non-Christian schaolrs) don't accept it because it is a text that promotes the gnostic heresy, namely that since Jesus didnt have a pshyical body, he couldn't have been crucified. That's the only reason they deny the crucifixion, not because it didn't happen, but because to them Jesus had no physical body so his crucifixion was only an 'illusion'. The Apostle John says quite plainly that these gnostics are "deceivers" and "Antichrists" (1 John 4:1-3 and 2 John 7).

Yet the gnostics despite their strange beliefs, still believed in the Deity of Christ, which Islam denies. Not a group you should be appealing to for Islam or accurate historical information.

It is funny how Muhammad got his view of the crucifixion from the gnostics, a group that the Apostle John called "deceivers" and "Antichrists".

So just because they (the scholars) don't agree with the Peter's revelation, thus they simply reject it?
I had never said Peter didn't write it. the earlier Christians used that scripture and they involved it into their Gospel service.
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 1:40:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 12:10:43 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 7:59:42 PM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:57:46 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:38:10 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:35:17 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:26:18 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
At 12/14/2015 10:05:56 AM, uncung wrote:
At 12/14/2015 9:58:22 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
You still haven't responded to all the evidence I gave for the Crucifixion of Jesus.

You also have failed to give any good evidence that supports the Muslim view of the Crucifixion.

Name me one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus if you can.

Apocalypse of Peter denied the crucifixion.
For the love of God, do you know who wrote this piece of fiction? It was written by a 2nd century docetic who denied that Jesus had a physical body, and therefore could not have died on the cross. These heretics believed that Jesus was ONLY God and couldn't have been human....are you really telling me this is who you're going to to confirm Islam? A bunch of demon-possessed maniacs who deny that Jesus even had a physical body? I am astonished at how desperate you are.

My challenge still stands....name one Historical Jesus scholar or NT specialist who denies the crucifixion of Jesus. I am still waiting.......

Who said Apocalypse of Peter is a fiction?
Who said it isn't? Name one scholar who says otherwise.
The fact that you are appealing to a 2ND CENTURY TEXT forged in Peter's name by a Docetic who believed that Jesus didn't even have a physical body just shows how desperate you are.

What is the problem of 2ND CENTURY TEXT?
Why do not the scholar of Christians accept the Apocalypse of Peter?
Thanks for finally admitting Peter didn't write the text, glad we got that out of the way.

The reason why no scholar (Including the non-Christian schaolrs) don't accept it because it is a text that promotes the gnostic heresy, namely that since Jesus didnt have a pshyical body, he couldn't have been crucified. That's the only reason they deny the crucifixion, not because it didn't happen, but because to them Jesus had no physical body so his crucifixion was only an 'illusion'. The Apostle John says quite plainly that these gnostics are "deceivers" and "Antichrists" (1 John 4:1-3 and 2 John 7).

Yet the gnostics despite their strange beliefs, still believed in the Deity of Christ, which Islam denies. Not a group you should be appealing to for Islam or accurate historical information.

It is funny how Muhammad got his view of the crucifixion from the gnostics, a group that the Apostle John called "deceivers" and "Antichrists".

So just because they (the scholars) don't agree with the Peter's revelation, thus they simply reject it?
I had never said Peter didn't write it. the earlier Christians used that scripture and they involved it into their Gospel service.
What evidence do you have that early Christians involved it in their Gospel services?

Maybe instead of making statements out of thin air and assuming it is a fact, show me the early Christians who quote from it and supposedly "used it in their Gospel service".

Are you seriously trying to say that Christians who believed that Jesus died for their sins accepted a Gnostic book that denied the death of Jesus Christ?!?!

The Gnostics for the third time now....denied that Jesus had a physical body, they accepted that he was God, yet rejected that he had a body....does Islam say Jesus was God and didn't have a physical body? Talk about inconsistency. By the way, Gnostics didn't exist immediately after the death of Jesus, they arose much later in the 1st century

I am still waiting for the scholars who accept that Peter wrote the Apocalypse of Peter....and i'll even let you quote unbelieving scholars to support your view.

AND

I am still waiting for the Historical Jesus scholars and New Testament specialists who deny that Jesus died by Crucifixion.

And yes, the fact that ABSOLUTELY NO scholar accepts the Apocalypse of Peter (including non-Christian scholars) absolutely prove that it is a forgery. If there is a unanimous agreement among scholars, then their conclusion are probably based on strong reasons (like the fact that it promotes Gnosticism, which didn't exist at the time of Peter's life). Imagine if I tried to prove to you that Muhammad was a Buddhist who lived in China, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support that very strange hypothesis and no scholar accepts it; would you take the claim seriously? Exactly, you wouldn't. I don't accept the Apocalypse of Peter for the same reason you deny that Muhammad the prophet of Islam was a Buddhist living in China.

Maybe you should give me evidence from the text itself and outside of the text that Peter wrote it, then maybe, just maybe will I even consider it worth my time to look into.
HardRockHallelujah
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 2:06:57 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
And for the record, Peter died around the year 65 or 67, so in order for Peter to have written it, it would have to date at or before the year of his death.

The Apocalypse of Peter is a 2ND CENTURY document.

Premise 1: If Peter died before the 2nd century, he didn't write the Apocalypse of Peter.
Premise 2: Peter died before the 2nd century.
Conclusion: Therefore, Peter didn't write the Apocalypse of Peter.

The above is a valid argument unless you can refute one of the premises, the conclusion necessarily follows, which it does.
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 2:25:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
What evidence do you have that early Christians involved it in their Gospel services?

Maybe instead of making statements out of thin air and assuming it is a fact, show me the early Christians who quote from it and supposedly "used it in their Gospel service".

Are you seriously trying to say that Christians who believed that Jesus died for their sins accepted a Gnostic book that denied the death of Jesus Christ?!?!

The Gnostics for the third time now....denied that Jesus had a physical body, they accepted that he was God, yet rejected that he had a body....does Islam say Jesus was God and didn't have a physical body? Talk about inconsistency. By the way, Gnostics didn't exist immediately after the death of Jesus, they arose much later in the 1st century

I am still waiting for the scholars who accept that Peter wrote the Apocalypse of Peter....and i'll even let you quote unbelieving scholars to support your view.

AND

I am still waiting for the Historical Jesus scholars and New Testament specialists who deny that Jesus died by Crucifixion.

And yes, the fact that ABSOLUTELY NO scholar accepts the Apocalypse of Peter (including non-Christian scholars) absolutely prove that it is a forgery. If there is a unanimous agreement among scholars, then their conclusion are probably based on strong reasons (like the fact that it promotes Gnosticism, which didn't exist at the time of Peter's life). Imagine if I tried to prove to you that Muhammad was a Buddhist who lived in China, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support that very strange hypothesis and no scholar accepts it; would you take the claim seriously? Exactly, you wouldn't. I don't accept the Apocalypse of Peter for the same reason you deny that Muhammad the prophet of Islam was a Buddhist living in China.

Maybe you should give me evidence from the text itself and outside of the text that Peter wrote it, then maybe, just maybe will I even consider it worth my time to look into.

The Muratorian fragment, the earliest existing list of canonical sacred writings of the New Testament, which is assigned on internal evidence to the last quarter of the 2nd century (c. 175"200), gives a list of works read in the Christian churches that is similar to the modern accepted canon; however, it also includes the Apocalypse of Peter.
uncung
Posts: 3,431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 2:36:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 2:06:57 AM, HardRockHallelujah wrote:
And for the record, Peter died around the year 65 or 67, so in order for Peter to have written it, it would have to date at or before the year of his death.

The Apocalypse of Peter is a 2ND CENTURY document.

Premise 1: If Peter died before the 2nd century, he didn't write the Apocalypse of Peter.
Premise 2: Peter died before the 2nd century.
Conclusion: Therefore, Peter didn't write the Apocalypse of Peter.

The above is a valid argument unless you can refute one of the premises, the conclusion necessarily follows, which it does.

weren't other gospels also written by other authors not directly by the disciples ?