Kwanini Nchi nyingi zenye asili ya Uislam zinakumbwa na Vita sana?

 


Taking the epistle?


"The text which has been misused to support a literal view of the entire Bible's inspiration is itself the work of an author who has lied about his identity."


– Robin Lane Fox (The Unauthorized Version, p136)





"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."


– 2 Timothy 3.16.
 


Bold, Catholic and Fake


Epistles of Peter, James, John, and Jude




Several of the New Testament epistles are known as "Catholic" because there is no pretense that they are correspondence to an individual or even an individual church. They are addressed to the "whole church". Many authorities regard these seven works as "pseudepigraphical" (in plain English, fake). Put aside the distorting lens of Christian faith and it becomes obvious why: they belong in that period of fractious debate that characterised Christianity of the 2nd not the 1st century.



1 & 2 Peter, Jude




Just what did Peter,"Prince of the Apostles", record for posterity? Some welcome insights into the early days with his Lord? Perhaps an allusion to his faux pas in the Garden of Gethsemane or a reminiscence of that awesome resurrection appearance? Not a bit of it. "Peter" writes as a church manager, anxious to keep the organisation under control.


1 Peter is not so much a letter as a baptismal sermon, written in a Greek milieu. It claims to originate in "the church that is at Babylon", understood as a coded reference to Rome, and apparently is addressed to Jewish Christians ("strangers") scattered across Rome's Asian provinces. They are a "chosen generation", facing "manifold temptations". Submission is the watchword. The brethren are urged to be "as obedient children"(1.14), as "newborn babes" (2.2), to "submit to every ordinance of man ... unto governors ... for the Lord's sake." (2.13,14). Slaves are urged to be subject to masters "with all fear" (2.18), wives to be subject to husbands "chaste and with fear" (3.2), the younger to "submit to the elder" (5.5). All this subservience, it seems, is in the sight of God "of great price." The end of all things is "at hand" (4.7).


Yet none of this can originate with an "unlearned and ignorant" fisherman called Peter (Acts 4.13). Its excellent Greek, use of the Septuagint for scriptural references, including a description of JC's death drawn from Isaiah 53 – odd for an eye-witness! – betrays a different origin. The reference to Rome as "Babylon" is an obvious anachronism (Rome was only so-called after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 yet Peter we are told died at the hands of Nero around 64! 1 Peter is late and fake.


2 Peter purports to be the last testament of a man facing a martyr's death (so why doesn't Peter feature in Paul's "prison letters"?). Its intent is to warn against "false teachers" and play down end-time hopes. A real howler is verse 3.16 which refers to Paul's epistles as "scripture"! It dates, of course, to a time when the Church was warming to the idea of secular power.


2 Peter actually borrows from the epistle of Jude and Jude itself – a mere 25 verses – claims to be the work of the "brother of James", that is the apostle Judas named in Luke 16.6 and Acts 1.13. And yet the apostle lists of Mark and Matthew name no such character. Instead, the only brother of James they know is a John! A Judas is named later by both evangelists but this time as "the brother of Jesus" (Matthew 13,55, Mark 6.3). More fakery.
 
kama mtafutaji wa ukweli
Mohammed said that women are stupid and most of the people in hell are women. Kind of funny, considering that a terrorist suicide bomber or someone martyred in jihad is promised 72 virgins in heaven.


Katafute ukweli wa huu uongo wa shoga mud we kafiri
 





Epistles of James, 1,2 & 3 John


This "letter of James" was not included in the early canon and it most certainly is not from the pen of a brother of Jesus. Its mixed bag of themes and inconsistent vocabulary betray that it has actually been composited from several earlier sources. Probably the date of composition was the late 2nd century, when Pauline theology was being expropriated by the church in Rome. One concern expressed in the letter was opposition to "faith without works", a point made without mentioning Paul by name. Luther called James "an epistle of straw" – but then Luther was the apostle of "sole fide".



All three "John" epistles are actually anonymous but "tradition" (and certain affinities with the 4th gospel) assign a spurious authorship to the famous apostle. But content clearly indicates the furious doctrinal and factional conflicts best identified in the 2nd century.


1 John has none of the salutations of a letter. It warns the "children" (a word used no fewer than 14 times) to resist the "many antichrists" (2.18) and "false prophets" (4.1).


What heinous messages have "the seducers" (2.26) been spreading that merits the fatherly missive? Such shockers as "Jesus was not Christ or Son of God" (2.22, 5.5), that "we have no sin" (1.8), that God does not incarnate as flesh (4.3) – all of which sounds terribly "modern" but which were issues crucial to the disputes between Hellenisers, Judaizers, Gnostics, Docetists and those who emerged as "orthodox" towards the end of the 2nd century.


2 and 3 John are perhaps the most honest of all the epistles. They are brief enough to have actually been a letter (each would fit on a single leaf of papyrus), are sent by someone calling himself "the elder" (NOT John!) and are addressed to a "Gaius" and to an "elect lady". They betray a certain frantic concern that the recipients remain true to the "original message" and not be seduced by "deceivers", who quite obviously are very active. The "false teacher" targeted by 2 John has a startling perspective: Jesus never existed!




3 John actually names the object of its wrath, a reprobate called Diotrephes, chief honcho of a church somewhere and rival to "the elder":




Such brotherly love, such Christian fellowship!
 

Exit "Hebrews"


Setting aside the seven dubious "Catholic" items, the fourteen remaining letters are said to be the work of Paul. Surely, we have something genuine here?


Well, we better make that thirteen. Nobody with any knowledge at all about the anonymous "Hebrews" subscribes to the ungrounded "tradition" that Hebrews is Paul's handiwork.


In fact, even Evangelicals welcome the reassignment of Hebrews to another hand. In their impoverished logic it gives them “another witness” to Jesus!
 
 
 



The Pauline Corpus - a compendium of fraud


NOT mentioned in dispatches



Of the thirteen letters that bear the name of Paul, nine of them are addressed to churches and four to individuals. Do they ring true?


Curiously, the four Gospels neither mention nor even hint at a pioneering apostle called Paul. For the gospel writers, Paul does not exist. Equally curious is that Paul's letters reciprocate the ignorance of the gospellers by betraying NO knowledge of apostolic writings. Indeed the evangelist Matthew, the tax collector so good at teasing prophesies for the coming of Jesus out of Jewish scripture, is not so much as named in any Pauline epistle.


The evangelist John, son of Zebedee and the only other disciple credited with a gospel, is dismissed by Paul in a single phrase from his entire corpus:


" James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars .. ".


Even then, the occasion was seventeen years after Paul's miraculous conversion, when the apostle proudly declared he "learned nothing" from the purported companions of the godman (Galatians 2.6,9), and that included John, "the one Jesus loved"! Even the central drama of Jesus is referenced so obliquely and fleetingly in Paul's letters that one realizes that the author's "risen Christ" is a different entity entirely from the Nazarene carpenter of the gospels.


According to Acts, the evangelist Mark (aka John Mark) did feature in the adventures of Paul: he deserted the apostle's first mission at Perga and became the cause of an acrimonious falling out between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15.38,39). Yet Paul makes no reference to this altercation in his own letters and his three passing references to Mark are inconsequential and dubious. Mark's references to Paul are non-existent. Even the dubious Epistle of Barnabas, supposedly the work of Paul's first companion, never mentions Paul.


Not even the book of Acts – written, we are told, by Luke, Paul's long-time travelling companion and with him even in the condemned cell (2 Timothy 4.11) – makes any reference to, or even hints at the existence of the Pauline epistles, the seminal work that defines Christian theology and makes up one third of the entire New Testament! The silence is startling from the supposed "biographer" of the foremost apostle.
 

"Inauthentic" – a polite word for fraudulent


Actually, for quite some time, biblical scholars of all stripes have divided even the Pauline epistles into the "authentic" and the "inauthentic", the litmus test being the "unique and powerful voice" said to speak through the genuine article. Perhaps as few as four, or as many as seven, of the whole collection are deemed "authentic".
 
Another Anecdote, Mohammed first said kill all dogs then he relented and said don't kill all dogs but it's okay to kill the black ones.


Wait, wut? Now we're being racist to dogs? Mohammed certainly was. The supreme creator of the universe Allah had nothing to do except tell humans to kill black dogs (which I assume the supreme creator also designed.) But apparently the black dog is by the devil. Thank god or thank dog that he stopped at dogs and not people or Africa would be genocided by now.

All i’ll say is “cool story bro”.
 


"The Pastorals" – not quite the ticket




The most dubious of the Pauline letters are the so-called "pastorals" – 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.


The biggest problem is that 2 Timothy purports to be written from a prison cell shortly before the apostle's martyrdom yet Paul says "Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick" (2 Timothy 4.20). Paul's last recorded presence in Miletum (Miletus, near Ephesus) was on the return leg of his 3rd journey (Acts 20.15), not on his voyage to Rome, and Trophimus was NOT left behind. In fact, in Jerusalem Trophimus plays a crucial if passive role in the eventual fate of the apostle.




Apart from the chronological slip one may well ask, Why did the great healer not heal his own playmate?


Titus presents its own problems. Within the opening address we learn that Paul has been to Crete yet the "classic" Pauline itinerary says nothing about a mission to the island:




Titus
also anticipates a get together of the saints on the Adriatic coast of Greece – so Paul is obviously not in a Roman jail.




The pious mind, being what it is, papers over the rather serious cracks with quite a bizarre claim: that Paul served not one but two prison terms in Rome, with a year's vacation in between, probably spent in Spain and/or Crete! Such a wildly inventive story becomes necessary to keep the so-called "Pastoral" epistles "authentic".


Even without the "two term" jail record, Paul had a curious imprisonment in Rome. Apparently, he spent two years in his own hired house, summoning the Jewish elders (Acts 28.17, 20), receiving all who came to him, and preaching without hindrance from "morning till night" (Acts 28.23). Sounds more like a sabbatical year than a term in prison.


OK - so excluding the dodgy "pastorals", do we have ten genuine letters?


Not quite.
 
Moderator
Tafadhali ufupishe au uufungie Mara moja huu mjadala kwani hauna faida kwa upande wowote ule, huu mjadala umekuwa wa kukashifiana na kutukanana,
Ahsante
 
Here is a rather funny Quranic verse (i’m not making this up, it literally tells people not to blab after eating food but kindly get the f*ck out of the tent without annoying Mohammed)

“O believers! Do not enter the homes of the Prophet without permission ˹and if invited˺ for a meal, do not ˹come too early and˺ linger until the meal is ready. But if you are invited, then enter ˹on time˺. Once you have eaten, then go on your way, and do not stay for casual talk. Such behaviour is truly annoying to the Prophet, yet he is too shy to ask you to leave” Surah Al Ahsab - 33/53

Mohammed is so shy to ask you to leave, so the almighty creator of the universe decreed a verse for all of eternity through an angel who made an illiterate man write. How much hashish do you need to smoke to believe this stuff? Know where I can get some of that?
 


The "Prison Epistles"



The so-called "prison" or "captivity" letters – Philippians, Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians – far from establishing the veracity of Pauline authorship, expose such authorship as bogus.


They are discussed in detail here.


Suffice it to say that the prison letters do nothing to establish the notion that Paul was either in Rome or in prison. They are, as they say, "inauthentic".





What, then, of the half-dozen "core" Pauline letters? Surely they at least are "authentic"?


Well actually ...
 
 
 
Unaweza kuisaidiwa ukajua hasa chanzo cha hizi saga,
Nilitaka kujiaminisha kuwa wewe ni Mvivu sana hadi ukashindwa kufuatilia kujua nani Founder wa hizi groups na nani anazi Finance.

Lkn inawezekanaje mtu mvivu kisha aweze kuweka andiko refu kiasi hichi?
Huyu si Mvivu bali ni Mtu Jaahili Mkorofi.

Haya kafuatilie mwenyewe kwanini hizo Nchi hukumbwa na Machafuko,
Nani anaanzisha hayo makundi?
Sababu za kuanzishwa kwake?
Na kwanini ni katika Nchi ambazo hasa zenye utajiri wa Mafuta na Gas?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…