Is The New Testament Corrupt? *Must Watch*

For further information, please see:

© 2017 EFDawah All Rights Reserved

Please support us by donating towards the dawah. Jazak'Allahu khairan to you all

Some Useful Websites

-~-~~-~~~-~~-~-
Please watch: "The Masked Arab Unveiled"
-~-~~-~~~-~~-~-

[sam.]

Jzakum Allah Khair brothers in Speakers Corner. I pray that Allah grants you all patience and wisdom Insha Allah. May we all be united in Jannatul Firdaus, Ameen. :)

[celestialknight]

Here is one clear example of how the 4 Gospels, in order of history, change stories about Jesus (peace be upon him) to make him look better and fit him into the beliefs of the early Christian church. Pay careful attention to the words being used:
*And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (Mark **14:35**-36)*

*And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew **26:39**)*

*...and He knelt down and began to pray, 42 saying, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.” (Luke **22:41**-42)*

*"Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. (John **12:27**)*

[ijazthetrini]

As Salaamu 'Alaykum,

I'm Br. Ijaz, the one who wrote the research behind the video. I would like to thank the brothers at EFDawah for uploading the video. In the mean time, I'm here to assist anyone who has questions or who would like to request further information. Jazakallaahu Khayran for your comments, and general feedback. Don't forget to share the video inshaAllah!

Regards,
Br. Ijaz.

[folwer]

I was waiting for the guy to start telling us how it is corrupt but the video ended.

[thenopasslook]

“Internal Evidence supporting the view that Matthew the apostle and tax collector wrote the Gospel attributed to him can be found in 9:9. Here Matthew is identified as “Matthew sitting at the tax booth” regarding Jesus calling Matthew to follow him when, concerning the same episode, Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 identify Matthew by his other name Levi. It thus follows that the author came to believe that this apostolic name Matthew was nobler than the other name Levi and in turn it was used here instead. It was common for authors to do this as it pertained to one’s own name. For example in his letters the apostle Paul identifies himself with his new nobler apostolic name as opposed to his original name Saul even though other texts sometimes continued to refer to Paul as Saul (Acts 11:30, 12:25, 13:7). Likewise Peter in 1 Peter 1:1 identifies himself with his nobler apostolic name Petros instead of his original name Simon or Simeon even though other texts sometimes continued to refer to him as Simon or Simeon (Luke 7:43; Acts 15:14). Thus Matthew, like Paul and Peter, authored His work referring to himself by his nobler apostolic name in 9:9 when the other synoptic narratives referred to him by his non-apostolic name concerning the same episode. Second, in numerous Matthaean passages financial transactions are discussed (17:24-27; 18:23-35, 20:1-16, 26:15, 27:3-10, 28:11-15) and none of this content contradicts what a 1st century tax collector would know about finance. If Matthew the tax collector were not the author one may expect to find errors regarding these financial matters. Thirdly, we see in 22:19 that with respect to the Pharisees’ conflict with Jesus over paying tribute money or taxes to Caesar, the Gospel of Matthew alone not only uses the word δηνάριον (dēnarion) but also the more precise Greek term νόμισμα (state coin). In contrast, the other synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:15, Luke 20:24) only use δηνάριον (dēnarion) concerning this episode not showing the same concern for the precise financial term that Matthew does. This lends more evidence towards the position that we are dealing with Matthew the tax collector who was familiar with and concerned about accuracy regarding financial terminology. Fourthly, it is the Gospel of Matthew alone which mentions Jesus telling Peter to “give no offense to them [tax collectors]” and to pay temple tax in Capernaum when asked to (17:24-27). This is something that a tax collector such as Matthew would feel compelled to admit into his Gospel. Matthew would certainly not be indifferent towards this included episode since it concerned tax collectors, tax collecting, and the Christian position on not paying taxes being an offense. Fifth, in Luke 5:29 we are told that Matthew made a great feast in οικια αυτου (his house) where Jesus then reclined and ate. Likewise Mark 2:15 says οικια αυτου (his house). However, in the account in Matthew’s Gospel (9:10) we read that Jesus and the disciples reclined at τη οικια (the house). This is consistent with one writing of their own house in a third person narrative. Lastly, it is important to mention that there is nothing in the first Gospel that would clearly rule out a tax collector and apostle such as Matthew as being the author.”

[chimmy___]

Do these corruptions change the message and why do Muslims quote scriptures from a book that they consider corrupted and didn't Muhammad say that The Bible is the word of God? As far as I know, the word of God cannot be corrupted.

[gkagara]

I thought you're warned not to add or change or erase smh!!

[kenmccracken]

Early Church Fathers refer to Matthew by name and quote from this gospel. Arguably "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ" is not the the title of the whole book but a reference to the genealogy which immediately and logically follows.
Benson Commentary
"Matthew 1:1. The book — That is, This is the book, the verb being elegantly omitted, according to the custom of the Hebrews, and also of the Greeks and Romans; of the generation — Or, as the Syriac expresses it, The writing, narrative, or account of the generation, or birth of Jesus, &c. The word γενεσις, indeed, here rendered generation, sometimes signifies the history of a person’s life, yet it is much more frequently used for genealogy, or birth; and it seems to be intended to be taken in this restrained sense here. Dr. Macknight renders the phrase, The table of the genealogy of Jesus: observing that the word Βιβλος, book, is used in this limited sense Mark 10:4, where a bill of divorce is so called: and Jeremiah 32:12, where a deed of conveyance is termed ספר, a book. Indeed, the Jews, and also the Greeks, called all writings books, whether short or long."
Some commentators think it applies to the whole book but this is by no means guaranteed. And wouldn't Christians want to know who actually wrote it?

Since the gospels circulated in the Christian churches it begs the question of why they would accept a gospel which no one had a clue where it came from or who wrote it, as genuine? And we know that there were criteria applied when it came to determining canonicity.
And what were those church Fathers referring to and quoting from well before the 4th century?
Claudius Apollinarius or Apollinaris (d. before 180?)
He was the bishop of Hierapolis.
He matter-of-factly refers to Matthew’s Gospel by name.
Apparently some, with whom Apollonius disagreed, quoted the Gospel to support their views. What is important for our purposes is that both they and he assume that it is authoritative and that he uses the title “Matthew.”

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215)
He was the head of the Catechetical School in Alexandria, Egypt. His view is summarized in Eusebius (History of the Church, 6.14.7), this section mentioning the Gospels that contain the genealogies, that is, in context, Matthew and Luke.
In his Miscellanies (1.21) Clement also says matter-of-factly “the Gospel according to Matthew” and then quotes from Matt. 1:17, in the context of Old Testament Scriptures.
See also his sermon, Salvation of the Rich Man, here, where he quotes from Matthew many times: 2, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, and 39.

[thenopasslook]

With respect to Gospel titles such as “the Gospel of Matthew” there is no evidence to suggest that the Gospels were ever circulating without them. Scholars have asserted that the titles emerged sometime in the beginning or mid 2nd century but other scholars challenge this by noting that this presupposes anonymous Gospels to begin with as well as the works of early to mid 2nd century church writers representing the earliest stages of author attribution. This is an assumption one can not prove, however. Scholars also point out that when early New Testament churches began reading multiple Gospels around A.D. 100 it would be necessary that they be distinguished referentially from one another in the service to avoid confusion. Likewise noted is the fact that there is no recorded 1st or 2nd century competing hypothesis regarding who wrote Matthew. This lends credibility to the case for Matthew always having that title for if it were anonymous even after Gospel collection with no title and circulating as such up until the time of the early to mid 2nd century then there would emerge competing authorship theories. However, there is absolutely no evidence of any such competing theories indicating that the title "the Gospel of Matthew" is very primitive and that Matthaean authorship was affirmed in the earliest strands of Christian thought.

[asimghaffar]

Aslaamualaykhum brother Hamza

When is your book on the Matthew thing coming out?

[MixtapeKilla]

Among the top reciters of the Quran there seems to be differences in length of the Quran.
Ibn Masud had one hundred eleven chapters in his Quran.
Ubai bin Ka'b had one hundred sixteen chapters in his Quran.
Zayd bin Thabit who compiled today’s Quran only had one hundred fourteen chapters.

[celestialknight]

Great job. We should also note that modern scholars now think Mark is the earliest Gospel, because Matthew copies 90% of Mark as its major source, and also changes Mark by embellishing it to look better. "Rabbi/Teacher" is changed to "Lord" in Matthew, and many details are added in and taken out in order to avoid embarassment in Mark or the the fact that Jesus (peace be upon him) is not God. Luke does the same thing. And John just takes the Christology to a whole different level. There is clear corruption over time.

[reergaalkacyood]

DA`EE HAMZA i love you for ALLAH`S sake.

[adrianabonitaaziz]

The whole bible is corrupted, it's just a hopeless case : (

[pvpina]

Better to see scholarly treatment (Daniel Wallace, Warner Wallace form Cold-Case Christianity, Frank Turek) on the subject, instead of short unhelpful excerpts.
.
Any Bible you take today contains introductions, notes for helping you to know what kind of document you are reading; when it was written; who wrote it, etc. The great question is: WHAS THE TEXT ITSELF ALTERED? The answer is no. How do we now? There is a discipline called "textual criticism".
As to the addition fo a mere. "heading": There are TONS of documents (mainly letters) from the early church where all this infomraiton is made available.

[thenopasslook]

Can you provide an example of a scholar who would consider this an actual corruption? Preferably one who’s alive and studies textual criticism.

[IamTimOtheus]

I wish they had found a manuscript of the Injill. Just only one small piece. Then we could investigate what the real corruptions are.

[quicksilver]

Also this does doesn’t disprove the internal evidence in the books..

[adelbelaifa]

Can anyone explain to me why it says at the very beginning "Jesus Christ the son of David the son of Abraham knowing that in both the Quran ad the Bible it is known that he was born from the virgin Mary (A.S).

[lion_hawk]

Assalamu Alaykum EFDawah,
I translated the video to Arabic. I'm uploading it now to my channel. Can I have the permission to do so?