What are the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What was in the Dead Sea Scrolls that differs from the New Testament? I thought that the majority of the Scrolls were the Old Testament and that only a few of them made mention of Jesus of Nazareth?

The Dead Sea Scrolls offered some insight into the writings popular just previous to, during, and just after the time of Jesus.

Another discovery around the same time, the Nag Hammadi library, contained many of the Gnostic Gospels, most importantly the Gospel of Thomas, that predates the Four Gospels of the Canon.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

The Dead Sea Scrolls offered some insight into the writings popular just previous to, during, and just after the time of Jesus.

Another discovery around the same time, the Nag Hammadi library, contained many of the Gnostic Gospels, most importantly the Gospel of Thomas, that predates the Four Gospels of the Canon.

I've read the Gospel of Thomas. I have always wondered what criteria was used to decide what to include in the New Testament and why other writings of the period were not included because they were not considered to be inspired. There are writings from the early Church by Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius that are not included.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I've read the Gospel of Thomas. I have always wondered what criteria was used to decide what to include in the New Testament and why other writings of the period were not included because they were not considered to be inspired. There are writings from the early Church by Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius that are not included.

There are several writings from the early church that survived. There is one collection, the works of St. Augustine, that would take an inordinate amount of time to read them all, so I will give you a synopsis of his works: "If the pleasures of the flesh are so evil, why do they feel so good?" It reads at, at times, like a good erotic novel.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was one of the most prolific geniuses that humanity has ever known, and is admired not only for the number of his works, but also for the variety of subjects, which traverse the whole realm of thought. The form in which he casts his work exercises a very powerful attraction on the reader. Bardenhewer praises his extraordinary suppleness of expression and his marvellous gift of describing interior things, of painting the various states of the soul and the facts of the spiritual world. His latinity bears the stamp of his age. In general, his style is noble and chaste; but, says the same author, "in his sermons and other popular writings he purposely drops to the language of the people."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02089a.htm

Edited April 14, 2013 by The Patriot

[spookyturtle 9,465]

There is ample room for conspiracy theories from the Christians and the Muslims. Jesus used the information in the Dead Sea Scrolls to fulfill the prophesies. Muhammad used the Old and New Testament for the Quran. Man corrupted both. And so it goes on and on.

[Darnell 8,478]

About 12 years ago, I would have been happy to do this comparison.

I then learned about what Constantine did in regards to Christianity, and I've been questioning it all ever since.

So, I really don't have much input on the comparison, except to mention that the Bible as it's known these days, suffered a massive edit during that time and I question everything I read in the Bible since I learned about this thing.

I'll say this - the land-grabs the catholic Church did in Europe weren't done for Christ, at all.

I've read the Gospel of Thomas. I have always wondered what criteria was used to decide what to include in the New Testament and why other writings of the period were not included because they were not considered to be inspired. There are writings from the early Church by Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius that are not included.

Oh - that one is easy - it was Constantine, forcing the edit.

[himher 634]

I'll say this - the land-grabs the catholic Church did in Europe weren't done for Christ, at all.

[bsd058 296]

It is not just Muslims. Many Christians believe the same thing, especially after the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. There are still many contemporaneity works alluded to in the New Testament that still haven't been found, although many of those holes were partially filled by that discovery. Jesus was well versed in the popular works of the time, and referenced them frequently, or rather, the writers of the four gospels did.

Depends on how you use the term Christian I suppose.

I could say certain people are Muslims, but if they don't believe in the supernatural, would they really be Muslims by most Muslims' definition?

Dead Sea Scrolls give us insight into the Essene community (in which John the Baptist was probably a part of) and gives us the oldest recorded scroll of Isaiah. I don't know how they relate to the New Testament though I'm sure I'll run into that as I study, but if there are any current textual variants, I could always find them in my critical edition (shows every variant and what they are -- 99% of the variants are meaningless, movable nu's or nomima sacra's or things of the sort). Though, even the skeptic (not actually an atheist, but more of an agnostic) Bart Ehrman thinks the New Testament we have today (existing as the Nestle-Aland critical edition of the Greek New Testament) is basically what the originals were. I'm sure you could find an interview somewhere online where he would say so. I've heard him say it. I think it was a radio program or debate.

Many of us go on what the disciples of Jesus wrote about him to know what he actually said. I believe he called himself the Son of God because his disciples basically said he did. He spoke in parables to crowds but plainly to his disciples.

Peter called him the Son of God and Jesus confirmed his confession with, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

I looked up textual variants and didn't see any in this portion of Scripture.

Matthew 16:16-17 ---> In case you want to look it up for yourself to see if there are any variants.

Thomas called him God after he saw him after the crucifixion and Jesus told him, "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who haven't seen me, and yet believe." (John 20:29 - I don't see a textual variant on this either)

Even though this is based on what his original disciples said about him, I think it is fairly reliable. They seemed to believe he said these things anyway.

But we could go into 1000s of different issues regarding these texts and authorship, etc.. At the end of the day, we only have what these writings tell us.

The other so-called gospels like the Gospel of Thomas were from Valentinian gnostics. They still saw Jesus as God, but not really as as actual human. Some of the stuff that is written in them is just off the wall. Like Jesus claiming that he would turn Mary into a man so she could be a disciple. Gnosticism was a belief system that took on a lot of things around it in the day (Christianity, Judaism, mystery religions, Roman Paganism, etc.) in order to gain disciples from different regions. They took a very neo-platonic worldview.

Anyway, we could talk for centuries about the topic.

[bsd058 296]

The Dead Sea Scrolls offered some insight into the writings popular just previous to, during, and just after the time of Jesus.

Another discovery around the same time, the Nag Hammadi library, contained many of the Gnostic Gospels, most importantly the Gospel of Thomas, that predates the Four Gospels of the Canon.

Gospel of Thomas doesn't pre-date the four gospels.

It's Valentinian gnosticism and Valentinius didn't flourish until the middle of the second century at best.

We have writings of the early church fathers that quote the four gospels from the early first century, meaning they were already in circulation before Valentinius even came on the scene.

Edited April 16, 2013 by bsd058

[bsd058 296]

I've read the Gospel of Thomas. I have always wondered what criteria was used to decide what to include in the New Testament and why other writings of the period were not included because they were not considered to be inspired. There are writings from the early Church by Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius that are not included.

Criteria was mainly that the writing had to come from an Apostle or that the writing had to have apostolic endorsement by association. The church by and large would not accept books that were not of apostolic origin.

For instance, Mark, though not an apostle, was the companion of Peter and many think he wrote it as Peter's secretary, but even if he hadn't Peter endorsed it by association with Mark.

Paul's writings, even though he wasn't first a part of the apostles, was given apostolic status by Jesus and Peter confirmed his writings to be counted as scripture in II Peter 3:16. So we use Paul, too, since Peter vouched for him per what he wrote in his second epistle.

Gospel of Thomas was Valentinian gnosticism which didn't flourish until mid-second century. So we know it's not apostolic.

Edited April 16, 2013 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Gospel of Thomas doesn't pre-date the four gospels.

It's Valentinian gnosticism and Valentinius didn't flourish until the middle of the second century at best.

We have writings of the early church fathers that quote the four gospels from the early first century, meaning they were already in circulation before Valentinius even came on the scene.

Most scholars place the Gospel According to Thomas around 80 ce, the earliest of the Canon Gospels around 140 ce. The Gospel According to John and Thomas's Gospel show some uncanny similarities.

[bsd058 296]

About 12 years ago, I would have been happy to do this comparison.

I then learned about what Constantine did in regards to Christianity, and I've been questioning it all ever since.

So, I really don't have much input on the comparison, except to mention that the Bible as it's known these days, suffered a massive edit during that time and I question everything I read in the Bible since I learned about this thing.

I'll say this - the land-grabs the catholic Church did in Europe weren't done for Christ, at all.

Oh - that one is easy - it was Constantine, forcing the edit.

There is little evidence to support this "edit" by Constantine. The New Testament was too widely distributed by the 300s (courtesy of the Roman roads and travel) during the time. You couldn't get all of the copies of the New Testament to destroy them at the time. They were so spread out. Most Christians would have rather died than edit them anyways as is evidenced by the great number of those killed for their faith by previous emperors.

But either way, it would have been impossible to edit the New Testament since the writings themselves were too widely spread and used by the churches scattered in the empire.

And we have so many copies of New Testament fragments and variants that we would know about it if this happened.

[bsd058 296]

Most scholars place the Gospel According to Thomas around 80 ce, the earliest of the Canon Gospels around 140 ce. The Gospel According to John and Thomas's Gospel show some uncanny similarities.

Both of these sentences are false.

Sentence 1 - maybe early 100s (possibly 130 earliest). But Valentinus hadn't been born until 100 and this is the type of gnosticism the work entails.

Sentence 2 - The Word became flesh is the exact opposite of what Valentinian gnostics believed. They denied Jesus was flesh. They though flesh was evil and they were trying to attain secret knowledge to escape the current eon.

In fact, many believe GOT is dependent on the gospels

Edited April 16, 2013 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Word became flesh

One of those rewrites...

[bsd058 296]

One of those rewrites...

Based on what variant?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Criteria was mainly that the writing had to come from an Apostle or that the writing had to have apostolic endorsement by association. The church by and large would not accept books that were not of apostolic origin.

For instance, Mark, though not an apostle, was the companion of Peter and many think he wrote it as Peter's secretary, but even if he hadn't Peter endorsed it by association with Mark.

Paul's writings, even though he wasn't first a part of the apostles, was given apostolic status by Jesus and Peter confirmed his writings to be counted as scripture in II Peter 3:16. So we use Paul, too, since Peter vouched for him per what he wrote in his second epistle.

Gospel of Thomas was Valentinian gnosticism which didn't flourish until mid-second century. So we know it's not apostolic.

What is your opinion of Paul's meaning in Galatians 2 11-16 where he appears to be criticizing Peter?