E
elwill
Guest
sorry for the mistake
- Status
J
Javl
Guest
May I also add that many of the Gnostic writings that are attributed to Thomas, Paul, etc.
( viz: the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, etc. ) are all spurious writings and have absolutely no connection to the Apostles. This has been proven many times over, but
there are still those that refuse to accept their falsity and error. Most of these writings were written between the fourth and tenth centuries.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
C
Christos
Guest
What makes me laugh the most is that just how the Christians accuse us Muslims that anything that doesn’t agree with our ideology of Islam we remove it. They had already done that over 1700 years ago. They tried their hardest to destroy all these evidences of anything that would go against them. When they resurfaced they decided to call them Gnostic. How amusing. They do not follow the teachings of Jesus, but rather of Paul. They are a Pauline religion. Just because you are a majority doesn’t mean that you are correct. But they are quick to call anything that doesn’t agree with them Gnostic. The Church will be built upon Peter. Yet, when his Gospel came along they called it Gnostic. Very interesting.
The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
And when I said these things, the Savior said, “I have told you that these (people) are blind and deaf. Now then, listen to the things which they are telling you in a mystery, and guard them, Do not tell them to the sons of this age. For they shall blaspheme you in these ages since they are ignorant of you, but they will praise you in knowledge.”
“For many will accept our teaching in the beginning. And they will turn from them again by the will of the Father of their error, because they have done what he wanted. And he will reveal them in his judgment, i.e., the servants of the Word. But those who became mingled with these shall become their prisoners, since they are without perception. And the guileless, good, pure one they push to the worker of death, and to the kingdom of those who praise Christ in a restoration. And they praise the men of the propagation of falsehood, those who will come after you. And they will cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking that they will become pure. But they will become greatly defiled and they will fall into a name of error, and into the hand of an evil, cunning man and a manifold dogma, and they will be ruled without law.”
“For some of them will blaspheme the truth and proclaim evil teaching. And they will say evil things against each other. Some will be named: (those) who stand in (the) strength of the archons, of a man and a naked woman who is manifold and subject to much suffering. And those who say these things will ask about dreams. And if they say that a dream came from a demon worthy of their error, then they shall be given perdition instead of incorruption.”
“For evil cannot produce good fruit. For the place from which each of them is produces that which is like itself; for not every soul is of the truth, nor of immortality. For every soul of these ages has death assigned to it in our view, because it is always a slave, since it is created for its desires and their eternal destruction, in which they are and from which they are. They love the creatures of the matter which came forth with them.”
“But the immortal souls are not like these, O Peter. But indeed, as long as the hour is not yet come, it (the immortal soul) shall resemble a mortal one. But it shall not reveal its nature, that it alone is the immortal one, and thinks about immortality, having faith, and desiring to renounce these things.”
“For people do not gather figs from thorns or from thorn trees, if they are wise, nor grapes from thistles. For, on the one hand, that which is always becoming is in that from which it is, being from what is not good, which becomes destruction for it and death. But that which comes to be in the Eternal One is in the One of the life and the immortality of the life which they resemble.”
“Therefore all that which exists not will dissolve into what exists not. For deaf and blind ones join only with their own kind.”
“But others shall change from evil words and misleading mysteries. Some who do not understand mystery speak of things which they do not understand, but they will boast that the mystery of the truth is theirs alone. And in haughtiness they shall grasp at pride, to envy the immortal soul which has become a pledge. For every authority, rule, and power of the aeons wishes to be with these in the creation of the world, in order that those who are not, having been forgotten by those that are, may praise them, though they have not been saved, nor have they been brought to the Way by them, always wishing that they may become imperishable ones. For if the immortal soul receives power in an intellectual spirit -. But immediately they join with one of those who misled them.”
“**But many others, who oppose the truth and are the messengers of error, will set up their error and their law against these pure thoughts of mine, as looking out from one (perspective) thinking that good and evil are from one (source). They do business in my word. And they will propagate harsh fate. **The race of immortal souls will go in it in vain, until my Parousia. For they shall come out of them - and my forgiveness of their transgressions, into which they fell through their adversaries, whose ransom I got from the slavery in which they were, to give them freedom that they may create an imitation remnant in the name of a dead man, who is Hermas, of the first-born of unrighteousness, in order that the light which exists may not believed by the little ones. But those of this sort are the workers who will be cast into the outer darkness, away from the sons of light. For neither will they enter, nor do they permit those who are going up to their approval for their release.”
"And still others of them who suffer think that they will perfect the wisdom of the brotherhood which really exists, which is the spiritual fellowship of those united in communion, through which the wedding of incorruptibility shall be revealed. The kindred race of the sisterhood will appear as an imitation. These are the ones who oppress their brothers, saying to them, “Through this our God has pity, since salvation comes to us through this,” not knowing the punishment of those who are made glad by those who have done this thing to the little ones whom they saw, (and) whom they took prisoner."
"And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals."
But I said " I am afraid because of what you have told me, that indeed little (ones) are, in our view, the counterfeit ones, indeed, that there are multitudes that will mislead other multitudes of living ones, and destroy them among themselves. And when they speak your name they will be believed."
The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
And when I said these things, the Savior said, “I have told you that these (people) are blind and deaf. Now then, listen to the things which they are telling you in a mystery, and guard them, Do not tell them to the sons of this age. For they shall blaspheme you in these ages since they are ignorant of you, but they will praise you in knowledge.”
“For many will accept our teaching in the beginning. And they will turn from them again by the will of the Father of their error, because they have done what he wanted. And he will reveal them in his judgment, i.e., the servants of the Word. But those who became mingled with these shall become their prisoners, since they are without perception. And the guileless, good, pure one they push to the worker of death, and to the kingdom of those who praise Christ in a restoration. And they praise the men of the propagation of falsehood, those who will come after you. And they will cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking that they will become pure. But they will become greatly defiled and they will fall into a name of error, and into the hand of an evil, cunning man and a manifold dogma, and they will be ruled without law.”
“For some of them will blaspheme the truth and proclaim evil teaching. And they will say evil things against each other. Some will be named: (those) who stand in (the) strength of the archons, of a man and a naked woman who is manifold and subject to much suffering. And those who say these things will ask about dreams. And if they say that a dream came from a demon worthy of their error, then they shall be given perdition instead of incorruption.”
“For evil cannot produce good fruit. For the place from which each of them is produces that which is like itself; for not every soul is of the truth, nor of immortality. For every soul of these ages has death assigned to it in our view, because it is always a slave, since it is created for its desires and their eternal destruction, in which they are and from which they are. They love the creatures of the matter which came forth with them.”
“But the immortal souls are not like these, O Peter. But indeed, as long as the hour is not yet come, it (the immortal soul) shall resemble a mortal one. But it shall not reveal its nature, that it alone is the immortal one, and thinks about immortality, having faith, and desiring to renounce these things.”
“For people do not gather figs from thorns or from thorn trees, if they are wise, nor grapes from thistles. For, on the one hand, that which is always becoming is in that from which it is, being from what is not good, which becomes destruction for it and death. But that which comes to be in the Eternal One is in the One of the life and the immortality of the life which they resemble.”
“Therefore all that which exists not will dissolve into what exists not. For deaf and blind ones join only with their own kind.”
“But others shall change from evil words and misleading mysteries. Some who do not understand mystery speak of things which they do not understand, but they will boast that the mystery of the truth is theirs alone. And in haughtiness they shall grasp at pride, to envy the immortal soul which has become a pledge. For every authority, rule, and power of the aeons wishes to be with these in the creation of the world, in order that those who are not, having been forgotten by those that are, may praise them, though they have not been saved, nor have they been brought to the Way by them, always wishing that they may become imperishable ones. For if the immortal soul receives power in an intellectual spirit -. But immediately they join with one of those who misled them.”
“**But many others, who oppose the truth and are the messengers of error, will set up their error and their law against these pure thoughts of mine, as looking out from one (perspective) thinking that good and evil are from one (source). They do business in my word. And they will propagate harsh fate. **The race of immortal souls will go in it in vain, until my Parousia. For they shall come out of them - and my forgiveness of their transgressions, into which they fell through their adversaries, whose ransom I got from the slavery in which they were, to give them freedom that they may create an imitation remnant in the name of a dead man, who is Hermas, of the first-born of unrighteousness, in order that the light which exists may not believed by the little ones. But those of this sort are the workers who will be cast into the outer darkness, away from the sons of light. For neither will they enter, nor do they permit those who are going up to their approval for their release.”
"And still others of them who suffer think that they will perfect the wisdom of the brotherhood which really exists, which is the spiritual fellowship of those united in communion, through which the wedding of incorruptibility shall be revealed. The kindred race of the sisterhood will appear as an imitation. These are the ones who oppress their brothers, saying to them, “Through this our God has pity, since salvation comes to us through this,” not knowing the punishment of those who are made glad by those who have done this thing to the little ones whom they saw, (and) whom they took prisoner."
"And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals."
But I said " I am afraid because of what you have told me, that indeed little (ones) are, in our view, the counterfeit ones, indeed, that there are multitudes that will mislead other multitudes of living ones, and destroy them among themselves. And when they speak your name they will be believed."
C
Christos
Guest
The Savior said, "For a time determined for them in proportion to their error they will rule over the little ones. And after the completion of the error, the never-aging one of the immortal understanding shall become young, and they (the little ones) shall rule over those who are their rulers. The root of their error he shall pluck out, and he shall put it to shame so that it shall be manifest in all the impudence which it has assumed to itself. And such ones shall become unchangeable, O Peter."
“Come therefore, let us go on with the completion of the will of the incorruptible Father. For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will put them to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst. Do not be afraid because of your cowardice. Their minds shall be closed, for the invisible one has opposed them.”
When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said “What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?”
The Savior said to me, “He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.”
But I, when I had looked, said “Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place.”
Now this Apocalypse of Peter HAS TO BE GNOSTIC because it goes against Paul, whom Jesus never spoke of. However, of Peter he did speak of, and said that the church shall be build upon his teachings. Where have his teachings gone? Oh, its Gnostic, it is unbelievable.
“Come therefore, let us go on with the completion of the will of the incorruptible Father. For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will put them to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst. Do not be afraid because of your cowardice. Their minds shall be closed, for the invisible one has opposed them.”
When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said “What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?”
The Savior said to me, “He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.”
But I, when I had looked, said “Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place.”
Now this Apocalypse of Peter HAS TO BE GNOSTIC because it goes against Paul, whom Jesus never spoke of. However, of Peter he did speak of, and said that the church shall be build upon his teachings. Where have his teachings gone? Oh, its Gnostic, it is unbelievable.
L
Lothair
Guest
The Apoc. of St. Peter was just written far too late to be of any use to Christianity. You take one verse out of context in vain hope of using it to improve on Quran 4:157.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
There is no evidence of this grand conspiracy to “destroy all evidences” of anything that would go against their beliefs. That is in and of itself a conspiracy theory.
What makes Christians laugh is that many Muslims can’t argue from the contemporary sources of that time period. Christians debate using the hadith and the Koran, whereas Muslims seem to simply refuse to do anything similar. You yourself have admitted to have not studied patristics, therefore I find it ironic you are now pontificating on the early Church. This would be like discussing the time of Mohammad and his companions without ever looking at the hadith or contemporary Muslim sources.
That was not Peter’s gospel. There is no evidence it came from Peter, unless you can provide some scholarly evidence of this.
If you read the early Church Fathers (which, again, you have openly admitted to not doing) you’ll find that men like St. Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp who knew the apostle John, identifies the four gospels in the New Testament and refers them to the authors whose names they bear. You also find early Church Fathers (all before the dawn of the third century, no less) confirming Christian theology which Muslims claim didn’t come around until 300 years after the time of Christ. You will also find them condemning all the heresies that were condemned later on.
The reason they’re called Gnostic is because, well, they were Gnostic. And the Gnostics are incompatible with either Judaism, Christianity and Islam because they are a pseudo-polytheistic theology that believes in many lesser gods and demiurges, and many denied that Jesus had a physical body (which, again, contradicts Islam). Therefore it is disappointing for me to see so many Muslims run to the Gnostics as if they were true followers of God when, in fact, Mohammad himself would have condemned them.
C
Christos
Guest
I’m surprised cause i learned that after the Council of Nicea the Gnostic writings were destroyed. Yeah i told you many had heretical teachings but many had teachings which are found in the Bible also, did you not see that part. Also, I am slowly introducing myself to the writings of the Patristics. I have only been doing research on Comparative Religion for about 2-3 months now, so you cannot accuse me of in that time learning everything. Show me some places so i may learn what they say. As that, I doubt that you have been able to learn about all the different hadiths, but the many different scholars. This is a learning process of years, and I have just begun, so forgive me if I havent been able to study or learn everything, but I am trying my out most best.
What is interesting is this concept of the Gospel Q, which I have come across quite a few times, I should delve into that also.
However, it still remains that because certain things are condemn still doesnt deny the fact that they may still be truths in places in it. As has many of the Gnostic writings. Obviously they denied it to be the Gospel of Peter, but there are writings which I have come across of Eusebius mentioning a Gospel of Peter.
“For we have been enabled to borrow this very Gospel from others who used it, namely the successors of thsoe who were its authors (lit. began it) whom we call Docetae (Seemers) - for most of their notions belong to that school - and to go through it, and to find that most of it is of the right teaching (word) of the Saviour, but some things are adventitious; a list of which we have drawn up for you.” Source
He is in the same agreement on this issue as I am. That it is the word of God (right teaching of the Saviour) but it has some heretic beliefs in it. These heretical teachings can simply be explained as interpolations, thus removing them, making the Gospel of Peter still qualified to be part of the Canon. Still, you can deny it, and consider it Gnostic right?
As to proof that it is the work of Peter
Code:
"And I with my companions was grieved; and being wounded in mind we hid ourselves:" —GoP, 7.
"But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea;" — GoP, 14.
D
dzheremi
Guest
That’s strange, since you can buy copies of the Nag Hammadi codex which contains the document that you yourself are referencing at Amazon.com! Have a look for yourself right here.
Maybe it would be a good idea to have even the slightest idea what you’re talking about before you go prattling on about some huge conspiracy on the part of the Councils to hide the “true” Gnostic nature of Christianity.
So you haven’t had time to read the writings of the Fathers but you’ve somehow had the time to compare the Gnostic writings (which you didn’t even know are available for anyone to read…so, where did you get them then?) to the Bible, and have concluded that they are the true writings of Christianity?
No, sir, I don’t think anyone would ever accuse you of learning everything.
Not for nothing, but I’m pretty sure Byzantine Wolf has mentioned that he was once a Muslim (if I haven’t confused him with someone else).
Again, I must ask: If all the Gnostic writings were destroyed after the Nicea councils, where did you read them? How do you know what is true and false in them? This doesn’t add up.
Indeed. See here, from his Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 25 (all emphases mine):
*Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. *
Eusebius classes the Apocalypse of Peter with the rejected writings. The footnotes for this translation explain: “After Eusebius’ time the work seems to have been universally regarded as spurious, and thus, as its canonicity depended upon its apostolic origin (see chap. 24, note 19), it gradually fell out of the Canon.” (source)
How are these proof, exactly?
So what? Because it claims that, we should take it seriously? Will you be willing to apply the same reasoning to the claims of the Bahai’s, who have another prophet after Muhammad but still claim to be Muslims? Or to the Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Yazidis, Druze, or other groups, all of which have their own claims about the divine origins of their faiths?
W
wwolverine
Guest
**Dear Lothair,
Sorry for changing the color as I do now know how you guys put the quotes in blocks. But anyway as to what I want to say regarding this discussion
Very true, Muslims do confuse everyone on the topic of Crucifiction, as for them they say that Jesus was replaced by someone else, either its Judas or someone else, they are not sure, But what amazes me is that the entire events that took place before the crucifiction are missing in their books. No one is just crucified, but before that there are court cases, which took place in regards to Jesus, He was crowned with Thorns, He was whipped, and had to carry the cross right up to Mount Calvery.
In all this Why was Jesus not replaced? Was it ok for all those punishments and only crucification Him to be replaced? Mohammed must be joking.
Thanks
Wolverine**
Lothair
Re: Why Islam denies the crucifixion of Christ
Quote:
It is fascinating to me that, although Muslims don’t believe the crucifixion happened the way Christians do, they can’t agree among themselves precisely what happened
.
I agree. And what to me is most facinating is that the Muslim prophet claimed that it was the Christians who were confused about the events!
Sorry for changing the color as I do now know how you guys put the quotes in blocks. But anyway as to what I want to say regarding this discussion
Very true, Muslims do confuse everyone on the topic of Crucifiction, as for them they say that Jesus was replaced by someone else, either its Judas or someone else, they are not sure, But what amazes me is that the entire events that took place before the crucifiction are missing in their books. No one is just crucified, but before that there are court cases, which took place in regards to Jesus, He was crowned with Thorns, He was whipped, and had to carry the cross right up to Mount Calvery.
In all this Why was Jesus not replaced? Was it ok for all those punishments and only crucification Him to be replaced? Mohammed must be joking.
Thanks
Wolverine**
Lothair
Re: Why Islam denies the crucifixion of Christ
Quote:
It is fascinating to me that, although Muslims don’t believe the crucifixion happened the way Christians do, they can’t agree among themselves precisely what happened
.
I agree. And what to me is most facinating is that the Muslim prophet claimed that it was the Christians who were confused about the events!
W
wwolverine
Guest
Dears
Staying on the topic, I was told this incident by a muslim collegue of mine who is very devout, but gets angry when Islam is criticized, hence I avoid all discussions with him.
Anyway he told me this and would like to know from the muslims on the forum how true it is. He said that Angels cried on two occassions, ie when Abraham took his son ( accroding to muslims ismael) to sacrifice, and the other time was when Mohammed was stoned by people in some place in Saudi arabia. I asked if it was only two occassions for angels to cry and where I could read more about it, and he said, he will check and let me know.
Later I asked him if he knows of the Crucification of Jesus? He told me the islamic view, Later I told him if Jesus or whoever was just crucified like that only or prior to that there was something else, like whipping the prisoner, crowining of thorns and Jesus all bleeding etc etc, and than I asked him, Didnt the Angels cry than???
He said he will check and let me know, and still no answer.
Wolverine.
Staying on the topic, I was told this incident by a muslim collegue of mine who is very devout, but gets angry when Islam is criticized, hence I avoid all discussions with him.
Anyway he told me this and would like to know from the muslims on the forum how true it is. He said that Angels cried on two occassions, ie when Abraham took his son ( accroding to muslims ismael) to sacrifice, and the other time was when Mohammed was stoned by people in some place in Saudi arabia. I asked if it was only two occassions for angels to cry and where I could read more about it, and he said, he will check and let me know.
Later I asked him if he knows of the Crucification of Jesus? He told me the islamic view, Later I told him if Jesus or whoever was just crucified like that only or prior to that there was something else, like whipping the prisoner, crowining of thorns and Jesus all bleeding etc etc, and than I asked him, Didnt the Angels cry than???
He said he will check and let me know, and still no answer.
Wolverine.
J
Javl
Guest
Christos:
Please keep in mind what ABp Fulton Sheen said: “The truth is still the truth, even if no one believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it.” Sorry to say, but Gnosticism falls into the latter category and Islam follows Gnosticism.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
Please keep in mind what ABp Fulton Sheen said: “The truth is still the truth, even if no one believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it.” Sorry to say, but Gnosticism falls into the latter category and Islam follows Gnosticism.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
Again, instead of issuing a blanket statement, cite evidence of this. For example, most people who attack the Council of Nicea and claim an orthodoxy was forced forget that there was a surge of Arianism after the council, not a persecution. Their numbers and influence grew. Saint Jerome himself wrote that the world woke up surprised to find itself Arian, and Saint Athanasius the Great was removed five times from his bishop position by the Arians. It got so bad that at one point he was told that the world stood against him, to which Athanasius replied, “Then I am against the world!” Hence it is often humorous when I hear those who follow popular history taught by The Da Vinci Code as believing that there was some kind of persecution and “cleaning house” after the Council of Nicea when, in fact, nothing of the sort took place.
Bits and pieces of truths amidst lies does not mean the entire thing is truth. I’ll get on this later on in my post.
I’ve already referred to many writings you should study: Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement I, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and many more. The majority of their writings are available online completely free, as well as at various resources like e-Sword (again, completely free).
I have studied sahih and contemporary hadith sources. I’ve taken notes on what they teach regarding various subjects, events and beliefs. I’ve even used some to defend Muslims. No, I am not the absolute infallible expert on the hadith sources…nevertheless, I at least attempt to engage Muslims using their own sources and citing Islamic history from the contemporary scholars and hadith collectors. Many other Christians, on this forum and in professional debates (James White is a good example), try to as well. My point is that, for the most part, you don’t see this coming from the Muslim side. Christians only hear bluster, conjecture, and blanket statements without any contemporary sources or early patristics cited, or turning to modern atheistic scholars who not only cite no contemporary sources themselves, but disbelieve in the God of Islam as well.
Yes, I am aware of that. As it stands, there is absolutely no textual evidence of it. It’s an interesting idea, but it is nothing more than an idea.
It’s best you read patristics from their direct sources, rather than second-hand sources - or to be more direct, read more closely what you quote. The section you refer to as being written by Eusebius is actually Eusebius quoting what Serapion said, not his own opinion. I’ll get to Eusebius’s opinion on the Gospel of Peter at the end of my post.
In any case, if someone claimed to have a copy of the Koran or hadith that cites Mohammad or a companion of the prophet, and it cites passages of the Koran or teachings within, yet it also teaches alongside it something completely heretical to the Muslim faith, would it not be fair to consider it incorrect and false? Indeed, many Muslims on this forum have argued that if a hadith contradicts the Koran in any part it should be ignored entirely, and yet suddenly we’re now hearing this argument, “Oh! If someone agrees with another teaching somewhat, then it can be accepted as canon!” That is inconsistency.
I hope you are not sincere in this argument. That is no evidence that it is the work of Peter. By this evidence, any hadith where a person claims to have known the prophet Mohammad is factual and should simply be accepted because it just says, “Well I knew the guy.” The author identifying himself as Peter does not necessarily make it so, and if that is all you can present as evidence, then it proves nothing.
The fact is we know who wrote what through apostolic succession, because the early Church Fathers were all disciples of the early Church Founds - ie. the apostles of Christ. If someone introduced a heretical document with no ties to the direct Church of Christ, they were more than willing to call it out. I again cite Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp who knew the apostle John (the disciple whom Jesus loved), who identifies the four gospels in the current Christian New Testament, and identifies them with their respective authors.
In fact, I would suggest you not quote Eusebius as evidence for the Gospel of Peter, because Eusebius would disagree with you that the Gospel of Peter was sourced to Peter. From the very same source you cited:
It is probable that others have preserved other memorials of Serapion’s literary industry, but there have reached us only those addressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish will-worship; and those addressed to Pontius and Caricus, ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and still another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter. [Eusebius, *Church History, VI, 12; emphasis mine]
J
Javl
Guest
The Gospel of Peter is spurious and was not written by the apostle Peter. It has
been proven to have been written after Peter’s death. So also with the other so called gospels which all have been proven to be spurious. This is why they were not added to the canon.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
L
Lothair
Guest
One of the **heretical **beliefs in the **spurious **writings of the gnostics is that Jesus didn’t die on the cross. So, if Christos is willing to begin with that in mind, then we can take a longer look at the Gspl of Ptr and examine the slight examples of right teaching.
D
DeusVult09
Guest
not 1 biblical scholar thinks peter actually wrote the gospel of peter as it is too late for that. The Gospel of peter was either written by Basilides or a member of his gnostic sect. Please understand that.
if you accept this gospel as being true then you also have to accept all Gnostic doctrines such a s deceits the belief that the flesh is evil and only the spirit is good and the belief that Jesus was all god in the spirit and that he only appeared in the flesh as an illusion and hence could not be crucified. this is the origin of the Koran’s denial of the crucifixion as it is a mishmash of various heresies
R
rand_al_thor_1
Guest
islam has restored the dignity of the messiah by showing to the world how God saved his prophet from the humliating death at the hands of those who mocked him and abused him.
God needs no sons or daughters to carry out his will. God does not need to kill or sacrifice innocent people to get rid of sins comiited by others. God is not blood thirsty. If you sin you must pay the price. Not jesus.
by the way jesus is not degraded in islam. no muslim is a muslim if he does not believe in jesus. jesus is mentioned 25 times in the quran. wheras the prophet of islam muhammed pbuh is only mentioned 5 times. Mary the mother of jesus has a whole chapter in the quran dedicated to her. An honour you wont find even in the christian bible
God needs no sons or daughters to carry out his will. God does not need to kill or sacrifice innocent people to get rid of sins comiited by others. God is not blood thirsty. If you sin you must pay the price. Not jesus.
by the way jesus is not degraded in islam. no muslim is a muslim if he does not believe in jesus. jesus is mentioned 25 times in the quran. wheras the prophet of islam muhammed pbuh is only mentioned 5 times. Mary the mother of jesus has a whole chapter in the quran dedicated to her. An honour you wont find even in the christian bible
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
Docetist heresy aside, it is absurd to believe God would be the author of deceit.
Islam has not shown anything, because it’s reasoning at the core is circular in nature. You have to look at what comes before it with it’s preconceived notions - otherwise, you’ll find contradictions out the wazu.
This statement reveals: 1) a lack of understanding regarding the Trinity; 2) a limitation of what God can do, essentially setting down in stone what an infinite, eternal and all-powerful Being is capable of doing. You are essentially speaking for God because what God is truly capable of is beyond your presupposition.
It denies His divinity and His place within the Holy Trinity. It denies what He teaches in the gospels. That is not only degrading, but downgrading as well.
That is a standard you have yourself invented. Nothing any where says a book has to be named after someone in order for a religion to honor that person. The story of the Virgin Mary’s virgin birth, her prayers and faithfulness, etc, are all recorded in the gospels and even to some degree in Acts. The Koranic chapter regarding Mary is most certainly not entirely about Mary any more than the chapter entitled “The Cow” is about nothing but cows.
R
rand_al_thor_1
Guest
oh please. where’s the justice in sacrificing an innocent man to get rid of some mysterious sickness?
adam and eve committed a sin. for that they were punished and cursed. yet for some strange reason adam and eve’s children also bear the brunt of this sin. then god for another strange reason cannot forgive his children apparently. so he then sacrifices an innocent man to get rid of this sin.
does that sound to as a just god? a fair god. please. you christians need to think logically for once.
why should i be punished for a sin i did not commit? did adam and eve ask my permission before eating that apple? this is the most outrageous idea ever seen on the face of the earth. that god does not punish the evil doers but the innocent.
if my father killed somone today, the police will arrest him. not me. it’s that simple. adam and eve did the sin. they are the guilty party. not the desecendants of adam.
and if god chooses to forgive adam he can do so. if i want to forgive someone, i can do so of my own free will. i don’t need to sacrifice an innocent man so that i can forgive a person.
jesus never died. god saved him from the humilaiting death.
adam and eve committed a sin. for that they were punished and cursed. yet for some strange reason adam and eve’s children also bear the brunt of this sin. then god for another strange reason cannot forgive his children apparently. so he then sacrifices an innocent man to get rid of this sin.
does that sound to as a just god? a fair god. please. you christians need to think logically for once.
why should i be punished for a sin i did not commit? did adam and eve ask my permission before eating that apple? this is the most outrageous idea ever seen on the face of the earth. that god does not punish the evil doers but the innocent.
if my father killed somone today, the police will arrest him. not me. it’s that simple. adam and eve did the sin. they are the guilty party. not the desecendants of adam.
and if god chooses to forgive adam he can do so. if i want to forgive someone, i can do so of my own free will. i don’t need to sacrifice an innocent man so that i can forgive a person.
jesus never died. god saved him from the humilaiting death.
L
Lothair
Guest
.
How else do you explain mankind’s tendency towards wickedness? Did Allah create mankind with inherant devilishness? Sounds to me like Allah is either mean or just weak. I wrote an article on this very topic at AnsweringIslam.org. Anyone interested in a Christian response to the topic of Original Sin should start there.
Allah never forgave Adam. He offered him ‘guidance’. That’s the whole point of the expulsion from paradise, and it has been with us since. Those in sin cannot approach God without atonement, ergo, the need for Christ’s ransom.
You are not God. Christ also says to forgive those who sin against us, and no further blood atonement is necessary. Why? Its been paid.
You need to read on a little. There is more to the narrative that his death. I’ll give you a hint. Think of an empty tomb.
It always amazes me how often Muslims will abandon their own worldview when slandering Christian theology, yet not blink an eye at Arabian superstition in the Quran. Let me explain. RaAndThor thinks that original sin is a ‘mysterious disease’ that makes no logical sense, yet Muslims think that a Allah rides a camel that jumped out of a rock [Q 7:73].
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
Sorry, wrong answer. Mahomet said lies about the messiah to bolster his status as a wanna be Jewish prophet before being rejected by the Jews.
That is a true, but decidedly non-muslim statement. Muslims routinely slaughter innocents in the name of their “god”
Well, that would be nice if not for the fact that Jesus IS God and the Koran denies this Truth. To call God anything but God is not just degrading but is blasphemy.
- Status