Why are there no New Testament manuscripts dated to within Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) lifetime?

Why are there no New Testament manuscripts dated to within Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) lifetime?

bbc.co.uk/news/business-35151643

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=v90hyAzzMUY
youtube.com/watch?v=py10Xs63ewA
theguardian.com/books/2012/may/04/in-shadow-of-sword-tom-holland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers
newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Quran_manuscript
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because it was corrupted. Islam is the true word of Allah.

It's simple. The New Testament claims that Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew. He wasn't. He was a Muslim, along with all the other prophets, including Prophet Adam (pbuh). This proves that Islam is the oldest monotheistic religion by far. Judaism doesn't even claim Adam was a Jew.

This my brothers

inshallahlah ulallahah amualahha lahhaaha nasheeeeeeeddd

youtube.com/watch?v=v90hyAzzMUY
ALLAH INSHALLAH MASHALLA KHUBA ALLAH ALAHH MEYA ALLAH

Because he was only 33 years old when he died, and his teachings only lasted for three years. The earliest texts of the Gospels range from late 60s-early 100s a.D., well within the lifetime of Jesus' direct school and their immediate predecessors.

You are all fakes trying to ruse people. Speak in Arabic you dog.
Otherwise. أراك لاحقًا

Not true. At that time with life expectancy it's very unlikely they were alive. It's why we thank Allah that the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) brought us his true uncorrupted message.

Abjads are archaic cancer. Bow before the mighty Alphabet of Kadmos

أنت لست عربيا. كف عن التظاهر

That's the worst argument there are New Testament manuscripts dated to within Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) lifetime I have ever heard!

You have no idea what you're talking about. If you lived to adulthood in ancient times, you could readily expect to live upwards of 50 years or more.
The, "Ancient people had a life expectancy of 35 years old, lol" comes from the disproportionately large infant mortality rate experienced by the Ancients.

I wish I could nuke this thread

hello moorish friends

>the NT can't be true, it was written too late, in the 2nd-3rd centuries
>the Qur'an has to be true, it was written just in time, 5 centuries after th NT!

Mohammedan logic.

Islam merged with Anime what an abomination.

>Jesus wasn't crucified, he was magically replaced on the cross by Judas!
It's like a fucking Disney cartoon.

That is because you hate learning and there are no New Testament manuscripts dated to within Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) lifetime.

No one said anything remotely along those lines.

>Koran was compiled after Mohammad's death by Uthman, despite Mohammad living 30 more years than Jesus
>Why don't we have any surviving gospels written 2000 years ago written in a three year period?

Who is this cutie?

That's Aisha, the Phophet's wife. Are you coveting Mohammad (PBUH)'s wife?

Would you mind actually making your point in something other than barely legible cryptic greentext? You appear to be entirely agreeing with my post in an extremely butthurt way as far as I can tell.

I would muhammad her insides if you catch my drift ;)

if it puts the fags back in the closet, and the women on the path of self decency I say we should welcome Islam with open arms

This. Degeneracy is a result of Christian Atheism.

...

...

The Koran doesn't exist until after Mohammad's death, despite him living comfortably into his 60s with plenty of time to compile his teachings.
Jesus' Preaching only last 3 years, and is put down by his execution, where he dies.

His teachings don't become historically attested until the 60s, which is within the lifetime of his followers, or at the very most his followers' followers.
Out of all Ancient documents, the New Testament is the best attested

The oldest NT papyri are from the early second century and the earliest of epistle is believed to have been written around 50 AD.

This is such a pile of horseshit.

Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) teachings were NOT put down during his lifetime. The NT was written by people who didn't even speak the same language as him or his followers between 50 and 110 and we don't even know when it was compiled, arguably it still hasn't been since there isn't complete agreement which books should be in the NT.

The Koran was written during Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) lifetime and compiled almost immediately after his death.

>Out of all Ancient documents, the New Testament is the best attested

But that is not even remotely close to being true, the Koran is.

So in other words the earliest fragment of a manuscript of the NT is the size of a credit card and dated to approx a hundred years after Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) lived. Good one.

Because Christianity doesn't actually place supremacy upon texts, only wonko branches do. Christ is the Logos, the Logos is far more important than a widely-available text that is prone to interpretation and corruption.

God bless this thread

No point in arguing with him. He's completely brainwashed by traditional Arab history, when in reality there's serious evidence that it Islam had not developed into a distinct religion at the time when the conquests of Syria took place.

The Muslims ITT will get massively triggered, scream about false history, cross-link to /pol/ and so on but everyone should read In the Shadow of the Sword by Tom Holland. He makes an extremely convincing and whole argument about how Islam most likely developed in Syria, not Arabia, and points out for example that the oldest biography of Muhammed was written two centuries after his death. The only arguments against his books can be summed up with Arabs screaming how insulting it is to question their revisionist, nationalistic chest puffing that they consider their history and "reee it's so islamophobic"

>Why are there no New Testament manuscripts dated to within Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) lifetime?

Because evidence the Abrahamics are damned might cause them to repent out of proof rather than conviction for their evils which they did in conviction that Moses is a true prophet which would interfere with God's vengeance against them.

> When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret[a] of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that

>‘they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.

youtube.com/watch?v=py10Xs63ewA

It sounds like you have been brainwashed by some pop history / fiction writer. A quick check shows Tom Holland doesn't have any history qualifications, let alone any qualifications or in Middle Eastern history and " Shadow of the Sword" was torn apart as complete nonsense by historians who reviewed it.

>Why are there no New Testament manuscripts dated to within Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) lifetime?

Its pretty hard to write an account of a persons death within their lifetime.

The gospels and letters aren't diary entries

It's not that hard to write an account of someone's teachings withing their lifetime, though. And it's not that hard to write about someone's death shortly after they died instead of decades later in a language that person and his followers couldn't speak.

He is a college educated, Hessell-Tiltman Prize winning history writer. He doesn't have a degree in history, but dismissing his thorough research based on that is just you shutting your ears and not wanting to hear.

Read his book. It isn't pop history, or fiction. His book was not "torn apart" by any historians. It isn't pop history, it's quite academic and well researched. But I'm sure you're happy now that you could make some half-assed post to justify the fact that you blindly believe the traditional muslim version of the history of Islam.

I need sauce on who that girl reading the book is.

College educated to mere degree level in English and Latin and yes the book was ripped apart by historians.

theguardian.com/books/2012/may/04/in-shadow-of-sword-tom-holland

>It's not that hard to write an account of someone's teachings withing their lifetime

It is when you are you dedicating your life to preaching and facing heavy persecution for it.

>in a language that person and his followers couldn't speak.

Not true, Greek due to the influence of Mediterranean trade and the legacy of Alexander the Greats conquest was a quite a common language, indeed regionally it was akin to what English is today. Indeed being in Greek helped it to spread very easily.

>write about someone's death shortly after they died instead of decades later

Then why did it take half a century + for a biography of Muhammad to be written? Most books you will see from modern to ancient times and especially in history are not written immediately after the event.

The first part of your post reeks of bad excuses that don't even challenge the facts of what I said and as for this...

>Then why did it take half a century + for a biography of Muhammad to be written?

I don't know what "biography" you are referring to but the Koran was written during Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) lifetime and there are manuscripts to prove that, which is the point of this thread.

>The first part of your post reeks of bad excuses

How so? almost all the Apostle of Jesus were imprisoned and martyred during their work which they carried out to their last days. Jesus left a Church and teachings not a book to propagate.

Likewise I would like to hear you reasoning behind the rejection of my point regarding Greek and its value and presence in the region.

>I don't know what "biography" you are referring to

The earliest one which only exists in fragments written by Sahl ibn Abī Ḥathma. Going by your logic the followers of Muhammad should have be writing about him and his life during it not half a century later yet that is what happened.

How do you explain this contradiction in your reasoning?

>the Koran was written during Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) lifetime and there are manuscripts to prove that, which is the point of this thread.

The Koran is the word of God as delivered through the angel Gabriel. The Gospels are the accounts of the Apostles who followed and taught with Jesus.

When comparing documentation consider them in the same way you do the Hadith (which also run into that same contradiction of ours outlined earlier)

>which is the point of this thread.

Then you are being dishonest with us as the OP is asking the question of why the NT was not written during Jesus's life and ministry. Or did you simply muck up your OP?

>almost all the Apostle of Jesus were imprisoned and martyred during their work which they carried out to their last days

There is absolutely no evidence what any of them did or what happened to them or any information about their lives other than for Peter. You have no sources what soever for this entirely made up claim.

>The earliest one which only exists in fragments written by Sahl ibn Abī Ḥathma.

He was a companion of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

>Then you are being dishonest with us as the OP is asking the question of why the NT was not written during Jesus's life and ministry. Or did you simply muck up your OP?

So you didn't even bother to look at the source.

Because it wasn't written during his lifetime. Much like the Quran wasn't written during Mohammed's.

** had to reformat that a bit because I made some mistakes

>There is absolutely no evidence what any of them did or what happened to them or any information about their lives other than for Peter.

Of course there is the oral and written traditions and accounts passed down by the Church Fathers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers

Is a good place to start if you want to find out specifics.

>He was a companion of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

Refer to my point regarding the difference in the Gospels and the Koran as methods of sharing religious truth.

His relationship to Muhammad was what the Apostles were to Jesus a follower - so ask yourself

"Why are there no biographical manuscripts written by the followers of Muhammad dated within his lifetime?"

The reason I ask you to answer this is that it will help understand the answer to the question in the OP.

>So you didn't even bother to look at the source.

How is it a source if it doesn't contain any mention of your question?

Now if this is just you trying to do some dawah then let me know and I leave you to it, but if you are sincere and want to know the answer to this question (and I can forgive you for forgetting or choosing not to answer the matter regarding the use of Greek) answer this

"Why are there no biographical manuscripts of Muhammad written by his followers dated within his lifetime?"

>Of course there is the oral and written traditions and accounts passed down by the Church Fathers.

Cite some primary sources for me.

>As were the Apostles with Jesus so to

But there are no written accounts from any apostles.

>Why are there no biographical manuscripts of Muhammad dated within his lifetime?

There is the Koran.

>How is it a source if it doesn't contain any mention of your question?

The point of the OP is that it is a comparison, everyone else in the thread seemed to manage to work out the point.

See

>Cite some primary sources for me.
Here is one of the best that incorporates oral tradition (which as a Muslim you are no doubt aware of the intricacies and value especially if you value Sahl ibn Abī Ḥathma. account)

newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

If you want earlier sources see

newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm

>But there are no written accounts from any apostles.

There are some controversies over some but to say none of the accounts are written by the Apsotles is something you can only do if you rely on Atheist works

>There is the Koran.
Can you explain the connection between the Koran existing and why that the followers of Muhammad had to wait over half before they started writing about their experiences with him?

The importance and role played by Hadith (especially when it comes to prayer) show that the existence of the Koran did not remove the need for the accounts of followers
>The point of the OP is that it is a comparison, everyone else in the thread seemed to manage to work out the point.

Seems to be mostly anime picks and shitposts but Ill concede that point if that helps. Is this a dawah thread though?

Anime Muslims is my favourite meme.

...

You could say the same to Moses or Abraham and so on and so forth

>There are some controversies over some but to say none of the accounts are written by the Apsotles is something you can only do if you rely on Atheist works

What rubbish, even Evangelical Christian scholars don't claim any more that the gospels were literally written by the apostles.

>newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm
>newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm

Most of that doesn't even mention the apostles and Tertuallian wasn't even born until 155.

>Can you explain the connection between the Koran existing and why that the followers of Muhammad had to wait over half before they started writing about their experiences with him?

Can you explain why the Koran was written in the lifetime of Mohammad (pbuh) and the NT was written decades after the lifetime of Jesus (pbuh) and why there are Koran manuscripts dated to within or close to Mohammad's (pbuh) lifetime and the NT was written decades after Jesus' (pbuh) lifetime and earliest manuscript is dated nearly a century later?

Check the OP link, even the wild exaggeration in your pic doesn't even come close.

...

Moses and Abraham didn't exist. Jesus nearly certainly did.

>What rubbish, even Evangelical Christian scholars don't claim any more that the gospels were literally written by the apostles.

If you want to reject the idea of Oral Church Tradition as an axiom.

>Most of that doesn't even mention the apostles and Tertuallian wasn't even born until 155.

See this strikes me as being quit hypocritical - you accept the validity of Hadith and biographies like that of Sahl ibn Abī Ḥathma even though they do not appear for centuries later but denny the legitimacy of Christians to use the same process.

>Most of that doesn't even mention the apostles

Its the same case with the text that contains Sahl ibn Abī Ḥathma account.

>Can you explain why the Koran was written in the lifetime of Mohammad (pbuh) and the NT was written decades after the lifetime of Jesus (pbuh) and why there are Koran manuscripts dated to within or close to Mohammad's (pbuh) lifetime and the NT was written decades after Jesus' (pbuh) lifetime and earliest manuscript is dated nearly a century later?

I will do so after you answer the question I posed to you which you ignored and instead asked a question.

"Can you explain the connection between the Koran existing and why that the followers of Muhammad had to wait over half before they started writing about their experiences with him?"

>There are more manuscripts that preserve the New Testament than there are for any other ancient writing, the exact form of the text preserved in later manuscripts may not be identical to the form of the text as it existed in antiquity but are agreed by most scholars to be 99.5% identical in content, with the differing .5% attributed to minor variations such as spelling. These variations are not seen to affect the meaning or interpretation of NT scriptures and are usually given reference to as in-page footnotes in most of today's bibles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

>This kills the Muslim

>If you want to reject the idea of Oral Church Tradition as an axiom.

So backtracking to oral tradition now, huh,

>See this strikes me as being quit hypocritical - you accept the validity of Hadith and biographies like that of Sahl ibn Abī Ḥathma even though they do not appear for centuries later but denny the legitimacy of Christians to use the same process.

ME being hypocitical???? Fucking hell. You keep going on about Sahl ibn Abī Ḥathma, a literal companion, of Mohammad (pbuh) personally writing about Mohammad (pbuh) but waiting a few decades, while smugly declaring that things written decades later by unknown authors based on "oral tradition" are just great. AND all the while deliberately ignoring the point that the Koran was written in the lifetime of Mohammad (pbuh).

The levels of astounding hypocrisy and double standards you are showing are reaching astonishing levels.

...

The earliest NT manuscript is credit card sized and dated from around 125.

This kills the shitposter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Quran_manuscript

Praise be to Allen

>So backtracking to oral tradition now, huh,

Nope I mentioned in my first post when discussing the history >You keep going on about Sahl ibn Abī Ḥathma, a literal companion, of Mohammad (pbuh) personally writing about Mohammad (pbuh) but waiting a few decades

We only know of this based on a book written 200 years later - which for some reason christians cant do.

>s, while smugly declaring that things written decades later by unknown authors based on "oral tradition" are just great.

If you reject the legitimacy of Oral tradition you reject all the Hadith and almost all of the Old Testament.

Also I noticed you still havent answered my question, how does it feel to be so limited in your understanding and weak in your faith that something that simple as

"Can you explain the connection between the Koran existing and why that the followers of Muhammad had to wait over half before they started writing about their experiences with him?"

Causes you to pretend it doesnt exist and hurl insults?

Still deliberately ignoring the fact the Koran was written in the lifetime of Mohammad (pbuh) and there are manuscripts to prove it.

You are just dissembling now. I particularly love the way you claimed I was being hypocritical and I pointed out and explained how you were actually the one being hypocritical so that is apparently me "hurling insults".

The NT as it exists has and explains Aramaic quotes in it, showing that there was transmission of the original Aramaic preachings into the Greek schools.
Jesus lived in a world where Greek was the Lingua Franca, so it's not surprising that the bulk of his teachings were preserved in that language, especially when he instructed his 70 disciples to go out to all the nations of the world to preach.

>Muslim logic "our earliest fragment is bigger than yours" therefore the other 23,999 dont matter!!!

Tell me how many suriving Koranic manuscripts are there?

>we have counted all the number of NT copies right up to the invention of the printing press and this somehow proves the NT

Christian logic.

No one has bothered to count the number of Korans right up until the invention of the printing press. Do you want to know the reason? The reason is that is a stupid argument that no one is isn't silly would take seriously.

Still deliberately ignoring the fact the Koran was written in the lifetime of Mohammad (pbuh)

I never said the Koran wasnt written in his lifetime and I affirm that it was - all I am saying is that you have failed to explain explain the connection between the Koran existing and why that the followers of Muhammad had to wait over half before they started writing about their experiences with him?

>You are just dissembling now. I particularly love the way you claimed I was being hypocritical and I pointed out and explained how you were actually the one being hypocritical so that is apparently me "hurling insults".

Every time I prove you wrong you just start ignoring it

You say Im backtracking I show in it was in the post that raised the issue.

You say there is a "is absolutely no evidence what any of them did or what happened to them or any information about their lives other than for Peter."

And I show you sources that tell of their lives and how they died that are consistent with how Islamic sources are used and you say they came too late to be valid.

Yet you ignore these things and act as though because the accounts of the Apostles were not produced exactly like the Koran they must therefore be invalid.

>I never said the Koran wasnt written in his lifetime and I affirm that it was

Good that was my point.

>I am saying is that you have failed to explain explain the connection between the Koran existing and why that the followers of Muhammad had to wait over half before they started writing about their experiences with him?

I have no idea what the connection is, I don't think there is one. You are the one that keeps claiming a connection so maybe you would like to explain yourself.

>You are the one that keeps claiming a connection so maybe you would like to explain yourself.

Ill break it down

You earlier posts say we should reject the authenticity of the Gospels because of the time gap between when the written and the death of Jesus.

I argued that this kind of gap is common and gave an example of how the accounts of Muhammad's followers (which I assume you accept as legitimate) took quite a long time to be written.

Now the issue I saw here was how can you deny the legitimacy of the Gospel on these grounds whilst accepting the legitimacy of Islamic documents with the same problem.

Your answer to this was that the Koran existed. I dont see how this resolves the problem so I wanted you to explain your reasoning of how these were connected.

There is no time gap between the Koran being written and Mohammad's (pbuh) lifetime.

>There is no time gap between the Koran being written and Mohammad's (pbuh) lifetime.

I think I see the confusion here, when I say their accounts I don't mean the revelations but their experiences with him and the faith (the kind of stuff that winds up in Hadith).

How is that relevant?

>he wasn't a jew.

He was a jew. His entire thing was reforming the jewish faith away from the power of the priests.

The shit Paul and Peter made up, and the fan fiction arabs wrote doesn't count

You do know that 'average life expectancy' is polluted by baby deaths, right?

Those cartoons are creepy AF. Make it proper animu or my cock is staying uncut.

>This proves that Islam is the oldest monotheistic religion by far.

West african vodun can be considered monotheistic and it is older than islam.

>How is that relevant?

Because if we can accept that such time gaps between an event and an account are not rare and do not automatically invalidate that account we cannot reject the authenticity of the gospels based on the grounds that they were not written right after the crucifixion of Jesus.

How can Vodun be from earlier than Adam and Eve?

But there is no time gap between the Koran being written and Mohammad's (pbuh) lifetime. The hadith are not considered 100% authentic and a lot of work goes into trying to work out which ones might be authentic.

The hadith are completely irrelevant to the thread but you keep bringing them up and I keep pointing out they are not relevant. Then to top it off you start bizarrely demanding that I explain how they are relevant when you bought the topic up in the first place.

because it was an oral tradition for its first 40 or so years until some people got the idea to put together a compilation of sayings of Jesus, this list of sayings was then elaborated into the written gospels

There are no surviving records of jesus' life because realistically he was a very minor figure.

>But there is no time gap between the Koran being written and Mohammad's (pbuh) lifetime.

I know

>The hadith are not considered 100% authentic and a lot of work goes into trying to work out which ones might be authentic.

The same is true with the Gospels and many false ones have been rejected and many questionable ones sidelined.

A good way for a Muslim to understand the Bible is to picture it as a collection of Sahih Hadith

>The hadith are completely irrelevant to the thread but you keep bringing them up and I keep pointing out they are not relevant

They are relevant as they provide an example of a documents being true even though they weren't written right after the event.

Here is a secular example:

most of the highly accurate accounts of World War I were written decades after the event but are still known to be true.

Therefore it does not make sense to reject an account just because it was not written in the aftermath of the event.

There are many reasons to reject the authenticity of the Gospels but the time gap is not one of them.

Inshallah.

So you admit that the Koran is perfect and the NT is imperfect.

>So you admit that the Koran is perfect and the NT is imperfect.

Nope, only that the Koran was written during Muhammad's his life time, compiled shortly after and that the NT is composed of documents produced after the crucifixion of Jesus.

Did my secular example clear my point to you?

Smith’s books were written within thier lifetime.

Is Book of Mormon perfect too?

according to islam he is a false prophet

according to Mormonism Muhammad is a false prophet

No WW1 book written decades after WW1 happened is correct in all details.

I want to convert Christ-chan to Islam with the power of cock.

No book written by humans on a broad subject can ever be correct in all details. Do you think that the modern works by scholars on the subject are incorrect?

The Koran is perfect.

How do you know?

Is it because iot is written in the Koran?

Is it because deep in our souls, we all know it to be true?

why should we listen to anything a muslim says

besides islam artistic style sucks ass
christianity is aesthetic af

Why are there no Qurans dating to Mohammad's lifetime, but later documents asserting there were like 30 conflicting versions shortly thereafter?

Kek, someone isn't able to follow a simple link. Nice try.

I don't think you understand the sheer ammount of deatail a book would have to go into for it to be a perfect description of fucking anything dude

Why should we care when a particular historical document was written? All we should care about is how accurate the information in it is, and well I don't know how to break this to you religious types but angels don't actually exist.