₦airaland Forum

Even historically, the distinction between Jesus himself and later Christian theology matters. External sources like Josephus and Tacitus support the existence of a Jewish preacher executed under Pontius Pilate, but they cannot verify the theological structure Christianity later built around him. That leap always depends on belief.
The canon’s eventual formation was not purely spiritual or inevitable either. Church institutions played a decisive role in determining which writings survived as authoritative and which competing traditions were excluded or condemned. In that sense, what became orthodox Christianity was shaped not only by apostolic memory but also by ecclesiastical power and historical circumstance. So the central issue remains difficult to avoid: Christianity rests not on a scripture directly authored or supervised by its founder, but on testimony transmitted through undeniably human and historically contested processes. That does not automatically make Christianity false, but it does mean faith is required to bridge gaps that historical criticism alone cannot fully resolve.

No, not fully and academic historians are clear on why.
The Gospels do not meet full source independence. Matthew and Luke demonstrably use Mark, sometimes word-for-word. That is not four independent eyewitness streams; it is one earlier source reused by later authors. Luke even states at the outset that he is compiling prior accounts rather than writing as a direct eyewitness and no serious scholar disputes that.
Authorship is another issue. The texts themselves are formally anonymous; the traditional names were attached later through church tradition, not identified by the authors inside the documents. Early figures like Papias and Irenaeus do attribute authorship, but they wrote generations later. Their claims reflect developing tradition, not contemporary documentation.
There is also the time gap. The Gospels were written roughly 40–65 years after Jesus’ lifetime. That alone does not automatically invalidate them, historians critically analyze many ancient sources with similar gaps. But when that delay is combined with theological investment, anonymous composition, and literary dependence between texts, the result is clear, the Gospels require historical reconstruction, not simple face-value reading.
So the scholarly consensus is not that the Gospels are worthless, far from it. They are valuable early Christian sources containing historical material. But they are not generally treated as four fully independent eyewitness histories. That is key to my interest.

tctrills:
While you are wrong about Matthew and Mark, we are beginning to go around in circles so let me ask you a direct question.
Do you agree that the Gospels meet or even exceed the standards set by academic historians of acceptable history?
If your answer is no, Then show where is falls short based on the standards not on your own standards but by academic standards.
Let's move the discussion to the next level

BlackfireX:
alfa jubreel

who wrote thr Quran?

where is shahada in the Quran?

where is hijra of muslim refugees from mecca to medina?

one good thing about Qutham a.k.a muhamed?

where is 5 pillars of faith in The Quran ?

When you arrogantly abuse in starting are you honestly asking or truthful in seeking answers of me?

I will answer when you provide irrefutable proof that Qutham is the same as prophet Muhammad pbuh.

tctrills:
I have already answered you above but this video helps to simplify the argument.
The video actually oversimplifies it but I think it is still useful.

https://youtube.com/shorts/5Xq-E7DdaVc?si=NfBo7JGq0SMeFS97

tctrills:
So again you are wrong.
Matthew was an apostle, a first hand witness of Christ he did not copy Mark.

Mark is believed to be a companion of Peter, that makes he very equipped for the job of a historian.

Luke is the only one that may not have had first hand experience with the events he wrote about. Still, he being an early Christian makes him more qualified than 90% of ancient historians.

You then claim that John diverges sharply from the rest. But when we put the gospels to the same test we use for contemporary history, John record even adds more evidence to the ministry of Jesus Christ.

This is how professional historians see divergence in the record of witnesses.

In historical and legal analysis, divergence is often more convincing than total agreement. If four witnesses tell a story using the exact same words, a detective assumes they "synced their stories" or copied each other. If they differ on details but agree on the core, it suggests they are genuine, independent accounts.

Historians look for the same event to be reported by different sources who aren't just copying one another.

The Difference: Mark might focus on Jesus' actions, while John focuses on his long speeches.

Modern forensic psychology shows that two people watching the same car accident will remember different details—one might notice the color of the car, the other might notice the speed.

Application: Matthew (the tax collector) is obsessed with money, records, and Jewish law. Luke (the physician) is obsessed with healings and social outcasts.

Divergence allows for a more complete, "three-dimensional" view of a person.

The Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke): Provide the "What" and "Where"—the external facts and public parables.

John: Provides the "Who" and "Why"—the internal meaning and private conversations.

Now to your last point. You claim that divine authority requires stronger evidence before it can be believed and I completely agree with you.
It requires divine confirmation divine revelation and divine conversion. I would agree with you that you should put all claims of divine scripture to much more rigorous test. You only believe after you have a divine revelation.

I advise you do what Jesus Christ suggested, You seek, knock and ask.

Because, when we use the same standards historians use to judge other works, the bible qualifies. In fact, it exceeds most works of history.

But that alone should not be enough grounds to believe. You have to ask God because He alone can give you an answer.

But if you choose to depend on using academic standards, you will be inconsistent not to believe the gospels because the pass in flying colours because by the standards historians use for other ancient texts, the four Gospels (the books of Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John) are generally considered serious ancient historical sources.

.

The four independent eyewitnesses claim is still overstated. Matthew and Luke show clear literary dependence on Mark, and Luke explicitly says he used earlier written sources. Most critical scholars also have the view of a shared sayings source behind Matthew and Luke, commonly called Q, further reducing their independence.
The Matthew authorship tradition is early, but the Gospel itself is anonymous, and its heavy reliance on Mark complicates straightforward eyewitness authorship. If Matthew were directly recording personal memory, close dependence on a source not traditionally viewed as an eyewitness complicates the tradition rather than confirming it.
The forensic argument cuts both ways. Divergence only strengthens credibility once genuine independence is established. Shared wording, structure, and sequencing across the Synoptics point toward literary relationship rather than separate observation. Independent divergence can strengthen credibility; divergence among dependent texts is simply expected.
External references from Tacitus and Josephus do limited historical work they support that Jesus existed and was executed under Pilate, not that the Gospels are independent eyewitness accounts. Document proliferation likewise reflects the rapid growth of early Christian conviction, not automatically the independence or reliability of every account. Apollonius of Tyana, a near-contemporary of Jesus also credited with miracles, generated extensive literature without that literature being treated as independent corroboration.
John is more independent, but diverges sharply enough in chronology, style, and theology that most scholars treat it as a distinct tradition stream rather than straightforward corroboration of the same narrative.
So the Gospels are best understood as overlapping, literarily connected traditions important ancient sources, but not four fully independent eyewitness accounts in the strict historical sense.
Mind that the question isn't about the existence of Jesus but the books created in and about his name thereafter.

BlackfireX:
Simple question una no go answer

All una top debaters don run or convert

Read the Quran and hafiths and you will see the chaos and depravity


Tueeehhh

What can you say about the breastfeeding?

Where's the unanswered simple question? Your spitting shows your disdain and skewed place of interest in getting answered if at all.

You obviously don't like the truth said straight to you.

[quote author=tctrills post=139379068][/quote]Ancient claims are accepted provisionally, not with certainty. Menes is treated cautiously precisely because Manetho wrote millennia later from limited tradition, and applying the same caution to the Gospels is standard historical method, not bias.
The four independent witnesses claim is overstated. Matthew and Luke rely heavily on Mark and shared traditions, while John diverges sharply in chronology, theology, and style, functioning more as a distinct theological tradition than simple independent corroboration.
The Claudius analogy also fails on stakes. A claim about an emperor’s last meal carries no binding authority; divine revelation does. Stronger claims reasonably require stronger evidence. And the authority argument is circular: the canon validates the authority while the authority validates the canon, even though the canon itself emerged through centuries of dispute.
Consistent standards are not a double standard they are how historical credibility is established.

tctrills:
But it's the very same for most figures in ancient history.
We can start with the pharaohs of Egypt. Many recognised ancient historians wrote about the events centuries after yet, it is accepted by the academic community, why should it be a different standard for religion?
Why will you accept Arrian (writing on Alexander the Great) or Plutarch (writing on the Roman Republic) as authentic history?
Is our believe of Alexander the great faith based?

The Alexander/pharaoh comparison misses the point. History like Alexander is built from multiple independent sources and evidence, so conclusions are probabilistic, not based on trusting any single author like Arrian or Plutarch.
The Torah claim is structurally different. One Law, one mediator (Moses), and a unified chain of transmission tied to a foundational national event. The New Testament doesn’t follow that model as Paul never met Jesus during his actual ministry, the Gospels are anonymous, authority was disputed early on (Galatians 2), and the canon took centuries to settle.
So the analogy fails. History doesn’t require divine authority claims, but revelation does. And without a non-circular way to verify revelation, you end up with circular reasoning. It’s true because it’s inspired, and inspired because it says so?

honesttalk21:
Explore2xmore I see you are represented here. Is this on your say so?
In any case the quality of truth is seen in so many things including but not limited to people.

No I don't subscribe to his view, are you in a hurry?

Now that looks more like inability to engage any further. Separating people types from the book doesn't auger well for the book.

MaxInDHouse:
Hmmmmmmm so what matters to you is how the message got to you shey?

Well in that case you can continue your arguments with those churchgoers who likes arguing aimlessly the truth is nobody was there when God created the heaven or earth yet the books you and i carry says a lot about these things and you never cared to ask if its writers were eyewitnesses!🙂

tctrills:
Now apply these arguments to the new testament.
God revealed them to Paul and the other apostles.
Some of them got the stories from earlier oral and written traditions

Yes, that works within a faith-based framework, much like arguments made about Moses and the Torah even if many points ascertain there were books before the Torah. But it still doesn't fully resolve the historical question of authorization, transmission, or canon formation, since Jesus did not leave behind a finalized New Testament canon or explicit written instructions for compiling one.

Explaining how the New Testament was compiled is not the same as proving the compilation itself was divinely authorized or that every included text is infallibly from God. Describing the historical process explains preservation, not automatic divine validation.
That is precisely why the question about it's authority, canonization, and authenticity makes the subjects of discussion here.

MaxInDHouse:
God promised a new covenant {Jeremiah 31:31-33} it will be written not in what could be seen rather in the hearts of adherents and the one who is coming to teach people will be called a Wonderful Counselor {Isaiah 9:6} that's why Jesus was saying "you have heard that it was said but now i'm telling you this is what you should do" Matthew 5:21-48

So Jesus knew since he never wrote any book rather taught them through words and actions they needed reminders that's why he told them:

“I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now. However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come." John 16;12-13

Surely they are to pen down what Jesus taught them and take it to all the nations! Matthew 28:19-20

That's what brought about a covenant that differ from the first covenant!

Will return to this much later please.

Dtruthspeaker:
I am sure that you have seen many threads here saying Jesus is God. Yes, some disagree however when I remind the dissents that ut is Written Jesus is The Lord, and so I asked them Who did the Bible say gave Moses the Commandments? They all run away cos the answer is clear. Hence, why i said Christians know that Jesus is The Same One Who gave the tablets to Moses.

MaxInDHouse:
The Old Covenant (Old Testament) was meant for Jacob's descendants only but the New Covenant (New Testament) is for all faithful and obedient individuals throughout the world who may decide to become worshipers of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
With the New Covenant faithful people from all the nations will form one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers {Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3} and there will be understanding among them {Zephaniah 3:9} but the rest will be blinded by Satan {2Corinthians 4:4} fighting and killing themselves despite claiming they are for the same God! Revelation 6:3-4

Still not getting me, did Jesus hand over a book be it Gospel, new testament or other to people or instruct them to compile/collect one? Where is the proof for that more so that you now say the old testament was for Jacob's descendants then the new covenant for all faithful? Question is aren't a good part of the faithful also descends of Jacob?
Hold on with your references to books in the new testament as it's still being reviewed.

tctrills:
Moses received the 10 commandments. It's not written anywhere that he received a book containing the story of the creation or the story of Abraham.
Please let's be accurate about what Moses received.

Reasonably true but the creation stories were not based on Moses being an eyewitness to creation itself. Some traditional religious view hold that God revealed these earlier histories to Moses.
The alternative critically historical view holds that the stories developed through earlier oral and written traditions and were later compiled into the Torah.
How certain are you that there weren't any books reviewed before the Torah though?

MaxInDHouse:
It's wise to ascertain before we believe any information {1Thessalonians 5:21} but when you don't know the purpose of such info then it's meaningless trying to raise questions based on what you choose against another.

For instance what is the purpose of the Quran?
What exactly did Allah promise that will be evidence for Muslims to rely upon?

It's hypocritical pointing to small pimples in someone's face when you have huge boils all over your face!😟

Tell then what is the purpose of the new testament even when Jesus didn't instruct it's collection/production?

Abundance and truth are not synonyms. Abundance describes quantity; truth describes conformity to fact or reality. Saying something is plentiful does not automatically make it true. Your argument is a semantic confusion, not a logical rebuttal

Dtruthspeaker:
When you say something is multiplelly plentiful eg ithe ocean is something that contains multiple plenty waters, is this not Truth and in accordance to facts and real eyeity?

You don't have any reasonable thing to say against our faith, so go plug all the holes you heslam has

Dtruthspeaker:
Christians know that Jesus is The Same One Who gave the tablets to Moses.

And every reasonable person knows that all over the world and beyond the borders of Isreal, the word 'father' has a wide meaning and we all know it and use it everyday

Now you are introducing issues to complicate this dialogue. Clearly God gave Moses the Torah, if need be we can discuss how God is or isn't recognised as Jesus from an interpretation of the new testament which this is about but we aren't there yet. Hold on.

Questioning religious texts is reasonable because they were preserved, compiled, and transmitted through human processes over time. However, it’s historically inaccurate to say their acceptance was only due to fear or coercion. Their spread involved a mix of voluntary belief, cultural integration, political influence, and gradual adoption.
A sound review focuses on evidence, origins, transmission, and context rather than assuming universal force or dismissing authorship questions entirely.

MaxInDHouse:
Honestly nobody cared about books in all the nations of the world in ancient times they naturally believed in the existence of God or Gods therefore if someone now comes with books claiming it's from God or servants of God and it has been widely accepted as truth you can't stand out to challenge such claims with the excuse of who are those behind the compilation of these books. Our ancestors who welcomed both the Bible and Quran never did that, they only submitted out of fear because the pioneers of these religions came with destructive weapons capable of wiping out our ancestors that is the reason why they submitted to these religions otherwise our ancestors have their own religions and their religions never taught them to be evildoers.

So what could be the sound reason for questioning the authenticity of these books?
First of all that should be when there is no more threat to the lives of whoever criticize these books which came about by Americans who declared freedom of speech expression and worship otherwise you dare not question the British who brought the Bible and said it's God's word neither can you question the Fulanis that brought the Quran claiming it's God's word.

So my friend to be honest the questions that should come to mind is:

What betterment these books will bring to our lives as adherents of a new religion?
Weren't our ancestors worshiping God before we know these books?
What good or humane rules are the adherents of these new religions practicing that makes them better than us or our ancestors?

Please questions regarding compilation of these books is another tactic to stop you from asking the more important questions so it's coming from the same oppressors who doesn't want you to think in the right direction!😟

Dtruthspeaker:
You admit moral failure yet you expect to see the promises fulfilled? That is silly

So the promise from the almighty is dependent on humanity? Really now

tctrills:
Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't take the writings in the New testament as the word of God because they were not written by Jesus Christ nor were they written when He was on earth right?

But then, it's the same for the old testament,, it was not written by Jehovah and many of the events were written many centuries later. Example, the story of the creation was recorded by Moses who never witnessed it.

So are you just against the New Testament or the entire bible?

Moses has the privilege of receiving a tablet/book called Torah. Therein is the difference.

Dtruthspeaker:
Abundance means Truth and people know how to pick the lies of alterations, so this is not an issue

Abundance means multiple, plentifulness of something while truth pertains to the quality of being in accordance with fact or reality. Your submission seems to be a jargon from your faith.

Dtruthspeaker:
Do you need your father to sign and return commission the words and teachings he gave?

No.

This is where you see "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me". So, we don't need any commission anything. So go and find something valid to complain about.

In context of this discussion a book/tablet named Torah was given to Moses. Jesus did not personally give or instruct documentation of the Gospel/New testament. The plunder to an earlier prophesy doesn't explain the collection or authorship of a book.
Then please tell us the actual meaning of father as used by Israelites or tribes of ancient time in relation to God.

Gabrielshow26, your argument repeatedly moves from possibility to certainty without demonstrating the intermediate steps required for that leap.
Similarity alone does not establish plagiarism. If it did, then the Bible would also be accused of plagiarism for sharing themes with earlier Near Eastern literature. Serious historians do not rely on surface resemblance; they look for direct dependence, identifiable transmission routes, linguistic borrowing, and structural copying. What you have demonstrated so far is possible influence, not necessary plagiarism.
Your muddy spring objection also assumes the verse must be read as literal cosmology. Yet the Qur’an describes Dhul-Qarnayn as finding the sun setting there in language that reflects perceptual experience rather than scientific description, much like saying sunset today without implying physical descent into water.
You also treat shared motifs as automatic borrowing. But religious texts regularly engage existing narratives, reshape them, and redirect them toward theological meaning. The presence of parallels does not, by itself, establish dependence.
Most importantly, your reasoning relies heavily on rhetorical framing rather than evidence terms like fan-fiction, caravan trader, and “What a god!” may be forceful, but they are not arguments.
In the end, what has been shown is the existence of parallels and a shared Late Antique narrative environment. What has not been shown is direct copying, demonstrable textual dependence, or intentional plagiarism. That gap is precisely where your certainty exceeds your evidence and what you need to close.

Gabrielshow26:
😂What a guy😂! I don't know, between you and honesttalk21, who does Allah more disservice🤦🏾‍♂️. By the way, thank you, for you admission. And I must say, Explore2xmore, you’ve finally done it. You’ve officially admitted that your god is a fan-fiction writer😂.

You’ve conceded that the Alexander Romance is a human-made, non-divine fable. Yet, your "Omniscient" Allah managed to copy&paste the exact same "horns," "muddy spring," and "iron wall" into his "Eternal Book.🤕" By your own admission, the Quran is a Divine Book containing secular fiction.

Let me highlight why your admission does Allah a great disservice 🤦🏾‍♂️.Your admission that the Alexander Romance is not divine is the Death Blow to your argument. What you failed to realize is that If a human writes a story about a man traveling to the setting sun (a physical impossibility), it’s called a myth.And If an Omniscient God, supposedly👀, repeats that exact same myth as historical fact, He isn't "correcting" it; He is validating a lie.

Thus, your claim of adding a "moral lesson" makes it a "correction" is Absolute nonsense. If I take the legend of the Easter Bunny and say, "The bunny works for Allah👀," I haven't corrected history—I’ve just added a religious skin to a campfire story. Basically, you’ve admitted your god used pagan fables as his building blocks. 🥱What a god! What a Muslim!

To your next claim, which I find rather funny. I noticed you demanded for a "textual transmission chain" like we’re in a 7th-century courtroom🥱. Let’s use Occam’s Razor again since your AI keeps blunting it🤦🏾‍♂️:

1. The myth exists in the region before the Quran.
2. The Quran repeats the myth.
3. The contemporaries literally shouted, "These are just fables of the ancients!" (68:15).
You don’t need a signature on a papyrus to see the plagiarism🤨. If I walk into a room and you’re wearing my shirt, holding my phone, and reciting my password, I don't need a "transmission chain" to know you’ve been in my closet🤷. You are desperately demanding a level of proof that no historian requires because you know the circumstantial evidence is a mountain that’s about to crush your theology. 🤦🏾‍♂️

I love how you spent half your response obsessing over "shin🤧" and "hands💅". You focused on those minor points because the actual problem—the blatant copying of human fables—is undefendable.
You cited 42:11 ("Nothing is like Him" to "flatten" the descriptions🥱. This is the ultimate damage control. If the text says "hand" and "shin" and "color," and then says "But he’s not like anything," it’s not "nuanced theology"—it’s a contradiction. You are using a 14th-century "interpretive tradition" to fix a 7th-century author's inability to stay consistent. Your "tradition" is just a long-running "Fix-it" fiction for a god👀 who described Himself too humanly🤧.

Let me also address your special pleading in the form of "Independent revelation"🤕.Your theory has been that "similarities can emerge independently" but I find this, the peak of special pleading. If the Quran independently "revealed" that Jesus breathed life into clay birds—a story found only in the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas—then why did Allah only "reveal" the fake miracles from the wrong books?🤦🏾‍♂️
Why does Allah never "independently reveal" a historical fact that wasn't already a popular legend in 7th-century Arabia?🤷
Thus, your "omniscient god" seems strangely and oddly🤨 limited to the library of a 7th-century caravan trader. He "independently reveals" myths, but he can't "independently reveal" basic historical facts or information about his prophets🥱. What a god! What a Muslim!

In conclusion, you’ve admitted the Alexander Romance is human. You’ve admitted the Quran shares its motifs. You’ve admitted it happened in the same "cultural environment." In the real world, this is called Derivation. In your world, it’s a "Miracle.🤦🏾‍♂️" You’re not defending scholarship; you’re defending a Chimera—a beast made of Jewish legends, Christian apocrypha, and pagan fables, stitched together with "moral lessons" to hide the seams.😮‍💨

With this, you’ve definitely run out of "transmission chain" excuses😁. Thus, Your god was quoting secular fiction as Divine Truth. Concede the plagiarism, or keep pretending that your "perfect Book" isn't just a 7th-century "rehashed myth compilation". Which is it? 🥱🚮

One last thing for the reader. Notice, how he still hasn't explained why his omniscient god would copy an error (the sun setting in a muddy spring) from a human fable he admits is non-divine. If the source is a lie, and the Quran repeats the lie, then the Quran is... well, you do the math. 🤧

MaxInDHouse:
Purity is measured by the fulfillment of prophecies.
Whatever anyone says shouldn't be the yardstick but visibility.
So when we see hundreds of thousands of different religions claiming they believe in God/Jesus/Allah/Quran what any wise individual should focus on is not how sound their arguments are but what their faith has achieved so far!🙂

Do you prove following by argument or just follow regardless? The point still is who sanctioned the compilation of the new testament? Why when Jesus never asked for it or physical handed over such? Can you trust those that did when Jesus as recorded in this same compilation points at many who will falsely claim coming in his name/commission and aren't?

TenQ:
Muslims truely wish that Islam is TRUE, unfortunately it isn't, therefore Muslims have to resort to manipulating existing Islamic history and knowledge in defence of their religion

What unambiguously straight forward points do you have and do you support your claim with?

honesttalk21:
What is your point with this and why take on what they will never agree openly as truth? It isn't best embarking on challenges that encourage their ill conceived mischievous attacks on Islam.

Thanks bro. We'll see soon I hope. A lot is said on how Jesus freed them from the old scripture but that saying is derived from an unpermitted scripture in their hands.

paxonel:
If the promised transformation was suppose to be visibly real in history order than faith. Then it is no more Faith.

With the heart, man believeth unto righteousness. This is how faith should be.

Not some visibly real evidence

The point is the transformation is meant to be visibly real but it still isn't then why is there a book that wasn't commissioned by the one it's centered upon?

Explore2xmore:
One of the most overlooked problems in Christianity is that Jesus himself never wrote a scripture, supervised one, or left behind a compiled body of teachings. He preached in a first-century Jewish oral culture where expectation of the imminent Kingdom mattered far more than preserving written texts. Instead of producing a book, he appointed followers and living witnesses. Even theologically, he presented himself as fulfilling prior revelation rather than introducing a completely new scripture, so the absence of a founder-authored text is not accidental ; it is built into the movement from the start.
What Christianity later produced came afterward and in reaction to circumstances. Paul’s letters were not systematic theology or scripture manuals; they were responses to disputes, discipline problems, and doctrinal confusion inside scattered communities. The Gospels themselves appeared decades after the crucifixion, at a time when eyewitnesses were aging or already dead. The canon Christians now treat as fixed did not descend fully formed from heaven either. It emerged slowly through centuries of disagreement, debate, and church authority deciding which texts counted and which did not.

The manuscript tradition is often presented as Christianity’s strongest defence because the New Testament survives in thousands of Greek manuscripts. But scholars like Bart Ehrman repeatedly point out that abundance does not mean purity. In reality, the huge number of manuscripts increases the evidence of alteration because every copy introduced opportunities for change.
The criticicm is about the estimate of somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 textual variants across the manuscript tradition which presents as more variants than words in the New Testament itself. Some differences are harmless copying mistakes, but others involve meaningful theological additions, omissions, or harmonisations introduced by scribes over centuries.
There is also the issue of authorship. Several letters traditionally attributed to Paul are rejected by many critical scholars as pseudonymous, meaning written later in his name rather than by Paul himself. The Gospels are not fully independent testimonies either. Matthew and Luke rely heavily on Mark, meaning what looks like multiple separate witnesses often traces back to a shared literary source. That complicates claims of independent corroboration inside the text itself.

The deeper issue is not that Jesus left no written text, but whether the New Covenant promises are actually fulfilled in any observable way. Jeremiah describes a covenant where everyone knows God directly and sins are fully forgiven. Those are strong, universal claims, yet religious division and moral failure remain obvious.
Christian theology responds that the promise is “already but not yet.” But that shifts the claim from fulfilment to partial, future completion. So the real tension is not textual absence, but whether the promised transformation is visibly real in history at all.

One of the most overlooked problems in Christianity is that Jesus himself never wrote a scripture, supervised one, or left behind a compiled body of teachings. He preached in a first-century Jewish oral culture where expectation of the imminent Kingdom mattered far more than preserving written texts. Instead of producing a book, he appointed followers and living witnesses. Even theologically, he presented himself as fulfilling prior revelation rather than introducing a completely new scripture, so the absence of a founder-authored text is not accidental ; it is built into the movement from the start.
What Christianity later produced came afterward and in reaction to circumstances. Paul’s letters were not systematic theology or scripture manuals; they were responses to disputes, discipline problems, and doctrinal confusion inside scattered communities. The Gospels themselves appeared decades after the crucifixion, at a time when eyewitnesses were aging or already dead. The canon Christians now treat as fixed did not descend fully formed from heaven either. It emerged slowly through centuries of disagreement, debate, and church authority deciding which texts counted and which did not.

It's genuinely astonishing that you somehow failed to realise you only exposed the weakness of your own methodology not Islam.
The Qur’an explicitly says there is nothing whatsoever like unto Him (42:11) and none is comparable to Him (112:4). You ignored both because they destroy your argument before it even gets off the ground. Instead, you imposed an embarrassingly crude literalism onto texts scholars already discussed centuries ago. Both hands are right refers to perfection, not anatomy. Shin was understood either as severity or affirmed without resemblance. Sibghat Allah refers to divine guidance and fitrah, not literal colour. None of these are modern escape attempts or theological damage control. These interpretations existed long before your criticism did.
Your method throughout has been painfully obvious, remove context, ignore the interpretive tradition, flatten nuanced theology into something simplistic, then attack the oversimplification you created yourself. That is not scholarship. It is polemics aimed at people who will not bother checking whether your claims survive contact with the actual tradition.
And no, I do not consider the Alexander Romance divine. But that still proves nothing. The Qur’an engaging familiar narrative material while arriving at completely different theological conclusions is not plagiarism. The Qur’anic account strips power of divinity, places it under moral accountability, and makes it subordinate to Allah. That is reinterpretation and correction, not copying. More importantly, resemblance by itself proves absolutely nothing. Similarities can emerge through shared cultural environments, common narrative circulation, adaptation, or independent engagement. To establish plagiarism, you need evidence of direct textual dependence and a demonstrable transmission chain. You have not provided either.
So your argument still collapses at the exact same point. You have shown the possibility of influence, not the necessity of derivation. Until you can bridge that gap with actual evidence instead of insinuation, all you really have is rhetoric dressed up as certainty.

Gabrielshow26:
I find this hilarious, it seems watching you and your AI-assistant👀 tag-team these responses is like watching a low-budget movie where the villain keeps insisting he didn't steal the plot, even though the dialogue is identical🤧. You’ve conceded the resemblances, the motifs, and the proximity, yet you’re demanding a "transmission chain" as if we need a signed document from 7th-century Arabia to prove the obvious.🤕

Let me dismantle this "Independent Revelation" fantasy once and for all. 🥱
Throughout your write-up, you argued that shared motifs could just be "independent revelation engaging a shared world." This is the ultimate Special Pleading. In the realm of Naruto, ultimate jutsu🌀😂

Now, if two students turn in the same essay, with the same "surface features," the same errors, and the same structural flow, no teacher on earth accepts the excuse that they "independently engaged with the same topic."👀 Thus, when the Quran repeats the Alexander Romance (Dhul-Qarnayn) or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Jesus breathing life into clay birds🤕), it isn't just "engaging a world"—it is reproducing specific, apocryphal, and historically inaccurate fables that existed only in the human literary environment of the time🤨. What you failed to account for is the fact that an Omniscient God would provide the actual history. A human author solely copies the local legends.🤦🏾‍♂️ The fact that the Quran mirrors the errors and myths of the 7th-century milieu proves it is a product of that milieu, not a correction of it. Consequently, can't be the work of an Omniscient God😮‍💨.

Moving on, I find this claim of yours "that because the Quran adds a "moral lesson" to the Alexander story, it isn't borrowing" ludicrous. That is like saying if I rewrite Batman to make him a pacifist, I didn't borrow the character of Batman🤷.
The structure is the same: the horns, the journey to the setting sun, the muddy spring, the wall against Gog and Magog. These are specific markers of the Syriac Alexander Legend.🤦🏾‍♂️Thus, adding a "theological spin" doesn't prove independence🤨; it proves redaction. Your prophet took a popular pagan/secular legend and "Islamized" it to fit his narrative. That is the definition of human authorship, not divine revelation.🥱

I noticed you demanded a "textual transmission chain" while ignoring the most basic rule of history: Occam’s Razor🤧.
Let's address these premises.
1. We know the stories existed in the region (Arian, Nestorian, Jewish apocrypha).
2. We know the Prophet’s contemporaries accused him of repeating these specific stories ("Fables of the ancients" .
3. We know the Quran contains these stories.👀
Hence, you don't need a "signed contract" to see the influence. Your demand for a "transmission chain" is a desperate attempt to ignore the Elephant in the Room: that your "Eternal Book" looks exactly like a 7th-century scrapbook of regional folklore🥱.

In your bid to defend your prophet, you argued that because contemporaries called him a "madman" and a "sorcerer," their claim about "human instruction" is invalid. Nice shrai😂. People can be wrong about his mental state but right about his sources. If I see you reading a cheat sheet before an exam, I might call you a "genius," a "cheater," or a "wizard." My name-calling doesn't change the fact that you have a cheat sheet🤷. The "Fables of the ancients" (Asateer al-awwaleen, culled from google) is a specific, recurring charge in the Quran itself🤧. Your "omniscient" god spent a lot of time defending against the charge of plagiarism—this is usually a sign that the charge👀 was hitting a little too close to home.

I don't know whether you asking me how borrowing from Arian and Nestorian sources could produce "coherence" was rhetorical or not but the simple truth is that it didn't. We have the Quran as a proof😂. Furthermore, Your "coherence" required 200 years of Hadith, multiple schools of law, and centuries of bloody civil wars (Fitnas) to figure out what the "clear" Quran actually meant😂. If it were coherent and independent, you wouldn't need a massive library of human interpretation to explain why it contradicts itself or repeats regional errors.👀 I definitely have a picture,might as well attempt to post it later, it's a meme about how the Quran brought up a chimera. Let me not waste time man-splaining, you will understand it when you see it. Hopefully it's not taken down by your mods🤧.

In conclusion, you’ve conceded the "shared world." You’ve conceded the "motifs." You’ve conceded the "proximity." You are now just arguing over the word "borrowing"🤦🏾‍♂️ because your theology can't handle the truth😂. In every other field of study—literature, history, law—this level of similarity is called Derivation. Only in Islamic apologetics is it called "independent revelation" .🥱 Definitely, you aren't defending a miracle; you are defending a 7th-century redaction. If the "Mother of the Book" is just a "greatest Hit" of 7th-century regional myths, then your claim of "Divine origin" is officially bankrupt. Better still, "concede the gap, because you certainly can't fill it"👀🥱.

One last thing: Why are you still dodging the question? Do you hold the Alexander Romances as divine? If the stories in them are "independent revelation" when they appear in the Quran, then the original pagan versions must be "inspired" too, right?🤷 Or is Allah just a fan of plagiarizing secular fiction? 🤨🤧

BlackfireX:
3 gbosa for AI


All that you posted from alhaji Ai do you even know the meaning or phrases of words used

You implicated yourself the more

Shall I show you?

When you didn't seek permission to open your post I wonder why you need permission to show or disagree with what I posted.
If you truly had something to say what keeps you?