Bart Ehrman - Different forms of early Christian doctrine and beliefs - Lost Christianities

The Varieties of Ancient Christianity

"The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365. In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created by a subordinate, ignorant divinity. (Why else would the world be filled
with such misery and hardship?) Yet other Christians thought it was worse than that, that this world was a cosmic mistake created by a malevolent divinity as a place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering. In the second and third centuries there were Christians who  believed that the Jewish Scripture (the Christian “Old Testament”) was inspired by the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews, who was not the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed it was not inspired.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (For them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a
man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but not himself divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus’ death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians who thought that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with the salvation of the world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died. How could some of these views even be considered Christian? Or to put the question differently, how could people who considered themselves Christian hold such views? Why did they not consult their Scriptures to see that there were not 365 gods, or that the true God had created the world, or that Jesus had died? Why didn’t they just read the New Testament?

It is because there was no New Testament. To be sure, the books that were eventually collected into the New Testament had been written by the second century. But they had not yet been gathered into a widely recognized and authoritative canon of Scripture. And there were other books written as well, with equally impressive pedigrees—other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses claiming to be written by the earthly apostles of Jesus. "

The above extract is taken from Bart Ehrman's book, Lost Christianities (Pages 2-3).

In a nutshell, it is difficult to identify whether the Christianity that exists today is the true Christianity or better put - religion preached by Jesus peace be upon him and his followers.

Bart Ehrman - Missing verses in the Gospel of Mark Chapter 16 Verses 9-20

Extract from Bart Ehrman's book 'Misquoting Jesus'

What Bart Ehrman has to say about the missing verses from the most ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark are as follow:

"The Last Twelve Verses of Mark The second example that we will consider may not be as familiar to the casual reader of the Bible, but it has been highly influential in the history of biblical interpretation and poses comparable problems for the scholar of the textual tradition of the New Testament. This example comes from the Gospel of Mark and concerns its ending.

In Mark's account, we are told that Jesus is crucified and then buried by Joseph of Arimathea on the day before the Sabbath (15:4247). On the day after Sabbath, Mary Magdalene and two other women come back to the tomb in order properly to anoint the body (16:12). When they arrive, they find that the stone has been rolled away. Entering the tomb, they see a young man in a white robe, who tells them, "Do not be startled! You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has been raised and is not here—see the place where they laid him?" He then instructs the women to tell the disciples that Jesus is preceding them into Galilee and that they will see him there, "just as he told you." But the women flee the tomb and say nothing to anyone, "for they were afraid" (16:48).

Then come the last twelve verses of Mark in many modern English translations, verses that continue the story. Jesus himself is said to appear to Mary Magdalene, who goes and tells the disciples; but they do not believe her (vv. 9-11). He then appears to two others (vv. 12-14), and finally to the eleven disciples (the Twelve, not including Judas Iscariot) who are gathered together at table. Jesus upbraids them for failing to believe, and then commissions them to go forth and proclaim his gospel "to the whole creation." Those who believe and are baptized "will be saved," but those who do not "will be condemned." And then come two of the most intriguing verses of the passage:

And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them. (vv. 17-18).

Jesus is then taken up into heaven, and seated at the right hand of God. And the disciples go forth into the world proclaiming the gospel, their words being confirmed by the signs that accompany them (vv. 19-20).

It is a terrific passage, mysterious, moving, and powerful. It is one of the passages used by Pentecostal Christians to show that Jesus's followers will be able to speak in unknown "tongues," as happens in their own services of worship; and it is the principal passage used by groups of "Appalachian snakehandlers," who till this day take poisonous snakes in their hands in order to demonstrate their faith in the words of Jesus, that when doing so they will come to no harm.

But there's one problem. Once again, this passage was not originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe.

In some ways this textual problem is more disputed than the passage about the woman taken in adultery, because without these final verses Mark has a very different, and hard to understand, ending. That doesn't mean that scholars are inclined to accept the verses, as we'll see momentarily. The reasons for taking them to be an addition are solid, almost indisputable. But scholars debate what the genuine ending of Mark actually was, given the circumstance that this ending found in many English translations (though usually marked as inauthentic) and in later Greek manuscripts is not the original.

The evidence that these verses were not original to Mark is similar in kind to that for the passage about the woman taken in adultery, and again I don't need to go into all the details here. The verses are absent from our two oldest and best manuscripts of Mark's Gospel, along with other important witnesses; the writing style varies from what we find elsewhere in Mark; the transition between this passage and the one preceding it is hard to understand (e.g., Mary Magdalene is introduced in verse 9 as if she hadn't been mentioned yet, even though she is discussed in the preceding verses; there is another problem with the Greek that makes the transition even more awkward); and there are a
large number of words and phrases in the passage that are not found elsewhere in Mark. In short, the evidence is sufficient to convince nearly all textual scholars that these verses are an addition to Mark.

Without them, though, the story ends rather abruptly. Notice what happens when these verses are taken away. The women are told to inform the disciples that Jesus will precede them to Galilee and meet them there; but they, the women, flee the tomb and say nothing to anyone, "for they were afraid." And that's where the Gospel ends.

Obviously, scribes thought the ending was too abrupt. The women told no one? Then, did the disciples never learn of the resurrection? And didn't Jesus himself ever appear to them? How could that be the ending! To resolve the problem, scribes added an ending.

Some scholars agree with the scribes in thinking that 16:8 is too abrupt an ending for a Gospel. As I have indicated, it is not that these scholars believe the final twelve verses in our later manuscripts were the original ending—they know that's not the case—but they think that, possibly, the last page of Mark's Gospel, one in which Jesus actually did meet the disciples in Galilee, was somehow lost, and that all our copies of the Gospel go back to this one truncated manuscript, without the last page.

That explanation is entirely possible. It is also possible, in the opinion of yet other scholars, that Mark did indeed mean to end his Gospel with 16:8. It certainly is a shocker of an ending. The disciples never learn the truth of Jesus's resurrection because the women never tell them. One reason for thinking that this could be how Mark ended his Gospel is that some such ending coincides so well with other motifs throughout his Gospel. As students of Mark have long noticed, the disciples never do seem to "get it" in this Gospel (unlike in some of the other Gospels). They are repeatedly said not to understand Jesus (6:51-52; 8:21), and when Jesus tells them on several occasions that he must suffer and die, they manifestly fail to comprehend his words (8:31-33; 9:30-32; 10:33-40). Maybe, in fact, they never did come to understand (unlike Mark's readers, who can understand who Jesus really is from the very beginning). Also, it is interesting to note that throughout Mark, when someone comes to understand something about Jesus, Jesus orders that person to silence—and yet often the person ignores the order and spreads the news (e.g., 1:43-45). How ironic that when the women at the tomb are told not to be silent but to speak, they also ignore the order—and are silent!

In short, Mark may well have intended to bring his reader up short with this abrupt ending—a clever way to make the reader stop, take a faltering breath, and ask: What? "

(Pages 65-68 - Misquoting Jesus)

Bart Ehrman - Was Jesus Violent or Peaceful? Is it clear who the Historical Jesus was?

Extract from Bart Ehrman's book - 'Jesus:Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium'

" I should stress, though, that not every modern scholar has shared this view of Jesus. Quite the contrary, in recent years, in particular, it has come under serious attack. Books about Jesus have proliferated at an alarming rate, with competent scholars (not to mention incompetent ones) setting forth their own understandings of who Jesus must have been. Many of these have tried to deny that Jesus was essentially an apocalypticist—that is, one who thought that the apocalyptic climax of history was soon to appear. And so, just within the past thirty years, we have seen books (many of which you can still find at your local bookstore) arguing, instead, that Jesus was a violent revolutionary who urged his followers to take up the sword against their oppressive Roman overlords; or that he was a kind of proto-Marxist social reformer who urged his followers to adopt a new economic structure of complete equality and community of  goods; or that he was an ancient precursor of the feminist movement, principally concerned with gender issues and the oppression of women; or that he was a magician—not the sleight-of-hand type but the kind that could actually perform stupendous feats of magic; or, most recently, that he was an ancient "Cynic" philosopher who was chiefly concerned with teaching his followers to remove themselves from the concerns and trappings of this life, to give away everything they owned, to beg for a living, and to compel everyone else to do likewise.1 And these are only some of the more serious proposals!

Why is it that scholars who have devoted their entire lives to studying the historical Jesus have come up with such radically different answers? Isn't knowing about Jesus a straightforward matter of reading the New Testament Gospels and seeing what they say? With four such high-quality sources as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, why should
there be any serious disagreements at all? Can't we take these ancient witnesses at face value, and thereby discount all of these scholarly constructs, not to mention the more far-fetched ones (which sometimes sell much better!) ? "

(Pages 20-21- Jesus - Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium)

Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus) - Fabricated accounts in the New Testament - The Woman taken in Adultery

Bart Ehrman has highlighted in his book Misquoting Jesus on one very  popular passage that is often found in Hollywood movies about Jesus and also in preachings and seminars in the Church. But it is astonishing to know that this story might have been a fabrication edited by a later scribe as it is not found in the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Let's read what Bart Ehrman has to say about this. 

Bart Ehrman's Book

Misquoting Jesus 

(Pages 63,64,65)

 

The Woman Taken in Adultery

The story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is arguably the best known story about Jesus in the Bible; it certainly has always been a favorite in Hollywood versions of his life. It even makes it into Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, although that movie focuses only on Jesus's last hours (the story is treated in one of the rare flashbacks). Despite its popularity, the account is found in only one passage of the New Testament, in John 7:53-8:12, and it appears not to have been original even there.

The story line is familiar. Jesus is teaching in the temple, and a group of scribes and Pharisees, his sworn enemies, approach him, bringing with them a woman "who had been caught in the very act of adultery." They bring her before Jesus because they want to put him to the test. The Law of Moses, as they tell him, demands that such a one be stoned to death; but they want to know what he has to say about the matter. Should they stone her or show her mercy? It is a trap, of course. If Jesus tells them to let the woman go, he will be accused of violating the Law of God; if he tells them to stone her, he will be accused of dismissing his own teachings of love, mercy, and forgiveness.

Jesus does not immediately reply; instead he stoops to write on the ground. When they continue to question him, he says to them, "Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her." He then returns to his writing on the ground, while those who have brought the woman start to leave the scene—evidently feeling convicted of their own wrongdoing—until no one is left but the woman. Looking up, Jesus says, "Woman, where are they? Is there no one who condemns you?" To which she replies, "No one, Lord." He then responds, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

It is a brilliant story, filled with pathos and a clever twist in which Jesus uses his wits to get himself—not to mention the poor woman— off the hook. Of course, to a careful reader, the story raises numerous questions. If this woman was caught in the act of adultery, for example, where is the man she was caught with? Both of them are to be stoned, according to the Law of Moses (see Lev. 20:10). Moreover, when Jesus wrote on the ground, what exactly was he writing? (According to one ancient tradition, he was writing the sins of the accusers, who seeing that their own transgressions were known, left in embarrassment!) And even if Jesus did teach a message of love, did he really think that the Law of God given by Moses was no longer in force and should not be obeyed? Did he think sins should not be punished at all?

Despite the brilliance of the story, its captivating quality, and its inherent intrigue, there is one other enormous problem that it poses. As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes.

How do we know this? In fact, scholars who work on the manuscript tradition have no doubts about this particular case. Later in this book we will be examining in greater depth the kinds of evidence that scholars adduce for making judgments of this sort. Here I can simply point out a few basic facts that have proved convincing to nearly all scholars of every persuasion: the story is not found in our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John; its writing style is very different from what we find in the rest of John (including the stories immediately before and after); and it includes a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel. The conclusion is unavoidable: this passage was not originally part of the Gospel. 

How then did it come to be added? There are numerous theories about that. Most scholars think that it was probably a well known story circulating in the oral tradition about Jesus, which at some point was added in the margin of a manuscript. From there some scribe or other thought that the marginal note was meant to be part of the text and so inserted it immediately after the account that ends in John 7:52. It is noteworthy that other scribes inserted the account in different locations in the New Testament—some of them after John 21:25, for example, and others, interestingly enough, after Luke 21:38. In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John.

That naturally leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible? Not everyone will respond to this question in the same way, but for most textual critics, the answer is no.

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted - Are there any forgeries in the New Testament

Extract from Bart Erhman's book - Jesus Interrupted

Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, only eight almost certainly go back to the author whose name they bear: the seven undisputed letters of Paul (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) and the Revelation of John (although we aren’t sure who this John was).

The other nineteen books fall into three groups.

• Misattributed writings
As we have already seen, the Gospels are probably misattributed. John the disciple did not write John, and Matthew did not write Matthew. Other anonymous books have been wrongly attributed to someone famous. The book of Hebrews does not name Paul as its author, and it almost certainly was not written by Paul. But it was eventually admitted into the canon of Scripture (see chapter 7) because church fathers came to think it was written by Paul.

• Homonymous writings
The term “homonymy” means “having the same name.” A “homonymous writing” is one that is  written by someone who has the same name as someone who is famous. For example, the book of James was no doubt written by someone named James, but the author does not claim to be any particular James. It was an extraordinarily common name. Later church fathers accepted the book as part of Scripture because they claimed that this James was James the brother of Jesus. In the book itself there is no such claim.

• Pseudepigraphic writings
Some books of the New Testament were written in the names of people who did not actually write them. Scholars have known this for well over a century. The term for this phenomenon is “pseudepigraphy”—literally, “writing that goes under a false name.” Scholars have not been overly precise in their use of this term and tend to use it because it avoids the negative connotations associated with the term “forgery.” Whichever term they use, biblical scholars have argued for a long time that there are New Testament books whose authors knowingly claimed to be someone other than who they were.

(Jesus Interrupted - Pages 112-113)
 
Bart Ehrman said on a radio broadcast that about 75 percent of the New Testament documents are supposedly forged. He has written a separate book on it - Forged.

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted - Contrasting accounts of Jesus's Death in Gospels of Mark and Luke

Extracts from Bart Ehrman's book - Jesus Interrupted

Below is a brief extract from Bart Ehrman's book - Jesus Interrupted, regarding the death of Jesus Christ.

We will be analysing two Gospel narratives regarding the death of Jesus - Mark and Luke.

Mark's Gospel

The death narrative can be found in the Gospel of Mark Chapter 15, Verses 16 through to 39.

In Mark’s version of the story (Mark 15:16–39), Jesus is condemned  to death by Pontius Pilate, mocked and beaten by the Roman soldiers, and taken off to be crucified. Simon of Cyrene carries his cross. Jesus says nothing the entire time. The soldiers crucify Jesus, and he still says nothing. Both of the robbers being crucified with him mock him. Those passing by mock him. The Jewish leaders mock him. Jesus is silent until the very end, when he utters the wretched cry, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,” which Mark translates from the Aramaic for his readers as, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
(Jesus Interrupted - Page 65)

The point is that Jesus has been rejected by everyone: betrayed by one of his own, denied three times by his closest follower, abandoned by all his disciples, rejected by the Jewish leaders, condemned by the Roman authorities, mocked by the priests, the passersby, and even by the two others being crucified with him. At the end he even feels forsaken by God Himself. Jesus is absolutely in the depths of despair and heart-wrenching anguish, and that’s how he dies. Mark is trying to say something by this portrayal. He doesn’t want his readers to take solace in the fact that God was really there providing Jesus with physical comfort. He dies in agony, unsure of the reason he must die.
(Jesus Interrupted - Page 66)

Luke's Gospel

The death narrative can be found in the Gospel of Luke Chapter 23, Verses 26 through to 49.

In Luke, Jesus is taken off to be executed, and Simon of Cyrene is compelled to carry his cross. But Jesus is not silent on the way to his crucifixion. En route he sees a number of women wailing over what is happening to him, and he turns to them and says, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children” (Luke 23:28). He goes on to prophesy the coming destruction that they will face. Jesus does not appear to be in shock over what is happening to him. He is more concerned with others  around him than with his own fate.
(Jesus Interrupted - Page 67)

Moreover, Jesus is not silent while being nailed to the cross, as in Mark. Instead he prays, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34) Jesus appears to have close communion with God and is concerned more for those who
are doing this to him than for himself. Jesus is mocked by the Jewish leaders and the Roman soldiers, but explicitly not by both men being crucified with him, unlike in Mark. Instead, one of them mocks Jesus but the other rebukes the first for doing so, insisting
that whereas they deserve what they are getting, Jesus has done nothing wrong  (remember that Luke stresses Jesus’ complete innocence). He then asks of Jesus, “Remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And Jesus gives the compelling reply, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (23:42–43). In this account Jesus is not at all confused about what is happening to him or why. He is completely calm and in control of the situation; he knows what is about to occur, and he knows what will happen afterward: he will wake up in God’s paradise, and this criminal will be there with him. This is a far cry from the Jesus of Mark, who felt forsaken to the end. 
 (Jesus Interrupted - Page 67-68)

Most significant of all, rather than uttering a cry expressing his sense of total abandonment at the end (“Why have you forsaken me?”), in Luke, Jesus prays to God in a loud voice, saying, “Father into your hands I commend my spirit.” He then breathes his last and dies (23:46). This is not a Jesus who feels forsaken by God and wonders why he is going through this pain of desertion and death. It is a Jesus who feels God’s presence with him and is comforted by the fact that God is on his side. He is fully cognizant of what is happening to him and why, and he commits himself to the loving care of his heavenly Father, confident of what is to happen next. 
(Jesus Interrupted - Page 68)

Conclusion 

It is clear from the above 2 narratives that there are contrasting differences between the accounts. Since Mark was the first Gospel to be written, Bart Ehrman is trying to point out how the story is now changed and edited by Luke.

Is there any way to reconcile these 2 narratives?

Mark is saying Jesus died in agony,felt forsaken by God and not sure of his death. Luke is saying Jesus willfully offered himself to God, in complete control of the situation.  

Which is which? You decide.

The Only and True God of Jesus's Answer to this Problem

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
 Quran (4:157) 


As I have mentioned elsewhere before, one word to sum up 2000 years of Christianity and there is absolutely no difficulty in accepting this word even from a Christian point of view. Assumption. As they are still arguing even in their own denominations about theology and other crucial aspects of Christian creed.


This view that Jesus was not killed and not crucified saves Jesus from the humiliation of dying the death of a blasphemer. Saves him from the cruelties of the Jews. The Jews believe Jesus was the worst Jew to ever live (Heard from a Rabbi's lecture). It elevates Jesus to being a mighty Messenger of God, which is in total conformity with the Old Testament and the Prophets of old.
 

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted - Paul vs Jesus

Bart Ehrman's book - Jesus Interrupted

We have long come to know that a large portion of the brand of Christianity in our midst today is more from the teachings of Apostle Paul rather then the teachings of Jesus Christ himself.

St Paul's teachings directly contradict what Jesus Christ came to preach. 

Paul's View of "Justification"

'But certainly Paul was concerned with how persons—those he was trying to convert, for example—could be put into a right relationship with God, and he was convinced this could happen only through trusting in the death and resurrection of Jesus, not by following the requirements of the Jewish law.'

'His best-known and arguably most pervasive view (which is found in his other letters as well) is that a person is “justified by faith” in Christ’s death and resurrection, not by observing the works of the Jewish law.'

(Jesus Interrupted - Page 86)

Paul's View of the Jewish Law and salvation 

''All of this means that keeping the Jewish law can have no place in salvation. Even Jews who keep the law to the nth degree cannot be right with God through the law.'

The only way to be justified is by having faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus. In Galatians 2:15, Paul says, “We have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.” 

'Getting circumcised, keeping kosher, observing Sabbath and other Jewish festivals—none of this was necessary for salvation, and if you thought (and acted) otherwise, you were in danger of losing your salvation (Galatians 5:4) "You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace".'

(Jesus Interrupted - Page 88-89)

Interesting to read what Bart Ehrman thinks of how contrasting the teachings of Matthew and Paul were in keeping the law and commandments. He goes as far as to visualize both of them locked in a battle if locked in a room debating about the law of the Jews.

Paul and Matthew on the Law and Salvation

"I have often wondered what would have happened if Paul and Matthew had been locked up in a room together and told they could not come out until they had hammered out a consensus statement on how followers of Jesus were to deal with the Jewish law. Would they ever have emerged, or would they still be there, two skeletons locked  in a death grip?"

(Jesus Interrupted - Page 89)

Matthew on the Law and Salvation

'Matthew thinks that the followers of Jesus need to keep the law. In fact, they need to keep it better even than the most religious Jews, the scribes, and the Pharisees. In Matthew, Jesus is recorded as saying:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17–20)'

(Jesus Interrupted - Page 90)

'A rich man comes up to Jesus and asks him, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” Jesus tells him, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” When asked, “Which ones?” Jesus lists as examples some of the Ten Commandments. The man insists he has already done all these—what else is needed? Jesus replies that he should give up everything he owns, “and you will have treasure in heaven” (Matthew 19:16–22). Jesus then says, “And come, follow me”—but note: following Jesus comes only after the man will have inherited heavenly treasure by giving all away. '
(Jesus Interrupted - Page 92)

 Irreconcilable views between Matthew and Paul

Paul thought that followers of Jesus who tried to keep the law were in danger of losing their salvation. Matthew thought that followers of Jesus who did not keep the law, and do so even better than the most religious Jews, would never attain salvation. Theologians and interpreters over the years have tried to reconcile these two views, which is perfectly understandable, since both of them are in the canon. But anyone who reads the Gospel of Matthew and then reads the letter to the Galatians would never suspect that there was a reason, or a way, to reconcile these two statements.

(Jesus Interrupted - Page 90)

Where to after this??

It is evident then that Paul had a completely different view to what Jesus preached. Jesus told his people to keep the commandments and be better then the Jews in practicing these laws. Anyone who breaks the commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. It is also important to note that Paul never walked, talked, ate, prayed or lived with Jesus. He only saw him on a vision to Damascus. And all his ministry is from that vision. In addition to that, Jesus never prophesized St Paul. On the contrary he said there will be many false prophets and false Christs who will prophesize in my name (Matthew 7:22-23)

But Matthew is giving us the words of Jesus himself. Who should we trust more? Ask yourselves sincerely brothers and sisters. Jesus is telling you 'black'. Paul is telling you 'white'. I'm not sure who you are going to trust more. Or are you cornered with nowhere to turn to.

Seek the Truth and the Truth shall free you.

The Quran tells us "Truth has arrived and falsehood perished. For falsehood is by it's nature bound to perish" (Surah 17:81). It also tells us the Christians only follow 'Conjecture'. One word to sum up 2000 years of Christianity. Can you think of any better word that what the Quran came up with?

In contrast 1.5 billion Muslims (Arabic term for a person who submits peacefully to the will of God) on this earth believe in Jesus as a man who came to give God's message to the Jewish people and he was a Nazarene. The Jews reject him and according to them he died the death of a blasphemer. As for us - No conjecture. No skepticism. No questions asked. No second thoughts. Jesus is a MIGHTY MESSENGER OF God. Simply because we believe God revealed the truth about him.

It is because we have the truth. And we don't doubt in it one bit. Explore it for yourself. Don't listen to BBC CNN or what your Islam bashing neighbour, friend or colleague tells you about Islam. Read just one page of the Quran and find out for yourself if this can be from anyone else other that the God of Moses Jesus and Muhammad peace be upon them all.

You owe this to yourselves. Peace.

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted - The Difference Between John's Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels

From an extract of Bart Ehrman's book titled 

Jesus Interrupted 

I heard in a talk recently from Brother Shabir Ally that the Gospels had evolved over time especially John's. I see what he meant when I read Bart Ehrman's interpretation of what actually happened. As John was the last of the Gospels to be written (scholars set a range of maybe 90 to 100 A.D.) i.e. 70 odd years after Jesus's departure. It is not difficult to understand that how stories would have circulated and then reached the epic proportions that are visible in John's Gospel.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to specifically as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and similar wording.

John is considered out of the synoptics because of the very same reason as above - that is has different content then the other 3 gospels.

John's Gospel Different to the Synoptics

"Although many casual readers of the New Testament have not noticed it, the Gospel of John is a different kettle of fish altogether. With the exception of the Passion Narratives, most of the stories found in John are not found in the Synoptics, and most of the stories in the Synoptic Gospels are not found in John. And when they do cover similar territory, John’s stories are strikingly different from the others. This can be seen by doing a kind of global comparison of John and the Synoptics." (Page 70)

"Much more could be said about the unique features of John; my point is not simply that there are discrepancies between John and the Synoptics but that the portrayals of Jesus are very different. Certainly the three Synoptics are not identical, but the differences between any one of the Synoptics and John are especially striking, as can be seen by considering some of their various thematic emphases." (Page 73)

 Some of the items that make John's Gospel different

"It is striking that virtually none of these stories that form the skeleton of the narratives of the Synoptics can be found in John. There is no reference to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem and no mention of his mother being a virgin. He is not explicitly said to be baptized and does not undergo his temptations in the wilderness. Jesus does not preach the coming kingdom of God, and he never tells a parable. He never casts out a demon. There is no account of the Transfiguration. He does not cleanse the Temple when coming to Jerusalem (he did that already in John 2). He does not institute the Lord’s supper (instead he washes the disciples feet), and he does not have any kind of official trial before the Jewish council." (Page 72) 

Jesus divinity only in John's Gospel

"John starts with a prologue that mysteriously describes the Word of God that was in the very beginning with God, that was itself God, and through which God created the universe. This Word, we are told, became a human being, and that’s who Jesus Christ is: the Word of God made flesh. There is nothing like that in the Synoptics." (Page 72)

"In John, Jesus usually speaks in long discourses rather than in memorable aphoristic sayings as in the other Gospels. There is the long speech to Nicodemus in chapter 3, the speech to the Samaritan woman in chapter 4, and the very long speech to his disciples that covers four entire chapters (13–16), before he launches into a prayer that takes the entire next chapter. None of these discourses or any of the “I am” sayings can be found in the Synoptics." (Page 73)

Jesus Being a Pre-Existent Divine Being

 "The orthodox Christian doctrine about Christ’s coming into the world that has been accepted for centuries is that he was a preexistent divine being, equal with but not identical to God the Father, and that he became “incarnate,” became a human being, through the Virgin Mary. But this doctrine is not set forth in any of the Gospels of the New Testament. The idea that Jesus preexisted his birth and that he was a divine being who became human is found only in the Gospel of John." (Page 73)

"So Matthew and Luke appear to have different interpretations of why Jesus was born of a virgin, but, more important, in neither Matthew nor Luke is there any sense that this one born to the virgin existed prior to his birth. For these authors, Jesus came into existence when he was born. There is not a word in either Gospel about the preexistence of Jesus. That idea comes from John, and only from John." (Page 75)

"The prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1–18) is one of the most elevated and powerful passages of the entire Bible. It is also one of the most discussed, controverted, and differently interpreted. John begins (1:1–3) with an elevated view of the “Word of God,” a being that is independent of God (he was “with God”) but that is in some sense equal with God (he “was God”). This being existed in the beginning with God and is the one through whom the entire universe was created (“all things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being”)." (Page 75)

One begs to ask the question then, why was John so different? Who was John and who was his audience. I hope to cover that in another post.

Thanks for Reading :)

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted - The 4 Canonical Gospels in light of one another

I am still concentrating my subject matter on the authority of Bart Ehrman's book - Jesus Interrupted.

This page intends to illustrate the scholarly consensus and a bit of a summary on this historicity, nature, and textual analysis of the gospels.

"Since the nineteenth century, scholars have recognized that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, around 65–70 CE. Both Matthew and Luke, writing fifteen or twenty years later, used Mark as one of their sources for much of their own accounts. That is why almost all of Mark’s stories can be found in Matthew or Luke, and it is also why sometimes all three of these Gospels agree word for word in the way they tell the stories. Sometimes just two agree and the third doesn’t, because occasionally only one of the later Gospels changed Mark. This means that if we have the same story in Mark and Luke, say, and there are differences, these differences exist precisely because Luke has actually modified the words of his source, sometimes deleting words and phrases, sometimes adding material, even entire episodes, and sometimes altering the way a sentence is worded. It is probably safe to assume that if Luke modified what Mark had to say, it was because he wanted to say it differently. Sometimes these differences are just minor changes in wording, but sometimes they affect in highly significant ways the way the entire story is told." 
(Jesus Interrupted - Page 65) 

So according to the scholars,

Mark's Gospel - 65 -70 AD
Matthew and Luke - 80-85 AD
John - 90-100 AD
St Paul's letters - 50-55 AD

Just to illustrate the point further, we take an example of Jesus's death and Bart Ehrman's views.

"When readers then throw both Matthew and John into the mix, they get an even more confused and conflated portrayal of Jesus, imagining wrongly that they have constructed the events as they really happened. To approach the stories in this way is to rob each author of his own integrity as an author and to deprive him of the meaning that he conveys in his story.
This is how readers over the years have come up with the famous "seven last words of the dying Jesus”—by taking what he says at his death in all four Gospels, mixing them together, and imagining that in their combination they now have the full story. This interpretive move does not give the full story. It gives a fifth story, a story that is completely unlike any of the canonical four, a fifth story that in effect rewrites the Gospels, producing a fifth Gospel. This is perfectly fine to do if that’s what you want—it’s a free country, and no one can stop you. But for historical critics, this is not the best way to approach the Gospels.
My overarching point is that the Gospels, and all the books of the Bible, are distinct and should not be read as if they are all saying the same thing. They are decidedly not saying the same thing—even when talking about the same subject (say, Jesus’ death). Mark is different from Luke, and Matthew is different from John, as you can see by doing your own horizontal reading of their respective stories of the crucifixion. The historical approach to the Gospels allows each author’s voice to be heard and refuses to conflate them into some kind of mega-Gospel that flattens the emphases of each one." 
 (Jesus Interrupted - Page 70)

Bart Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus - Why not the original greek of the bible?

Bart Ehrman writes below in his book - Misquoting Jesus - Page 19 in his Introduction
 


" If the full meaning of the words of scripture
can be grasped only by studying them in Greek (and Hebrew),
doesn't this mean that most Christians, who don't read ancient languages,
will never have complete access to what God wants them to
know? And doesn't this make the doctrine of inspiration a doctrine
only for the scholarly elite, who have the intellectual skills and leisure
to learn the languages and study the texts by reading them in the original?
What good does it do to say that the words are inspired by God
if most people have absolutely no access to these words, but only to
more or less clumsy renderings of these words into a language, such as
English, that has nothing to do with the original words?...........

I kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired,
but only the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly but
sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the
autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals!
We have only errorridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways. "
First of all I would like to clarify that being a Muslim, I am more then 100 percent certain in my conviction of the Quran being 100% the word of God Almighty.

I just find it interesting reading the views of learned men of Christianity which has linkage to the Quran being 'that' word of God some Christians are searching for.

If you seek for a Quran in the world today, it most certainly has the Arabic text in original form as revealed by God together with the English Translation or Transileration. Even if majority of the Muslim population are not Arabic, they still only believe the Arabic part of the Quran to be revealed in it's original pure and prestine form to mankind. 

What Bart Ehrman has suggested above - is basically why the Greek words of the bible and why it is not imprinted in the bibles today for the common man to access it? read it? understand it? Why is the English 'translation' of the bible being told as the inerrant word of God?

On a sidenote - we all know Jesus was not Greek either. He did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. But what Bart Ehrman suggested is the original text (of the copies of the manuscripts) that they have is in Greek.

This is a thought provoking question for the learned men of Christianity to answer.

What we are saying is that we have the absolute true words from God - The Quran - The Recital. And it is readily available for any person to have in his possession to understand - to explore - to expound on it. Muslims in turn are inspired to learn the Arabic to further understand the word of God. 

And furthermore the author of this Book - God Almighty Himself says:

[4. Surah Nisaa: Ayah 82]

"Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy."

[41. Surah Fussilat : Ayah 3]

"A Book of which the verses are made plain, an Arabic Quran for a people who know."

[12. Surah Yusuf : Ayah 2]

"We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom."

[17. Surah Bani Israel : Ayah 106,9]

"And it is a Quran which We have revealed in portions so that you may read it to the people by slow degrees, and We have revealed it, revealing in portions."

"Surely this Quran guides to that which is most upright and gives good news to the believers who do good that they shall have a great reward."

Thank you brothers and sisters for taking time to read this. Aim is to gain knowledge and spread knowledge.  As Jesus peace be upon him said (He was a Jew).

Shalom Aleichim.

We say Assalamalaikum.

Peace be with all of you :)