₦airaland Forum

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.

God promised a new covenant with the faithful descendants of Israel and this new covenant will be written in the hearts of faithful Israelites that is why Jesus lived by that new covenant instead of writing it so his disciples saw him lived by what he is teaching them!

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.

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.

What Jeremiah said is clear but you need to be taught not just told.

God promised to destroy evildoers and unbelievers but such actions need to be justified that is why Christians were given the assignment to gather all those deserving survival {Matthew 28:19-20} by the time all faithful people are gathered from the four corners of the earth into one true religion {Isaiah 2:2-3} the evidence that it's God's work will be noticed by sincere and honest hearted individuals.

How?

When all other religions claiming believers in God or Christ are still fighting and killing one another due to politics and racism {Revelation 6 3-4} faithful people who have received the New Covenant in their hearts would have stopped hating their neighbors, they will divert their resources into the production of food and information materials, stop producing buying selling and using of weapons and vow never to raise weapons against anyone again! Isaiah 2:4

Of course all other religionists will notice this fine qualities {Matthew 5:14-16} but they will ignore it and take it for granted as it means nothing to them {Luke 17:26-30} today this prophecy is undoubtedly undergoing fulfilment as Jehovah's Witnesses are gathering people from all the nations and transforming them into peace lovers in the name of Christ Jesus. Act 1:8

Do we have any written laws?

NO!

Rather we are taught the principles that is behind the Old Laws which Jesus lived by in thoughts, words and actions!🙂

Explore2xmore:
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.

Explore2xmore:
But scholars like Bart Ehrman repeatedly point out that abundance does not mean purity.

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!🙂

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.

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.

It's false religions claiming Christians that attacks other religions who aren't using the same scriptures with them in true Christianity we only set matters straight with those who claims they are following what our book says as for any other religion that's not using our book we have no business with them.

To illustrate imagine someone claiming he has a father and describing his own father please will you start arguing with him?

Of course not!

Because he is talking about his own dad not yours but what if someone who lives in your dad's house claiming your brother starts talking about the old man who lives in your own house and saying that's his own father but then saying the opposite thing about your old man surely you will tell him he is wrong.

So what concerns Christians with your Quran or prophets since you have your own book?🙂

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.

Explore2xmore:
So the real tension is not textual absence, but whether the promised transformation is visibly real in history at all.

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

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?

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.

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?

Explore2xmore:
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?

If Christ did not approve of the book (plus or minus all the human error of it conceived ideas), by this time after over approximately 2000 years of it inception, no one will hear about it anymore.

Human will always make errors in everything they, is all inclusive or part of it principles.

But inspite all the errors, the basic teaching which is the death and resurrection of Christ is conserved.
This is the basics of the approval

Explore2xmore:
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?

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!😟

MaxInDHouse:
It's false religions claiming Christians that attacks other religions who aren't using the same scriptures with them in true Christianity we only set matters straight with those who claims they are following what our book says as for any other religion that's not using our book we have no business with them.

To illustrate imagine someone claiming he has a father and describing his own father please will you start arguing with him?

Of course not!

Because he is talking about his own dad not yours but what if someone who lives in your dad's house claiming your brother starts talking about the old man who lives in your own house and saying that's his own father but then saying the opposite thing about your old man surely you will tell him he is wrong.

So what concerns Christians with your Quran or prophets since you have your own book?🙂

All well. I am observing this thread and not getting into it. The religion isn't a person but recognized by it's claimed ardents particularly in their behaviour. I think the OP is referring to a book ( Gospel/New testament) which you have earlier inclined fulfilled from earlier scripture. The fulfilment isn't a gospel book dependant my opinion.

Explore2xmore:
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.

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

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.

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?

Explore2xmore:
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...

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

Explore2xmore:
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?

Do you need your father to sign and 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.

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.

Truth does not need anyone to agree. All you need is to prove your claims with valid evidence and not by baseless empty talks given because your islam has too many holes open to attack

honesttalk21:
I think the OP is referring to a book ( Gospel/New testament)

Books are useless if users aren't doing what the book was meant for.
The Bible was meant to help gather peace lovers throughout the earth and make them one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers. Isaiah 2:2-4

So if that has been achieved then there is no need arguing about it's authenticity definitely it's God's word!

The various contradictions in the new testament point to the fact that it might be a created fantasy. For instance, the resurrection story despite being a grand, classic and unprecedented event, yet this story is riddled with numerous contradictions, Matt, Mk, Lk and Jn stated different things on what happened to the tomb, who appeared at the tomb site, who rolled the stone, who spoke with who and who first saw Jesus amongst others.

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.

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.

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:
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

Explore2xmore:
Moses has the privilege of receiving a tablet/book called Torah. Therein is the difference.

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.

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!😟

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!😟

Explore2xmore:
Questioning religious texts is reasonable.

Explore2xmore:
So the promise from the almighty is dependent on humanity? Really now

Who needs the promises?

Explore2xmore:
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.

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

Explore2xmore:
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.

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