My brother, I don't know why you thought that you would be adding clarity with your response above. Christianity is convoluted and no amount of apologetics over the past 2000 years will ever fix that. It is widely known and universally accepted by Bible scholars that in the compilation of the Bible, many documents were presented as parts of named books when they could not be so. I once posted two passages side by side where they were exactly the same passage inserted into the both books. There has also been wholesale copying (plagiarism) in the New Testament so I don't share your enthusiasm of Matthew 27:35 nor do I find it fascinating. The writers of the New Testament took old stories and associated them with Jesus and then claim that they were happening to Jesus and they never failed to add "so that the prophesy can be fulfilled". Adding this certification is done similar to Trump lying and then ending by saying "believe me". Your explanation about God temporarily turning his back on his son can only come from someone grounded in blind faith. It is as illogical as many other Christian teachings starting with how the Holy Spirit had to spread over Mary as in the missionary sexual position. God who created this grand plan that occurred on the Calvary cross can't deal with some of the circumstances of his own plan. And what sins of the world has Jesus abated since we are even more sinful now than we ever were. Even those who became 'born again' have ended up committing worse sins than what they did before they became 'born again'. So not only do 'born agains' don't know God. Jesus doesn't know God either. And based on Christian convoluted teachings, looks like even God does not know God. But since a sucker is born every moment, the charade will continue.
That said, Happy New Year.
Happy New Year to you and the family.
I absolutely agree with you here my brother wow, Christianity is difficult because it expects a lot from us. The most difficult thing that is expected of us Christians is to loves one another just as Christ loves us. You know how difficult that is to do? I struggle with that a whole lot.
Addressing accusation of corruption/plagiarism
Some not all Muslims accuse Christians of corrupting the Bible. While this charge would explain the differences between the Quran and the Bible, the allegation has no credible evidence. The Quran praises the Bible, and scholars verify the Bible’s authenticity.
Islam teaches that the Bible has been corrupted. However, the Quran commends the Bible: "And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah—a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)" (Surah 5:46). Muhammad was commanded by Allah to "recite what has been revealed to you of the Book" (Surah 29:45).
In addition, the Quran says that God’s Word cannot be changed (Surah 6:34; 10:34, 64), and it makes no distinction between the various revelations of God. "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them" (Surah 2:136).
Scholarly evidence proves that nothing of doctrinal significance differs in the various Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. Aside from grammar and spelling variation, the Bible today is essentially the same Bible that Muhammad praised (Surah 3:3).
The New Testament was completed 500 years before Muhammad received the Quran. It is not enough to say, "The Bible and the Quran are different, and thus the Bible must be wrong." Proof of corruption must be forthcoming. If a modern author wrote a book on the Gallic Wars that was found to conflict with Julius Caesar's account of the same events, then the older, historically accepted text would carry more weight. Caesar, whose writing was contemporaneous with the events, would have more authority than the modern author. In other words, when discrepancies in a historical document are alleged, the burden of proof rests on the newer text.