Tag Archives: bible errors

Have Christian Scholars Abandoned the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy? Yes!

Our esteemed Br. Yahya Snow has published a video with Christian apologist, Dr. Michael Licona agreeing that there are contradictions, irreconcilable contradictions in the New Testament:

Another prominent Theology Blogging website, aptly named Blogging Theology, highlighted this and many other claims of errancy within the Bible by Dr. Licona here. To make matters worse, the infamous Christian polemicist Sam Shamoun has declared that he no longer knows whether or not Dr. Licona is a true believer:


Not to be outdone, his close friend and student, Robert Wells (who once threatened to massacre innocent civilians if the voices in his head told him to do so) goes a step further and declares that he doesn’t even know if Dr. Licona is a Christian at all:


Picture taken from Blogging Theology by Paul Williams

Given that Dr. Licona has been a cornerstone for Christian apologetics, the swift excommunication of him by ardent Christians has come as a shock to the interfaith community. Have conservative Christian scholarship collectively given up on the doctrine of inerrancy? In this other recent video, that is exactly what Dr. Licona has done:

He’s not alone, even Dr. William Lane Craig has lowered the bar, so lowly, that he’s said this:


I’ve written an article on his statements here. Below is a video recording of him including the above statement and expanding on it:

At the end of the day, the sun has set on a major pillar of Christian apologetics. The view of Biblical inerrancy is quickly becoming a view of the past and Christianity of today now finds itself without certainty in scripture.

and Allah knows best.

Pastor Samuel Green Proves Biblical Errancy

This must be embarrassing for the Pastor, because this outrageous outcome is contrary to what he was trying to do – defend the inerrancy of the Bible. His problem begins with Mark 2:26, which reads:

In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

This statement is contrary to the Tanakh (Old Testament), which in 1 Samuel 21:1, which reads:

David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”

The dilemma in this case is, either Abiathar or Ahimelek could be the High Priest of the Temple when David entered to eat the consecrated bread. Following what Christians usually do when a conflict occurs, the Pastor immediately harmonized the two incidents and stated they both were the High Priests of the Temple at the same time:


This method of harmonization is often employed generously by evangelical inerrantists. How this method works is explained in the following manner: There are two books, X and Y. From this, X says 2 people were present at an event, Y says that 3 people were present at the same event. In using harmonization, evangelicals like the Pastor can claim:

  • There were both 2 persons and 3 persons, the recording of the number of persons differed according to the time. At one point there were 2 persons and later a third joined them.
  • There were 5 people present, but X saw only 2 and Y saw only 3.

If we were to look at the Pastor’s comment, he utilizes this method by claiming the two were High Priests at the same time. However, this is impossible, as there can only be one High Priest of the Temple at a time. The Pastor demonstrates that he is ignorant of Jewish religious tradition, by applying a Christian understanding to the Jewish faith. What makes this hilarious, yet perilous to his inerrantist stance, is that the author of Mark either lied in his gospel, made a historical error or confused Ahimelek with his son, Abiathar. The only conclusion we can draw from this is that their is a historical error and thus this presents a problem for Samuel Green’s faith.

One exegesis on the error of Mark 2:26 says:

In the days or Abiathar the high priest: and yet from the history it is clear, that it was in the days of Ahimelech the high priest, the father of Abiathar; wherefore the Jew charges (k) Mark with an error, and Matthew and Luke too: whereas the two last make no mention of the name of any high priest; and it might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, “under Abimelech the high priest”; and in an ancient copy of Beza’s, the whole clause is omitted; though it must be owned, that so it is read in other Greek copies, and in the ancient versions, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and others: wherefore let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the particle may be so rendered, about, or “before Abiathar was high priest”, as it is in Matthew 1:11. – Gill’s Exposition of the Bible.

We can see that this error in Mark has embarrassed Christians for centuries as the manuscript record shows. Matthew and Luke, both of which were written after Mark, and which were based on Mark, exclude the name of the High Priest. The scribe of codex Bezae excludes the verse completely. Gill, in trying to gloss over this error, happens to make it worse:

that the names of the father and the son are sometimes changed; Ahimelech is called Abiathar, and this Abiathar is called Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, 2 Samuel 8:17, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, 1 Chronicles 18:16. And it seems as if both father and son had two names, and were sometimes called by the one, and sometimes by the other: for as the father is sometimes called Abiathar, the son is called Ahimelech, or Abimelech – Ibid.

Apparently, the Jews in writing the Tanakh, confused the father with the son at some point, and so the various other narratives that mention their names continued the error as they could not decipher which one of them was the father or the son. So not only has this error demonstrated that the Gospels are incapable of being from God, as they contain factual errors which embarrassed Christians, it also demonstrates the incompetency of the Jewish scribes to preserve their scripture. I’m not sure whose attempt at harmonization is worse between Pastor Samuel Green and John Gill, as Gill actually tries to use the error in the Tanakh to prove that Jews considered the names of a father and son to be interchangeable, as opposed to the scribes confusing the father and the son.

and God knows best.

The Problem of Psalm 8:5 (or Psalm 8:6 – Hebrew Bible)

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Let’s begin with quoting the verse:

New International Version (©1984)
You made him a little lower thanthe heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Yet you made them only a little lower than God and crowned them with glory and honor.

English Standard Version (©2001)
Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!

Read more

Bible: Inspired Incoherencies Part 2

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In Part 1, we examined the textual nature of the New Testament, along with some examples of the incoherencies within. The understanding that God’s revelation cannot be inconsistent was developed through multiple evidences and at this point, one should realise that the Bible as we know it, is very dynamic. In this article, we’ll be looking at the ramifications of Paul’s writings versus an entire Book in the New Testament. Meaning then, that there exists a major inspired incoherency, note, I’m using the term, ‘inspired’ here, very loosely. Our journey today begins in the Epistle to Corinth, specifically, in the 2nd Epistle, Chapter 12, we read:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.  And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—  was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. – Verses 2 – 4.

Paul’s epistles were authored between 50 AD (beginning with 1st Thessalonians) and 65 AD (his death). As opposed to the New Testament Gospels which were largely authored between 70 AD (if we take into consideration the Q theory) and progressed until 125 AD (Papyrus 52). The dating of the Pastorials and the Personal Revelation of John (The Book of Revelation), has spurious dating and therefore would require a dedicated article to convey a holistic understanding of those texts, for now, let’s continue examining our current topic at hand. With the information given, it is then understood that Paul’s epistles were clearly completed before the development of the New Testament Synoptic Gospels began. We also have to take into consideration that manuscripts were not as quickly transmitted as they are today. Often times a manuscript would be written by a single scribe (usually the author himself) and delivered where it was read and kept safely. Unlike in today’s world where something can be copied in a matter of seconds, to be able to write, let alone read and spell was a significant skill set that a majority of the world did not possess. One must understand that textual transmission is relatively new to the world, as opposed to thousands of years of liturgical transmission (i.e. oral and aural). With that in mind, at the time of the Pauline letters (circa 1st century CE), the main method of transmitting data was primarily liturgical. Therefore with the advent of manuscripts, instead of making instant copies to distribute, the manuscripts would often be read out to persons, and perhaps when it became feasible (depending on the importance of said manuscript), a scribe would copy it meticulously.

Paul’s letters are often, generally classified into two types, as is testament by the manuscripts we possess today. Paul or his scribes would write a letter and address it to a Church in a particular city, cities or none at all. His letters were therefore either either direct (individual) or chain (circular). Direct letters would be directly specified to one named Church, e.g. 1st Thessalonians, as opposed to a letter where it was not directed to any Church, the title being left blank, later to be filled in by a scribe at that city, these are called circular letters. One example of a circular letter would be the Epistle to the Ephesians. For a more indepth understanding of the textual nature of a circular epistle, see the following excerpt from Reformed (Calvinist) Theologian Louis Berkhof:

Now if we examine the internal evidence, we find that it certainly favors the idea that this Epistle was not intended for the Ephesian church exclusively, for (1) It contains no references to the peculiar circumstances of the Ephesian church, but might be addressed to any of the churches founded by Paul. (2) There are no salutations in it from Paul or his companions to any one in the Ephesian church. (3) The Epistle contemplates only heathen Christians. while the church at Ephesus was composed of both Jews and Gentiles, 2:11, 12; 4:17; 5: 8. (4) To these proofs is sometimes added that 1: 15 and 3: 2 make it appear as if Paul and his readers were not acquainted with each other; but this is not necessarily implied in these passages.

In all probability the words ἐν ̓Εφέσῳ were not originally in the text. But now the question naturally arises, how we must interpret the following words τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν και πιστοῖς; etc. Several suggestions have been made. Some would read: “The saints who are really such ;” others: “the saints existing and faithful in Jesus Christ ;” still others: “the saints who are also faithful.” But none of these interpretations is satistactory: the first two are hardly grammatical; and the last one implies that there are also saints who are not faithful, and that the Epistle was written for a certain select view. Probably the hypothesis first suggested by Ussher is correct, that a blank was originally left after τοῖς οὖσιν, and that Tychicus or someone else was to make several copies of this Epistle and to fill in the blank with the name of the church to which each copy was to be sent. The fact that the church of Ephesus was the most prominent of the churches for which it was intended, will account for the insertion of the words ἐν ̓Εφέσῳ in transcribing the letter, and for the universal tradition regarding its destination. Most likely, therefore, this was a circular letter, sent to several churches in Asia, such as those of Ephesus, Laodicea, Hierapolis, e. a. Probably it is identical with the Epistle ἐκ Λαοδικίας, Col. 4:16.

At this point, one should be able to understand the dubious nature of the transmission of earlier New Testament manuscripts. Our next point of discussion, logically, should be to understand how this historical lesson on the transmission of the aforementioned manuscripts plays into the quote from 2nd Corinthians. However, before we do so, a point must be noted: God by definition is all knowing, for example, God can’t claim to be all knowing and at the same time, not know something (that is to be ignorant). As previously mentioned in Part 1, there is a verse which mentions this specific quality about God:

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (14) : 33.

It is quite ironic that Paul states this, as he is at fault for possibly one of the bigger theological contradictions that we’re about to see. Recall Paul’s statements:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.  And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—  was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. – Bible : 2 Corinthians 12 : 2 – 4.

How is all of this relevant? What is the point I’m trying to make?

The fact of the matter is that, the Personal Revelation of John (the Book of Revelation) draws on what John (not the John from the Gospel of John, but John of Patmos), allegedly heard/ saw from Jesus the Christ. It so happens that what Paul tells us he is unable to say, that he is not permitted to tell, that John of Patmos a few decades later (based on the more plausible Domitianic date of 95 AD),  writes about those same things. Yes, Paul says it is unlawful to mention the inexpressible things about paradise and then we have John of Patmos, tell us those very ‘inexpressible things’, to the extent that John’s personal revelation makes it into the New Testament as canonical scripture. To properly understand this, let’s examine what John Gill, in his exposition says on this issue:

heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter; to instance in particular things, which be then either saw or heard, as some have done, is bold and daring; as that he saw the divine Being with the eyes of his understanding, the several angelic forms, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, and the glory and beauty of the souls of departed saints; and heard the harmonious music of each of these happy creatures; had a view of the book of life, and was shown the order and method of divine predestination; was let into the mystery of the calling of the Gentiles, and the change that will be on living saints, and heard the whole account of the dispensation of things, in the church of Christ to the end of the world: the things were unspeakable, never yet related, and so not to be known: they were such things which the apostle himself, when out of the rapture, might have but very inadequate ideas of, and such as he was not able to put into proper words and language to be understood by others; and which as he heard them not from a mere man, but from the Lord, so no mere man was able to utter them, none but he of whom he had heard them: and besides, whatever conceptions the apostle might have of them himself, and how capable soever he was of expressing them; yet they were not fit and proper to be told in the present state of things, being no part of the counsel of God relating to man’s salvation, the whole of which he faithfully declares; and yet were necessary to be heard by him, in order to establish his faith in the Gospel, to animate him in his ministry, and fortify his mind against all the afflictions, reproaches, and persecutions, he was to meet with for the sake of Christ. The phrase seems to be the same with (wrmal rvpa ya) , “it is impossible to say it”; and of such like secret things in paradise, or the world of souls, the Jews say that

“they are hidden, and which (hbytkb twlel Mywar Mnya) , “are not fit to produce in writing“;”and so these were such as were not lawful to speak out, (glwssaiv) (anyrwpinaiv) , “with human tongues”, as Justin Martyr says {z}; they were not in such sense “unspeakable”, as not to be expressed by any; for they were expressed either by Christ himself, who was glorified in human nature, whom the apostle might now see and hear, or by some angel or angels, or they could not have been heard by the apostle as they were; but they were such as before never been spoken to any mortal man, and so could never have been spoken by any; and though they had been spoken to a mortal man, yet they could not be spoke by him to others; for though when he heard them, his human soul, for that present time, might conceive and take in much of the nature and meaning of them, yet they were such as he could not express by words, and represent to others by speech after the vision was over, and especially at this distance: not that it was sinful to have done it, if he could have done it; or that the things themselves were of such a nature, that it would have been criminal to have rehearsed them; but rather that it was impossible to do it, at least fully, since they might greatly regard the glory of the divine Being, and the worship paid him by the heavenly inhabitants: or could it be done in any tolerable manner, it might not be altogether convenient and proper in the present state of things; since the worship of the upper world lying in praise without prayer, might not be so fit to be related, lest it should be imitated by saints on earth: and seeing what the apostle heard was ineffable, and not to be spoken by himself; no credit is to be given to those spurious things called the Revelation and Ascension of Saint Paul, in which the author or authors of them pretend to tell us what these things were.

Therefore the entire Book of Revelation, which almost exclusively deals with unseen events in both heaven and earth, was not to be spoken about. Even Paul did not write it, yet today millions of Christians have it in their possession, information which according to Paul are “things that no one is permitted to tell“. If no one is permitted to speak about those events seen and heard in heaven, then why is it in the Christian Bible? Doesn’t that seem odd to….anyone? In the very first chapter of the Book of Revelation (John of Patmos’ personal revelation) we read of unseen things that no one was permitted to tell (events in heaven):

12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands,13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters.16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid.I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

This leaves us with several conclusions:

  1. Paul lied as God allowed the Book of Revelation to be written, thought of as scripture and widely produced for roughly 1800 years.
  2. God lied and told Paul he was not permitted to write it, but then let’s some unknown John on a remote island write it.
  3. Both 1 and 2 are wrong and the Personal Revelation of John (the Book of Revelation) is an interpolation, a fraud and should be removed from the Biblical canon, as it had been before, see:

    The Alogi, about A.D. 200, a sect so called because of their rejection of the logos-doctrine, denied the authenticity of the Apocalypse, assigning it to Cerinthus (Epiphanius, LI, ff, 33; cf. Irenaeus,Against Heresies III.11.9). Caius, a presbyter in Rome, of about the same time, holds a similar opinion. Eusebius quotes his words taken from his Disputation: “But Cerinthus by means ofrevelations which he pretended were written by a great Apostle falsely pretended to wonderful things, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom” (Church HistoryIII.28). The most formidable antagonist of the authority of the Apocalypse is Dionysius, Bishop ofAlexandria, disciple of Origen. He is not opposed to the supposition that Cerinthus is the writer of the Apocalypse. “For”, he says, “this is the doctrine of Cerinthus, that there will be an earthly reign of Christ, and as he was a lover of the body he dreamed that he would revel in the gratification of the sensual appetite”. He himself did not adopt the view that Cerinthus was the writer. He regarded the Apocalypse as the work of an inspired man but not of an Apostle (Eusebius, Church HistoryVII.25). During the fourth and fifth centuries the tendency to exclude the Apocalypse from the list of sacred books continued to increase in the Syro-Palestinian churches. Eusebius expresses no definite opinion. He contents himself with the statement: “The Apocalypse is by some accepted among the canonical books but by others rejected” (Church History III.25). St. Cyril of Jerusalemdoes not name it among the canonical books (Catechesis IV.33-36); nor does it occur on the list of the Synod of Laodicea, or on that of Gregory of Nazianzus. Perhaps the most telling argument against the apostolic authorship of the book is its omission from the Peshito, the Syrian Vulgate. But although the authorities giving evidence against the authenticity of the Apocalypse deserve full consideration they cannot annul or impair the older and unanimous testimony of the churches. The opinion of its opponents, moreover, was not free from bias. From the manner in which Dionysiusargued the question, it is evident that he thought the book dangerous as occasioning crude and sensual notions concerning the resurrection. In the West the Church persevered in its tradition ofapostolic authorship. St. Jerome alone seemed to have been influenced by the doubts of the East. – The Catholic Encyclopedia, Book of Revelation.

These inconsistencies never seem to end, in Part 1 we dealt with verses and chapters being contradictory, this time we’re dealing with an entire Book. The inconsistent nature of the Bible therefore has been demonstrated among verses, chapters and books, thereby constituting the Bible itself as an inconsistent, ‘scripture‘.

Further Reading:

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Jesus vs Paul: I said nothing in secret.

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Often times, the Epistles of Paul, make references to scripture (whether canonical or not) and claims God said it. In this case, their God, being Yeshua, otherwise known as Isa al Masih alayhi as salaam to the Muslims.

Jesus allegedly said:

“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.


Yet, if this is true, then Paul, is making a claim against Jesus:

,In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.


Therefore the question arises, if Jesus commanded this and in understanding he said nothing in secret, considering 2 Timothy 3:16’s statement that, “All Scripture is God-breathed”, where exactly did Jesus ever utter such a statement in the New Testament?

The challenge is quite simple:

  • Jesus says, he said nothing in secret.
  • His statement is supported by gospel which says, all scripture is from God.
  • Paul makes a claim that Jesus said something.

We arrive at a problem. If Paul’s source is a secret, then we arrive at a dilemma.
Either Jesus in John 18:20,
and, or not all scripture is God breathed as per 2 Timothy 3:16,
and, or Paul lied on both scripture and Jesus.

Therefore the challenge is quite simple, to prove the above statements false, any one single Christ has to show, where Jesus said unequivocally these words in the New Testament Gospels:

those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.”

As, I, Br. Ejaaz A., always reiterates, I place my trust in Allah {swt} solely and He has already answered such a claim:

Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

فَوَيۡلٌ۬ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكۡتُبُونَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبَ بِأَيۡدِيہِمۡ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنۡ عِندِ ٱللَّهِ لِيَشۡتَرُواْ بِهِۦ ثَمَنً۬ا قَلِيلاً۬‌ۖ فَوَيۡلٌ۬ لَّهُم مِّمَّا ڪَتَبَتۡ أَيۡدِيهِمۡ وَوَيۡلٌ۬ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكۡسِبُونَ


Objections to what has been stated.

1. Jesus said the same thing in Luke 10:7,

Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

Well the answer is quite simple, this is quoting Luke, who was a companion of Paul, whom one can read in vast detail as being the companion of Paul [4]. Paul’s Epistles are believed to be initially spread from the year 50 AD (beginning with 1 Thessalonian), yet, Luke’s gospel is cited as being as much as 12 years later by John A.T. Robinson, Anglican dean of chapel and lecturer in theology at Trinity College, Cambridge. Therefore, the argument is baseless that Paul is citing Luke, if the Gospel of Luke was written after the Pauline Epistles.

2. Paul quotes 1 Timothy 5:17-18 in 1 Corinthians 9:14, same answer as above,

1 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). Christians {albeit, uneducated in scriptural history}, claim they were written at the same time with or after Pauline Epistles. This is a false notion:

Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means “righteous” and here means “upright”; pistis, “faith,” has become “the body of Christian faith”; and so on.

Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.

The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul’s situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul’s life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.

The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.


3. It’s a paraphrase. Verbatim quotes are not what is being indicated here, so it’s pointless to ask for one.

This again, is an unlearned response as even the passage says it’s a direct quote, the Greek even indicates this:

Does Paul have to say it is a verbatim quote for us to acknowledge it as such? Did you read the quote cited?

“In the same way, the Lord commanded”

In the what? The “οὕτω” way, meaning?

“in this way (referring to what precedes or follows): – after that, after (in) this manner, as, even (so)”

In “οὕτω” way, he “διατάσσω”, meaning?

“arrange thoroughly, that is, (specifically) institute, prescribe, etc.: – appoint, command, give, (set in) order, ordain.”

Jesus specifically, gave this order, in the same way, as Paul is narrating it. This is to display the liturgical transmission of narratives about Jesus from the disciples. So even the verse, expresses what I have expressed and answers you quite clearly.

wa Allahu Alam.

[1] – John 18:20, NIV Bible Translation,

[2] – 1 Corinthians 9:14, NRSV Bible Translation,

[3] – Qur’aan, Surah 2, Ayah 79,

[4] – http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

[5] – Norman Perrin, The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5.