Is the Quran an eloquent hoax?
-
The variety of Torah texts
A Torah scroll in which a single letter is missing or extra is invalid (Maimonides, Laws of a Torah Scroll,). In the Zohar it is written (part two, Mishpatim), "The whole Torah is the name of the holy One, blessed be He -- and if one removes a single letter from it, it is as though he had damaged His name, may it be praised;" this is also brought in the introduction to the Minchat Shai, see there.
Therefore most religious people do indeed believe, with an innocent faith, that the Torah text which we have is the text which Moses received on Mount Sinai. A singular and unique text which has been passed down from generation to generation without change, without the addition or deletion of a single letter, G-d forbid -- for a change would have invalidated the scroll, as our great Rishonim said. (But the most meticulous admit that there is a minor difference in the number of letters between our scrolls and those of the Yemenite community.)
But I will prove, with proofs most clear, that all this has no base in reality at all! When one researches this, will see explicitly that we don't possess a singular and unique well established Torah text, and that differences between the texts are not of a letter or two, but of dozens and hundreds of letters. Moreover, when one looks at the words of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, words of the Midrashim and the Zohar, will see that the Torah scrolls the Tanaaim and Amoraim had before them were different from the texts we have. If we say that the text Chazal had was the true text given to Moses at Sinai, we are forced to say that the text we have is not, and all our Torah scrolls must be considered invalid!
Now I present to you, You who demands truth, the editions of the Torah which we have in print. There are three. Pay attention and see that all these texts are edited and meticulously proofread from dozens of Torah scrolls on parchment, from our generation and from previous ones
The first Torah text is the Koren edition,. It is said there "The proofreading of this edition was done most carefully and through thorough examination, as much as is humanly possible, based on the opinion of the Masorah, the grammarians, and the commentators, and based upon what is found in the majority of manuscripts and printed editions considered to be reliable. It was not a blind copy of this or that printed edition or manuscript." This is the version most common in the Halachic world, and it is found on D.B.S's Jewish sources CD. Those who leap and skip about in Torah codes do their tricks on this text.
The second Torah text The Adi edition of the Hebrew Bible is based on an ancient Masoretic codex known as the Leningrad manuscript. It was written about a thousand years ago, in 1008 CE, and the whole of it has been preserved. The Adi edition of Leningrad and it is the version used in the Bar Ilan University's Responsa Project CD. (It is also the version given to IDF soldiers at their oath-of-allegiance ceremony.
The third Torah text The Mosad HaRav Kook's edition of the Hebrew Bible, proofread by R' Mordechai Breuer (hereafter Breuer). In "Daat Miqrah" (The text and its sources, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) he wrote "The textin this edition was proofread based on the Leningrad manuscript B19a, the Sasson manuscript 507, the Sasson manuscript 1053, and the Venice edition of Miqraot Gedolot, 5284-5286 . In cases of disagreement between the sources, a decision was made based on the Masorah (of the Ramah or of the Minchat Shai) or according to the majority text as in Leningrad, Sasson 507, Sasson 1053, and Miqraot Gedolot." And in a note he added "In cases a decision was made based on the ktiv tradition of the Yemenite community." About the text of this edition it has been written "..the final outcome of this comparative procedure is a printed text almost completely identical with Codex A and the Yemenite tradition" (Emanuel Tov, "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible".
No effort was spared; these three texts have been compared word by word, letter by letter. Be astonished and marvel, they have found no less than 105 differences between the texts! These are texts which were proofread and checked against Torah scrolls throughout the world, against manuscripts and the Masorah books of the Ramah and of the Minchat Shai! Go figure the number of differences between the scrolls which were used by the proofreaders, if after all their efforts there were still 105 letter-differences! Each and every one of these differences invalidates the entire Torah scroll!
In short, most contemporary Torah scrolls use the Koren text, and those who read from them Mondays, Thursdays, and on Shabbat will innocently think that they are reading the exact text given to Moses at Sinai
See something terrible. If we check the Koren text against explicit gemaras, midrashim, and the Zohar, we will immediately see that the text we now have is not at all the text that the Tanaaim and Amoraim used!
In a list of differences there is a big list of spellings, based on midrashim, the Talmud, and the Zohar, that do not match our Torah scrolls at all. We will easily find that the letter sequence of the Torah which was before the writer of the Zohar, for example, was different from ours as was the Torah of the Tanaaim, Amoraim, and authors of the midrashim
Anyone who has eyes to see will immediately recognize that it is not possible for the Torah scrolls of Chazal, of the Zohar, and even of the Rishonim to be the text we now possess. And since it is not possible, G-d forbid, that the text which Chazal, the heavenly Tanna, the author of the Zohar, or the authors of the midrashim and the great Rishonim had was a text "not from Sinai," we are forced to admit that our text is that which is "not from Sinai," with all that it implies.
Incidentally, I will mention that any, who see the many distortions which occurred over the generations, will immediately understand that all the nonsense about Torah codes (a common phenomenon in this computer age) have no hold on or proof of the original Torah text. See for yourself one who works codes according to the Leningrad text or the Zohar text or according to the text used in the Talmud and the midrashim will find, in each text, different results for the skip. Anyone seeing this would just laugh.
Note that the matter of changing texts was known even in the time of the Talmud. Therefore, according to the Halacha, what is to be done when we do not know the precise text of the Torah?
In Tractate Soferim 64 it is said "Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said Three scrolls of the Torah were found in the Temple court The Maon scroll, the Zaatutei scroll, and the He scrollso they retained the reading of the two and abandoned that of the one ." The decision was according to the majority of the scrolls, based on "after the multitude to sway" (Exodus 232).
This determination was correct for the period of Chazal, when there was as yet no Masorah to follow, but in our days when we have the Masorah and even direct evidence from the Talmud and midrashim, what shall we do when there are differences between existing scrolls, the Talmud's text, and the Masoretic text? Decisions on this important matter became the province of vast debates, between the Rashba, Meiri and Ramah, none of whom agree with each other.
Notice that all these poskim did not deny the changes in the text and the differences between the text of their days and the text of the Torah which Chazal possessed. They fully admitted the discrepancies, and only ruled how one should determine matters stemming from them. And we say that according to all the findings before us and according to the testimony of our rabbis the Masoretes, it is clear that throughout the generations many distortions befell the Torah text, and the texts grew farther and farther from the "Divine" text which G-d dictated and Moses wrote down (Menachot 30a). It is also clear that the Torah text was determined, in each and every generation, by the rabbis of that generation. It seems reasonable that as the generations passed, the distortions multiplied, and the text grew even farther from the one Chazal possessed. It is no wonder that with all this plethora of texts and changes even the best proofreaders of our day cannot produce a single unified text. The constitution of the Holy Writ was determined by the Oral Torah -- that is, the text itself and its holiness was agreed upon by human sages, based on their reasoning and study, and is not from the Heavens.
Here are words clear as the sun about the many different texts of the Torah ("those who copied them made decisions based on their own opinion, each adding and subtracting as he saw fit, and they corrupted the text with things they made up"!) -- what more can I add?
I will conclude with the words of the Ginat Veradim (Orach Chaim, rule two, paragraph six) who says what I have already said many times just as the Halacha is a human creation accepted by public mandate, so what we accept as the Torah text is absolutely based on human Halachic determination. This is what he says "The is is the conclusion generally, the scribes of previous generations who worked hard at the Masorah and were exacting on matters of defective and plene spelling and disagreements between scrolls-- when they agreed on a matter, they only agreed because they followed the majority of books worthy of being followed. Therefore the tikun soferim we possess, written for us by the Rishonim, should not be added to nor subtracted from. We consider it as though it were handed to us at Sinai."
What a wonderful phrase is "as though"! A cure for every ill, an answer for every contradiction and a glue for every crack. Come see what wonders can be worked with it. In the Torah it is written that the hyrax is a ruminant, but it isn't? Say "as though" (and that is exactly what the Sreidei Aish does). There's no mention in the Gemara of the proper method to intercalate years? Say "as though" it had been established during the Talmudic era (thus was "Rav Ada's method" invented). In Tractate Chulin it is said that the windpipe divides into three, and anyone can see that this is not so? Say "as though" (and until this very day every working ritual slaughterer and those who check them say "as though". "As though" and again "as though," wherever you look, it is "as though." From now on, any time they use most clear proofs to show you that the Halacha is not from the Heavens and that the Torah is not from the Heavens, that they are all the works of Man, you may surely use the "as though" principle But if you are a free thinking person, proud of yourself, look reality and truth straight in the eye and accept the judgement of your senses and knowledge, your reason and your logic, without any "as though." Then you will be a complete person and not merely "as though."
Anyone with an honest heart will understand, and anyone with an honest mind will agree.
-
Is the Bible unknown to the Qur'an?
When Christians use the testimony of the Qur'an in support of the Bible's integrity, some Muslims argue that the Qur'an does not relate to present day versions of the Torah and the Gospel. They say that the "Scriptures", which Christians and Jews had at the time of Muhammad (571 - 632 CE), were different from those available today. That the Jews of Muhammad's day were reading a different Torah, something which was "certainly not identical", "nor resembled anything like the Old Testament" which contains the reports, stories and myths of groups of people gone by. Similarly the Injil (Gospel) was "not at all identical with the New Testament or even the four gospels" available to us today (Izzat Khan and Abu Abdullah, Divine Revelations, The Muslims and the Bibles A Clarification, pp. 4-6).
It is stated that when the Qur'an talks about a single book known as the Gospel (as given to Jesus) and a single book as given to Moses (known as the Torah) that they were not the four gospels as we find them in the New Testament nor the first five books of the Old Testament known today as the Torah. To conclude the matter, such Muslims add that even the title "Bible" for the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians is foreign to the Qur'an.
The word 'Bible'
Any good dictionary will explain that the word Bible is derived from the Greek word biblia (neuter plural), which means "books". As the collections of Jewish and Christian texts came increasingly to be considered as one unit, the term in Latin began to be understood as feminine singular, denoting "The Book". The same word has come through to Modern English in words like bibliography. So when the title Bible, the book, was used, it denoted a collection of writings or books of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures.
It is indeed true that the title "Bible" is not used in the Qur'an nor does it contain the proper title, "Bible" for the scriptures of the Jews and Christians but has identified it as "Kitab" (the Book) by calling the followers as "Ahlal Kitab", the people of the Book. Although, the Qur'an has borrowed many foreign terms and names like Tawrat, Furqan, Injil, Isa and Musa etc.; and Arabized them into its text, when it came to using the word Bible, it used its own Arabic words derived from Hebrew and Aramaic, thus calling the Jews and Christians "Ahlal Kitab", the people of the book, and referring to their scripture not only as "the book", Kitab, but also listing the parts of it as the Tawrah, Zaboor, Injil and Sahaif (Torah, Psalms, the Gospel(s) and the books of the prophets respectively).
Therefore the notion that the Qur'an does not mention the Bible is simply wrong. It will be like saying that the Qur'an does not mention "God". The Muslim listener will refer to many verses where Arabic words like "Allah" or "Rab" are mentioned. If those words stand for God in the Qur'an then it should not be difficult to recognise that the words Ahlal Kitab stands for Jews and Christians and their Kitab stands for their scriptures - the Bible - in the contexts as referred to them in the Qur'an.
Torah and the Injil
Some Muslim writers contend that the original Pentateuch and the original Gospel have disappeared and became extinct from the world. For example, the late Rahmatullah, whose writings are still prominent among Muslim readers, expanded this claim by asserting, "We strictly deny that the original Torah (Pentateuch) and the original Evangel existed at the time of the Prophet Muhammad and that they were not changed until later." He added further by claiming that, "The present gospels, chronicles and epistles are certainly not the Evangel referred to by the Holy Qur'an and so they are not, as such, acceptable to the Muslims."(Rahmatullah, Izharul Haqq, Part III, p.30-31)
Similarly, Yusuf Ali, whose translation and commentary is popular among Muslims in the West, claims that "the Injil (Greek, Evangel = Gospel) spoken of by the Qur'an is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels ..." (Yusaf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p.292, (Saudi Arabian Edition, p.334)
Christians believe there is indeed one Injil, brought by Jesus, the Christ. The word Injil in Arabic is a transliteration of the Greek Evangelion as Yusaf Ali has rightly mentioned in his statement. The Greek word Evangelion means "happy message" or "good news". Distinguished Muslim commentators like Baidhawi and Zamakshari openly admit that Injil is not an Arabic word but is derived from the Syriac and/or Greek word Evangel - the Gospel, the good news. Taking this as true, one should look no further than among those who have been using this term for their scriptures in Muhammad's time and even before then. When we look at the documentary evidences available to us even before Muhammad, it can be concluded that a long time before Islam started, these titles were used for the collection of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures as available today.
If the Gospel and the Torah spoken of by the Qur?an are not the same as the Old and the New Testament (known also as the Injil and Tawrat among millions of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Turkish speaking Christians) and did not exist in the same form as in Muhammad's time, then what was the Qur'an referring to? Why did the Qur'an require Christians and Jews to accept the Old and New Testament of Muhammad's time? Why did the Qur'an tell the Jews and Christians to follow their scriptures if they were not yet in existence or were only available in corrupted versions? If a Muslim is to believe in the integrity of the Qur'an then he has also to believe that in Muhammad's time the scriptures of the Jews and Christians existed and that the Qur'an certified their message by saying that they contained guidance and light (Surah 547,49). If somehow the author of the Qur'an was doubtful of the integrity of the previous scriptures, why does it ask both Jews and Christians to follow them in their decisions?
Some Muslims assume that the Qur'an only confirmed and testified to the "original autographs" of the Torah and the Gospel, although the evidence within the Qur'an itself testifies that it was referring to that which was actually available, there and then, to the Jews and Christians. For example, to confirm and uphold their scriptures, the Qur'an uses the following words musadiqalima mahum (confirming what is with them), musadiqalima bainah yadih (confirming that which is between their hands) and musadiqalima makum (confirming that which is with them) (Surah 241,89; 33, 447; 548; 3531 and so on).
In the light of the available evidence of manuscripts (both incomplete and whole), it can be said with certainty that the Old and the New Testaments of Muhammad's time were exactly the same as available today. Today's Bible translations are based on existing manuscripts that go back even hundreds of years before Muhammad's day. Hence the logic of the Qur'anic verses immediately is that the Injil and Torah as mentioned in the Qur'an are the same as those available to us today in the New Testament and Old Testament of the Bible.
In Judaism, there is a book called "the Pentateuch" or "the five books of Moses" which are identical to those in the Bible. These books contain the major part of the Jewish law and are known as the Tawrat/Torah/Law. However, Jews often use the same term to describe the whole collection of books, which Christians call the Old Testament. It is interesting to read in a tradition of Islam that the Torah read by the Jews of Madina also included the book of Isaiah, which indicates that the Qur'an was referring to the whole collection of the Jewish scriptures with the word Torah and not just what was revealed to Moses. (See, for example, the Islamic tradition transmitted by Bukhari, Darimi and is available in Mishkat al, Masabih, Vol. II, p. 1232).
http//www.itl.org.uk/topics/kitab.html
-
Rami you have your opinion and I will have mine and lets leave it at that. like somebody said I do not think this site is for me I might find a christian one instead
-
Rami you have your opinion and I will have mine and lets leave it at that. like somebody said I do not think this site is for me I might find a christian one instead
May the blessings be on Cyrus the REAL Messiah who freed the people of Israel from Babylon.
Isa 451 "This is what the Lord says to his Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut
451 KH-'aMUr YHVH LMShYChV LKVUrSh 'aShUr-HChZQThY BYMYNV LUrD-LPhNYV GVYM VMThNY MLKYM 'aPhThCh LPhThCh LPhNYV DLThYM VSh'yUrYM L'a YSGUrV.
Not Yeshua who preached against the Eternal Torah of Hashem, never claimed to be a Messiah, and brought about the destruction of the second temple.
Baruch Hashem
-
Yeshua Ha Mashiach did not bring about the destruction God's Wrath was upon the land of Israel for rejecting their Messiah so God let her enimes come in to destroy it and come against the men kids and women and kill them and then those who were left God scattered and only since 1948 has Israel become a nation again
-
Yeshua Ha Mashiach did not bring about the destruction God's Wrath was upon the land of Israel for rejecting their Messiah so God let her enimes come in to destroy it and come against the men kids and women and kill them and then those who were left God scattered and only since 1948 has Israel become a nation again
Man, there is no such thing as 'The Messiah' in the Tanakh!!!
The 'Messiah' is a job. A prophet, a king or a priest can be a 'Mashiach'. Note that God cannot anoint Himself.
What was Jesus doing?? The Sadduccees were the only guys really following the Tanakh.
Jesus just went around Israel preaching Buddhism. Thats why you believe it. Because Buddhism is a game. No hard work. No sacrifice.
So the concept of Messiah is an innovation in the Jewish thought as a form of national hope to re-establish the state. It is like the second coming of Christ in Christianity and the Mahdi in Islam, the top dog eschatological character who will save the day.
The Torah is for all generations of the Israelites.
So go study more D.
Peace,
Rami
-
I'm pretty sure Jesus was preaching a lot of self sacrifice, and not much Buddhism. Love you enemies, pray for those who persecute you. Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, love your neighbour as yourself. and most of all
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw?
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
40"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."
Doesn't sound very Buddhist to me. Sounds very escatological, messianic, and most of all - Prophetic.
-
Man, there is no such thing as 'The Messiah' in the Tanakh!!!
The 'Messiah' is a job. A prophet, a king or a priest can be a 'Mashiach'. Note that God cannot anoint Himself.
What was Jesus doing?? The Sadduccees were the only guys really following the Tanakh.
Jesus just went around Israel preaching Buddhism. Thats why you believe it. Because Buddhism is a game. No hard work. No sacrifice.
So the concept of Messiah is an innovation in the Jewish thought as a form of national hope to re-establish the state. It is like the second coming of Christ in Christianity and the Mahdi in Islam, the top dog eschatological character who will save the day.
The Torah is for all generations of the Israelites.
So go study more D.
Peace,
Rami
Isn't the Tanakh man-made like Hadiths?
-
Most probably yes. I am talking to a POV who believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
I just read about it on wiki. It said that it was most probably compiled between 200 BCE and 200 CE. It is a man-made scripture. Therefore, it should not be followed. It is just like the Hadiths.
So why are you saying stuff like "the Tanakh says.." or "there is no such thing as a Messiah in the Tanakh"?
Besides, what does the Bible have to do with the Tanakh?
-
I just read about it on wiki. It said that it was most probably compiled between 200 BCE and 200 CE. It is a man-made scripture. Therefore, it should not be followed. It is just like the Hadiths.
So why are you saying stuff like "the Tanakh says.." or "there is no such thing as a Messiah in the Tanakh"?
Besides, what does the Bible have to do with the Tanakh?
Hello, the Tanakh is the old testament! I am not talking about the Talmud.
-
Hello, the Tanakh is the old testament! I am not talking about the Talmud.
Are you kidding?!! Wow... Thanks for the info. The New Testament was also compiled after Jesus' death, right? (Maybe some were compiled during Jesus' life, though), so they are also man-made... damn...
-
Are you kidding?!! Wow... Thanks for the info. The New Testament was also compiled after Jesus' death, right? (Maybe some were compiled during Jesus' life, though), so they are also man-made... damn...
The article you read said the Tanakh(TNK - TorahLawPentateuch-Neviimprophets-KetubiimBooks) was written between 200BC-200CE!!! or was it talking about the Talmud?
The NT is a very late compilation. After Jesus death, many gospels were written in some kind of gospel frenzy, then the best four were Canonized.
I don't know why people believe in the Bible? And what is the Quran talking about? Chilling mystery.
Plus the presence of apocryphas and pseudepigraphas are evidence that people can write things and claim it is from God.
peace
-
The article you read said the Tanakh(TNK - TorahLawPentateuch-Neviimprophets-KetubiimBooks) was written between 200BC-200CE!!! or was it talking about the Talmud?
Tanakh
"According to the Talmud, much of the contents of the Tanakh were compiled by the 'Men of the Great Assembly' by 50 BCE, and have since remained unchanged. Modern scholars are less certain, but some believe that the process of canonization of the Tanakh became finalized between 200 BCE and 200 CE."
(http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh)The NT is a very late compilation. After Jesus death, many gospels were written in some kind of gospel frenzy, then the best four were Canonized.
There are (at least) two very interesting Gospels - The Gospel of James and The Gospel of Barnabas.
-
Are you kidding?!! Wow... Thanks for the info. The New Testament was also compiled after Jesus' death, right? (Maybe some were compiled during Jesus' life, though), so they are also man-made... damn...
Much of the New Testament was written in Greek many years after Jesus had died. Both testaments have been translated into ancient Greek, Latin then old English then more modern English, played around with by the Vatican and various Bishops, Popes and Kings etc.
Many books and Gospels (Gospels according to Thomas and Paul are just two) were left out of our modern New Testament because they did not fit in with the teachings of the old Catholic church. The Catholic bible has extra books in the Old Testament that many protestant bibles do not and some are not even included in the Jewish Tanakh.
It is believed that the four Gospels in the New Testament (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) were not written by those people in the first place. The Gospel according to Luke was a letter to Theophilius where the author admits that he wasn?t there but put together the story from hearing other accounts. The Gospel of Mark was the first written and Matthew is almost a direct copy.The Gospel of John was not written until many years after, it is the most recent Gospel, and some historians even believe it was written by an early Catholic monk to justify some of the teachings of the early church.
The Gospel of Mark had a whole chapter removed (the raising of Lazarus) and a new chapter inserted at the end in the 4th century AD.
The Gospel of Mark has two different endings.The Gospels do not even agree on many things including the ancestry of Jesus, where he found his first two disciples, the account of Lazarus, the crucifixion, etc.
-
Much of the New Testament was written in Greek many years after Jesus had died. Both testaments have been translated into ancient Greek, Latin then old English then more modern English, played around with by the Vatican and various Bishops, Popes and Kings etc.
Many books and Gospels (Gospels according to Thomas and Paul are just two) were left out of our modern New Testament because they did not fit in with the teachings of the old Catholic church. The Catholic bible has extra books in the Old Testament that many protestant bibles do not and some are not even included in the Jewish Tanakh.
It is believed that the four Gospels in the New Testament (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) were not written by those people in the first place. The Gospel according to Luke was a letter to Theophilius where the author admits that he wasnt there but put together the story from hearing other accounts. The Gospel of Mark was the first written and Matthew is almost a direct copy.The Gospel of John was not written until many years after, it is the most recent Gospel, and some historians even believe it was written by an early Catholic monk to justify some of the teachings of the early church.
The Gospel of Mark had a whole chapter removed (the raising of Lazarus) and a new chapter inserted at the end in the 4th century AD.
The Gospel of Mark has two different endings.The Gospels do not even agree on many things including the ancestry of Jesus, where he found his first two disciples, the account of Lazarus, the crucifixion, etc.
woooow...
I knew there was something wrong with the Gospels and so on, but that is truly shocking.
Have you read (about) the Gospel of Barnabas and the Gospel of James?
The Gospel of Barnabas fortells Muhammad and the Gospel of James shows Jesus from a different POV then what mainstream Christianity sees him. -
woooow...
I knew there was something wrong with the Gospels and so on, but that is truly shocking.
Have you read (about) the Gospel of Barnabas and the Gospel of James?
The Gospel of Barnabas fortells Muhammad and the Gospel of James shows Jesus from a different POV then what mainstream Christianity sees him.Yes I have read both along with the Gospel of Mary. Very interesting, and believable.
-
Yes I have read both along with the Gospel of Mary. Very interesting, and believable.
Did you read the gospel of phillip? Do you think the story about mary magdalene is true? angel
peace