₦airaland Forum

Explore2xmore:
Good. Then the categories must stay separate. Academic history asks whether the Gospels are credible ancient sources for reconstructing parts of early Christianity? By normal standards, they are. But historical credibility is not the same as divine authority.
Divine authority requires a verification standard. Scripture is not usually accepted as revelation only because it claims to be. There is normally some external basis such as prophetic witness, preservation, miracle, public transmission, or direct authorization.
So the key question is simple:
What external verification establishes the New Testament’s divine authority beyond its own internal claims?

I think I need to come in here to nip this in the bud.

I initially ignored u because ur earlier claim was that scholars don't find the gospel as reliable and historical.
tctrills already did a good job debunking that. So we let it rest.
There are different criteria scholars use validate historical claims. They are criteria of embarrassment, criteria of authenticity, criteria of dissimilarity, criteria of contextual credibility, criteria of coherence, and then the source of language in this case linkage btw what was spoken in Aramaic and what was written in koine Greek.

All scholars agree that the written gospel to a large extent meet this criteria thus have no reason to doubt historical reality stated in the Gospels.

The problem with Muslims is they believe the only way to validate historical claim is thru what they call chain of narrations which itself is problematic bocs it relies on authenticity of the narrators and their memories.

Besides the single most important historical chain of narration in Islam is missing. There's no historical evidence that Mormor spoke to an angel. If we cannot establish and independently verify Mormor actually spoke to an angel, then Islam as a religion is in serious trouble because the whole Islamic faith is based on one simple fact -Mormor spoke to an angel, A claim that cannot be historically verified.

Now what I will be doing is giving u historical evidence for the theology of Christianity because that's what u now asking for.

I will show u that academic scholars including Bart Erhman and any other academic bible scholars u can think of all agree there is historical evidence for the theology of Christianity.

U have been shouting bible scholars on this thread which shows u trust their works.
Now I will bring evidence that same academic scholars agree beyond any reasonably doubt that the theology of Christianity as we know it today is historical NOT made up out of thin air or conjured by some unknown people.

These are- divinity of Jesus, atonement by the blood of Jesus, physical ressurection of Jesus.

So what I will be doing next is bringing evidence supported by bible scholars like Bart Erhman to prove the theology of Christianity as we know it today is historical and actually linked back to Jesus Christ himself.

I sincerely hope u won't change mouth when I bring it.

MaxInDHouse:
Satan is a mighty spirit creature who once lived in heaven but decided to be a God on his own and searching for worshipers among humans. Mankind is not god o rather those who made themselves gods are humans who are determined to dominate their fellow humans and make subjects or worshipers out of them.

However you haven't told me the lesser Gods controlling stronger Gods o!😟

Pick one and stick to it. God, spirit or both in any case it's supported by your book and view

Hey gotta disappoint you, I didn’t invent those criteria. Theologians and religious scholars have historically used them to assess prophetic legitimacy across traditions.
You asked for an example, and the Torah presents a strong case with a named prophet, public revelation at Sinai, documented miracles, and an entire nation framed as collective witness. The authority claim is grounded in something beyond the text merely asserting itself.
The Quran is another discussion entirely.
But the core issue remains unanswered; what external verification establishes New Testament divine authority beyond its own internal claims? Saying I didn’t create the criteria doesn’t solve the problem it just confirms the criteria exist, and the NT still has to meet them.

tctrills:
I am guessing it's you who decided that prophetic witness, preservation, miracle, public transmission, or direct authorization should be the s standard for divine truths right?

Please give me an example of a scripture that meets these your standards

Explore2xmore:
Hey gotta disappoint you, I didn’t invent those criteria. Theologians and religious scholars have historically used them to assess prophetic legitimacy across traditions.
You asked for an example, and the Torah presents a strong case with a named prophet, public revelation at Sinai, documented miracles, and an entire nation framed as collective witness. The authority claim is grounded in something beyond the text merely asserting itself.
The Quran is another discussion entirely.
But the core issue remains unanswered; what external verification establishes New Testament divine authority beyond its own internal claims? Saying I didn’t create the criteria doesn’t solve the problem it just confirms the criteria exist, and the NT still has to meet them.

First, you are saying that we should again go back to scholars to determine the divine?

I am such that there is no academic discipline than can prove God or His words.

But then, I need to understand how Paul's experience for example bears less spiritual weight than Moses the Torah or Mohammad of the quran.

Mohammed for example claimed he saw an angel. The things he claimed the angle told him were written after his death as the quran.
Paul saw Jesus Christ and his writings make up a large chunk of the new testament.

I am no scholar so please explain to me how Mohamed had greater divine authority than Paul.

What more did Mohamed do to make him more qualified than Paul? I will argue that Paul's writings hold mor authority as the quran didn't come directly from Mohammad.

The quran is a product of what other men claimed Mohamed said.

Let's look at the line of authority.
God to Paul then to the rest of us.

In Mohamed case
God to an angel to Mohammad to the writers of the quran then to us.

Then new testament has multiple independent witnesses who witnessed Jesus Christ and wrote about Him.
Peter
Paul
John
James
Paul
Matthew

The quran is just Mohamed. No other person saw what he claimed to see.

How, in today’s technologically advanced age, can some adults here still insist that Jesus Christ was a historical figure, when even many people in the country that brought it to Africa regard the story as fiction?

Truth is that if you still believing this nonsense you should go and register at the nearest kindergarten nearest to you.

God Almighty of the Original Torah is the only True God.

JESUS CHRIST NEVER EXISTED - And It Doesn't Matter What You Call Him Or What Colour You Make Him


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-zFQvyFWr4

MindHacker9009:
How, in today’s technologically advanced age, can some adults here still insist that Jesus Christ was a historical figure, when even many people in the country that brought it to Africa regard the story as fiction?

Truth is that if you still believing this nonsense you should go and register at the nearest kindergarten nearest to you.

God Almighty of the Original Torah is the only True God.

JESUS CHRIST NEVER EXISTED - And It Doesn't Matter What You Call Him Or What Colour You Make Him


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-zFQvyFWr4

So was Tacitus lying when he said they crucified Jesus

SIRTee15:
So was Tacitus lying when he said they crucified Jesus

These are some Jesuses in the first century so which one, well most likely it was Jesus son of Sapphias that was crucified for leading a rebellion against Roman occupation of Israel.
Tacitus wrote about Jesus in his work Annals, specifically in Book 15, chapter 44.
When was this written?
Most scholars date the Annals to around 116–117 CE
This is during the reign of Emperor Trajan in the early 2nd century
So: Tacitus wrote about Jesus around 116–117 CE (early 2nd century), not in the 1st century.

1. Jesus son of Damneus
Mentioned in Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews)
High priest of Judea (appointed c. 62 CE)
Took office after the execution of James (as described by Josephus)
Political-religious elite figure

2. Jesus son of Ananias
Mentioned in Josephus (Jewish War)
Apocalyptic street prophet in Jerusalem (c. 62–70 CE)
Shouted warnings of Jerusalem’s destruction for years
Arrested, beaten, and eventually killed during the Roman siege period

3. Jesus son of Sapphias
Mentioned in Josephus (Jewish War, Galilee narratives)
Galilean political/factional leader during the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt (c. 66 CE)
Involved in violent local power struggles in Tiberias
Not a national commander, but a regional agitator

4. Jesus son of Gamaliel
Mentioned in Josephus (Antiquities)
High priest in the mid–late 1st century CE
Member of the priestly aristocracy in Jerusalem
Part of the shifting high-priestly appointments under Roman authority

5. Jesus son of Sepphas (or Cephas, depending on manuscript interpretation)
Mentioned in Josephus (Jewish War)
Priest connected with Temple affairs during the war
Involved in handing over Temple valuables to Roman forces (under Titus’ campaign context)

6. Jesus son of Thebuthi
Mentioned in Josephus (Jewish War)
Priest who surrendered sacred Temple items (including vessels) to the Romans
Appears during the final stages of the siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)

MindHacker9009:
These are some Jesuses in the first century so which one, well most likely it was Jesus son of Sapphias that was crucified for leading a rebellion against Roman occupation of Israel.
Tacitus wrote about Jesus in his work Annals, specifically in Book 15, chapter 44.
When was this written?
Most scholars date the Annals to around 116–117 CE
This is during the reign of Emperor Trajan in the early 2nd century
So: Tacitus wrote about Jesus around 116–117 CE (early 2nd century), not in the 1st century.

1. Jesus son of Damneus
Mentioned in Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews)
High priest of Judea (appointed c. 62 CE)
Took office after the execution of James (as described by Josephus)
Political-religious elite figure

2. Jesus son of Ananias
Mentioned in Josephus (Jewish War)
Apocalyptic street prophet in Jerusalem (c. 62–70 CE)
Shouted warnings of Jerusalem’s destruction for years
Arrested, beaten, and eventually killed during the Roman siege period

3. Jesus son of Sapphias
Mentioned in Josephus (Jewish War, Galilee narratives)
Galilean political/factional leader during the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt (c. 66 CE)
Involved in violent local power struggles in Tiberias
Not a national commander, but a regional agitator

4. Jesus son of Gamaliel
Mentioned in Josephus (Antiquities)
High priest in the mid–late 1st century CE
Member of the priestly aristocracy in Jerusalem
Part of the shifting high-priestly appointments under Roman authority

5. Jesus son of Sepphas (or Cephas, depending on manuscript interpretation)
Mentioned in Josephus (Jewish War)
Priest connected with Temple affairs during the war
Involved in handing over Temple valuables to Roman forces (under Titus’ campaign context)

6. Jesus son of Thebuthi
Mentioned in Josephus (Jewish War)
Priest who surrendered sacred Temple items (including vessels) to the Romans
Appears during the final stages of the siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)

Listing people called Jesus in the 1st century wont help u. Jesus simply mean Joshua and its a common name in the 1st century period.

Tacitus was talking about a Jesus Christ who suffered under Pontus Pilate. who is that Jesus also called Christ?

In his Annals (Book 15, Chapter 44, written around AD 116), the Roman historian Tacitus describes the aftermath of the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64. Tacitus reports that Emperor Nero, accused of starting the fire, sought scapegoats and targeted Christians: “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus” (Annals 15.44). Tacitus further notes that this “most mischievous superstition” spread from Judea to Rome, where it became widely known.

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.

1. Exactly who made it a problem that Jesus Christ of Israel did not directly author his own scripture? Where is this a requirement for such a problem to exist?

Also, where is this idea that he never supervised or left behind any compiled body of teachings from? The Gospel authors were men who lived and walked with Jesus Christ of Israel himself, and they all wrote and made public their works (the books were in full circulation in Judea and some other provinces), containing almost 100 detailed commandments and teachings of Jesus Christ of Israel before the End of Days in 70AD. Clearly, you have never read any of the Gospels, yet you are convinced that you, in your ignorance, are some sort of expert on them. How come? 😒

2. Your summation of what Jesus Christ of Israel did makes no sense when considered against the details of His teachings and commandments as well as the works he did while he was on earth. Again, why do you insist on pretending that your ignorance should override the facts? 😒

3. Jesus Christ of Israel was not a theologian; He fulfilled prior promises made by His Father, YHWH, ushering in the End of Days that was promised by His Father as punishment to the nation of Israel, at the same time condemning the religion and religious leaders of the time as being against His Father, who never gave them religion nor commanded it of them. 😒

4. Judaism and Christianity(as well as Islam, which came from it) are not of YHWH. They are, all 3 of them, founded on doctrines and traditions removed from the Torah, the Tanakh, and the Injeel, which are all Israelite-only texts. If you wish to argue religion, do that in the context of religion alone. However, when you project your ignorance onto the Bible, you reveal yourself as a noisemaker seeking attention for the sake of it and nothing more. 😒

5. Wrong! There is no evidence revealing that the Gospels appeared decades after the crucifixion. From the accounts in the Gospels, as well as the letters of the disciples, we know that the Gospels and the letters were in circulation within the years after the crucifixion. We know that there were numerous copies of these documents available in the hands of churches(collectives) and possibly individuals. There was nothing Oral about the Gospels and the passing of the message. This is the reasonable conclusion from the content of the very books contained in the New Testament. Even the book of Revelation reveals that it was written(not spoken) long before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Read the books carefully to learn this for yourself. 😒

Think carefully about what you read and know. 😒

Interesting your now entering into nip in the bud bringing us to the fourth thread page? In any case let’s stay precise about the claim being made. First, bringing Islam into this is a deflection. The question on the table is NT divine authority. Whether Muhammad pbuh’s experience was genuine or not is a separate discussion and does nothing to answer the original point.
Second, the criteria you listed; embarrassment, dissimilarity, coherence, contextual credibility are historical filters used to identify plausible material within the Gospels. Their very existence assumes the texts cannot simply be accepted wholesale. They support critical evaluation, not automatic verification.
Third, and most importantly, citing Bart Ehrman cuts both ways. Ehrman argues that early Christians genuinely believed Jesus rose from the dead and was divine. But he is equally explicit that historical method cannot prove those beliefs were actually true. He draws a sharp line between the history of belief and the truth of the belief itself.
That distinction is the entire issue here.
So if the argument is that early Christians believed these things, there’s no disagreement. But if the claim is that theology itself is historically verified, then you’re moving beyond what historians like Ehrman say historical method can establish.
I’m simply holding the argument to the same distinction your own source makes.

SIRTee15:
I think I need to come in here to nip this in the bud.

I initially ignored u because ur earlier claim was that scholars don't find the gospel as reliable and historical.
tctrills already did a good job debunking that. So we let it rest.
There are different criteria scholars use validate historical claims. They are criteria of embarrassment, criteria of authenticity, criteria of dissimilarity, criteria of contextual credibility, criteria of coherence, and then the source of language in this case linkage btw what was spoken in Aramaic and what was written in koine Greek.

All scholars agree that the written gospel to a large extent meet this criteria thus have no reason to doubt historical reality stated in the Gospels.

The problem with Muslims is they believe the only way to validate historical claim is thru what they call chain of narrations which itself is problematic bocs it relies on authenticity of the narrators and their memories.

Besides the single most important historical chain of narration in Islam is missing. There's no historical evidence that Mormor spoke to an angel. If we cannot establish and independently verify Mormor actually spoke to an angel, then Islam as a religion is in serious trouble because the whole Islamic faith is based on one simple fact -Mormor spoke to an angel, A claim that cannot be historically verified.

Now what I will be doing is giving u historical evidence for the theology of Christianity because that's what u now asking for.

I will show u that academic scholars including Bart Erhman and any other academic bible scholars u can think of all agree there is historical evidence for the theology of Christianity.

U have been shouting bible scholars on this thread which shows u trust their works.
Now I will bring evidence that same academic scholars agree beyond any reasonably doubt that the theology of Christianity as we know it today is historical NOT made up out of thin air or conjured by some unknown people.

These are- divinity of Jesus, atonement by the blood of Jesus, physical ressurection of Jesus.

So what I will be doing next is bringing evidence supported by bible scholars like Bart Erhman to prove the theology of Christianity as we know it today is historical and actually linked back to Jesus Christ himself.

I sincerely hope u won't change mouth when I bring it.

honesttalk21:
Pick one and stick to it. God, spirit or both in any case it's supported by your book and view

According to the Bible there are lots of spirit beings (angels) and only one SUPREME BEING: GOD!
So who are the lesser Gods controlling stronger Gods?😟

@SIRTee15: Moved response to a new thread

You are best to tell. Your Bible calls these spirits god and should say how they come to the supreme being God. Does it not say?

MaxInDHouse:
According to the Bible there are lots of spirit beings (angels) and only one SUPREME BEING: GOD!
So who are the lesser Gods controlling stronger Gods?😟

honesttalk21:
You are best to tell. Your Bible calls these spirits god and should say how they come to the supreme being God. Does it not say?

The title "GOD" means SUPREME BEING but then some spirits and humans wants to rule so they were determined to dominate their fellow creatures that is the beginning of Gods who are not the supreme being.
Eve told Satan God's judgment over rebellion but Satan said:

“You certainly will not die. For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad. Genesis 3:4-5

So spirits and humans who wanted to become Gods were lied to that's why God told all of them:

“I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. But you will die just as men do; And like any other prince you will fall!" Psalms 82:6-7

So there is no lesser Gods controlling stronger God they are only deceiving themselves because God will destroy all of them!

Well with all you have written the god you all are compare to the supreme being God are what?

MaxInDHouse:
The title "GOD" means SUPREME BEING but then some spirits and humans wants to rule so they were determined to dominate their fellow creatures that is the beginning of Gods who are not the supreme being.
Eve told Satan God's judgment over rebellion but Satan said:

“You certainly will not die. For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad. Genesis 3:4-5

So spirits and humans who wanted to become Gods were lied to that's why God told all of them:

“I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. But you will die just as men do; And like any other prince you will fall!" Psalms 82:6-7

So there is no lesser Gods controlling stronger God they are only deceiving themselves because God will destroy all of them!

honesttalk21:
Well with all you have written the god you all are compare to the supreme being God are what?

Thieves!🙂

When historians study ancient texts, they apply consistent criteria: authorship attribution, compositional history, canon formation, and transmission reliability. Applied evenhandedly across the Abrahamic scriptures, those criteria produce materially different results.
The New Testament faces the greatest cumulative challenges. The Gospels are formally anonymous the names attached to them derive from later ecclesiastical tradition, not from the texts themselves. The dominant model in Synoptic scholarship, Markan priority, establishes literary dependence among the Synoptics, meaning the four Gospel accounts are not fully independent eyewitness narratives in the way popular apologetics frequently claims. Canon formation extended over several centuries with significant regional variation, and disputes over individual books continued well into the fourth century. The manuscript tradition is the most pluriform of the three Abrahamic corpora. Scholars including Bart Ehrman and Eldon Epp have documented harmonization, theological smoothing, and scribal modification across manuscript families. The text is not unrecoverable, but it is reconstructed through comparative analysis of divergent manuscript traditions rather than preserved through a singular controlled transmission line. Those are meaningfully different things.
The Hebrew Bible presents a stronger initial structure. Its internal transmission narrative is coherent one named mediator, one foundational national event, one law given to one people. The Masoretic tradition eventually achieved extraordinarily disciplined scribal regularization. But the tradition carries complications that honest analysis cannot set aside. The Dead Sea Scrolls permanently altered scholarly understanding of Second Temple textuality. Emanuel Tov's foundational work demonstrated the coexistence of proto-Masoretic, proto-Septuagintal, proto-Samaritan and mixed textual forms prior to standardization. The Masoretic Text represents a later stage of stabilization, not the endpoint of a singular unbroken transmission. Internal biblical testimony compounds this further. Jeremiah 8:8 records concerns about scribal mediation from within the tradition's own pages. The rediscovery narrative in 2 Kings 22 is treated by most critical scholars as evidence of late Deuteronomistic redaction rather than faithful recovery of an ancient original.
One tradition presents a structurally different profile. Research by François Déroche, Nicolai Sinai, Fred Donner and Harald Motzki consistently describes comparatively early stabilization of the consonantal text within the first Islamic century; a compressed chronological horizon relative to the originating prophetic period. Canonical reading traditions and early manuscript phenomena confirm that variation exists. But the range of divergence is assessed in comparative scholarship as substantially narrower than that observed in the New Testament manuscript tradition or in the pre-Masoretic textual plurality of the Hebrew Bible. Preservation was reinforced through parallel written codification and oral transmission operating independently of each other, a structural redundancy neither of the other two traditions possesses in the same form.
Several qualifications apply and they matter. Transmission integrity and divine origin are separate categories. Historical criticism cannot adjudicate revelation. A text may be well preserved yet false, or theologically meaningful independent of textual uniformity. No serious historian conflates preservation with truth.
But the narrower historical question is answerable. Which Abrahamic scripture presents the strongest documented profile of source proximity, canon stabilization, transmission control and manuscript consistency when identical criteria are applied across all three traditions without special pleading? The comparative scholarly literature points consistently in one direction. And the distance between the strongest and weakest cases is not a matter of degree. It is a matter of kind.

MaxInDHouse:
Thieves!🙂

Does your Bible say that? Which is to be believed you or your Bible where they are said to be gods

Explore2xmore:
When historians study ancient texts, they apply consistent criteria: authorship attribution, compositional history, canon formation, and transmission reliability. Applied evenhandedly across the Abrahamic scriptures, those criteria produce materially different results.
The New Testament faces the greatest cumulative challenges. The Gospels are formally anonymous the names attached to them derive from later ecclesiastical tradition, not from the texts themselves. The dominant model in Synoptic scholarship, Markan priority, establishes literary dependence among the Synoptics, meaning the four Gospel accounts are not fully independent eyewitness narratives in the way popular apologetics frequently claims. Canon formation extended over several centuries with significant regional variation, and disputes over individual books continued well into the fourth century. The manuscript tradition is the most pluriform of the three Abrahamic corpora. Scholars including Bart Ehrman and Eldon Epp have documented harmonization, theological smoothing, and scribal modification across manuscript families. The text is not unrecoverable, but it is reconstructed through comparative analysis of divergent manuscript traditions rather than preserved through a singular controlled transmission line. Those are meaningfully different things.
The Hebrew Bible presents a stronger initial structure. Its internal transmission narrative is coherent one named mediator, one foundational national event, one law given to one people. The Masoretic tradition eventually achieved extraordinarily disciplined scribal regularization. But the tradition carries complications that honest analysis cannot set aside. The Dead Sea Scrolls permanently altered scholarly understanding of Second Temple textuality. Emanuel Tov's foundational work demonstrated the coexistence of proto-Masoretic, proto-Septuagintal, proto-Samaritan and mixed textual forms prior to standardization. The Masoretic Text represents a later stage of stabilization, not the endpoint of a singular unbroken transmission. Internal biblical testimony compounds this further. Jeremiah 8:8 records concerns about scribal mediation from within the tradition's own pages. The rediscovery narrative in 2 Kings 22 is treated by most critical scholars as evidence of late Deuteronomistic redaction rather than faithful recovery of an ancient original.
One tradition presents a structurally different profile. Research by François Déroche, Nicolai Sinai, Fred Donner and Harald Motzki consistently describes comparatively early stabilization of the consonantal text within the first Islamic century; a compressed chronological horizon relative to the originating prophetic period. Canonical reading traditions and early manuscript phenomena confirm that variation exists. But the range of divergence is assessed in comparative scholarship as substantially narrower than that observed in the New Testament manuscript tradition or in the pre-Masoretic textual plurality of the Hebrew Bible. Preservation was reinforced through parallel written codification and oral transmission operating independently of each other, a structural redundancy neither of the other two traditions possesses in the same form.
Several qualifications apply and they matter. Transmission integrity and divine origin are separate categories. Historical criticism cannot adjudicate revelation. A text may be well preserved yet false, or theologically meaningful independent of textual uniformity. No serious historian conflates preservation with truth.
But the narrower historical question is answerable. Which Abrahamic scripture presents the strongest documented profile of source proximity, canon stabilization, transmission control and manuscript consistency when identical criteria are applied across all three traditions without special pleading? The comparative scholarly literature points consistently in one direction. And the distance between the strongest and weakest cases is not a matter of degree. It is a matter of kind.

Let's make this simple so everyone can get it.

You are a judge.
Mohammed claimed he saw and heard from an angel, he has no witnesses, no one else can verify.

On the other hand Jesus Christ died and resurrected.
There are multitude of witnesses and some even bear record.

The 4 gospels bear record of this.

Paul bears record, he sees the resurrected Christ on his way to persecute the saints.

Peter bears record in his letters.

John bears record in the book of revelations and his other writings.

You are the judge, who has a more credible case?

honesttalk21:
Does your Bible say that? Which is to be believed you or your Bible where they are said to be gods

This is what Jesus called impersonators

All those who have come in place of me are THIEVES and PLUNDERERS; but the sheep have not listened to them. John 10:8

So all those claiming they are gods are THIEVES according to Jesus of Nazareth.

Explore2xmore:
Interesting your now entering into nip in the bud bringing us to the fourth thread page? In any case let’s stay precise about the claim being made. First, bringing Islam into this is a deflection. The question on the table is NT divine authority. Whether Muhammad pbuh’s experience was genuine or not is a separate discussion and does nothing to answer the original point.
Second, the criteria you listed; embarrassment, dissimilarity, coherence, contextual credibility are historical filters used to identify plausible material within the Gospels. Their very existence assumes the texts cannot simply be accepted wholesale. They support critical evaluation, not automatic verification.
Third, and most importantly, citing Bart Ehrman cuts both ways. Ehrman argues that early Christians genuinely believed Jesus rose from the dead and was divine. But he is equally explicit that historical method cannot prove those beliefs were actually true. He draws a sharp line between the history of belief and the truth of the belief itself.
That distinction is the entire issue here.
So if the argument is that early Christians believed these things, there’s no disagreement. But if the claim is that theology itself is historically verified, then you’re moving beyond what historians like Ehrman say historical method can establish.
I’m simply holding the argument to the same distinction your own source makes.

Now since u admit that the companions of Jesus historically believed that Jesus is divine and rose from the dead as well as he died for our sins as confirmed by historians. That puts to rest the false argument that Paul created christianity.
Paul didn't invent christianity, christianity was already established when Paul joined the faith.

What every christian profess as article of faith comes directly from the companions of Jesus- u admitted that here.

For u to be a christian, u have to believe Jesus is divine, He died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead.

WHAT U AGREED TO IS THAT HISTORICALLY THE COMPANIONS OF JESUS, PEOPLE WHO ATE AND DRANK WITH HIM, SAW HIM WITH THEIR OWN EYES, HEARD HIM PREACHED, FOLLOWED HIM DURING HIS MINISTRY, WITNESSED HIS MIRACLES BELIEVED HE DIED FOR OUR SINS, HE IS DIVINE AND ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

NOW U ADMITTED HERE THAT HISTORICALLY THE COMPANIONS OF JESUS CHRIST PREACHED THAT JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED FOR OUR SINS, AND ROSE FROM THE DEAD AND HE IS DIVINE. MY BROTHER, THIS IS CHRISTIANITY.

SO U AND I CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE COMPANIONS OF JESUS PREACHED CHRISTIANITY AND SPREAD IT.

so I have 2 questions for u.
1. as a muslim that u are, do u believe the companions of Jesus are believers. The quran called them Muslims, do u agree with the Quran that the companions of Jesus are Muslims.
If u reject that the companions of Jesus who historically preached that Jesus is divine are Muslims, then why did Quran called them Muslims.
If u disagree with the quran that disciples of Jesus are Muslims, why then do u trust what is written in the book. If the Quran gets it wrong by calling companion of Jesus Muslims and u dont think they are, why should ANYONE TRUST WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK AT ALL.

2. MUSLIMS ALWAYS SAY WE SHOULD USE OUR LOGICAL MIND, INTELLECT, AND RATIONAL REASONING TO FIND THE TRUTH.
So lets put this to test.
who should I believe to find the truth about Jesus
THE COMPANIONS OF JESUS, PEOPLE WHO WERE WITH HIM DURING HIS MINISTRY, WHO SAW HIM AND SPOKE TO HIM, AND THESE PEOPLE HISTORICALLY PREACHED THAT JESUS IS DIVINE AND DIED FOR OUR SINS

OR

A SELF ACCLAIMED PROPHET WHO EMERGED FROM A CAVE AND ANNOUNCED AN ANGEL TOLD HIM JESUS NEVER DIED AND HE'S SIMPLY HUMAN. NOBODY COULD CONFIRM THIS SUPERNATURAL ENCOUNTER, NO EYE WITNESS COULD VERIFY THIS PROPHET SPOKE TO ANY ANGEL. EVEN THE BOOK HE BROUGHT DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HIM SPEAKING TO AN ANGEL.

WHO SHOULD I BELEIVE TO FIND THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS.

Explore2xmore:
When historians study ancient texts, they apply consistent criteria: authorship attribution, compositional history, canon formation, and transmission reliability. Applied evenhandedly across the Abrahamic scriptures, those criteria produce materially different results.
The New Testament faces the greatest cumulative challenges. The Gospels are formally anonymous the names attached to them derive from later ecclesiastical tradition, not from the texts themselves. The dominant model in Synoptic scholarship, Markan priority, establishes literary dependence among the Synoptics, meaning the four Gospel accounts are not fully independent eyewitness narratives in the way popular apologetics frequently claims. Canon formation extended over several centuries with significant regional variation, and disputes over individual books continued well into the fourth century. The manuscript tradition is the most pluriform of the three Abrahamic corpora. Scholars including Bart Ehrman and Eldon Epp have documented harmonization, theological smoothing, and scribal modification across manuscript families. The text is not unrecoverable, but it is reconstructed through comparative analysis of divergent manuscript traditions rather than preserved through a singular controlled transmission line. Those are meaningfully different things.
The Hebrew Bible presents a stronger initial structure. Its internal transmission narrative is coherent one named mediator, one foundational national event, one law given to one people. The Masoretic tradition eventually achieved extraordinarily disciplined scribal regularization. But the tradition carries complications that honest analysis cannot set aside. The Dead Sea Scrolls permanently altered scholarly understanding of Second Temple textuality. Emanuel Tov's foundational work demonstrated the coexistence of proto-Masoretic, proto-Septuagintal, proto-Samaritan and mixed textual forms prior to standardization. The Masoretic Text represents a later stage of stabilization, not the endpoint of a singular unbroken transmission. Internal biblical testimony compounds this further. Jeremiah 8:8 records concerns about scribal mediation from within the tradition's own pages. The rediscovery narrative in 2 Kings 22 is treated by most critical scholars as evidence of late Deuteronomistic redaction rather than faithful recovery of an ancient original.
One tradition presents a structurally different profile. Research by François Déroche, Nicolai Sinai, Fred Donner and Harald Motzki consistently describes comparatively early stabilization of the consonantal text within the first Islamic century; a compressed chronological horizon relative to the originating prophetic period. Canonical reading traditions and early manuscript phenomena confirm that variation exists. But the range of divergence is assessed in comparative scholarship as substantially narrower than that observed in the New Testament manuscript tradition or in the pre-Masoretic textual plurality of the Hebrew Bible. Preservation was reinforced through parallel written codification and oral transmission operating independently of each other, a structural redundancy neither of the other two traditions possesses in the same form.
Several qualifications apply and they matter. Transmission integrity and divine origin are separate categories. Historical criticism cannot adjudicate revelation. A text may be well preserved yet false, or theologically meaningful independent of textual uniformity. No serious historian conflates preservation with truth.
But the narrower historical question is answerable. Which Abrahamic scripture presents the strongest documented profile of source proximity, canon stabilization, transmission control and manuscript consistency when identical criteria are applied across all three traditions without special pleading? The comparative scholarly literature points consistently in one direction. And the distance between the strongest and weakest cases is not a matter of degree. It is a matter of kind.

As we can see, u finally exposed your hidden agenda when u initially claimed your argument has nothing to with Islam.

To u and your fellow Muslims, your claim on early preservation and chain of narration falls apart if the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FIRST CHAIN OF NARRATION CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED. THE CHAIN OF NARRATION BETWEEN mormor AND ANGEL JIBRIL.

There's no independent attestation or any eye witness that can confirm mormor spoke to any angel. not his wives or his companions could confirm this encounter despite being with him for 27 years of your prophet speaking to angel jibril.

Every prophet sent by God with a new or transformative message had independent eye witness that attested to the supernatural encounter btw God and the prophet.

70 leaders of Israel witnessed Moses meeting with God on mount Sinai.
exodus 24
9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Peter confirmed they witnessed the Father speaking to Jesus during the transfiguration.
2 Peter
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Mormor cannot be said to be a prophet along the line of ancient prophets if he had no eye witness to validate his supernatural claim. For all we know, it could be devised stories, dreams, trance or hallucinations. Unless we have someone telling us these encounters were true, then the validity of Islvm as a true religion falls apart. Even the Quran mormor brought didn't state any angel spoke to mormor.

My belle wan tear with laughter......
Hey, una dey try oh....

From beginning to now, nobody seems to understand anything. So sad.

Like somebody just posted on X, Jesus is Santa Claus for adults.....

The standard being proposed collapses once applied consistently. The claim in your post is that Muhammad pbuh cannot be accepted as a prophet because nobody independently witnessed his encounter with Jibril. But that same standard destroys major prophetic claims across earlier traditions too.
Moses was alone at the burning bush. Isaiah’s throne vision was private. Ezekiel’s visions were private. Paul’s Damascus experience even has differing retellings in Acts about what companions actually saw or heard. Private foundational revelation is not uniquely Islamic, it is the norm in prophetic history. Sinai does not escape this either. Exodus 24 reaches modern readers through transmitted literary tradition, not living eyewitness verification. Critical scholars like Friedman and Baden identify the Sinai material as composite and redacted over time, not untouched courtroom-style testimony.
The Transfiguration argument has the same issue. The eyewitness claim in 2 Peter depends on Petrine authorship, yet scholars like Ehrman, Raymond Brown and Jerome Neyrey classify 2 Peter as pseudonymous. .The text claiming eyewitness authority is itself disputed. So the inconsistency becomes obvious:
Transmitted testimony is accepted for Sinai and the Transfiguration, but rejected for Muhammad pbuh before investigation even begins. That is not neutral methodology. It is selective skepticism.
Then look at what followed Muhammad pbuh’s experience. He publicly recited revelation for over 20 years under hostile scrutiny from people whose greatest cultural strength was mastery of Arabic language and rhetoric. They accused him of sorcery, poetry and fabrication, yet failed to produce a rival text despite the Quranic challenge being public and contemporaneous. The deeper point is unavoidable; nobody today directly witnesses Sinai, the Transfiguration, resurrection appearances, or Jibril. Every Abrahamic faith ultimately relies on transmitted testimony preserved through religious tradition.
So the disussionn cannot honestly be framed as “verified eyewitness religion” versus “color=#990000]unverified cave religion.[[/color]” That distinction collapses immediately once identical standards are applied consistently.
At that point, the real historical discussion becomes comparative transmission. Which tradition shows earlier stabilization, stronger preservation mechanisms, narrower textual divergence and tighter transmission control when the same criteria are applied equally?
And that is a far more serious discussion than selective skepticism aimed in only one direction.

SIRTee15:
As we can see, u finally exposed your hidden agenda when u initially claimed your argument has nothing to with Islam.

To u and your fellow Muslims, your claim on early preservation and chain of narration falls apart if the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FIRST CHAIN OF NARRATION CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED. THE CHAIN OF NARRATION BETWEEN mormor AND ANGEL JIBRIL.

There's no independent attestation or any eye witness that can confirm mormor spoke to any angel. not his wives or his companions could confirm this encounter despite being with him for 27 years of your prophet speaking to angel jibril.

Every prophet sent by God with a new or transformative message had independent eye witness that attested to the supernatural encounter btw God and the prophet.

70 leaders of Israel witnessed Moses meeting with God on mount Sinai.
exodus 24
9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Peter confirmed they witnessed the Father speaking to Jesus during the transfiguration.
2 Peter
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Mormor cannot be said to be a prophet along the line of ancient prophets if he had no eye witness to validate his supernatural claim. For all we know, it could be devised stories, dreams, trance or hallucinations. Unless we have someone telling us these encounters were true, then the validity of Islvm as a true religion falls apart. Even the Quran mormor brought didn't state any angel spoke to mormor.

The standard being proposed collapses once applied consistently. The claim in your post is that Muhammad pbuh cannot be accepted as a prophet because nobody independently witnessed his encounter with Jibril. But that same standard destroys major prophetic claims across earlier traditions too.
Moses was alone at the burning bush. Isaiah’s throne vision was private. Ezekiel’s visions were private. Paul’s Damascus experience even has differing retellings in Acts about what companions actually saw or heard. Private foundational revelation is not uniquely Islamic, it is the norm in prophetic history. Sinai does not escape this either. Exodus 24 reaches modern readers through transmitted literary tradition, not living eyewitness verification. Critical scholars like Friedman and Baden identify the Sinai material as composite and redacted over time, not untouched courtroom-style testimony.
The Transfiguration argument has the same issue. The eyewitness claim in 2 Peter depends on Petrine authorship, yet scholars like Ehrman, Raymond Brown and Jerome Neyrey classify 2 Peter as pseudonymous. .The text claiming eyewitness authority is itself disputed. So the inconsistency becomes obvious:
Transmitted testimony is accepted for Sinai and the Transfiguration, but rejected for Muhammad pbuh before investigation even begins. That is not neutral methodology. It is selective skepticism.
Then look at what followed Muhammad pbuh’s experience. He publicly recited revelation for over 20 years under hostile scrutiny from people whose greatest cultural strength was mastery of Arabic language and rhetoric. They accused him of sorcery, poetry and fabrication, yet failed to produce a rival text despite the Quranic challenge being public and contemporaneous. The deeper point is unavoidable; nobody today directly witnesses Sinai, the Transfiguration, resurrection appearances, or Jibril. Every Abrahamic faith ultimately relies on transmitted testimony preserved through religious tradition.
So the disussionn cannot honestly be framed as “verified eyewitness religion” versus “unverified cave religion.” That distinction collapses immediately once identical standards are applied consistently.
At that point, the real historical discussion becomes comparative transmission. Which tradition shows earlier stabilization, stronger preservation mechanisms, narrower textual divergence and tighter transmission control when the same criteria are applied equally?
And that is a far more serious discussion than selective skepticism aimed in only one direction.

SIRTee15:
As we can see, u finally exposed your hidden agenda when u initially claimed your argument has nothing to with Islam.

To u and your fellow Muslims, your claim on early preservation and chain of narration falls apart if the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FIRST CHAIN OF NARRATION CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED. THE CHAIN OF NARRATION BETWEEN mormor AND ANGEL JIBRIL.

There's no independent attestation or any eye witness that can confirm mormor spoke to any angel. not his wives or his companions could confirm this encounter despite being with him for 27 years of your prophet speaking to angel jibril.

Every prophet sent by God with a new or transformative message had independent eye witness that attested to the supernatural encounter btw God and the prophet.

70 leaders of Israel witnessed Moses meeting with God on mount Sinai.
exodus 24
9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Peter confirmed they witnessed the Father speaking to Jesus during the transfiguration.
2 Peter
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Mormor cannot be said to be a prophet along the line of ancient prophets if he had no eye witness to validate his supernatural claim. For all we know, it could be devised stories, dreams, trance or hallucinations. Unless we have someone telling us these encounters were true, then the validity of Islvm as a true religion falls apart. Even the Quran mormor brought didn't state any angel spoke to mormor.

Hey what's going on? Your own verse refutes you as Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 just 4 verses and a score later Jesus answered, It is written in your own Law that God said, You are gods,
validating divine language, so John 10:8 cannot mean what you claim.

Do you now see such mistake in support of what the OP is questioning? Why scriptural contradiction?

MaxInDHouse:
This is what Jesus called impersonators

All those who have come in place of me are THIEVES and PLUNDERERS; but the sheep have not listened to them. John 10:8

So all those claiming they are gods are THIEVES according to Jesus of Nazareth.

@MaxinDHouse, no further counter argument?