Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: God’s written instructions for life. Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 40 Next >>
Author Message
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 02 October 2011 at 2:08pm
Originally posted by Kish

Not at all, that is way tooooo easy. Before Muhammad and even amongst Christ’s enemies in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Century the written Gospel was accepted; no serious debates about it whatsoever, hands-down.  What took so long to say, hey! Where is my Aramaic copy of it?  So, as you can see, a fundamental question requires a very fundamental answer. The thought was regarding the language of the Gospel. Jesus and his Apostles spoke Hebrew and Greek and at times Galilean Aramaic.


Uh-huh.  What evidence do you have that Jesus spoke Greek?  A "fundamental answer" is meaningless if it is without any evidence. 

Furthermore, you try to paint a very rosy picture of the Gospels' authority, which is expected given your heavy Christian bias.  But if the Gospels carried so much authority, why were there so many other "Gospels" circulating around?  And why did the Gospels' authority evolve over the 2nd century?  Why did Ignatius only refer to two of them?  Why was Irenaeus (late 2nd century) the absolute first Church father to explicitly say that there are 4 authoritative Gospels?

Originally posted by Kish

Luke, Paul and others spoke Hebrew. Eusebius (of the third and fourth centuries C.E.) said that “the evangelist Matthew delivered his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue.” (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XXII, col. 941)

Ac 22:2 When a great silence fell, he (Paul) addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying: 22 “Men, brothers and fathers, hear my defense to YOU now.” 2 (Well, when they heard he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent, and he said:) 3 “I am a Jew, Also Acts 26:14.

So indeed that makes it a very strong argument!

  

LOL More circular reasoning.  How does this answer the question of why the Hebrew copy has not survived?  We already know what the Church tradition says.  The question is why has only the Greek translation managed to survive? 

Originally posted by Kish

Can you imagine Jesus giving him the time of day with this mock trial? What did Jesus tell him, the authority he did have was from his father in the heaven.

Again, you deliberately ignore what Matthew 26 states:

"62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.

   The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

   64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Jesus refused to call himself the "Son of God" but instead referred to himself as the "Son of Man".  Your feeble attempts at special pleading and excuse making cannot refute what your own Bible states.  The contradictions are obvious.

Originally posted by Kish

It’s obvious that Jesus is the Son of God since it is God who said so, right in the presence of eye-witnesses to firmly establish it for the world. Jesus could not have cared less for this puny mortal when it came to doing the will of God.
  

Obvious, is it?  Riiight...Which "eye-witnesses" are you referring to?  What did these "eye-witness" say they "witnessed"?

Oh and by the way, compared to God, Jesus (pbuh) is also a "puny mortal". 

Originally posted by Kish

This example in Deuteronomy just happen to be dealing with criminal cases my friend, there are many more incidences in the Bible. But this is your flimsy excuse, I see. Now you’re saying you cannot make a false statement against a man in the eyes of two or three witnesses but you can make a false statement against Almighty God, without any witnesses, gotcha! That would apply even more so toward God, right? Even in some countries you need at least one witness for a testimony to be true but I guess not in the Islamic community. Now, I can see why Muhammad would think that he can get away with making such a statement that the angel Gabriel spoke with him in a cave with no first, second or third testament to firmly established the truthfulness of his statement. Here are other scriptural references…

No, what I am illustrating is your selective use of the Tanakh when it suits your purpose.  This is typical of Christian apologetics.  The fact is that just because no one witnessed the first encounter is no different from the fact that no one witnessed Daniel's encounter with Gabriel, Moses' encounter with God on Mt. Sinai or even Jesus' alleged encounter with Satan. 

Also, the Tanakh showed how to test a claimant to prophethood.  It stated:

"17 The LORD said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

 21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed." (Deut. 18:17-22)

So there you go.  Nothing is mentioned here about witnesses.  Your other "scriptural" references are again a case of circular reasoning.  You quote the NT ad nauseum, as if that proves your point about the Law of Moses. 

Originally posted by Kish

I guess the Prophet forgot the universal law/principle of the Holy Scriptures when it came to a fact being firmly established by eye-witnesses in order to confirm its trueness, a fact in which he conveniently left out of the Quran to push his own agenda. Knowingly or unknowingly this is a very, very serious matter.

Yes, it is a "serious" matter for those who practice double standards about what is "trueness" (sic).

Originally posted by Kish

Special pleading will get you know where. I suggest, if Jesus our Prophet and Savior said it believe it! If the Quran denies that Jesus did not fulfill the Law, like Israel wow on Islam for trampling upon the Son of God.
  

LOL Do you even know what "special pleading" means?  Ironically, your statement "if Jesus...said it believe it" is a perfect example of "special pleading" given my point about your selective use of the Law of Moses when it serves your purpose.  Your only response is the vague reference to "fulfilling" the law?  What does that even mean?  I think it is the Christian tactic for excusing the NT when it contradicts the Law of Moses.  Everyone's on to you, Kish. 

Originally posted by Kish

As always, Paul had more people eye-witness his conversing on the road and the miracles he performed then Muhammad ever had! If you disagree, open up a thread and list Muhammad’s eye-witnesses using your Quran compared to the Apostle Paul and I’ll use the Bible, you started it let’s see who can finish it. Example:

Muhammad’s Revelation in the cave, his miracles and who eye witnessed them by name.

Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, his miracles and who eye witnessed them by name.

But, I already know you are unable to provide eye-witnesses let alone names. Nonetheless, open a thread I’m always willing to learn, please.

      

Why do we need to open another thread?  This issue is related to the topic we are discussing.  It does not go unnoticed that you completely avoided answering the question I asked and instead pathetically tried to divert again to the prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  I asked you about Paul and why you do not apply the OT verses you mentioned to his encounter in Damascus?  Who witnessed the event?  What were their names?  Do we have their personal testimonies or do we have Paul's own claims?  Keep the Bigfoot analogy I mentioned in mind when you answer these questions (or when you dare to answer these questions!). 

Originally posted by Kish

Oh, God’s purpose is always fulfilled but in this case not with natural or fleshly Israel but the Israel of God.

(Matthew 21:43) This is why I say to YOU, The kingdom of God will be taken from YOU and be given to a nation producing its fruits

Why?

(Matthew 23:37, 38) “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her,—how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But YOU people did not want it.. Look! YOUR house is abandoned to YOU

(Acts 3:13-15) The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom YOU, for YOUR part, delivered up and disowned before Pilate’s face, when he had decided to release him. Yes, YOU disowned that holy and righteous one, and YOU asked for a man, a murderer, to be freely granted to YOU, 15 whereas YOU killed the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses.

Since the old covenant was taken away from Israel, Jesus death provided a NEW covenant.

Luke 22:20 Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.

(Galatians 6:15-16) For neither is circumcision anything nor is uncircumcision, but a new creation [is something]. 16 And all those who will walk orderly by this rule of conduct, upon them be peace and mercy, even upon the Israel of God.
 

Again, more special pleading and circular arguments.  WOW!  You're doing great Kish! LOL

To repeat, the Tanakh contradicts the "New Testament" on the issue of the covenant.  Isaiah 59:21 says very clearly that the covenant was to last forever.  Nothing was said about the covenant being taken away and given to some other people.  This contradiction and your inability to reconcile it shows that the Christian acceptance of the Tanakh as "scripture" is conditional and is nothing more than an act of lip service.  That one verse from Isaiah proves conclusively either one of two scenarios, both of which are problematic for blind Christians:

1. The Tanakh is false since Isaiah 59:21 is a false prophecy,

2. The NT is false since it contradicts Isaiah 59:21.

To hammer home the point, let us read the verse again:

21 “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever,” says the LORD.

Originally posted by Kish

But the Quran denies Jesus being the Son of God which the Holy Scriptures, Jesus, his heavenly father and his earlier followers accepted. I bet my life on these two witnesses (God [YHWH] and Jesus) not ONE “so called” witness (Muhammad) You will never, ever get around this scriptural fact, there must always be two or more witnesses to a testament, IT’S BIBLE LAW!


Your dang right that the Qur'an denies the pagan idea of "son of God"!  But, your NT contradicts you and itself on this issue as well.  It could not make up its mind.  Jesus had the perfect opportunity to say who he was, yet the author of the Gospel of Matthew decided to be vague and instead Jesus purposefully denies the title of "son of God" and settles for the lesser title "son of Man".  So you see, even Jesus denies your blasphemy...and so does Almighty God!  Therefore, the Qur'an is correct when it denies the pagan concept of "son of God":

"O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh ) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (god), glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs." (4:171)


All praise is due to Allah (swt)!

Originally posted by Kish

Wrong again! First of all Titus wrote these words not Paul.


LOL Oh my goodness!  You don't even know your own scripture, do you?  Your pathetic attempts at denial will shrivel in the face of the truth!  First of all, even if they were Titus' words, they would still be part of the canonized NT and therefore would remain blasphemous verses which contradict the previous prophets as well as common sense.  Second, the fact is that they are indeed the words of Paul!  Paul wrote those words to Titus, as he states:

"1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness— 2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, 3 and which now at his appointed season he has brought to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior,

 4 To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior." (Titus 1:1-4)

So, these were straight from Paul's mouth!  So, I ask again.  What blasphemy is this? 

Originally posted by Kish

Secondly, Jesus AND God is our savior, what is your point?

Your denial will be your doom.  How can Jesus AND God both be our savior(s)?  Here again, you contradict the Tanakh which states over and over again that God is the savior, something the Qur'an agrees with:

"And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah (i.e. this Qur'an), and be not divided among yourselves , and remember Allah's Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islamic Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes His Ayat (proofs, evidence, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided." (3:103)

"“The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be my God, the Rock, my Savior!" (2 Samuel 22:47)

Secondly, Paul said explicitly that Jesus is his "god and savior"! 

"...while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ..."

When will you open your eyes?  You only doom yourself by being stubborn.  By accepting the truth, you are not doing me any favors.  It's for your own good! 

Originally posted by Kish

Like the rest of Jesus followers, Mary, Titus who you quoted above not Paul although he too knew Jesus AND God to be the savior understood this teaching and preached and taught it not Muhammad, why? Also, how do you know Titus is not talking about two distinct persons here, Jesus AND his heavenly father as it reads since throughout his writings he believed Jesus to be God’s son and not God the son. It seems to me because of your lack of understanding you miss-quote the Holy Scriptures and ignore its teachings and consistencies of Jesus being the son of God. But of course you will over look these facts I presented and dig for other “so called” discrepancies. No problem, I can do this all day!

Again, Paul said those words, not Titus.  Even if it was Titus, the verse is part of your Bible.  What is it doing there?  Muhammad (pbuh) taught the same teaching as the previous prophets which was the Oneness of God and the subservience of man to Him. 

Second, the verse does not say Jesus AND God, it says "great God and savior Jesus".  Paul is referring to Jesus as both God and savior.  

Originally posted by Kish

Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible to identify YHWH and Jesus as being the same individual.

Wrong again.  Your "scriptures" are hopelessly contradictory.  It is true that in many places, it is impossible to consider Jesus and God being the same individual, but in other places, the writers of the NT do make that claim.  The letter to Titus is one example.  Another example is Hebrews 1.  Just look at the horrid blasphemies Paul writes:

"6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” [...]

But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
   therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
   by anointing you with the oil of joy.”"

Consider also Romans 9:5-

"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised!"

He wrote all these blasphemies and yet you still consider him a follower of Jesus?  How blind can you be?  Do you think Jesus would have accepted these verses as authentic and true?  Do you think Isaiah would agree with these blasphemies when he wrote the following:

"And Hezekiah prayed to the LORD: 16 “LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth." (Isaiah 37:16)

I certainly don't think so! 

Given these proofs and the fact that the Qur'an agrees with the previous prophets that God alone is worthy of worship, what makes you reject Muhammad (pbuh) yet accept Paul? 

Originally posted by Kish

Wrong aaagain, Paul, seriously? No way, remember Paul was converted from being a very prominent Jew to a follower of Christ!

Yes, this is according to Paul.  So what?  We don't know if anyone actually witnessed this momentous occasion, although Paul claims (rather inconsistently) that there were witnesses.  This brings us back to the Bigfoot analogy I mentioned. 

Anyway, how does this change the fact that Paul is by far the most important figure in Christian history, second only to Jesus?  This is despite the fact that he never heard Jesus speak during his ministry and never met him in person (besides the one incident in Damascus for which there is no corroborating evidence).  

Originally posted by Kish

Nice try but true Christians follow Jesus not Paul, Peter or anyone else, another accusation with no grounds to support it scripturally.

Wrong.  Christians like to believe that they follow Jesus, but in reality, they ignore much of what Jesus taught, as I showed above from Paul's own words.

Originally posted by Kish

Really, what I have just responded to was not adequate? Mary, Jesus, Jesus’ own mother, Jesus early followers such as Titus, Peter and Paul believed Jesus to be the son of God?
  

What you have demonstrated "adequately" is that the New Testament is hopelessly self-contradictory.  Jesus rejected the title of "son of God" when confronted by the Sanhedrin, according to Matthew.  Therefore, any other places in the New Testament where it is claimed that Jesus is the son of God must be rejected as contradictions which were added later.  And as far as Paul and Titus are concerned, they did not regard Jesus as "son of God" but as God Himself.  And actually, according to your Bible, even Peter believed as such (although I have a hard time believing that):

"To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

 2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord." (2 Peter 1-2)

Now before you say "well verse 2 clearly distinguishes between the two", that still leaves the problem of verse 1 where there is clearly no distinction made.  Peter (or whoever wrote this blasphemous verse) clearly refers to Jesus as "our God and Savior". 

Originally posted by Kish

And? He was the son of man and the son of God which he did say and his true followers recognize and preached. You still have not established that he was not otherwise, just because you hate the term means nothing.

More special pleading.  You just assume he was both but Matthew says that Jesus denied the title "son of God" when confronted by the Sanhedrin.  Why did he do that if he was both? 

And by the way, I definitely hate the term "son of God" as used by Christians because of its blasphemous and pagan nature.  This term in never used in the OT the way Christians use it, except when referring to the "Nephilim" or to the nation of Israel. 

Originally posted by Kish

Wrong. Where did Paul say that?

In his letter to Titus and other places, as I showed above.  

Originally posted by Kish

Wrong. Where did Paul or Jesus say that?

LOL Of course Jesus never said that because he was already gone by the time Paul came to the scene!  But the fact is that Paul contradicted Jesus, especially on the nature of Jesus himself, and yet Paul is by far the most important figure after Jesus and authored more books which now make up the NT than anyone else.  The "Pauline Epistles" are 14 in number, which makes up more than half of the NT.  Of the other 13 books, two were supposedly written by an associate of Paul (Luke).  That would mean that Paul directly influenced 16 of the 27 books of the NT.  Why would anyone not believe that Paul is the true founder of Christianity?      

Originally posted by Kish

Absolutely! I truly hope you follow your own advice.

I have followed my own advice, which is why I am a Muslim!  I wholeheartedly reject the confused and contradictory beliefs of Christianity.  You are free to believe what you want but by being stubborn in the fact of the truth, you doom only yourself. 

Originally posted by Kish

First, it was the Law of God to Israel, then the Law of Moses. God himself taught the Nation of Israel the Law, using Moses as its mediator not the Prophets, Exodus 10:16-19. The covenant was then validated by the [blood] of bulls and goats. Why blood? Leviticus 17: 11 God said: “The soul [or, life] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: ‘No soul of you must eat blood.’”

There are several problems with your selective use of the OT:

1.  First, Leviticus does not say that only blood will be accepted for atonement.  Those who cannot afford to sacrifice an animal can use pigeons or even wheat!  Leviticus 5 states:

"As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering[a]; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin.

 7‘Anyone who cannot afford a lamb is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for their sin—one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. 8 They are to bring them to the priest, who shall first offer the one for the sin offering. He is to wring its head from its neck, not dividing it completely, 9 and is to splash some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering. 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

 11 “‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah[b] of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. 12 They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial[c] portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the LORD. It is a sin offering. 13 In this way the priest will make atonement for them for any of these sins they have committed, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.’”"

2.  The act of atonement could only be done in the Temple.  If Jesus' crucifixion was supposed to serve as atonement for our sins, then it did not count as it was not even within the walls of Jerusalem, let alone on the Temple grounds! 

3.  The atonement ritual was only for the Jews.  It was not required, for example, from the people of Jonah:

"Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”

 10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened."(Jonah 3:8-10)

4.  Even if blood was the only way to atone, it was the act of shedding blood that did so.  Jesus' death on the cross would have been illegitimate as death from crucifixion usually occurs from asphyxiation and not blood loss. 

Originally posted by Kish

Hebrews 9:15-22 So that is why he is a mediator of a new covenant, in order that, because a death has occurred for [their] release by ransom from the transgressions under the former covenant, the ones who have been called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance. 16 For where there is a covenant, the death of the [human] covenanter needs to be furnished. 17 For a covenant is valid over dead [victims], since it is not in force at any time while the [human] covenanter is living. 18 Consequently neither was the former [covenant] inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment according to the Law had been spoken by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of the young bulls and of the goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled the book itself and all the people, 20 saying: “This is the blood of the covenant that God has laid as a charge upon YOU.” 21 And he sprinkled the tent and all the vessels of the public service likewise with the blood. 22 Yes, nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and unless [blood] is poured out no forgiveness [of sin] takes place.

That is why it was necessary for Jesus to die a sacrificial death, to shed his pure innocent Holy blood; no other man could have done that because of inherited sin. That is also why Jesus was born from a virgin woman with the power of Holy Spirit, making him sinless.

But I am not going to go down the list of all the things you perhaps are not clear on in regards to the Law covenant. But, hopefully you can see why Israel had to offer up sacrifices. The Law of Moses has everything to do with 1. 2. 3. Anyhow, this topic is on Jesus and the Gospel not Moses and the Law covenant, besides “Christ is the end of the Law.”—Romans 10:4; if you wish to open up a thread on it, be my guest, I can go into further details there.

  

Not only did you not prove anything about blood atonement, you also ignored the rest of my points.  We don't need to open a new thread.  Everything we have discussed is related.  It seems to me that you are stalling.  Let me repeat:

Never did the prophets teach such concepts as:

1. Original sin

2. Redemption through blood sacrifice

3. Messiah as the son of God, and others…..The OT never teaches these concepts.  Why?

Originally posted by Kish

God’s word does not contradict; man’s word does because of lack of study or understanding.
 

That's pretty convenient.  When there is an obvious contradiction, the excuse is that it is due to "lack of study or understanding".  How so?  Since you seem to believe that you "understand", explain why there are so many obvious contradictions between the Tanakh and the NT?  And what do these contradictions have to do with the Covenant?

Originally posted by Kish

Incorrect, most of the Jews unfortunately failed to see a lot of things like most people today. But, indeed they were looking for that one you speak of, however, it is not mines to claim.
     

Your statements mean nothing without evidence.  There is no evidence from the Jewish sources that the Jews were looking for the Messiah who is the son of God.  This was a Christian invention.  And don't go quoting the NT again, because you know that is a circular argument...

Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by kish

John 1:41, 45, 49 First this one found his own brother, Simon, and said to him: “We have found the Mes·siah…“We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus.   *They must have been looking.

John 11:27 Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God, the One coming into the world.

Jesus did not say they were incorrect, and on occasion he admitted being the Christ.

John 4:25, 26 The woman said to him: “I know that Mes·si′ah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly.” 26 Jesus said to her: “I who am speaking to you am he.

That is good enough AND accepted among Jews and Christians today

  

...Oh well.  You quoted the NT again!  LOL

The fact is that the Tanakh never said that the Messiah was the son of God.  So how can you insist that the Jews were looking for the "son of God"?  Obviously, what the authors of the NT claimed does not align with the historical facts.  To the Jews, the Messiah was a powerful human king chosen by God, nothing more. 

Originally posted by Kish

Off topic but this was a vision/trance/dream.

Geneses 46:2 Then God talked to Israel in visions of the night and said: “Jacob, Jacob!” to which he said: “Here I am!”
 

How is it off topic?  You were the one who brought up issue of "witnesses"!  Furthermore, it was not just a "vision".  Gabriel (as) came to Daniel (pbuh) a second time after the first vision, and this time, it was in person:

"20 While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill— 21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23 As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision:" (Daniel 9:20-23)

Even if it was just a vision, how can it be verified?  Also, since we are on this topic, who witnessed Mary's encounter with Gabriel?  What about Jacob's wrestling match with the mysterious being? 

Originally posted by Kish

As if what you want really matters, who left you in charge?


LOL What a typical response.  When cornered, the missionary shows his teeth! 

This is not about what I want or who left me in charge.  I am simply using my common sense.  Do you think that I am just going to believe anything you tell me?  Heck no!  I would want corroboration for your claims.  Salvation is too important to place on a stranger's wild claims!  So when you insist that the Jews were waiting for the "son of God" I want proof from Jewish sources, not from Christian sources written for a Christian agenda. 

Originally posted by Kish

What truly matters is, Jews and Christians in the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th Century before Muhammad, accepted its undeniable truth that is why no one seriously challenged it, only the Johnny come lately. And now in the 21st century many of us still accept it as truth.


You have yet to prove that Jews believed such.  You are only spreading your own propaganda.  No one "seriously challenged it"?  Really?  Then why were there so many ecumenical councils, book burnings and persecutions of "heretics"?  Your deceit knows no bounds, Kish.

Originally posted by Kish

Well, stop thinking in human philosophical terms. Besides, women today can become impregnated without intercourse, right?


LOL Well, how should I think?  I am a human, right?  How would I think? 

And women can be impregnated by artificial insemination.  How is the same as your weird idea of Mary being impregnated?  Artificial insemination still involves fusing a sperm cell with an egg. 

Originally posted by Kish

He [Jesus] was born of God’s spirit, without a human father.—Al-Anbiyā’ [21]:91. It does not say without a father, it says without a human father, silly. Logically God was his heavenly father.
     

Don't quote the Holy Qur'an. You can barely quote your own scripture correctly.  Here is what Surah al-Anbiya states:

"And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples."

It says nothing here that God was Jesus' father.  This is your own pagan-influenced nonsense.  Notice that the verse specifically refers to Jesus only as Mary's son.  Second, the act of breathing of God's Spirit is what led to the Creation of man.  For example, when God created Adam, He breathed into him:

"When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him." (15:29)

"He Who has made everything which He has created most good: He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay, And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised: But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!" (32:7-9)


"Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do (good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behavior and he starts doing (evil) deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire. And similarly a man amongst you may do (evil) deeds till there is only a cubit between him and the (Hell) Fire, and then what has been written for him decides his behavior, and he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise."" (Sahih Bukhari, Book #54, Hadith #430)

You are lying to yourself, Kish.  Open your eyes.  It is for your own good.  You do not do me or anyone else any favors.     


Edited by islamispeace - 02 October 2011 at 2:38pm
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2425
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 03 October 2011 at 1:48pm


Kish,
Let me correct you on the account of Eve and Adam (pbut). See what you take as fact that it was Eve who caused the fall of Adam, as stated in the Bible, where Adam's response was "she made me do it". It is not true at all like many other accounts in it. The Bible went through so much transformation and alteration that even who is God is not without contradiction.
Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was a prophet of God, therefore what God revealed through him, does not contradict and is consistent whether be about who God is or how salvation is achieved. Bible in its present state fails that simple basic test.
It seems you knowledge and understanding of the Quran is very limited. Let me explain why I say that. You wrote:
"...that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised Seed and King, and giving the details of his life, his ministry, his death, his resurrection and salvation. Interestingly enough the Quran contradicts all the above,"
First, like I have said above the Bible does not even agrees with who God is, so don't hold it equal to the Quran, nor compare with it.
Second, Quran states Jesus (pbuh) to be the Messiah, whom God sent.
About Jesus' life, the purpose he was sent for Quran is the only source that does not contradict what it says of him. One the other hand the Bible only states of him which is in contradiction to itself.
Truth stands our clear in front of falsehood. It is up to each one of us to make our choice based on logic and truth or deny it to defend falsehood. And at the end be ready for accountability.
Hasan

Edited by honeto - 03 October 2011 at 1:58pm
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 12 October 2011 at 9:05am

Of course like always you conveniently ignored the fact that the Gospel was not even seriously debated in the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th Century by its truest enemies, especially by the Jews first, then by the Romans and much, much later Islam, why?  Why did it take many, many centuries later then argue that it’s not written in Aramaic as if it needs to be in order for it to be authentic. Of course religious groups held other beliefs (Gnostics) which have been the case since the beginning of time, but where are those groups now and their historical evidence that supports that the Gospel of Jesus was false or inaccurate?

Again, you have not provided any historical evidence to prove that Jesus and his modern day follower taught anything different from each other within the Gospel and that the Gospel was not accepted. Their teachings were harmoniously in agreement and accepted hands down! No wonder no serious debates existed back then, too many eyewitnesses to confirm every detail of the Messiahs birth, life, death and resurrection!   

Here is the fundamental answer however, what was said in the Gospel then and what is said now is still the same inspired truths of God. No Muslim scholar has yet to show any historical evidence of another  Gospel according to Muhammad or another Gospel other than what we have today (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – FOUR Eyewitnesses) or another Gospel other than what Muhammad himself had available during his time, why is that? Until you or any Muslim can provide such a text or documentation disproving the Gospel we have today as corrupt you are fighting a lost battle. Show us were Jesus followers did not believe he was the son of God; that he did not die on a stake and was not resurrected; you have yet to disprove this with any historical proof of evidence. That fact that it has been long accepted before Muhammad and long accepted after Muhammad puts the ball in your court!

Originally posted by kish

Discovery of the Diatessaron and commentaries on it in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Latin led Bible scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon to write: “These discoveries finally disposed of any doubt as to what the Diatessaron was, and proved that by about A.D. 170 the four canonical Gospels held an undisputed pre-eminence over all other narratives of our Saviour’s life.”

Originally posted by islamispeace

I never disputed that the Gospels became accepted by the mid-2nd century. The question is why did it take so long? 

At least you finally agree although it was accepted by the main stream and locals’ way before then but what is hilarious about the statement is as if the Quran was completed and accepted much, much sooner during its time. If that was the case they wouldn’t have had to burn the original copies of some, which again is suspect!

SO, whether it’s accepted in its entirety or not in the Islamic world is your choice. The Quran is a book only for Muslims which came 600 years later after the Holy Bible and Christianity and therefore contradicts and misconstrue most accounts in the Bible let alone the main doctrine of the Gospel, so that in itself makes the Quran suspect, again. The fact that Allah is not the God of Israel or of Abram for that matter but the god of Mecca confirms my argument so don’t expect the Bible to agree with the Quran on hardly anything. It is for this reason the Quran is the Bible rival.

As the Old Testament states and many of you obviously failed to understand the New Testament was a prelude to the OT. The OT had the Messiah’s name written all over it, that will be a new topic “if” the moderators will post it.

Nonetheless, whoever said Isaiah 59:21 was a false prophecy, certainly not I? Its covenant is still in operation. But you need to read it again, this time understand what the word covenant means and what would happen to the Nation of Israel if they failed to keep its side of the agreement which they did, you have much to learn about the Mosaic Law covenant and its purpose.  

Originally posted by islamispeace

To repeat, the Tanakh contradicts the "New Testament" on the issue of the covenant.  Isaiah 59:21 says very clearly that the covenant was to last forever. Nothing was said about the covenant being taken away and given to some other people.

Why do you continually insist on telling yourself that if what was said or not said in the OT in “your” exact words it therefore cannot be true? The agreement was they had to keep the Law in order to remain his people; they failed to keep the Law and therefore lost that privilege of being his people!


Originally posted by kish

(Matthew
21:43) This is why I say to YOU, The kingdom of God will be taken from YOU and be given to a nation producing its fruits

Why?

(Matthew 23:37, 38) “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her,—how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But YOU people did not want it.. Look! YOUR house is abandoned to YOU

(Acts 3:13-15) The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom YOU, for YOUR part, delivered up and disowned before Pilate’s face, when he had decided to release him. Yes, YOU disowned that holy and righteous one, and YOU asked for a man, a murderer, to be freely granted to YOU, 15 whereas YOU killed the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses.

Since the old covenant was taken away from Israel due to their errors, Jesus death provided a NEW and BETTER covenant.

Luke 22:20 Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.

(Galatians 6:15-16) For neither is circumcision anything nor is uncircumcision, but a new creation [is something]. 16 And all those who will walk orderly by this rule of conduct, upon them be peace and mercy, even upon the Israel of God.

** Quran itself mentions the Gospel over 24 times Love it or hate it. I love it!**

If I may use your quote “21 “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever,”

Originally posted by islamispeace

Your dang right that the Qur'an denies the pagan idea of "son of God"!

That’s on your heads not mine but there were eyewitnesses to confirm its authenticity. Besides, God has many sons starting with Jesus ending with the angels. You have so much to learn and understand about the Old and New Testament and spirituality.

Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Luke 9: 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.”

Again, can you disprove these eyewitness accounts and that this never, ever happened? What historical doc’s or text can you present to this forum? None as of yet, only accusations, assumptions, and what Jesus could have said to ease your conscious, that is your proof.  No wonder the Quran mentions Jesus 25 times more often by name, then Muhammad that should tell you something! He was indeed the Son of God, disagreeing doesn’t make it go away. But logic is not a universal key, is it?

** Quran itself mentions the Gospel over 24 times Love it or hate it. I love it!**

Originally posted by islamispeace

Jesus rejected the title of "son of God" when confronted by the Sanhedrin, according to Matthew.  Therefore, any other places in the New Testament where it is claimed that Jesus is the son of God must be rejected as contradictions which were added later.

So to everyone reading, as per Islam Jesus is not the Son of God because he chose not to reveal his identity during this mock trial, Wow! What scholarly work! Let’s stubbornly forget about the voice from heaven saying this is my son, Jesus agreeing to the fact, his 12 Apostles preaching and teaching it.  And thousands at that known time believing and staking their lives on it. But because he didn’t reveal it at this moment it can’t be true. Got it! If that’s what helps you sleep at night, fine with me.

Originally posted by islamispeace

First, Leviticus does not say that only blood will be accepted for atonement….There are several problems with your selective use of the OT:

I never said ‘only’ blood, focus now. I was talking about the Law Covenant not atonements. The covenant was only validated by the High Priest use of blood; you’re getting atonements and offerings mixed up.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Jesus' death on the cross would have been illegitimate as death from crucifixion usually occurs from asphyxiation and not blood loss.

Way off, his death (blood) was a sacrifice which the prophets prophesied about, starting with Moses.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Never did the prophets teach such concepts as:

1. Original sin

2. Redemption through blood sacrifice

3. Messiah as the son of God, and others…..The OT never teaches these concepts.  Why?

 

Again, the Law was for them to FOLLOW not to teach, to follow, I’m losing you again. Maybe this will help, any country who has laws, it’s citizens must FOLLOW it not teach it. Leave the teachings to the law maker (God{YHWH} through the High Priest in the case of Israel – The government through congress in the case of its citizens) When Islam understands WHY the LAW was provided in the first place perhaps then you will grasp Jesus’ role in all this. Once you understand WHY Jesus was so unique in being born of a virgin women and resurrected to heavenly life as the Quran acknowledges and mentions by name more often than Muhammad perhaps you will come closer to salvation, without that proper understanding of the Law (Sin, Blood and the Messiah) salvation is LOST for any religious nation who fails to honor it.

Originally posted by islamispeace

There is no evidence from the Jewish sources that the Jews were looking for the Messiah who is the son of God.  This was a Christian invention.  And don't go quoting the NT again, because you know that is a circular argument

You are wrong again, Islam through circular reasoning using the Quran invented that the Jews were not looking for the Messiah who is the son of God! But, why do you think Mary and Joseph was selected in the first place, because they were Jewish obviously, the same Jews who practice the Law covenant. Or does your Quran offers another account? There is plenty of evidence in the Law of the Prophets (OT) and the Gospel, but not surprisingly you are not aware of them.  

  

Originally posted by islamispeace

...Oh well.  You quoted the NT again!   

What’s ironic is that the Quran itself mentions the Gospel over 24 times but when I mention the Gospel its circular argument, how hypercritical does that make Islam! The ultimate double standard if I ever heard one! And don’t go talking about the Gospels that are not authentic and are uninspired, you’re better then that right, I guess. Therefore here is what Muhammad believed about the Gospel he knew of.        

 

John 1:41, 45, 49 First this one found his own brother, Simon, and said to him: “We have found the Mes·si′ah…“We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus.   *They must have been looking.

John 11:27 Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God, the One coming into the world.

Jesus did not say they were incorrect, and on occasion he admitted being the Christ.

John 4:25, 26 The woman said to him: “I know that Mes·si′ah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly.” 26 Jesus said to her: “I who am speaking to you am he.

But according to Islam not the Quran or the Gospel, the Jews were not looking for the Messiah, now that’s laughable! And now you fall on the Tanakh (Which you can care less about) to help bail you out, what an all time LOW!

** Quran itself mentions the Gospel over 24 times Love it or hate it. I love it!**

Originally posted by islamispeace

No one "seriously challenged it"?  Really?  Then why were there so many ecumenical councils, book burnings and persecutions of "heretics"?  Your deceit knows no bounds, Kish.

Here we go again, no historical facts about who challenged the Gospel, no dates, names etc., just accusations and assumptions. You would make a poor journalist!  

Only many centuries later it began to be seriously challenged, you never explained to me why so long for the challenged?

Originally posted by honeto

Kish, Let me correct you on the account of Eve and Adam (pbut). See what you take as fact that it was Eve who caused the fall of Adam, as stated in the Bible, where Adam's response was "she made me do it

Where did I say it was Eve who caused the fall of Adam?

Originally posted by honeto

It seems you knowledge and understanding of the Quran is very limited. Let me explain why I say that. You wrote: "...that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised Seed and King, and giving the details of his life, his ministry, his death, his resurrection and salvation. Interestingly enough the Quran contradicts all the above,"

Of course, I would not expect anything less. The Quran is the first book for only Muslims although using Jesus and the Gospel as its foundation. That is why the Quran is the Bibles rival, even though the Quran is a new revelation which came 600 years later out of nowhere with no eyewitnesses to confirm its authenticity and with much bloodshed to go along with it.

 

** Quran itself mentions Jesus more often than Muhammad and mentions the Gospel over 24 times. Love it or hate it, I love it, so why not use it! ** 

 



Edited by Kish - 12 October 2011 at 9:18am
IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2425
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 13 October 2011 at 2:28pm
Kish,
if you missed I was saying that you are wrong when you said: "...that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised Seed and King, and giving the details of his life, his ministry, his death, his resurrection and salvation.Interestingly enough the Quran contradicts all the above,"

That is incorrect, Quran confirms all of what you wrote except the king part, he was never a king. The Quran also firmly adds that he was not God, nor son of God, but a man and a prophet.
Hasan

Edited by honeto - 13 October 2011 at 2:32pm
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 16 October 2011 at 2:37pm
Originally posted by Kish

Of course like always you conveniently ignored the fact that the Gospel was not even seriously debated in the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th Century by its truest enemies, especially by the Jews first, then by the Romans and much, much later Islam, why?  Why did it take many, many centuries later then argue that it’s not written in Aramaic as if it needs to be in order for it to be authentic. Of course religious groups held other beliefs (Gnostics) which have been the case since the beginning of time, but where are those groups now and their historical evidence that supports that the Gospel of Jesus was false or inaccurate?


You are of course repeating standard Church propaganda.  Here are the facts which refute your claims:

A.  The Gospels themselves (specifically the Gospel of Luke) admit to the existence of many gospels.  Luke 1 states:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us [this implies multiple “gospels” were in circulation]…"     

B.  The authority and use of the Gospels among the early Christians evolved over the course of the 2nd century.  The following is what I wrote on the thread "The Holy Gospel did not Evolve!" on May 7:

1.  Ignatius of Antioch can be shown to have referred to only two of the Gospels, and those also only via fragmented verses.  He refers in three instances to the Gospel of Matthew and in one instance to the Gospel of Luke [1].  He also quotes from the letters of Paul and the Book of Acts.  There are no references to the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John.  The fact that the latter [Gospel of John] is conspicuously absent is very telling.  The Gospel of John, as Christian tradition states, should have already been completed by the time Ignatius was writing. 

2.  Justin Martyr references three of the Gospels, again only via fragments.  He also perhaps refers to the Book of Revelation, but none of the letters of Paul or the Book of Acts [2].  Whether he actually referenced the Gospel of John is a matter of debate.  It has been claimed that 1 Apology 66 is a reference to John 3:3-5, but Justin Martyr does not refer to this quote as he does to other quotations from the other Gospels using the phrase "recorded in the memoirs of the apostles..."  Therefore, in the absence of clear quotations from the Gospel of John, we can only be certain that Justin Martyr was familiar with only three of them: Mark, Matthew and Luke.

3.  Irenaeus of Lyons does indeed say that there are only four Gospels and as such, he is the absolute earliest Church father to say this.  He also quotes heavily from the letters of Paul and also some of the other epistles.  But, he also quotes from the apocryphal book, the Shepherd of Hermas!

From the above, we see a clear evolution.  Even if we accept that Justin Martyr may have referred to the Gospel of John, it is clear that in the early 2nd century, Ignatius was familiar with only Matthew and Luke.  Therefore, the popularity and usage of the Gospels clearly changed over the course of the 2nd century.  Therefore, the Christian canon evolved!


C.  There was even criticism from non-Christians.  For example, the Roman philosopher Celsus observed the changes Christians made to their own scriptures whenever they faced criticism.  Celsus' claims are lost but they were partially preserved in the writings of Origen.  This is what Celsus wrote:

"Certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Christians make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of Christ’s life; hoping to spare individuals, and to expound the prophecies themselves, I admit the plausibility of the Christian interpretation of them. Nevertheless the use which they make of them may be overturned. One ought not hastily to assume so important a position on small grounds. The prophecies may be applied to countless other things with greater probability than to Jesus." (Contra Celsus)

As you can see Kish, your claim that no one questioned the authority of the Gospels is pure nonsense and not supported by the historical evidence. 

As for the Gnostics and other Christian sects, they have disappeared because of the persecution of the Church after the Council of Nicea.  That is why their writings were hidden away only to be discovered some 60 years ago.  They did not want their books to be burned by the Church. 

Originally posted by Kish

Again, you have not provided any historical evidence to prove that Jesus and his modern day follower taught anything different from each other within the Gospel and that the Gospel was not accepted. Their teachings were harmoniously in agreement and accepted hands down! No wonder no serious debates existed back then, too many eyewitnesses to confirm every detail of the Messiahs birth, life, death and resurrection!


I provided an example of the contradictory nature of your Gospels and how Jesus refused the title "son of God" in front of the Sanhedrin.  Since not even your Gospels can agree on the exact nature of Jesus, I find your request for "historical evidence" to be comical.  But more so, I find your propaganda about "too many eyewitnesses" and other nonsense to be hilarious!  Never mind that you have presented no historical evidence for any of your claims, only circular arguments and meaningless quotes from the NT itself. 

Originally posted by Kish

Here is the fundamental answer however, what was said in the Gospel then and what is said now is still the same inspired truths of God. No Muslim scholar has yet to show any historical evidence of another  Gospel according to Muhammad or another Gospel other than what we have today (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – FOUR Eyewitnesses) or another Gospel other than what Muhammad himself had available during his time, why is that? Until you or any Muslim can provide such a text or documentation disproving the Gospel we have today as corrupt you are fighting a lost battle. Show us were Jesus followers did not believe he was the son of God; that he did not die on a stake and was not resurrected; you have yet to disprove this with any historical proof of evidence. That fact that it has been long accepted before Muhammad and long accepted after Muhammad puts the ball in your court!
      

Its amazing how you brainwashed people go into rants making unsubstantiated claims.  Who are you trying to convince?  Me or yourself?  I think you are trying to convince yourself.  You are trying desperately to ignore all the evidence and are simply repeating Church propaganda to keep yourself in a state of blind faith. 

The fact is that there were many "gospels" in circulation.  However, they were all false.  The Gospel that the Qur'an refers to is the teachings Jesus brought to the Jews, not the "Gospel according to so and so". 

Here is an example of one of the many accounts ("gospels", if you will) which contradict your "canonized" books:

"When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."" (Apocalypse of Peter)

This Gnostic book claimed Jesus was not crucified.  It is an example of the varying beliefs among the early Christians.  There was no unified Christianity.  It was a potpourri of many sects and theologies.  Here is another example:

"Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance." (The Second Treatise of the Great Seth)

When will you wise up Kish?  Open your eyes!  You have been lied to!  Christianity evolved constantly over the course of 200 years.  It was always in a state of flux and it was not until the Council of Nicea that one of the many false beliefs which had sprung up was accepted.  By that time, the truth had been muddled and lost.  But it was rediscovered with the coming of Islam. 

Originally posted by Kish

At least you finally agree although it was accepted by the main stream and locals’ way before then but what is hilarious about the statement is as if the Quran was completed and accepted much, much sooner during its time. If that was the case they wouldn’t have had to burn the original copies of some, which again is suspect!

You have no evidence that "it was accepted by the main stream and locals..."  That is nonsense, as I showed above.  The rest of your statement is a diversion which is typical of Christian apologists.  When they get cornered with the regard to the Bible, they bail out and divert to the Qur'an!  The Qur'an is not the topic here Kish!     

Originally posted by Kish

Nonetheless, whoever said Isaiah 59:21 was a false prophecy, certainly not I? Its covenant is still in operation. But you need to read it again, this time understand what the word covenant means and what would happen to the Nation of Israel if they failed to keep its side of the agreement which they did, you have much to learn about the Mosaic Law covenant and its purpose.

Isaiah 59 contradicts the NT.  Your special pleading will get you no where.  Let's put Isaiah 59 together with what the NT says and let us see if there is a contradiction or not:

"21 “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever,” says the LORD." (Isaiah 59:21)

"43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”" (Matthew 21: 43-44)

One says the covenant will last forever (no preconditions).  The other says the "kingdom of God" will be taken away.  Even a child will see that there is a contradiction here. 

Originally posted by Kish

Why do you continually insist on telling yourself that if what was said or not said in the OT in “your” exact words it therefore cannot be true? The agreement was they had to keep the Law in order to remain his people; they failed to keep the Law and therefore lost that privilege of being his people!
  

Where is your proof for this?  As I showed before, Isaiah 59:20 clearly stated that repentance was all that was needed for the covenant to be renewed:

"“The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,” declares the LORD." 

You can't ignore these facts forever.  You may turn a blind eye now, but you will regret it later. 

Originally posted by Kish

** Quran itself mentions the Gospel over 24 times Love it or hate it. I love it!**

LOL What's your point?  The Qur'an refers to the Gospel that God gave to Jesus, not the "Gospels according to so and so" and certainly not the letters of Paul, the true founder of Christianity.  Your silly attempt at diverting once again to the Qur'an does nothing to justify your childish circular arguments.  Using the NT to prove what the NT says is a circular argument!  Period! 

Originally posted by Kish

If I may use your quote “21 “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever,”
 

It's not my quote.  It's from your Bible which contradicts your so-called "New" Testament. 

Originally posted by Kish

That’s on your heads not mine but there were eyewitnesses to confirm its authenticity. Besides, God has many sons starting with Jesus ending with the angels. You have so much to learn and understand about the Old and New Testament and spirituality.

You have no evidence of any "eyewitnesses".  You have been ranting about "eyewitnesses" this whole time and have not presented one iota of evidence except to quote the NT ad nauseum.  Show me the historical evidence that Jesus was the "son of God".  Show me the historical evidence that he "rose from the dead".  The fact is that there is no such evidence, only Christian propaganda. 

Originally posted by Kish

Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Luke 9: 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.”

Again, can you disprove these eyewitness accounts and that this never, ever happened? What historical doc’s or text can you present to this forum? None as of yet, only accusations, assumptions, and what Jesus could have said to ease your conscious, that is your proof.  No wonder the Quran mentions Jesus 25 times more often by name, then Muhammad that should tell you something! He was indeed the Son of God, disagreeing doesn’t make it go away. But logic is not a universal key, is it?
 

More circular reasoning, as expected!  This is all you can do which is why no one takes Christian polemics seriously.  You guys are pathetic.  Go look up the meaning of "circular reasoning" and while you are at it, take a class in critical thinking.  The burden of proof is on you to prove your extraordinary claims of a Jewish man dying and then resurrecting. 

By the way, the verses from Matthew and Luke were taken from Mark 1:11, the first Gospel supposedly written.  As I already mentioned before, the verse from Mark, as it turns out, originally had adoptionist undertones.  Adoptionism was an early Christian heresy which stated that Jesus was "adopted" as God's son and was not His son from the beginning of time.  According to Ehrman:

"In one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones...the voice says something strikingly different: 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'" (Misquoting Jesus, p. 159)      

So, it appears that the first Gospel written may have had a different theological undertone.  This problem was obviously then edited to remove the adoptionist element and to harmonize Mark with the other Gospels.  This is more evidence of the many disagreements among Christians.

Originally posted by Kish

So to everyone reading, as per Islam Jesus is not the Son of God because he chose not to reveal his identity during this mock trial, Wow! What scholarly work! Let’s stubbornly forget about the voice from heaven saying this is my son, Jesus agreeing to the fact, his 12 Apostles preaching and teaching it.  And thousands at that known time believing and staking their lives on it. But because he didn’t reveal it at this moment it can’t be true. Got it! If that’s what helps you sleep at night, fine with me.

LOL You speak of "scholarly work", as if you have presented "scholarly" evidence that Jesus was the "son of God".  A supposed "voice from Heaven" and alleged "thousands" of believers are Kish's idea of "scholarly evidence"...Right...

You can't make this stuff up, folks!  This is the best Christianity has! 

Apparently to people like Kish, contradictions and editorial changes within the Gospels do not serve as "evidence" that Jesus' status was a matter of debate among the early Christians.  

Oh by the way, what "helps me sleep at night" is knowing that I follow reason and not blind faith, that people like you and your deceit and lies are slowly being exposed and more and more people are leaving one of the the biggest lies ever told.  I am sorry if it hurts but it is the truth. 

Originally posted by Kish

I never said ‘only’ blood, focus now. I was talking about the Law Covenant not atonements. The covenant was only validated by the High Priest use of blood; you’re getting atonements and offerings mixed up.

Don't backtrack now.  This is what you wrote:

The covenant was then validated by the [blood] of bulls and goats. Why blood? Leviticus 17: 11 God said: “The soul [or, life] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: ‘No soul of you must eat blood.’”

You were the one who mentioned the covenant and atonement together, not me.  And I proved that blood was not required at all times. 

Originally posted by Kish

Way off, his death (blood) was a sacrifice which the prophets prophesied about, starting with Moses.
            

LOL Yeah, you would love to prove that wouldn't you?  Unfortunately, no such proof exists. 

But you still failed to respond to the fact that even if his "death (blood)" was a sacrifice, it is was still illegitimate since the act of blood atonement could only be done within the Temple grounds.  What's worse is that the Romans did not perform crucifixions with Jerusalem itself!

You also failed to respond to the fact that the atonement ritual was only required for the Jews.  The Bible itself states that non-Jews, such as the people of Jonah (pbuh), were not required to perform the atonement ritual.  For them, seeking repentance was enough.  Of course, according to Isaiah, repentance was also enough for Jews as well:

"7 Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon." (Isaiah 55:7)

You also did not respond to the fact that crucifixion could not be an acceptable form of death since it was not through the shedding of blood that the condemned person died, but usually due to asphyxiation.  You can ignore these facts, but you will never escape them and you can be assured that I will continue to point them out over and over again.

Originally posted by Kish

Again, the Law was for them to FOLLOW not to teach, to follow, I’m losing you again. Maybe this will help, any country who has laws, it’s citizens must FOLLOW it not teach it. Leave the teachings to the law maker (God{YHWH} through the High Priest in the case of Israel – The government through congress in the case of its citizens) When Islam understands WHY the LAW was provided in the first place perhaps then you will grasp Jesus’ role in all this. Once you understand WHY Jesus was so unique in being born of a virgin women and resurrected to heavenly life as the Quran acknowledges and mentions by name more often than Muhammad perhaps you will come closer to salvation, without that proper understanding of the Law (Sin, Blood and the Messiah) salvation is LOST for any religious nation who fails to honor it.
  

Oh please.  Even your NT states that certain things "the prophets" stated were fulfilled in Jesus:

"But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled." (Matthew 26:56)

Your backtracking and scriptural deceit will not work with me.  Your losing yourself, not me!  Wink

So I repeat:

Never did the prophets teach such concepts as:

1. Original sin

2. Redemption through blood sacrifice

3. Messiah as the son of God, and others…..The OT never teaches these concepts.  Why?

Even if their job was to "follow", and it was God who did the teaching, the problem still remains.  Perhaps we can word the above differently:

Never did the prophets God teach such concepts as:

1. Original sin

2. Redemption through blood sacrifice

3. Messiah as the son of God, and others…..The OT never teaches these concepts.  Why?

Is that better?  Can you now try to prove me wrong, instead of going off on irrelevant tangents?

Originally posted by Kish

You are wrong again, Islam through circular reasoning using the Quran invented that the Jews were not looking for the Messiah who is the son of God! But, why do you think Mary and Joseph was selected in the first place, because they were Jewish obviously, the same Jews who practice the Law covenant. Or does your Quran offers another account? There is plenty of evidence in the Law of the Prophets (OT) and the Gospel, but not surprisingly you are not aware of them.
 

Such as?  You have yet to present evidence!  I am still waiting, dear!

This is not a matter of what the Qur'an states because we are talking about the Bible.  Your repeated attempts at diverting only shows your lack of answers.  Thus I repeat:

There is no evidence from the Jewish sources that the Jews were looking for the Messiah who is the son of God.  This was a Christian invention.  And don't go quoting the NT again, because you know that is a circular argument. 

This is the evidence we do have:

Exhibit A: ""Mashiaḥ" (anointed one of God) in Ps. ii. 2, which was formerly thought to have Messianic reference, is now taken as referring either to a Hasmonean king or to Israel. The latter interpretation is that prevailing in the Midrash (comp. Midr. Rabbah and Tanḥuma, Emor; Yalḳuṭ, Toledot, near end; Midr. Shoḥer Ṭob, ad loc.), though the Messianic interpretation occurs in the eschatological description (Pesiḳ. Zuṭarta, Balaḳ)." (Jewish Encyclopedia, "Messiah")

No mention of him being the "son of God".

Exhibit B: The criteria for the Messiah are listed throughout the Tanakh and none of them ever mentions that he will be the "son of God".  In fact, many of the criteria actually contradict the NT description of Jesus as the Messiah.  For example:

"He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)

The Torah is the Jewish guide to life, and its commandments are the ones referred to here. Do all Jews observe all the commandments? Christianity, in fact, often discourages observance of the commandments in Torah, in complete opposition to this prophecy." (Jews For Judaism, "Messiah: The Criteria")

Again, nothing mentioned even closely resembling the Christian claim that Messiah = "son of God".

Originally posted by Kish

What’s ironic is that the Quran itself mentions the Gospel over 24 times but when I mention the Gospel its circular argument, how hypercritical does that make Islam! The ultimate double standard if I ever heard one! And don’t go talking about the Gospels that are not authentic and are uninspired, you’re better then that right, I guess. Therefore here is what Muhammad believed about the Gospel he knew of.

Again, a laughable and pathetic attempt to divert from your failures.  As I said before, the Qur'an refers to the true Gospel given to Jesus, not the false and contradictory writings such as the letter of Paul or the "Gospel according to so and so".  The Qur'an does not recognize your false so-called "New" Testament.  It never refers to the "Gospels" (plural) but to the "Gospel" (singular) which specifically was referring to the teachings of Jesus, which may or may not have been written down in his lifetime.  Now, since this matter has been explained ad nauseum, I ask again for proof that the Jews were looking for the "Messiah, the son of God". Quoting the NT again will only expose your desperation and buffoonery.  Big%20smile

Originally posted by Kish

But according to Islam not the Quran or the Gospel, the Jews were not looking for the Messiah, now that’s laughable! And now you fall on the Tanakh (Which you can care less about) to help bail you out, what an all time LOW!
  

Are you living in the real world, Kish?  When did I say the Jews were not looking for the Messiah?  I said they were not looking for the Messiah who is the "son of God"!  I asked you to prove me wrong using Jewish sources, but instead, like the simple-minded fool you are, you resorted to quoting your NT which you are trying to prove is the truth in the first place!  That is called a circular argument, child! 

Here is the gist in a nutshell:

Both Judaism and Islam state that the Messiah is a human king, a servant of God.  Christianity, on the other hand, states that the Messiah is more than that.  Depending on the sect, the Messiah is either God Himself in human form (mainstream Christianity) or he is the "son of God".  Obviously, Christianity is mistaken. 

Originally posted by Kish

** Quran itself mentions Jesus more often than Muhammad and mentions the Gospel over 24 times. Love it or hate it, I love it, so why not use it! ** 

 

LOL So what?  To you simple-minded Christians, that may be significant, but to the rest of us, who are not blinded by childish logic, it simply means that the Qur'an was setting the record straight.  It was not concerned with the Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) life, since he was the one delivering it to the Muslims.  It was concerned with refuting the lies of the past, lies attributed to the prophets like Jesus and David.  Here are some interesting facts:

1.  Moses is mentioned by name more than 200 times in the Qur'an.
2.  David is mentioned by name 20 times.
3.  Noah in mentioned 60 times.
4.  Salih (an Arab prophet) is mentioned 17 times.
5.  Adam is mentioned around 50 times.
6.  Ibrahim (Abraham) is mentioned around 90 times. 
7.  Isaac is mentioned around 15 times.
8.  Ishmael is mentioned around 10 times.
9.  Mary is mentioned some 40 times. 

Given these facts, it is not surprising at all that Jesus (pbuh) is mentioned many times in the Qur'an.  To the people who use their brains and reason, this does not imply that Jesus is more important or less important than the other prophets, including Muhammad (pbuh).  However, to the simple-minded Christians such as Kish, it implies something else entirely.  Oh well, what can we say except "poor deluded Christians"?  And to put the nail in the coffin of these simpletons, let's see what the Qur'an actually states:

"Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)."" (3:84)

Let the truth be told! 


Edited by islamispeace - 16 October 2011 at 2:39pm
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 17 October 2011 at 11:45am
Dear Kish, Hasan, and IslamisPeace,
 
IslamisPeace posted this, "The answer is that the Gospel was sent to confirm the truth and to eliminate the falsehood (of the Torah)."
 
This may have been what the Qur'an says is the purpose of the Qur'an.  But the Holy Bible does not make this claim about itself.  Rather, the Holy Bible is simply an account of the life of Jesus who was sent to complete the Law and the Prophets.  The letters of the New Testament were sent to give guidance and direction to those who came to faith in Allah through Jesus and his ministry.  There was no contradiction by the NT with the OT because nothing in the OT was found to be "false" by Jesus or the Apostles.  This very fact is why the Holy Bible is soooo much more believable than the Holy Qur'an when it comes to legitimacy as the word of Allah.  The Holy New Testament and the Tanach fit together like a solid block of revelation, whereas the Holy Qur'an is so different in so many ways, and affects culture and society in such different ways that it is not surprising that i have heard many people say that the Holy Qur'an is distorted revelation and they don't believe that it is truly from Allah.  What can I say?...
 
Allah bless you all,
 
Jack Catholic


Edited by Jack Catholic - 17 October 2011 at 11:47am
IP IP Logged
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 18 October 2011 at 7:24pm

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

A.  The Gospels themselves (specifically the Gospel of Luke) admit to the existence of many gospels.  Luke 1 states:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us [this implies multiple “gospels” were in circulation]…"     

B.  The authority and use of the Gospels among the early Christians evolved over the course of the 2nd century.  The following is what I wrote on the thread "The Holy Gospel did not Evolve!" on May 7:

As I figured, these are only assumptions and accusations

Originally posted by islamispeace

1.  Ignatius of Antioch can be shown to have referred to only two of the Gospels, and those also only via fragmented verses.  He refers in three instances to the Gospel of Matthew and in one instance to the Gospel of Luke [1].  He also quotes from the letters of Paul and the Book of Acts.  There are no references to the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John.  The fact that the latter [Gospel of John] is conspicuously absent is very telling.  The Gospel of John, as Christian tradition states, should have already been completed by the time Ignatius was writing.
 

Telling to you maybe, Ignatius however, wove in quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, showing his acquaintance with such canonical writings, this in itself is proof! 

Originally posted by islamispeace

2.  Justin Martyr references three of the Gospels, again only via fragments.  He also perhaps refers to the Book of Revelation, but none of the letters of Paul or the Book of Acts [2].  Whether he actually referenced the Gospel of John is a matter of debate.  It has been claimed that 1 Apology 66 is a reference to John 3:3-5, but Justin Martyr does not refer to this quote as he does to other quotations from the other Gospels using the phrase "recorded in the memoirs of the apostles..."  Therefore, in the absence of clear quotations from the Gospel of John, we can only be certain that Justin Martyr was familiar with only three of them: Mark, Matthew and Luke.
 

Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in reference to the death of Jesus: “That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”14 In addition, according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned Jesus’ miracles, regarding which he says: “That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”15 True, these “Acts,” or official records, no longer exist. But they evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth of what he said.

You are confirming and agreeing with what I'm saying regarding the Gospel, even showing proof. Thanks! 

Originally posted by islamispeace

3.  Irenaeus of Lyons does indeed say that there are only four Gospels and as such, he is the absolute earliest Church father to say this.  He also quotes heavily from the letters of Paul and also some of the other epistles.  But, he also quotes from the apocryphal book, the Shepherd of Hermas!

From the above, we see a clear evolution.  Even if we accept that Justin Martyr may have referred to the Gospel of John, it is clear that in the early 2nd century, Ignatius was familiar with only Matthew and Luke.  Therefore, the popularity and usage of the Gospels clearly changed over the course of the 2nd century.  Therefore, the Christian canon evolved!
 

Wrong thread, inany event by the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed, and we find such ones as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures, you yourself have shown that to be the case. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul’s letters. Do you also accept this?

Second Peter is also quoted by Irenaeus as bearing the same evidence of canonicity as the rest of the Greek Scriptures. The same is true of Second John. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 551, 557, 341, 443, “Irenaeus Against Heresies”) Revelation, also rejected by some, was attested to by many early commentators, including Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenaeus.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Therefore, the popularity and usage of the Gospels clearly changed over the course of the 2nd century.  Therefore, the Christian canon evolved!

You’re beating a dead horse; your so-called references (Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) only confirmed that they accepted the Gospel canon. So, Muhammad was not the only who quoted from the Gospel but at least they accepted Jesus death and resurrection. As you and I have shown the Gospel was accepted way before and after Muhammad authentic.  

Originally posted by islamispeace

C.  There was even criticism from non-Christians.  For example, the Roman philosopher Celsus observed the changes Christians made to their own scriptures whenever they faced criticism.  Celsus' claims are lost but they were partially preserved in the writings of Origen.  This is what Celsus wrote:

"Certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Christians make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of Christ’s life; hoping to spare individuals, and to expound the prophecies themselves, I admit the plausibility of the Christian interpretation of them. Nevertheless the use which they make of them may be overturned. One ought not hastily to assume so important a position on small grounds. The prophecies may be applied to countless other things with greater probability than to Jesus." (Contra Celsus)

As you can see Kish, your claim that no one questioned the authority of the Gospels is pure nonsense and not supported by the historical evidence. 

As for the Gnostics and other Christian sects, they have disappeared because of the persecution of the Church after the Council of Nicea.  That is why their writings were hidden away only to be discovered some 60 years ago.  They did not want their books to be burned by the Church. 
 

You are referring to “Celsus of the [2nd century C.E.]? the first writer against Christianity, he makes it a matter of mockery, that labourers, shoemakers, farmers, etc…  should be zealous preachers of the Gospel.” Get it? He said the Gospel! Yes, it was accepted by that time hands down regardles wheather one disagreed with its teachings.

Originally posted by islamispeace

As you can see Kish, your claim that no one questioned the authority of the Gospels is pure nonsense and not supported by the historical evidence. 

Here is what I said my dear friend…

Originally posted by kish

Of course like always you conveniently ignored the fact that the Gospel was not even seriously debated in the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th Century by its truest enemies,

Debated, not questioned islam, people back then even questioned the existence of God, doesn’t mean it was debated, just to many facts to prove otherwise. Is that all the proof you have, to show that the Gospel was indeed accepted as the way of life?

Originally posted by islamispeace

As for the Gnostics and other Christian sects, they have disappeared because of the persecution of the Church after the Council of Nicea.  That is why their writings were hidden away only to be discovered some 60 years ago.  They did not want their books to be burned by the Church. 

Special pleading will get you know where. But you really believe that a small group of Christians were able to do all that, you must be kidding. In any event 'the council of Nicea' started in 325 A.D. many, many years later. But, what is sad is that in the same breath islamispeace refers to the writings of the Tanakh to disprove the Gospel, make up your mind, which is it?

But with all that being said why didn’t Jesus say the Tanakh was corrupted? I would hate to think that Muhammad is going against what Jesus said or maybe it is just Islam’s members who are unaware.

In any event your so-called historical references NOT debates were all shut down. Next time I'll be looking for the Gospel being seriously debated from the 1st - 4th century, which you failed to do as always, especially with "the Council of Nicea". Every single reference you quoted spoke in favor of the Gospel being part of the Bible canon, that is way before Muhammad.
 
Thanks islamispeace,
 
Kish


Edited by Kish - 21 October 2011 at 9:05am
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 19 October 2011 at 11:03am
Jack continues to try to convince himself and like-minded Christians with yet another rant filled with unproven assertions.  What can I say?...
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 40 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com