How do other religions view Jesus?

[otterman]

God has changed over the millenia. The Yahweh that Moses and Elijah followed was a spiteful god who punished unmercifully and sanctioned the massacre of the Canaanites by Joshua. The story was that the Assyrians were sent by Yahweh to attack the Jews as God’s punishment for not following the Torah.

Does that sound like the same God whose son was Jesus? Would Jesus envision cruel punishment for not following his teachings?

And since, the Muslims claim that the God of Abraham is worshipped by all Abrahamic religions, and God never changes, how can all this be reconciled?

God cannot change, but humans can.

God works within humanity, as the Bible shows, but He has to work with the human capacity of their understanding in each period of time.

The O.T.stories are however just that, stories to be read within a period of history, they are not meant to be read as eternally binding upon humanity.

 

[otterman]

I believe the Catholic Church to be correct in all matters of the Catholic faith, but on the question of the Islamic faith it is not. By using its own scriptures, the church proves that Islam cannot be from the same divine source as its own.

By using Church doctrine, and in depth research they both clearly show without doubt that the God of the Bible cannot be the god of Islam. It is unfortunate to say the least the Catholic Catechism suggests otherwise, although in places on this subject it could be construed as not being as clear as it should be.

 

[Servant19]

Well, I really am interested in what you personally think the Word is, and what you would say the Baha’i teaching is on that, compared to Catholic teaching, rather than us trying to invent together a meaning for the Word which combines other prophets (who I do not believe on matters of spiritual truth) with Christian Scripture and Christian Church Fathers (who are witnesses to the Truth, but not sources of the Truth to me as a Catholic, and I may consider them to be incorrect).

If you really do want to get into Church teaching on this, it might be worth rereading post 27 in the older thread you linked, since this addressed a lot of relevant ideas which came up in this thread. At the time, your only response was to say that you would meditate on it, and you did not otherwise engage with it. At the very end of the thread, you then started asking these questions again. It seems clear from the responses of other Baha’i as well as yourself, with the comments laying out Catholic teaching, that this really is a difference in our beliefs. Which is really interesting, and fine.

But I really do not want to take part in a discussion that assumes we must have the same belief on this point, and then tries to uncover what that is. Nor do I want to take part in a discussion that pretends we both consider all sources as being of equal importance. I would feel dishonest taking part in such a discussion.

So, in quoting Justin Martyr, are you intending to lay out what you believe the Word to be, what Baha’i teach the Word to be, or what you think Catholics believe the Word to be? How are you using him?

Oh, also, if you’re going to quote Justin Martyr, for instance, can you give a reference so I can look it up? I’ve steered clear of him in the past as I had intended to read others first, but if we’re going to use him in this conversation I will want to read all the surrounding context for any quote we use.

I really do really use the word really a lot.

Hello dear friend,

My humble perspective is this. If one is to be truly honest in their understanding of a theological concept, one cannot restrict their view to just one religious perspective. This is not scholarship. This is acceptance of the explanations and rationalities which have been given since childhood to enhance ones Faith in the given religion.

So the question you may wish to ask yourself is, am I here to enhance my understanding of this concept called the Word, the “I am”, the “Alpha and the Omega” or do I think I have all I need already?

If objectivity is sought then you may wish to look at what Hinduism teaches, since it came before Jesus and cannot be criticised as “copying” Jesus.

From the Bhagavad Gita:

“When righteousness is weak and faints, and unrighteousness exalts in pride, them my Spirit arises on earth. For the salvation of those who are good, and the destruction of evil in men, I come to this world from Age to Age”

So as you can see, according to Hinduism, the Spirit can “manifest” on this earth from Age to Age, from era to era. When this happens, it is considered apocalyptic, because everyone falls into sin at that moment. When one recognizes the Spirit manifested on earth, then the sinner becomes “resurrected” into eternal life. And this is exactly why St. Paul and St. Peter considered the advent of Jesus, the “end times” and why St.Paul considered his conversion as a resurrection.

Please ask yourself. Wasn’t the Messiahs arrival on earth supposed to be signalled by the previous return of the Prophet Elijah?

In the Spiritual realm, the Kingdom, God has entities which He manifests from time to time in a human temple.

How this works is well explained in this link:

bahai-library.com/books/quest/quest.03.html

Please feel free to address any concepts which are not clear

In terms of Justin Martyr, I think the quote I provided aligns very closely with the Bahai understanding of the Word, as the First-Born or the Primal Will, and First Emanation of God.
You can find the source if you cut and paste the quote into google

.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

In terms of Justin Martyr, I think the quote I provided aligns very closely with the Bahai understanding of the Word, as the First-Born or the Primal Will, and First Emanation of God.
You can find the source if you cut and paste the quote into google

In the time since my last post, I have read Apology 1 by Justin Martyr, in the Dods translation as found on New Advent. Your quotes are probably from Apology 1, although the wording was slightly different suggesting a different translation. Which translation were you using?

I’m surprised that you’d use Justin Martyr, because although he demonstrates a similar confusion of the Word and the Spirit to your own use (he sometimes uses the terms interchangably, which would of course make nonsense of several Biblical passages such as where Jesus assures his disciples that after he is gone they will receive another comforter, who is the Spirit. I think we’re still in John 14!), he is very clear that the Word is God as well as being the first-begotten of the Father. So, even though he is not Trinitarian (as is understandable given how little time people had had to process what they knew at the time he was writing), he says in Chapter 63
Justin Martyr:

For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.

But he also, especially in chapter 62, explains how he believes that all the stories of pagans that have any similarity to the stories of Christ are because Moses wrote earlier than any pagan philosopher, and so demons tried to copy the Biblical prophecies in these pagan religions, to cause people to think that Jesus was just another like them. So Justin Martyr would say that Hindus are just copying Moses because demons want them to dismiss Jesus as just another of the same sort that they have met in stories before. In this, of course, he is as out-of-line with Catholic teaching as when he maintains that the Spirit is the Word, but I really don’t think you want to be relying on him to support your own beliefs.

Of course, he somewhat more wisely says
Justin Martyr:

And that this may now become evident to you— (firstly ) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed; that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things:

This is more how I would personally approach his writing. For doctrine, acknowledge what he says that is true, and take the rest as evidence for the sort of ideas and knowledge that were around at the time. After all, he appears to be writing at a time when it is possible for an educated person such as himself to be unaware of the Tetragrammaton, since I cannot believe he would have failed to mention it when claiming that anyone saying God has a name is raving.

How do you take his writings? Do you consider him as some sort of prophet?

My humble perspective is this. If one is to be truly honest in their understanding of a theological concept, one cannot restrict their view to just one religious perspective. This is not scholarship. This is acceptance of the explanations and rationalities which have been given since childhood to enhance ones Faith in the given religion.

So the question you may wish to ask yourself is, am I here to enhance my understanding of this concept called the Word, the “I am”, the “Alpha and the Omega” or do I think I have all I need already?

I am here to exchange information on our understandings of who Jesus is. I am guided by the Church in this, for reasons that would take an entire other thread. If I want to further my understanding of the Word, it would not be through considering the Word to be someone other than God. There are lots of sources for me to develop my understanding of God: I do not accept certain core beliefs that would cause me to look for this understanding in other religions, although I fully respect that you do accept those core beliefs. If this is going to be a problem, and you really wanted me to convert to some sort of Baha’i view of Truth, then I’m afraid this will go nowhere.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

If objectivity is sought then you may wish to look at what Hinduism teaches, since it came before Jesus and cannot be criticised as “copying” Jesus.

From the Bhagavad Gita:

So as you can see, according to Hinduism, the Spirit can “manifest” on this earth from Age to Age, from era to era. When this happens, it is considered apocalyptic, because everyone falls into sin at that moment. When one recognizes the Spirit manifested on earth, then the sinner becomes “resurrected” into eternal life. And this is exactly why St. Paul and St. Peter considered the advent of Jesus, the “end times” and why St.Paul considered his conversion as a resurrection.

Well, Justin Martyr would say that the Bhagavad Gita was copying Jewish prophecies about Christ. I tend to subscribe to the idea that God allowed shadows of the Truth to be revealed to pagan cultures, in preparation for the coming Messiah, so that they could recognise Christianity as True when it reached them.

We of course disagree on what Sts Peter and Paul understood by being resurrected with Christ, as I think they are pretty clear about this involving Baptism, by which we share in Christ’s death and resurrection, receive the circumcision without hands, and are born again as adopted children of God. Justin Martyr also has a fair amount to say about Baptism in Apology 1. We consider the advent of Jesus the end times because it brought on the end times, which we are still living in. This is another huge topic though, and again I sense that you are trying to convince me to believe some esoteric knowledge, rather than simply explain what it is that you believe.

Please ask yourself. Wasn’t the Messiahs arrival on earth supposed to be signalled by the previous return of the Prophet Elijah?

Yes. This is another huge topic. Is it relevant as an explanation for who you think Jesus is?

In the Spiritual realm, the Kingdom, God has entities which He manifests from time to time in a human temple.

How this works is well explained in this link:

bahai-library.com/books/quest/quest.03.html

Please feel free to address any concepts which are not clear

.

Okay, this is getting closer to an explanation of (presumably) both what you believe an avatar to be, and who you say Jesus is? Assuming that this is the case, I will have a look at your link and get back to you.

I realise this has got very long. Apologies.

 

[hasantas]

I would agree that Muslims believe they worship a creator god, named as Allah, but this god is the god most familiar to Mohammed, whom he worshipped, before, and after he founded the Islamic faith.
The Islamic Allah does not have the same characteristics as the Bible God, Allah is not a Trinity (4:171; 5:73; 5:116); he is a Father to no one (5:18; 19:88-93; 21:26); he has no love for unbelievers (3:32)
All these assertions from Allah contradict the Gospel, but they are central to Christianity.

Christians have to accept Mohammed as a false prophet, the reason being because he came with a different message, and his actions did not comply with the Bible God’s commands.
The Bible warns us in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and Galatians 1:6-9 as well as Jesus Himself to be aware of different messages and false prophets, because “they deceive many “

These are just a few of many reasons why Allah is not the Bible God, further investigation uncovers many more.

You are so hard to speak to. Christians have not to accept Mohammed as a false prophet. Islam refuse Trinity. Trinity was accepted in the First Council of Nicaea in 325. Until that there was not a valid acceptance about trinity. That doctrine was consisted by Church. Some protestant do not accept trinity because they claim trinity doctrine was not in Bible. So when Muslims reject trinity that is not a groundless assertion. Some protestants do not accept because that doctrine does not source from scripture. Similarly Muslims do not accept and both Holy Scriptures Bibles(in original) and Quran do not accept. On the other hand Church claim that the only truth is in Church. If you ask me ı would prefer holy scriptures instead Church although Church claim to be guieded by Holy Spirit. İs not Holy Spirit (as part of divine God) invention/mythical of Church? you recognize Church more high than holy scriptures.

 

[hasantas]

Do you know what the Dead Sea Scrolls are?

I have had heard but ı do not so much about it. I wish to see the whole original texts which Vatican does not declare.

 

[otterman]

You are so hard to speak to. Christians have not to accept Mohammed as a false prophet. Islam refuse Trinity. Trinity was accepted in the First Council of Nicaea in 325. Until that there was not a valid acceptance about trinity. That doctrine was consisted by Church. Some protestant do not accept trinity because they claim trinity doctrine was not in Bible. So when Muslims reject trinity that is not a groundless assertion. Some protestants do not accept because that doctrine does not source from scripture. Similarly Muslims do not accept and both Holy Scriptures Bibles(in original) and Quran do not accept. On the other hand Church claim that the only truth is in Church. If you ask me ı would prefer holy scriptures instead Church although Church claim to be guieded by Holy Spirit. İs not Holy Spirit (as part of divine God) invention/mythical of Church? you recognize Church more high than holy scriptures.

Thank you hasantas for your reply.

Christians are obliged to accept what their scriptures tell them, in the same way as any Muslim.

These original manuscripts from where, Christians (and Jews for that matter) get their authority are still held within various museums around the world, and can be viewed by all who have an interest in these subjects.

codexsinaiticus.org/en/

The most recent discovery at Qumran is more evidence of the existence of ancient original manuscripts, which form part of the O.T. we have today.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The evidence shows clearly that neither the O.T.nor N.T.have been changed since the time they were written. The Catholic Church draws on these manuscripts to present what all Christians have believed since the time of Jesus, which is, Jesus is part of the Trinity, together with the Farther and Holy Spirit, One God, with separate Persons.
This is why Christians can claim with assurance that Jesus is part of the Trinity, because they have original documents to prove this, anyone not accepting this fundamental part of Christian belief then, cannot call himself Christian, in the same way any Muslim cannot be fully Muslim if they do not accept Allah as their god and Mohammed as his prophet.

 

[hasantas]

I believe the Catholic Church to be correct in all matters of faith, but on the question of the Islamic faith it is not. By using its own scriptures, the church proves that Islam cannot be from the same divine source as its own.

By using Church doctrine, and in depth research they both clearly show without doubt that the God of the Bible cannot be the god of Islam. It is unfortunate to say the least the Catholic Catechism suggests otherwise, although in places on this subject it could be construed as not being as clear as it should be.

You are right about that Church is not correct about Islamic faith. Acoording to doctrine of Church Islam and it’s Allah cannot be the same God/Father. But Church claim that we all worship in same God! Here Church is true because we Jews, Muslims and Christians worship in same God. But Church do not conclude that from doctrine but Church conclude that from other facts which are the same out off Church teachings.

 

[otterman]

You are right about that Church is not correct about Islamic faith. Acoording to doctrine of Church Islam and it’s Allah cannot be the same God/Father. But Church claim that we all worship in same God! Here Church is true because we Jews, Muslims and Christians worship in same God. But Church do not conclude that from doctrine but Church conclude that from other facts which are the same out off Church teachings.

But Church do not conclude that from doctrine but Church conclude that from other facts which are the same out off Church teachings.

Please could you clarify what you mean here?

 

[hasantas]

The scriptures quoted, Galations,Deuteronomy,and from Jesus, could not be more clear, they do not need interpretation.They say clearly "do not accept a different message to the Gospel, they are false and deceive many.

Mohammed is said to have had revelations from Allah, written down in the Quran,it is given then that it is Allah who rejects the Gospel not Mohammed found in the Quran, 5.72-75

If Allah was the same God of the Bible, the Gospel could not be rejected.

İs there any verse direct from God in Bible? Saints wrote what they hear and see from Jesus. Altough there is no any verse which claim and explain obvious that Jesus is Son of God. There are statements like that Son did or said that. But ıf we change the Son with prophet and Father with God then promlem is solved. İt is easy to change some interpretation with a small changes. Because Bible is translation after translations in many languages. Quran claim and declare that those asserts were been done by people. The God of Bible and Quran is same. I do not see any different gods in them. We can interpret Bible in different ways. But Church claim that Bible must be understood just exactly in way That Church allow. Bible is not only belong to Church or Christians but Bible is relating to all believers as Quran is book of all believers.

 

[hasantas]

Please could you clarify what you mean here?

Church conclude that according to original Bible and Torah. But doctrines of Church conflict with that because these doctrines had been done by Church later. So Church clerics know very well that Allah is God of Christians.

 

[magnet]

Some have asserted that God can be manifest in different ways, depending on the circumstances and people. However, Jesus is manifest as portrayed in the Bible. Does God have multiple personalities, but Jesus has only that seen in the New Testament?

If God’s personality as experienced by Muslims is different from that of Yahweh as portrayed in the Old testament, can we conclude that God may have multiple personalities similar to that portrayed in the movie, “The Three Faces of Eve”?

 

[otterman]

İs there any verse direct from God in Bible? Saints wrote what they hear and see from Jesus. Altough there is no any verse which claim and explain obvious that Jesus is Son of God. There are statements like that Son did or said that. But ıf we change the Son with prophet and Father with God then promlem is solved. İt is easy to change some interpretation with a small changes. Because Bible is translation after translations in many languages. Quran claim and declare that those asserts were been done by people. The God of Bible and Quran is same. I do not see any different gods in them. We can interpret Bible in different ways. But Church claim that Bible must be understood just exactly in way That Church allow. Bible is not only belong to Church or Christians but Bible is relating to all believers as Quran is book of all believers.

The Quran is written on the evidence of one man, who claimed he was a prophet of the same God as the Bible, you only have his word that what he claimed was true.

The N.T.is written by multiple people,some of which were eye witnesses to the words and actions of Jesus, who recorded what they saw, the evidence of which I provided with the Bible manuscript links.

Because Bible is translation after translations in many languages.

You can use this same argument with the Quran.

The Quran in its original format was written on pieces of bone, leaves skin etc,it was only when Uthman decided to authorise one version of the Quran and destroyed the others that the Quran we know today came into existence.

Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 510

The Quran as well as the Bible has been translated into many different languages. As a Muslim you cannot then say the Quran is no less the word of Allah, in just the same way as any Christian can.

The point I am making is,all religious manuscripts would be recorded meticulously by their relevant scribes, because they held the words in the highest esteem, which would leave little room for error in their recordings.

Altough there is no any verse which claim and explain obvious that Jesus is Son of God.

Yes there is:

bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Jesus-Christ,-Son-Of-God

 

[otterman]

Some have asserted that God can be manifest in different ways, depending on the circumstances and people. However, Jesus is manifest as portrayed in the Bible. Does God have multiple personalities, but Jesus has only that seen in the New Testament?

If God’s personality as experienced by Muslims is different from that of Yahweh as portrayed in the Old testament, can we conclude that God may have multiple personalities similar to that portrayed in the movie, “The Three Faces of Eve”?

The Christian position is, Jesus is fully divine and fully human. The divine part is what makes Jesus the second part of the Trinity, the Son of God, but He chose to come in human form.
God does not have "multiple personalities "according to the Christian faith,rather God is three separate Persons, in the form of Father,Son,and Holy Spirit.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

In the Spiritual realm, the Kingdom, God has entities which He manifests from time to time in a human temple.

How this works is well explained in this link:

bahai-library.com/books/quest/quest.03.html

Please feel free to address any concepts which are not clear

Before I get into the interesting relevant parts of this, and without going down the various less-relevant rabbit holes, can I ask what the status is of this document in your belief system, and whether you consider the whole thing to be an accurate account of your beliefs?

I ask because it seems to contradict itself quite badly, from my point of view, when describing the Baha’i view of reality, and I’d like to check whether there are only specific parts of it that you would like considered, or whether it really is the whole thing. Because, for example, in one place it will say that the Baha’i view is not at all dualist and considers the physical world exactly as real as the spiritual, and then in another place it will say that the spiritual and physical are entirely different realities emanating separately with the physical world being only a reflection representing the truly real spirit, which is basically textbook dualism. So I was wondering if there were errors in this text, and you only wanted me to consider certain parts that were relevant and which you agree with?

 

[SteveVH]

I believe the Catholic Church to be correct in all matters of faith, but on the question of the Islamic faith it is not.

So you believe in selectively choosing what the Church proclaims to be true and in this particular matter you are more enlightened. Do I have it right?

 

[hasantas]

Yes there is:

bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Jesus-Christ,-Son-Of-God

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Corinthians 15:28
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou artmy Son; this day have I begotten thee. Psalms 2:7
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art mySon, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him aFather, and he shall be to me a Son? Hebrews 1:5

15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my belovedSon, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. Mathew 2:15, 3:17, 17:5
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voicecame out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the h:igh priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? Mark 1:11, 9:7, 14:61
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and webeheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth theFather do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to theSon to have life in himself; John 1:14, 5:19, 5:26
21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a doveupon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thouSon of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is mybeloved Son: hear him. Luke 8:28, 3:22, 9:35

32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Acts:13:32-33

2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: romans:1:2-4

İn verses above there is a unique stress and emphasis that “Son of God”. There is no statements which claim that Jesus is divine and part of deity contrary it is mentioned that Jesus is the Son. And there is no clarification about that Jesus was send to be sacrifice. So if we change the word Son with Messenger or prophet or apostles words then Bible approach with Quran. That is the what we exactly expect as people of book.

Like that if we change the words Mohammed or Messenger with Son then Mohammed is to be Son of Allah. Blow me down Mohammed had been a more importand subject! But is there any requirement for that? İsn’t Mohammed enough important as a prophet? Change the underline words in the below verses in Quran then Mohammed is to be Son of Allah!

1. Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things. 33:40
2. We have not sent thee but as a (Messenger) to all mankind, giving them glad tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men know not 34:28
3. Say: “O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He that giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His Words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided.” 7:158
4. Believe, therefore, in Allah and His Messenger, and in the Light which We have sent down. And Allah is well acquainted with all that ye do. 64:8
5. And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!
6. Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. … 48:13,29
7. Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exempler for him who hopes in Allah and the Final Day, and who remembers Allah. 33:21
8. O Messenger! proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith. 5:67
9. Say: “O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He that giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His Words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided.” 7:158

 

[dronald]

Why did you post the question in Mark 14:61 but did not post the response?

 

[hasantas]

=otterman;12293318]

The Quran is written on the evidence of one man, who claimed he was a prophet of the same God as the Bible, you only have his word that what he claimed was true.

Then if some ask how do you know the words Jesus said are true?

The N.T.is written by multiple people,some of which were eye witnesses to the words and actions of Jesus, who recorded what they saw, the evidence of which I provided with the Bible manuscript links.

There is no objection about witnesses and writers but after that?

You can use this same argument with the Quran.

The Quran in its original format was written on pieces of bone, leaves skin etc,it was only when Uthman decided to authorise one version of the Quran and destroyed the others that the Quran we know today came into existence.

Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 510

That is true. All versions were same but they were in different dialects yet all versions are in same language.

The Quran as well as the Bible has been translated into many different languages. As a Muslim you cannot then say the Quran is no less the word of Allah, in just the same way as any Christian can.

But there is the exactly one original text in Arabic.

The point I am making is,all religious manuscripts would be recorded meticulously by their relevant scribes, because they held the words in the highest esteem, which would leave little room for error in their recordings.

We know the commission which compiled Quran verses. İf a verse would have not been stand by all members of commission then that verse would not get into Quran.