I congratulate you, sir, on dishonest apologetics! For I know what that quote is, and if you go to that original source, it is Eusebius quoting what a heretic said, not his own opinion. He is discussing Serapion, whom he credits with writing the Gnostic Gospel of Peter. If you are going to begin quote-mining, please at least get the person you’re quoting right.
Serapion (191-211 CE) was commenting on the Gospel of Peter, a separate writing different from Apocalypse of Peter aka. Revelation of Peter, and the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter. The point is why would the Patriarch of Antioch (not a heretic) condemned the gospel and yet admitted to
some truth in it?
" Understand that the apocryphal writings are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt " (Jerome, letter to Laeta c.403 CE)
" We may, however, leave aside the stories contained in those Scriptures which are called ‘Apocrypha’ because their origin is hidden and was not clear to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has come down to us by a most certain and known succession. There is, indeed, some truth to be found in these apocryphal Scriptures" (Augustine, De civitate dei c.426 CE)
" Although some truth is found in these apocrypha, but because of much falsehood there is in the no canonical authority " (Isidore Archbishop of Seville, Etymologiarum siue Originum)
When the apostles went out to fulfill the Great Commission, they never once accused the Jews of changing their scripture - in fact, they extensively quoted older scripture to confirm whom Christ was. The Koran, by contrast, does not do this. There is not one single quote from the Torat or Injil in the entire Koran, only name-dropping and vague references to certain stories.
" We have written in the “Zabur” (Psalms), after the “Zikr” (Torah): ‘the righteous shall inherit the earth’ " (Quran 21:105)
On the other hand, the NT scribes deliberately scoured through the Jewish Tanakh to find verses that could relate to Jesus in any way possible.
" I was encouraged above all by the authoritative publications of the Evangelists and Apostles, in which we read much taken from the Old Testament but not found in our (Septuagint) manuscripts. For example, ‘Out of Egypt have I called My son’ (Matt 2:15), ‘For he shall be called a Nazarene’ (Matt 2:23), ‘They shall look on him whom they pierced’ (John 19:37), ‘Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly’ (John 7:38), and many other passages. The first passage is in Hosea, the second in Isaiah, the third in Zechariah, the fourth in Proverbs " (Jerome, preface to his Vulgate translation of Torah c.395 CE)
Show me where Matt 2:23 is in Isaiah, and John 7:38 in Proverbs, as Jerome claimed.
In any case, the Muslim rejection of the New Testament is the purest form of circular logic.
This is a very odd statement. Where else are we to define our doctrine if not scripture? Perhaps we should ignore the Koran to understand the doctrine of Islam - of course, if we did that, Muslims would change their tune and demand we let the Koran speak for itself.
There is no reason for your conclusion, and citing one author (especially a pagan, whom Mohammad would himself condemn) not only proves nothing but falls into the category of the appealing to authority logical fallacy. The early Church Fathers quoted scripture extensively, so much so that if were to have lost every manuscript of scripture, we would be able to rebuild much of it on their writings alone.
Only independent sources would add anything new to an argument, whereas dependent ones (eg. Muslims quoting hadiths, Christians quoting Church fathers) only serve as circular reasoning. Moreover, this Greek philosopher was a 2nd century witness.
Another famous philosopher’s view on Christians of his time (3rd century),
" How can these people be thought worthy of forbearance? In choosing impieties and atheism, they have preferred their fellow creatures " (Porphyry of Tyre, Philosophy from Oracles).
The majority of textual variants in the manuscripts are by and large grammatical, while others include spelling errors or adding minor words such as “now” or “then” within the sentence - all of which hold no bearing on theological matters.
12 verses from John 7:53-8:11 is “minor”, and another 12 verses of Mark 16:9-20 is “minor”. I guess you would consider this “minor” too; a 5th century manuscript, Codex Washingtonianus, inserted this whole passage in between Mark 16:14-15,
" And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’ –thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven "
No wonder a certain scribe let out his frustration on the left hand margin of Heb 1:3 main text in Codex Vaticanus,
“amaqestate kai kake, afeV ton palaion, mh metapoiei” meaning “
Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone, and not alter it!”
Furthermore, if even one alteration is a sign of scribes changing scripture, then even the Koran is guilty of this.
A desperate last-ditch effort;
tu quoque argument?
