James White’s Futility and Inconsistency


Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
This video analyses James White’s evidences, his pivots during his opening statement with Br. Shabir Ally during their debate, “Did Jesus Claim Deity?”. An indepth write up to be published on Monday/ Tuesday 26th/ 27th of March fully explaining, and refuting his arguments. I was planning to write up a full response, but I’m terribly busy, please see our video response to James White instead, thanks.
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
[and God knows best.]

6 comments

  • As far as I know theme of the debate is “Did Jesus Claim Divinity”
    So both sides (White&Shabbir) have to prove on what basis Jesus did or did not say He is God.

    Objectively speaking the only way to DEFINITIVELY ASSURED THAT JESUS DID OR DID NOT CLAIM DIVINITY IS HIS OWN WORD.
    Objectively speaking again, by saying the NT and the early sources i.e Patristic comments aren’t reliable sources AT ALL then the LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS NEITHER CHRISTIAN NOR MUSLIM CAN OBJECTIVELY SAY JESUS DID OR DIDN’T CLAIM DIVINITY.

    Please I dare you to explain , based on your supposedly “consistency” what will your comment be on the RELIABILITY of Shabbir’s “SOURCE” ?

    In my perspective there’s nothing wrong with the status of James White’s “source” as it is the OPTIMAL SOURCE to observe the teaching of early christians and your quotation doesn’t say Patriatistic sources aren’t fully unreliable instead it uses the term uncertain.
    Uncertain implies you can’t say in 100 % precision if Jesus Did nor Did’nt claim divinity

    If you had been truly using your mind in NORMAL way, you should’ve been aware that the basis to prove Jesus’s Divinity is not from comparing which source would give absolute certainty yet rather from comparing which INTERPRETATION would give THE MOST OPTIMAL EXPLANATION from the OPTIMAL SOURCE PROVIDED
    .
    If tables were turned could any muslim give ANY RELIABLE SOURCE on muhammad’s claim as Last Messenger based on textual criticism standard ?

    (P.s would you at least kindly honor the principle of integrity please? since you haven’t dared to post my information which exposes Muslim’s conspiracy in framing Christian in reference to Nigerian church bombing Incident, also my rebuttal on your twisted accusation concerning James White alleged Hypocrisy, and my rebuttal on “The biblical God’s indecision”……Does your religion familiar with the word “HONESTY” ?? )

  • As Salaamu ‘ala man ittaba al huda,

    Patristic comments aren’t reliable sources AT ALL then the LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS NEITHER CHRISTIAN NOR MUSLIM CAN OBJECTIVELY SAY JESUS DID OR DIDN’T CLAIM DIVINITY.

    Christians can’t, but Muslims can. We can because if we apply oral and textual criticism’s principles, you’d come to find that pre-proto orthodox Christian groups had similar ideas, beliefs. Since this is the case, Ebionites, Arians, Essenes, Nazarene Pharisees, early Gnostic groups in agreement with Islam.

    Uncertain implies you can’t say in 100 % precision if Jesus Did nor Did’nt claim divinity

    Exactly, the vast majority of proto-orthodox Christian sources are uncertain, if your faith is based on uncertain foundations of belief, how can you them claim to have certainty at all? You can’t.

    If tables were turned could any muslim give ANY RELIABLE SOURCE on muhammad’s claim as Last Messenger based on textual criticism standard ?

    I suggest you watch any of Shabir Ally’s debates, he goes indepth into this topic and often confounds his opponents in this regard, or if you wish, read up on the Essenes and Islam or Ebionites and Islam.

    wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

  • I SAY : As far as I know theme of the debate is “Did Jesus Claim Divinity”
    So both sides (White&Shabbir) have to prove on what basis Jesus did or did not say He is God.
    Objectively speaking the only way to DEFINITIVELY ASSURED THAT JESUS DID OR DID NOT CLAIM DIVINITY IS HIS OWN WORD.
    Objectively speaking again, by saying the NT and the early sources i.e Patristic comments aren’t reliable sources AT ALL then the LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS NEITHER CHRISTIAN NOR MUSLIM CAN OBJECTIVELY SAY JESUS DID OR DIDN’T CLAIM DIVINITY.
    And YOU ANSWERED

    Christians can’t, but Muslims can. We can because if we apply oral and textual criticism’s principles,

    My Reply :So please help yourself by intelligently explain what kind of RELIABLE & UNDENIABLE SOURCE that you have in proving Jesus didn’t claim for divinity.
    ……………………………………………………….
    YOU STATED

    you’d come to find that pre-proto orthodox Christian groups had similar ideas, beliefs. Since this is the case, Ebionites, Arians, Essenes, Nazarene Pharisees, early Gnostic groups in agreement with Islam.

    Please for the sake of honoring healthy intellectualism give me JUST ONE RELIABLE & UNDENIABLE SOURCE THAT PROVES THEY WERE IN-LINE WITH ISLAM… Btw have you just LITERALLY include GNOSTIC as in line with islam ??? Thank you very much brother for exposing paganistic nature of Islam.
    ………………………………………………………….
    I SAY : Uncertain implies you can’t say in 100 % precision if Jesus Did nor Did’nt claim divinity
    YOU SAID

    Exactly, the vast majority of proto-orthodox Christian sources are uncertain, if your faith is based on uncertain foundations of belief, how can you them claim to have certainty at all? You can’t.

    MY REPLY : Certainly you don’t know anything about textual criticism because I’ve been speaking in scope of it , let me teach a bit aboout it, In applying TC you have to based on total rational perspective and not subjective paradigm. Refer to that please tell me does your faith is subjective or objective? and again please based on TC please give me certain undeniable SOURCE that proves Muhammad really say that he was the last messenger?

    And rather answering my straight forward question on Muhammad as last messenger you’ve just dodged and YOU SAID

    I suggest you watch any of Shabir Ally’s debates…OR ..read up on the Essenes and Islam or Ebionites and Islam

    O..please.. Don’t you have any brain of your own that you have to depend on Shabbir’s brain? and about telling me to read the Ebionites etc.. isn’t it just another way to tell me you can’t give any straight forward answer for my straight forward question?

    Again I REMIND U DON’T FORGET THE TOPIC OF MY INITIAL REPLY which stresses on your judgement upon the alleged White inconsistency for using unreliable source, for I ask you AGAIN: Please I dare you to explain , based on your supposedly “principle of consistency” what will your comment be on the RELIABILITY of Shabbir’s “SOURCE” ?

  • As Salaamu ‘ala man ittaba al huda,

    Objectively speaking the only way to DEFINITIVELY ASSURED THAT JESUS DID OR DID NOT CLAIM DIVINITY IS HIS OWN WORD.

    Which do not exist anymore or haven’t existed since the 14 years between 33 AD and 47 AD.

    Objectively speaking again, by saying the NT and the early sources i.e Patristic comments aren’t reliable sources AT ALL then the LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS NEITHER CHRISTIAN NOR MUSLIM CAN OBJECTIVELY SAY JESUS DID OR DIDN’T CLAIM DIVINITY.

    No, the Christian paradox is implied here. We as Muslims don’t need to depend upon the Patristics, but you’re limited to doing so, we as Muslims, can examine without confirm bias, the other groups (whom you would consider heretical) or their writings (which you would consider apocrypha) provide substantial responses for arguments against the current proto-orthodox movement, which is why an attempt was made on several occasions to kill and destroy the writings of these people, see Justinian 1st, Iberian Catholic Genocide, Death of the Essenes at Qumran, etc..

    So please help yourself by intelligently explain what kind of RELIABLE & UNDENIABLE SOURCE that you have in proving Jesus didn’t claim for divinity.

    I did above, but to summarize in the event you perhaps might be slow, the Patristic writings in their Adversus X is sufficient evidence, if we appeal to the extant manuscripts at that time, we also have other narratives which contradict the proto-orthodox movement, but will accede to Islamic ‘aqa’id. See other resources such as Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica, Targums and Talmuds for historical references, see Apocryphal Gopels, Epistles and Pastorials.

    Please for the sake of honoring healthy intellectualism give me JUST ONE RELIABLE & UNDENIABLE SOURCE THAT PROVES THEY WERE IN-LINE WITH ISLAM…

    Will an Orientalist, anti-Islamic author do?

    “The Ebionites, too, seem to have had an influence on the religion or Islam. When gradually taking shape in Muhammad’s mind, which seems at the time to have been singularly receptive and credulous. “Epiphanius (Haer. x) describes the notions or the Ebionites of Nabathaea. Moabitis, and Basanitis with regard to Adam and Jesus, almost in the very words of Surah III., 52. He tells us that they observed circumcision, were opposed to celibacy, forbade turning to the sunrise but enjoined Jerusalem as their Qiblah (as did Muhammad during twelve years), that they prescribed (as did the Sabians) washings, very similar to those enjoined in the Qur’an…..These points of contact with Islam, knowing as we do Muhammad’s eclecticism, can hardly be accidental” (Rodwell, Koran, Pref. p. xviii).” – Footnotes, The Original Sources of the Koran, Clair Tisdalle, pg 36.

    Also see Bart Ehrman’s, “Lost Christianities”, Oxford University Press, 2003, pg 100 which references Galatians 1:6-9 and Galatians 2:11-14 which taken in consideration with the above reference is striking and most profound. That is, of course if you accept sequitur narratives through scholarly research?

    Btw have you just LITERALLY include GNOSTIC as in line with islam ??? Thank you very much brother for exposing paganistic nature of Islam.

    There were hundreds of Gnostic sects, they were primarily ascetic in their teachings, with the majority of their differences being that they used a different set of scripture, which they considered to be from God, see the “Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Anacephalaeosis II, Chapter 26, Against the Gnostics”, nothing written about them being pagan. Just people who followed another set of writings and used a different translation of the Old Testament, similar to what you Christians do today, use a LXX (Greek) to Hebrew to English translation as the foundation of your beliefs.

    Certainly you don’t know anything about textual criticism because I’ve been speaking in scope of it

    I’ve sifted through your statements, I see a lot of name calling, a lot of petulant rants, maybe some coherent statements in between, but sorry, I see nothing of “textual criticism” or the study of it being indicated in your comments. Perhaps you can reference me to a source in which you did so? Nevertheless even if you could, your decorum is such in a deplorable state, I wouldn’t be a able to fathom seeing you stringing together a coherent, sequitur, line of premises.

    let me teach a bit aboout it, In applying TC you have to based on total rational perspective and not subjective paradigm.

    So you do realise that at this point you’ve become wholly hypocritical, if not subjective and paradoxical, if not cyclic in your statements. On your link to to your hate blog, you have written an entire article on Shabir Ally being wrong for using Liberal scholarship and not conservative scholarship. So on one hand you’re telling us to be objective, so we use non-Islamic sources on the study of your books, we go so much as to use liberal scholars and you still tell us we’re not being objective? Really hilarious. Even Br. Shabir referenced two conservative authors whom he turned around and verified with James White (during his opening statement, Shabir’s), if they were conservative or not (as James is seen as conservative) and James agreed they were. So your argument falls flat on you.

    Refer to that please tell me does your faith is subjective or objective?

    Please try to make this sentence coherent, I know it’s hard, but wipe the foam from your mouth and then try again, thanks.

    and again please based on TC please give me certain undeniable SOURCE that proves Muhammad really say that he was the last messenger?

    Read any Sahih Hadith, which uses the principles of Textual Criticism to be judged as such, long before Christianity began to do so with John Mill (1645 – 1707), Mustalah al Hadith, Rijal al Hadith, Jarh wa Ta’deel etc…

    wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

  • IF YOU ARE A PEOPLE OF LIGHT WHY BEING SO AFRAID OF THE TRUTH ?

    But never mind I’ll just continue to expose the darkness of your misguided soul, hope your conscience will eventually realize that.

    I SAID : Objectively speaking the only way to DEFINITIVELY ASSURED THAT JESUS DID OR DID NOT CLAIM DIVINITY IS HIS OWN WORD.

    Which do not exist anymore or haven’t existed since the 14 years between 33 AD and 47 AD.

    MY REPLY: That’s why I’ve said “objectively speaking”

    I SAID: Objectively speaking again, by saying the NT and the early sources i.e Patristic comments aren’t reliable sources AT ALL then the LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS NEITHER CHRISTIAN NOR MUSLIM CAN OBJECTIVELY SAY JESUS DID OR DIDN’T CLAIM DIVINITY.

    No, the Christian paradox is implied here. We as Muslims don’t need to depend upon the Patristics, but you’re limited to doing so,

    MY REPLY: SO on what basis would you depend then? your own delusion perhaps?

    we as Muslims, can examine without confirm bias, the other groups (whom you would consider heretical) or their writings (which you would consider apocrypha) provide substantial responses for arguments against the current proto-orthodox movement,

    MY REPLY: REALLY? let me quote what the heretical group mainly known as Ebionites believed as it being described by some available sources :

    (Panarion 30:13 7-8 Gospel of Ebionites)And as he came up from the water, the heavens was opened and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove that descended and entered into him. And a voice sounded from Heaven that said: “You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased. ” And again: ” I have this day begotten you”
    This passage taken from Ebionites’s Gospel confirming The Fatherhood of God and although they didn’t believe Jesus as God yet they believed HE WAS ADOPTED AS THE SON OF GOD. So based on your admission CAN YOU WITHOUT ANY BIAS AFFIRM THIS AS INLINE WITH ISLAM?

    ( Commentary of Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (Against Heresies), 180 A.D.) “The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvelous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God.” Do you truly AFFIRM WITHOUT ANY BIAS the DENIAL OF VIRGIN BIRTH IS INLINE WITH ISLAM ?

    (Eusebius Church History Book 3 Chapter 27) “verse 1. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit… verse 5. but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord’s days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.” Here Eusebius said that some (the minority actually) did believe in virgin birth yet they also celebrated LORD’S RESSURECTION. Now COULD YOU WITHOUT ANY BIAS EXCEPT ALL OF THESE AS INLINE WITH ISLAM?

    which is why an attempt was made on several occasions to kill and destroy the writings of these people, see Justinian 1st, Iberian Catholic Genocide, Death of the Essenes at Qumran, etc..

    MY REPLY : Narrow Prejudicial mindset clearly shown by your statement which apparently fed up with lot of “conspiracy theories”. The most laughable is your CONSPIRACY THEORY OF DEATH OF THE ESSENES BY CHRISTIAN ?? thank you very much for exposing how “wide” your knowledge is concerning BASIC Judeo Christian History.

    Another thing I’ve noticed ,it’s highly probable you want to make this debate out of track through bringing up your “conspiracy theory” on the table , but sorry bro your RED HERRING attempt fails cause I won’t buy it , BACK TO THE TOPIC :I’ll repeat it again what I constantly demand
    So please help yourself by intelligently explain what kind of RELIABLE & UNDENIABLE SOURCE that you have in proving Jesus didn’t claim for divinity.

    I did above, but to summarize in the event you perhaps might be slow, the Patristic writings in their Adversus X is sufficient evidence, if we appeal to the extant manuscripts at that time, we also have other narratives which contradict the proto-orthodox movement, but will accede to Islamic ‘aqa’id. See other resources such as Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica, Targums and Talmuds for historical references, see Apocryphal Gopels, Epistles and Pastorials.

    MY REPLY : R U KIDDING ME?? I don’t need your “KHUTBAH”, please save it for yourself .I just only need you to bring me A SAYING OR VERSE THAT COMPLETELY RELIABLE TO AFFIRM UNDOUBTEDLY JESUS HAD NEVER CLAIMED HIS DIVINITY ! yet AMAZINGLY even after I’ve told you this before, your reply kind of telling me that in order to meet my demand on you , I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ANSWER BY MYSELF !! by throwing at me all those general references (Catholic Encylopedia, Apocryphal Gospels ,Epitles etc) without giving any specific clue on which part of your references that would meet my demand.

    Your FRANTIC action for throwing me with whatever references you can grab in order to avoid my SHARP INTERROGATION that exposes your error, is quite pathetic. Especially when you refer to ALL THOSE JEWISH SOURCES (ENCYCLOPEDIA JUDAICA ,TARGUMS & TALMUDS) that ARE NONE WHATSOEVER COHERENT in proving your allegation that Jesus had never Claimed Divinity. Because of this ANY healthy minded person who read your reply undoubtedly will admit your desperation is so remarkably helpless.

    Will an Orientalist, anti-Islamic author do?

    MY REPLY : WHAT KIND OF RATIONAL REPLY IS THIS?? Please notice I ASK YOU FOR ANY ANCIENT SAYING ON A MANUSCRIPT WHICH CAN PROVE ORIGINALITY OF JESUS’S SAYING IN FIRST CENTURY THAT HE WASN’T GOD THAT ALSO WOULD PROVE UNDOUBTEDLY THAT IT IS INLINE WITH ISLAM. YET YOU’VE JUST GIVEN ME SOME HYPOTHESIS FROM 20TH CENTURY SCHOLAR ?? thank you again for your self exposure concerning your real intellectual level.

    “The Ebionites, too, seem to have had an influence on the religion or Islam. When gradually taking shape in Muhammad’s mind, which seems at the time to have been singularly receptive and credulous.

    MY REPLY : This is what differ men from boys , an intellectual from just mere greenhorn in processing an information. So would you kindly explain how you see the term “INFLUENCED” applies in this particular matter ? Let me explain my perspective in advance,

    I see it as same as Greek Philosophy INFLUENCED Mutazila still Mutazilla wasn’t Greek philosophy , and Mutazila has INFLUENCED Shia still Shia isn’t Mutazilla , or Islam has INFLUENCED Bahaism still Bahaism isn’t Islam.

    For More uncomplicated way to say it, being influenced by something doesn’t necessarily mean your source of influence share the same view as yours. And as the matter of fact for your information, I’m also among many who accept this “hypothesis” that “highly probable” Islam is the hybrid from MIXING OF MANY sects which one of them is Ebionites. Related with this matter do you have any idea of what ECLECTIC IS?

    These points of contact with Islam, knowing as we do Muhammad’s eclecticism, can hardly be accidental” (Rodwell, Koran, Pref. p. xviii)

    DO YOU AS A MUSLIM REALLY BELIEVE EBIONITES’S INFLUENCE IS PART OF MUHAMMAD ECLECTICISM AS YOUR OWN REFERENCE DECLARES IT ?

    Since you’re quoting Bart Ehrman let me give you ANOTHER QUOTATION IN THE VERY SAME BOOK
    “For them Jesus was THE SON OF GOD not because of His divine nature or virgin birth but because of His “ADOPTION” by God to be His son.” (Lost Christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew By Bart D. Ehrman Page 101)

    CAN YOU SAY WITHOUT ANY BIAS TO CALL EBIONITES AS NOT HERETIC ACCORDING TO ISLAM ? Please for you as a man who prays 5 times a day I PLEA for your honesty before ALLAH to answer !!

    ***Another Fallacy of yours I just seemingly notice again, Sorry, please explain because correct me if I’m wrong , your logic indicate SECTARIAN OPPOSITION SIGNIFY AUTHENTICITY If that were the case do you mean Shia as the OPPOSITE OF SUNNI SIGNIFIES SHIA AS THE AUTHENTIC ISLAM ?

    I SAID : Btw have you just LITERALLY include GNOSTIC as in line with islam? Thank you very much brother for exposing paganistic nature of Islam.

    There were hundreds of Gnostic sects, they were primarily ascetic in their teachings, with the majority of their differences being that they used a different set of scripture, which they considered to be from God, see the “Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Anacephalaeosis II, Chapter 26, Against the Gnostics”, nothing written about them being pagan. Just people who followed another set of writings and used a different translation of the Old Testament, similar to what you Christians do today, use a LXX (Greek) to Hebrew to English translation as the foundation of your beliefs

    MY REPLY : IS THAT SO? 🙂 First, It’s such a pleasure to debate with you Ahmed, because you seemingly represent intellectual capability of DAWAGANDIST in general. Apparently you haven’t watched closely White-Ally debate since Shabir himself has noted that he didn’t want Muslim to use Gnostic source as basis to disprove Jesus Divinity.SecondlyHERE’S BTW THE FULL CHAPTER OF YOUR REFERENCE (http://www.scribd.com/doc/55176212/St-Epiphanius-of-Cyprus-Medicine-Chest-the-Panarion) Please I DARE YOU TO SHOW ME WHICH PART IS IN MATCH WITH YOUR EXPLANATION, and again in advance I’ll quote some which match with mine from “Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Anacephalaeosis II, Chapter 26
    For Noah was obedient to the archon,they say, but Noria revealed the powers on high and Barbelo the scion of the powers, who was the archon’s opponent as the other powers are. And she let it be known that what has been stolen from the Mother on high by the archon who made the world, and by the other GODS
    Let me educate you a bit BARBELO here is some kind of UNISEX (just click on Wiki) who is a unification between God and Goddess of Wisdom ( Mother on High) called Sophia . YOUR NARROW KNOWLEDGE IS ASTONISHING! HAVE YOU EVER READ ANYTHING BESIDES ISLAMIST’S PROPAGANDA ?

    This general knowledge about what Gnostic really is, is far too elementary that for saying this PAGANISTIC sect is COMPATIBLE WITH ISLAM surely shows your lamentable intellectual capability.

    Read any Sahih Hadith, which uses the principles of Textual Criticism to be judged as such, long before Christianity began to do so with John Mill (1645 – 1707), Mustalah al Hadith, Rijal al Hadith, Jarh wa Ta’deel etc…

    MY REPLY : Please save your Khutbah for yourself, why keep on dodging my question by throwing general references ? I just ask you a very simple question and I’ll make it clearer since obviously your ability to comprehend is quite an issue here, PLEASE SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE THAT UNDOUBTEDLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MUHAMMAD CLAIMED HIMSELF AS LAST MESSENGER , AND SINCE YOU BROUGHT THE HADITHS PLEASE AMUSE ME BY PRESENTING ME THE OLDEST ANCIENT HADITH’S MANUSCRIPT THAT CONTAINS SUCH SAYING .

    so we use non-Islamic sources on the study of your books, we go so much as to use liberal scholars and you still tell us we’re not being objective? Really hilarious.

    MY REPLY : If I used Ahmadi Qadiani scholar to prove Muhammad is not the Last Messenger and to prove Islamic Jesus did experience crucifixion would it be consider representing your belief for you? or If I used Mutazila perspective in which viewing Allah can’t have a motion and deems Salafism as non Islamic would it be acceptable for you also then? Please be honest, without honesty you will always be in the darkness Ahmed.

    Above of all even your reference the LIBERAL christian scholar themselves are not in essential agreement with your understanding (eg.Barth Erhman case above).

    Even Br. Shabir referenced two conservative authors whom he turned around and verified with James White (during his opening statement, Shabir’s), if they were conservative or not (as James is seen as conservative) and James agreed they were. So your argument falls flat on you

    MY REPLY : From observing your replies which show how you use your thought It’s not surprising to see you fall to Shabbir’s manipulative impression and come up with that kind of conclusion. The real thing is neither White nor Bruce&Bauchkam are in substantial contradiction, but rather Shabbir himself who’s actually in contradiction with Bruce&Bauchkam because as Shabbir ADMITTED HIMSELF he DISAGREE with Bruce&Bauchkam’s understanding for hypothesizing the differences from Mark toward Matthew and Luke as just stylistic and not essential. Where in the other hands Shabbir INSISTS in following liberal theologian that the differences aren’t just stylistic but also include substantial doctrinal issue.

    I see you avoid to answer my other question : please tell me does your faith is subjective or objective?
    For any one who wants to be objective in scientific way in observing one’s own religion then my question is essential, your reluctance to answer my question shows that you’re not ready to OBJECTIVELY CRITICIZE your own religion through dialectical method because only a convince and secure person in faith who can safely walk through the valley of the shadow of doubt of textual criticism.

    So again i can firmly say Certainly you don’t know anything about textual criticism because I’ve been speaking in scope of it

    Lastly Please Ahmed for once face the light of the truth , stop editing and hide my comments,
    Luke 8: 17, For nothing is hidden, that will not be revealed; nor anything secret, that will not be known and come to light.

  • MY REPLY: REALLY? let me quote what the heretical group mainly known as Ebionites believed as it being described by some available sources : This passage taken from Ebionites’s Gospel confirming The Fatherhood of God and although they didn’t believe Jesus as God yet they believed HE WAS ADOPTED AS THE SON OF GOD. So based on your admission CAN YOU WITHOUT ANY BIAS AFFIRM THIS AS INLINE WITH ISLAM?

    If your own scholars contest to the ability of the Patristics to accurately preserve the NT scripture, on what basis do you expect me to accept they fully preserved, without emendation or bias, a heretical sect’s Gospel(s)? See the following quote:

    Complaints about the adulteration of texts are fairly frequent in early Christian literature. Christian texts, scriptural and nonscriptural, were no more immune than others from vicissitudes of unregulated transmission in handwritten copies. In some respects they were more vulnerable than ordinary texts, and not merely because Christian communities could not always command the most competent scribes. Although Christian writings generally aimed to express not individual viewpoints but the shared convictions and values of a group, members of the group who acted as editors and copyists must often have revised texts in accordance with their own perceptions. This temptation was stronger in connection with religious or philosophical texts than with others simply because more was at stake. A great deal of early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities, and even documents that were not polemically conceived might nevertheless be polemically used. Any text was liable to emendation in the interest of making it more pointedly serviceable in a situation of theological controversy.(H. Y. Gamble, Books And Readers In The Early Church: A History Of Early Christian Texts, 1995, Yale University Press: New Haven & London, pp. 123-124.)

    As for this:

    (Commentary of Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (Against Heresies), 180 A.D.) “The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvelous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God.” Do you truly AFFIRM WITHOUT ANY BIAS the DENIAL OF VIRGIN BIRTH IS INLINE WITH ISLAM ?

    Either a minority didn’t accept this belief of the virgin birth or Iraneus invented it, as it’s not in the later works of the Panarion. So either one of the Church fathers lied or the disbelief of the virgin birth was prevalent to the persons only in Iraneus’ locality.

    (Eusebius Church History Book 3 Chapter 27) “verse 1. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit… verse 5. but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord’s days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.” Here Eusebius said that some (the minority actually) did believe in virgin birth yet they also celebrated LORD’S RESSURECTION. Now COULD YOU WITHOUT ANY BIAS EXCEPT ALL OF THESE AS INLINE WITH ISLAM?

    Right, so you proved my point, that their beliefs different with each quote from a Patristic, you’re showing their own inconsistencies. Did one Church father forget these beliefs of theirs, did another accept them as orthodoxy? Why would one Church father make these claims and another not? If the record of their beliefs were consistent we wouldn’t have such problems. Well, it’s more of a problem for you, why couldn’t the patristics properly record the variances of other sects with consistency?

    MY REPLY : Narrow Prejudicial mindset clearly shown by your statement which apparently fed up with lot of “conspiracy theories”. The most laughable is your CONSPIRACY THEORY OF DEATH OF THE ESSENES BY CHRISTIAN ?? thank you very much for exposing how “wide” your knowledge is concerning BASIC Judeo Christian History.

    Conspiracy theory? Please sir, if you want to continue to be able to post here, I suggest you behave properly, amend your public decorum accordingly. It is well known the Essenes were fighting with other sects, while the Romans gave the Pharisees free roam in Judea. It’s no secret that the Essenes were driven to the border of Judea because of the beliefs of the Pharisees and then suddenly usurped by the Romans, while those same Romans protected and allowed the religious autocracy of the Pharisees as recorded in the Gospels. How do you reconcile those beliefs with the Biblical narrative, given that you propose both to be conspiracy theories?

    So please help yourself by intelligently explain what kind of RELIABLE & UNDENIABLE SOURCE that you have in proving Jesus didn’t claim for divinity.

    I did above, but to summarize in the event you perhaps might be slow, the Patristic writings in their Adversus X is sufficient evidence, if we appeal to the extant manuscripts at that time, we also have other narratives which contradict the proto-orthodox movement, but will accede to Islamic ‘aqa’id. See other resources such as Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica, Targums and Talmuds for historical references, see Apocryphal Gopels, Epistles and Pastorials.