... against aboKhansa

82% of the BIBLE Written By Paul! - Red Letter Bible!
aboKhansa | 12.VIII.2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CfLbYZ9M-Q

He has not yet made the claim all except red letters are by St Paul when I comment here. There will perhaps be a part two. Here are a few challenges he can start with, if he likes:

0:30 You start off showing off some lack of culture.

Last names don't exist in every culture. Romans and Russians had and have three names, but with a different setup. Icelanders and Arabs to this day don't use that, they do, like Old Greeks, use patronyms and in case of same name and patronym also a place name (patronyms is also the second Russian name).

So, the fact that no "last names" are given doesn't mean anything.

In modern parlance Matthew would have been Mathathiahu HaLevi - he was the Levite tax collector, one of the two named tax collectors who converted, and one of the twelve.

Mark was a disciple of St Peter. Luke was a named disciple of St Paul - and as a Greek, he obviously needed no last name.

John is most often considered as the son of Zebedee, if not it is possible we deal with a Yohanan HaKohen, either way we are certainly dealing with the disciple whom Jesus loved.

1:12 You have several problems.

1) You cite 364 denominations, which I find somewhat hard to believe, but there are some very minor ones, and if a major one was involved, it was very probably some dissident or modernist scholar.

2) Then, the Gospels are four, not five.

3) The Gospels do not add up to 550 pages.

M, M, L, J = Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

M 28 chapters Tens = 70
M 16 chapters Units = 19
L 24 chapters Total = 89 chapters
J 21 chapters Typically a chapter is about a page long

So, the Four Gospels adding up to 550 pages is impossible.

4) Then, of those 89 chapters, most, but not all contain, and some entirely consist of words of Jesus - the rest do not even pretend to do so, but consist of words about Jesus, telling us who He is.

This means, the Bible is not supposed to be the words of Jesus and nothing else. There is no fraud involved in it not being so.

5) To get to 550 pages, you get to several different authors, and only a minority of the works are even anonymous, most books have named authors, starting with 5 books of Moses in the Old Testament.

All of it is about Jesus, but not all of it, indeed very little of it in quantity, is by His mouth when He walked on Earth after becoming Man.

2:11 What you just read, about distinguishing the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith, is written by a Modernist.

That is the kind of "Christians" who could also be considered as Apostates.

2:36 The rest, considering the statements of the Creed as a "mythical role" is obviously also part of the Apostasy called Modernism.

3:07 Funny that you cite John 17:23 when a few verses earlier Jesus in His prayer tells the Father He is in Him and He in Him. That they are in each other.

Here is some red letter (though Catholic Bibles do not mark them so), from John 17:

[20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; [21] That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

So, Christ says the Trinity is true and that the Church is indefectible.

You as a Muslim say that the Trinity is false and that the Church has defected.

3:16 Funny, is it really John 17:23 you pretend to be citing?

You actually cited That with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God

That is not from John 17. It is a half verse from Romans 15.

Here is all of the verse:

That with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[Romans 15:6]

That is St Paul speaking or rather writing. Not Jesus.

You seem to have a kind of bad luck at citing your sources correctly ... or bad skill - or even bad will.

3:24 Here I replayed to be sure I heard your reference correctly.

And Jesus Christ said in John 20:17

Here is John 20:17 for real : Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God. Let's hear what you make it ...!

3:34 Oh ... you actually said sth nearly correctly, you just missed that St Mary Magdalene was sent by Jesus to His Apostles and missed the beginning where He told her not to touch Him.

Now, it was to the Apostles He made the distinction about God the Father as "my Father" and also "your Father". Why did He not tell the Apostles He was ascending to "our Father", if The Father was His and their Father in the same way?

Because, obviously, The Father is Father of the Son of Eternity, but Father of the Apostles by an act of adoption.

And same with "my God" vs "your God".

If the words had only been to the woman, you could pretend it was in order to keep males and women apart, but He used the woman as a messenger to His apostles, who were all males, so this is NOT the explanation.

4:08 All of the things you enumerate about Jesus' true Manhood are correct. But they do not exclude His true Godhead - or "Godhood" or Divinity.

4:29 No, St Paul is not the "father of the modern Church".

He's a last apostle, but an apostle and an apostle along with the twelve, namely eleven chosen by Jesus Christ in His life and Matthias who had known Him chosen by lot after His Ascension.

5:46 What you have said about Saul's early carreer [as a persecutor] is correct. So far. Let's see if you get his conversion right?

5:58 No, actually you even get Paul's early carreer wrong.

In this very early year, it as Jewish lynchmobs, not Romans, who persecuted Christians.

Saul's mission was not arresting on Roman behalf, but to round up for lynchmobs and to excite lynchmobs.

Now, will you at least get his conversion right ...?

6:02 kill for a price

No, not right either. No price is mentioned.

Saul was a fanatic, not a bounty hunter.

6:48 You even get the conversion wrong, Christ did not say "why do you persecute the Church", He said Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (cited from Acts 22:7)

By persecuting the Church, Saul was persecuting Christ, like you are belittling Christ by belittling His Church.

6:49 No, Jesus did not on that road tell Paul "I have selected you". He said, I will now cite verse 10 of Acts 22, entirely.

And I said:
What shall I do, Lord?
And the Lord said to me:
Arise, and go to Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things that thou must do.

It is only in Damascus, when Paul is healed of his blindness by Ananias, that Ananias, one of the Christians he had been persecuting, tells him that he is selected.

[11] And whereas I did not see for the brightness of that light, being led by the hand by my companions, I came to Damascus. [12] And one Ananias, a man according to the law, having testimony of all the Jews who dwelt there, [13] Coming to me, and standing by me, said to me:
[Here are the words of Ananias, whom he had obviously not yet spoken to:]
Brother Saul, look up.
[St Paul resumes the narrative]
And I the same hour looked upon him. [14] But he said:
[Ananias, again:]
The God of our fathers hath preordained thee that thou shouldst know his will, and see the Just One, and shouldst hear the voice from his mouth. [15] For thou shalt be his witness to all men, of those things which thou hast seen and heard. [16] And now why tarriest thou? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.

So, St Paul is not accepting apostleship only on the force of his own vision, but also that of the Christian Ananias.

7:01 "Now, that is the only time when Paul said he saw and talked to Christ."

Be careful about using words like "only". They imply universal negatives about all other instances, and this you have not researched.

You have conflated two visions into one, whether because you never read Acts 22 and trusted someone else, or because you are a liar.

Because, now Paul resumes the narrative:

[17] And it came to pass, when I was come again to Jerusalem, and was praying in the temple, that I was in a trance, [18] And saw him saying unto me: Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; because they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.
[19] And I said:
Lord, they know that I cast into prison, and beat in every synagogue, them that believed in thee. [20] And when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I stood by and consented, and kept the garments of them that killed him.
[21] And he said to me:
Go, for unto the Gentiles afar off, will I send thee.

Now, the narrative of St Paul was interrupted in Acts 22, by the Jews, here is St Luke describing the occasion:

[22] And they heard him until this word, and then lifted up their voice, saying:
Away with such an one from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live.
[23] And as they cried out and threw off their garments, and cast dust into the air, [24] The tribune commanded him to be brought into the castle, and that he should be scourged and tortured: to know for what cause they did so cry out against him. [25] And when they had bound him with thongs, Paul saith to the centurion that stood by him:
Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

St Paul knew it was not.

7:37 "after that vision, Paul straight away understood he was the 12th apostle"

No, he did not. Read the text you criticise!

"to replace Judas"

No, that was Matthias.

See Acts 1:
http://drbo.org/chapter/51001.htm

[St Luke tells the story:]
[15] In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:)
St Peter speaks:
[16] Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: [17] Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. [18] And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. [19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. [20] For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

[21] Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, [22] Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. [23] And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. [24] And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, [25] To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
[outcome, in the words of St Luke]
[26] And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

7:57 "Now there were only eleven disciples, genuine disciples"

No, the eleven were NOT all of Christ's disciples.

They were NOT all of Christ's clergy, even, He had chosen them and the seventy and then there were the rest, AND one genuine disciple had already become the twelfth.

The Church was big enough for Saul to have people to persecute.

Already the first day, when St Peter preached, 5000 men and their families had joined the Church.

8:00 "and Paul said he had been anointed to fill that gap"

Now you are making things up, aboKhansa.

8:04 "he now became the twelfth apostle ..."

No. The new twelfth apostle was already there, St Matthias.

8:05 "... by his own appointment"

The revelation by which He was appointed was not to Him only, since Ananias was involved and also since the twelve (the eleven and Matthias) AND who they were appointing were in place to check if he really was a genuine thing.

There is someone else who became "Rasool" by his own appointment. I think you know whom I mean.

8:27 "Paul himself, fifteen books."

Yes, most of them are very short ones and are preaching the Christian virtue. They are not among the Four Gospels. Also, they are only fourteen canonical ones. His epistle to Laodiceans is usually not counted as part of New Testament.

8:37 "and the Church Fathers are also of the opinion that the first five books were written by Paul or underthe influence of Paul."

False.

"because Paul wrote his books between 50 and 60 years after Jesus Christ left"

False again.

50 - 60 AD is possible. But that is 50 to 60 years after He was born, not after He left.

Also, the first Gospel, that of St Matthew, was already written.

8:58 "four gospels and acts were written between 90 and 110 years after"

False again.

Last Gospel was written the period 90 - 100 AD, that is, after Jesus was born. All the three others and Acts were already written before Destruction of Jerusalem in year 70 AD (after the birth of Christ).

9:08, no, St Matthew was not influenced by Paul, and even if Paul did write before St John, he had his own knowledge, from Christ and from the Blessed Virgins, he was an old man when he wrote.

9:13 "now, most Christians don't know that"

Many Christians still know it is totally false, and also totally not based on Church Fathers, but on Apostates called Modernists.

Your poor hearers don't know that.

9:23 etc. "if you get majority of books written by Paul who never saw Jesus physically, in one vision, and you get another five books of four Gospel writers, who also never saw Jesus, never ate...."

You get a delirium of pseudolearning about the New Testament, fitting for aboKhansa and for the kind of "Christians" that real Christians call apostates, modernists.

"who had no direct connection with Jesus Christ"

14 books are by St Paul. A person who does not believe God gives visions or revelations is of course free to say he never had a direct connection with Jesus Christ.

We Christians are not unbelievers, we believe in God.

Sts Luke and Mark account for another 3 books, but each had direct connections if not with Jesus Christ, with those having so (and St Luke also had a direct connection with St Paul).

The rest of the writers all were directly connected to Jesus.

St Matthew, one of the twelve.
St James, brother of God, of Jesus, son of St Joseph from a first marriage
St Peter, the chief of the twelve
St Jude, one of the twelve, also a Yehuda, but not the traitor
St John, the beloved disciple.

10:14 "all of the other books written without the authorisation etc etc of the twelve who were living ... in Antioch, or Jerusalem or Galilee"

Or, Rome. St Peter had left Antioch for Rome.

You are repeating a lying thesis, advanced by desperate Atheists and Jews.

Yes, of course the twelve collaborated with St Luke and with each other when one of them was writing.

And the last writer was the closests disciple, him to whom Christ confided His Blessed Mother.

Your final questions reflect your lies or ignorance.

I can add, the four Gospels are, as said, 89 chapters. Acts another 28, so 117 chapters. The books by St Paul are not so many chapters, only 100 : 16 + 16 + 13 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 13 = 100.

Then there are the books placed in the collection after the epistles of St Paul:

5 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 22 = 43
43 + 117 = 160

So, St Paul wrote a minority of the New Testament. Less than 40 % of it, and it is the shorter Testament.