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
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: 19 October 2011 at 12:04pm
Dear Kish,
 
IslamisPeace wrote: 
Jack continues to try to convince himself and like-minded Christians with yet another rant filled with unproven assertions.  What can I say?...


 
His two sentences are truly a rant with unproven assertions, lacking thought, intelligence, and logic.LOL
 
In case you haven't gathered, IslamisPeace comes across initially to new postors as intelligent, thoughtful, and quiet, but as soon as he gathers that you might have a solid belief of some sort other than his, he begins to criticize the postor, degenerating into ridicule, name calling, and insults.  He will interpret your questions into something not exactly like what you orriginally asked, then he will answer his version of your question intending to make you angry.  His plan is to make you so angry that you either quit the forum, give up your convictions about the truth, or slide into poor behavior yourself.  The best thing to do is to refuse to respond to his posts.  I have done so, and actually enjoyed posting on this forum.  Now I just enjoy chasing the cad (that is, IslamisPeace) from string to string exposing his behavior for what it is and making fun of him.  When he is on the receiving end of his own behavior, he falls apart into the kind of useless posts which I quoted at the outset of this post. 
 
Don't waste your time with him, Kish.  There are other Muslim posters on this forum who are actually intelligent, thoughtful, considerate, and more conversational in their posts.  You will learn a lot about Islam from them, as I have.  You may also discover a great deal more depth in your own faith as well by seeking out answers to the questions they pose and comments they make.  This is by far the greater good than getting in the rediculous entanglements with IslamisPeace.  Don't bother with him.  He is a distraction.
 
Allah/Yahweh bless you, my friend,
 
Jack Catholic


Edited by Jack Catholic - 19 October 2011 at 12:21pm
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: 19 October 2011 at 12:44pm
Dear Honeto (Hasan),
 
I am responding to your post from 4 August at 10:13pm
 
You made some assertions in your post: 
 
The Bible as we know it now contains bits and pieces of what Quran tells were books sent to previous prophets.
 
 
The Quran is the only book, and let me repeat the only book to not contradict who God is, nor does it contradict how salvation is achieved,
 
 
You have made claims implied by these two points before in another string of posts called, "The Holy Gospel Did Not Evolve." My refutation of your post on this string is based on reference to the other string just mentioned.
 
"The (Holy) Bible as we now know it..." implies that what we have now is not the same as was penned by the orriginal authors.  But you have not been able to proove this.  In fact the opposite has been shown solidly with multiple sources that this is not the case.
 
"The Qur'an is the only book...to not contradict..." implying that the Holy Bible is full of contradiction.  Yet all examples of contradiction given on that other string have been refuted repeatedly and solidly using multiple and varying sources.
 
"The Qur'an...not contradict who God is..." implies that the New Testament and the Jewish Tanakh (Old Testament) both contradict who God is.  It has been shown on that string that the Tanakh and the NT are exactly in line with one another on who Allah/Yahweh is in that they do not contradict. 
 
"...contradict how salvation is achieved."  implies that neither the Jews nor the Christians knew correctly how salvation was achieved.  In fact, the other string does clearly show both OT and NT explanation of how salvation is achieved, and they are exactly in line with no contradiction. 
 
In the case of all of the above implications, only the Holy Qur'an is in contradiction with the Jewish Holy Book and the Christian Holy Book and therefore the Holy Qur'an is the only Holy Book to be in question.
 
Allah bless you, my friend,
 
Jack Catholic
 
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1941
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 20 October 2011 at 7:28pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Kish,
 
IslamisPeace wrote: 
Jack continues to try to convince himself and like-minded Christians with yet another rant filled with unproven assertions.  What can I say?...


 
His two sentences are truly a rant with unproven assertions, lacking thought, intelligence, and logic.LOL
 
In case you haven't gathered, IslamisPeace comes across initially to new postors as intelligent, thoughtful, and quiet, but as soon as he gathers that you might have a solid belief of some sort other than his, he begins to criticize the postor, degenerating into ridicule, name calling, and insults.  He will interpret your questions into something not exactly like what you orriginally asked, then he will answer his version of your question intending to make you angry.  His plan is to make you so angry that you either quit the forum, give up your convictions about the truth, or slide into poor behavior yourself.  The best thing to do is to refuse to respond to his posts.  I have done so, and actually enjoyed posting on this forum.  Now I just enjoy chasing the cad (that is, IslamisPeace) from string to string exposing his behavior for what it is and making fun of him.  When he is on the receiving end of his own behavior, he falls apart into the kind of useless posts which I quoted at the outset of this post. 
 
Don't waste your time with him, Kish.  There are other Muslim posters on this forum who are actually intelligent, thoughtful, considerate, and more conversational in their posts.  You will learn a lot about Islam from them, as I have.  You may also discover a great deal more depth in your own faith as well by seeking out answers to the questions they pose and comments they make.  This is by far the greater good than getting in the rediculous entanglements with IslamisPeace.  Don't bother with him.  He is a distraction.
 
Allah/Yahweh bless you, my friend,
 
Jack Catholic


Ah, Jack intervenes to try to save another one of his buddies from embarrassing himself.  Too late!

By the way Jack, I treat people the way they deserve to be treated.  People like you and Kish pretend to come here to "learn" and "discuss" but it is obvious that you are here for neither.  Look at Kish.  When he first came here, he pretended as if he was truly here to learn.  He didn't even say outright that he was a Christian.  Instead, he pretended as if he was actually still "searching".  As it became clear that he was actually a Christian all along, and this his little act was just a smoke-screen, I have no reason not to let him have it.  A lying twerp like that does not deserve any respect, and neither do you.  Sorry!  
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
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1941
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 21 October 2011 at 3:04pm
Originally posted by Kish

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!


To repeat, Ignatius never made any reference to the Gospels of Mark or John.  That is proof of the evolving authority of the various Gospels.  He was clearly not acquainted with each of the 4 Gospels. 

Also, Paul himself testifies that there were disagreements in his time:

"6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!" (Galatians 6:6-9)

Originally posted by Kish

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.


Yet the so-called "Acts of Pilate" were never considered to be canonical.  Moreover, Justin Martyr's clear reference to only 3 Gospels is yet more evidence of the evolving authority of the Gospels.  From Ignatius to Justin Martyr, the authority and notoriety of the Gospels had clearly evolved.  So far, you have not refuted anything. 

Originally posted by Kish

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


Well, if you refuse to see the evidence for what it is and instead only see what you want to see, then your statement comes as no surprise.  For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the evidence is clear.  How you choose to interpret it is your problem. 

Originally posted by Jack

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?


You are now simply repeating what I have already said!  I do agree that the by the end of the 2nd century, more than 150 years after Jesus (pbuh), the Christian canon was beginning to take shape.  However, it was not yet complete.  There were many attempts at finalizing the canon and there were many "canons".  These include the Muratorian Canon, the Canon of Origen, the Canon of Eusebius and others.  There were differences within these canons as well.  And as I pointed out before, even though Irenaeus was the absolute first Church father to identify 4 authoritative Gospels, he also considered the apocryphal "Shepherd of Hermas" to be scripture as well. 

Originally posted by Kish

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.
 

And this serves as further proof that your claim that there were no disagreements is a complete crock.  Thank you!

Originally posted by Kish

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.


LOL You are choosing to blind yourself to the facts.  I can't help you there.  The evidence I have provided shows that there were disagreements even into the third and fourth centuries.  Even the "Gospels" were not fully accepted until the late 2nd century. 

Originally posted by Kish

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.
   

More special pleading.  You claimed that not even the Romans questioned the Gospel accounts.  I refuted this as false by providing a direct Roman source which accused Christians of changing the scripture when faced with criticism.  Your argument that he actually wrote the word "Gospel" is laughable and childish at best.  So what?  He also questioned the authority and truthfulness of the "Gospel".  That is the important point here. 

Originally posted by Kish

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?
  

Oh please.  Whether it was "debated" or "questioned" is actually the same thing.  Why would they be "questioning" it if not for the purpose of "debating"?  The fact is that the Gospel accounts were questioned and debated.  Some only became accepted over time.  That implies that there were debates. 

Originally posted by Kish

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.
  

Um dude, the Gnostics were persecuted by Christians after the Council of Nicea.  For example, the Gnostic Priscillian was executed for heresy in 385.  After mainstream Christianity became dominant in Europe, it suppressed all other religious groups, including paganism and "Christian heresies". 

Originally posted by Kish

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?
  

Are you talking about the thread I opened about the contradictions between the Tanakh and NT?  So what?  I opened that thread to show the holes in Christian theology.  The point is to show that the Gospels' claims of complete agreement with the Tanakh is false.  Are you going to actually try to refute my claim or are you going to ask silly questions?  The other Christians have been silent on the issue as well.  Care to give it a shot?

Originally posted by Kish

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.
 

Who says he didn't?  The problem is with the Gospels themselves!  Since the Gospels are not Jesus' own words, but the words of anonymous writers and editors, we can't say what Jesus actually said. 

Originally posted by Kish

n 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.
 

Again, you are choosing to disregard the evidence and manipulate to fit your own ridiculous view.  For those with reason, the evidence is clear.  You did not offer any substantive response.  The fact is that there were debates and disagreements.  The proof is in the different canons that we know about. 

Originally posted by Kish

Thanks islamispeace,


You're welcome!  If you need more evidence of the falsehood of Christianity, don't hesitate to ask!  Wink


Edited by islamispeace - 21 October 2011 at 3:26pm
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
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 22 October 2011 at 6:18am

As I have mentioned before the first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.

Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: “Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), “The Annals,” Book 15, par. 44.

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”—(1976), Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145.

With so much historical evidence regarding Jesus birth, life and DEATH, the real question is why don’t Muslims who say they believe in Jesus support this crucial argument? It is because Moses and Jesus spoke about false prophets that would come in Jesus name; Muhammad fits that prophecy like a glove on hand.   

The individuals who islamispeace even mentions where around during and after the first few centuries of the Gospel, where Islam’s support was? Nowhere to be found because there was no Allah, Muslims or Quran until that event in the cave that only Muhammad can say happened because there is no proof or eyewitnesses that it ever happened just Muhammad’s word.

Obviously, the spirit that approached Muhammad was the same one that approached Eve in the garden, a wicked evil spirit, no wonder it choked and drove Muhammad out of his mind (like Judas) to want to commit suicide.

IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1941
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 23 October 2011 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by Kish

As I have mentioned before the first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.

Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: “Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), “The Annals,” Book 15, par. 44.


Confused What does this have to with what we are discussing?  Are you feeling alright Kish? 

Originally posted by Kish

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”—(1976), Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145.
 

LOL Who's doubting the historicity of Jesus?  You have completely changed the topic and have not responded to anything I wrote in my last post. 

Originally posted by Kish

With so much historical evidence regarding Jesus birth, life and DEATH, the real question is why don’t Muslims who say they believe in Jesus support this crucial argument? It is because Moses and Jesus spoke about false prophets that would come in Jesus name; Muhammad fits that prophecy like a glove on hand.


Again, you are going off on tangents.  Secondly, no rational person would consider a few passages from Josephus and Tacitus as "so much historical evidence" about Jesus.  Neither Josephus nor Tacitus say anything about Jesus' resurrection (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum is a Christian forgery) and it is NOT considered indisputable historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead.  There simply is no historical evidence of his so-called resurrection.  And since we are on the topic of non-Christian references to Jesus, let's look at another example:

"AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto.33  [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu34  was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!35  — Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?36  With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'

Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God?37  Thereupon they retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish.38 When Nakai was brought in he said to them; Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not?39  Yes, was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, in secret places does Naki40  [the innocent] slay.41 When Nezer was brought in, he said; Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, And Nezer [a twig] shall grow forth out of his roots.42  Yes, they said, Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth away from thy grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot].43 When Buni was brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my son], my first born?44  Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born.45 And when Todah was brought in, he said to them; Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]?46  Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed, since it is written, Whoso offereth the sacrifice of Todah [thanksgiving] honoured me.47" [Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a]


Obviously, there were disagreements and debates about Jesus (pbuh).  So, we see your new argument is also false.  Where will you go from here?  Will you try to change the subject again.   
     
Originally posted by Kish

The individuals who islamispeace even mentions where around during and after the first few centuries of the Gospel, where Islam’s support was? Nowhere to be found because there was no Allah, Muslims or Quran until that event in the cave that only Muhammad can say happened because there is no proof or eyewitnesses that it ever happened just Muhammad’s word.


What the heck are you talking about?  Why do you keep diverting to Muhammad (pbuh) when we are talking about the authenticity of the Gospels?  As I have stated before, Muhammad (pbuh) had many witnesses to his miracles.  We can discuss this in another thread.  He was also known as "Al-Amin".  Even the pagans knew him as an honest man.  As such, they often accused him of being a sorcerer or even possessed, in the same way the Talmud accused Jesus of being a sorcerer!

Also, I have asked in the past for the names of the witnesses who were with Paul when he allegedly met Jesus on the road to Damascus.  You have yet to answer. 

Originally posted by Kish

Obviously, the spirit that approached Muhammad was the same one that approached Eve in the garden, a wicked evil spirit, no wonder it choked and drove Muhammad out of his mind (like Judas) to want to commit suicide.

  


LOL Yeah, you would love to prove that wouldn't you?  And when did this spirit "choke" the Prophet?  Care to give any proof?  And when did Muhammad (pbuh) go "out of his mind"?  Care to give any proof?  When did he try to commit suicide because he was going mad?  Care to give any proof? 

By the way, what spirit did Jacob encounter in his "wrestling match" which caused him to develop a problem with his hip:

"So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”

   But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”   “Jacob,” he answered.  28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[f] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”

 29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.” But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.  30 So Jacob called the place Peniel,[g] saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

 31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel,[h] and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon." (Genesis 32:24-32)

What makes you think this being Jacob "wrestled" with was not a demon?  Oh you Christians and your double standards!  LOL            

Now, can you actually respond to my last post instead of going off on tangents?  You have not provided any reasonable response to the evolving authority of the Gospels in the 2nd century.  You have not responded to the many Christian canons that existed.  You have not responded to the historical evidence of Christian persecution of the Gnostics.  Oh and you have not responded to the facts I presented before about the illegitimacy of Jesus' crucifixion as expiation for the sins of humanity.  For convenience, here are the points I raised:

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.   


Earth to Planet Kish!  Earth to Planet Kish! 
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
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 23 October 2011 at 5:22pm

So then, what is islamispeace and one or two others basing their argument on, about the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not being part of the Bible’s canon? Apart from the things he and other Muslims cannot understand and answer and because of their lack of Holy Spirit and guidance from God’s word it is this;

Basically because it does not agree with a book (Quran) that was written 600 years after the Bible was written. How insane! 

Originally posted by islamispeace

The verse is referring to the Quran which was to revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) and the previous pristine scriptures like the Torah and the Gospel which were revealed to Moses and Jesus (pbut), respectively.

Of course Islam cannot present any other “previous pristine scriptures” apart from what we already have in the Torah and the Gospel, why, because there is none.  

Word to the wise though, Jesus did not say that the Torah or the Gospel was corrupt, only Muhammad and his followers. They also deny Jesus birth was with the help of Holy Spirit from his heavenly father and therefore Jesus is God’s son. They deny Jesus death on the torture stake and his resurrection.

Originally posted by islamispeace

No one said the entire Torah or Gospel has been corrupted.  There is some truth and some falsehood.

Now you are saying that God failed to preserve his Holy Word like he promised. Or is it because his Holy Word does not agree with a book that was written 600 years later denying Jesus birth, death and resurrection it therefore is corrupted?

Originally posted by islamispeace

How do you know?  Are you basing this on the Gospel accounts, which were written decades after Jesus?

Sure am, I rather believe in the actual accounts of eyewitnesses who were around during that time of history to confirm its truth then to believe what was written centuries not decades, centuries later, 600 years later by a man who was choked three or four times to recite something he himself could not read or understand. No thank you, I’ll stick within a person lifetime.  

But, I guess no matter how you look at it, if God failed to keep his word regarding the Torah, Psalms and Gospel how can he be trusted? Is there truth and falsehood in the Quran or did God now gain more power to protect this book? How silly! God is incapable of making an error so how could you even believe what you are saying being a God fearing man.

Originally posted by islamispeace

There are no surviving "original' copies because all we have today are accounts written in Greek, instead of in Aramaic, which is the language Jesus (pbuh) spoke.

Then you should walk away from this because neither does the Quran, they were all burned for a reason. But, we do have historical references of the Gospel as presented above from opponents of Christianity and throughout this thread. Where is yours to disprove the canonicity of the Gospel? You have none, once again you have assumptions and allegations. This is why you said . . .


Originally posted by islamispeace

The only thing we can do is to compare the surviving manuscripts to see if they are consistent, which they are not.  We can also consider if what Jesus is quoted as saying matches his Jewish background.  When we do that, we can dismiss, for example, verses where Jesus claims to be divine or to be the "son of God".

Consistent with what, the Quran? Remember, you said the Torah has been corrupted so you cannot compare the Quran to that.

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.

Another bold face lies as to your desperation to prove the Gospel as uninspired shot down.  

Matt. 26:63, 64 63 But Jesus kept silent. So the high priest said to him: “By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him: “You yourself said [it]. Yet I say to YOU men, From henceforth YOU will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

No rejection here, ‘you yourself said it’ was a common Jewish idiom affirming that a statement was true, do your studies, that was 1 century vernacular. Jesus himself said he was the ‘son of God’ as well as his father saying Jesus was his son in front of eyewitnesses on many occasions. But Islam is telling us to reject it because Jesus did not answer in this one instance, during a MOCK trial! Islam why didn’t Jesus himself tell us to reject himself being called the ‘son of God’? Why do you rather take the opposing side? Why are you taken it upon yourself to believe this portion but to ignore all the other references he and his father made to Jesus being the ‘son of God’ what is your real motive?   

 

Here are islamispeace references in this post to prove the authenticity of the Gospel. Let us deal we facts not personal belief

 Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons, Diatessaron,

Originally posted by islamispeace

Ignatius never made any reference to the Gospels of Mark or John.  That is proof of the evolving authority of the various Gospels.  He was clearly not acquainted with each of the 4 Gospels. 

That you are aware of, but even giving you the benefit of doubt which I don’t mind, you still cannot discredit the Gospel that he does make mention of along with the other writings in the NT, but we are talking about the canonicity of the Gospel as God’s written word for life, not it evolving, that’s neither here or there. Like it or not, Ignatius who is only one person uses quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Gospel included as you just attested to) showing his acquaintance with such canonical writings who also believed that Jesus was God son. Are you again accepting some of his writings that disagree with Islam’s beliefs that Jesus is not God son? Ignatius believed Jesus to be God’s son and that he was tortured on a stake a teaching of Christ himself, now what? Where do you go from here?

Now to another one of YOUR references, Justin Martyr.


Originally posted by kish

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 then said. ..

Originally posted by islamispeace

Yet the so-called "Acts of Pilate" were never considered to be canonical.  Moreover, Justin Martyr's clear reference to only 3 Gospels is yet more evidence of the evolving authority of the Gospels. 

But, yet you used these philosophers as a point of reference to disprove Jesus’ death on a torture stake. As everyone can see, Justin Martyr wrote in reference to Jesus death AND resurrection, he believed it, unlike Islam today! “That these things did happen. But, yet Islam stubbornly disagrees with these early historians and hard proof of evidence.  

So far we have Ignatius lending support and Justin Martyr lending support to the Gospel of Jesus. Remember Gospel mean ‘Good News’ Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all preached and teached the SAME one Gospel or Good News of Jesus.   

Also, The extent of prejudice against professed Christians at that time is indicated by Justin’s statement: “I too, therefore, expect to be plotted against and fixed to the stake, by some of those I have named, or perhaps by Crescens, that lover of bravado and boasting; for the man is not worthy of the name of philosopher who publicly bears witness against us in matters which he does not understand, saying that the Christians are atheists and impious, and doing so to win favour with the deluded mob, and to please them. For if he assails us without having read the teachings of Christ, he is thoroughly depraved, and far worse than the illiterate, who often refrain from discussing or bearing false witness about matters they do not understand.”

In about 165 C.E., he was beheaded in Rome and became a “martyr” (meaning “witness”). Hence, he is called Justin Martyr.

Another one of your references, Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria, they too knew Jesus to be God’s son.

Irenaeus (c. 130-200 C.E.): “We may learn through Him [Christ] that the Father is above all things. For ‘the Father,’ says He, ‘is greater than I.’ The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge.”—Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 28.8.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 C.E.): “To know the eternal God, the giver of what is eternal, and by knowledge and comprehension to possess God, who is first, and highest, and one, and good. . . . He then who would live the true life is enjoined first to know Him ‘whom no one knows, except the Son reveal (Him).’ (Matt. 11:27) Next is to be learned the greatness of the Saviour after Him.”—Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? VII, VIII.

MUST I CONTINUE TO BLOW YOUR REFERENCES AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES!

In this connection it may be observed that Second Peter is 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.

I guess you wished you have never brought these individuals up!

Originally posted by kish

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.

Then you tried to change gears again by saying there were disagreements. . .

Originally posted by islamispeace

 You are choosing to blind yourself to the facts.  I can't help you there.  The evidence I have provided shows that there were disagreements even into the third and fourth centuries.  Even the "Gospels" were not fully accepted until the late 2nd century.
 

From here we see that the GOSPEL WAS INDEED ACCEPETED as per islamispeace, finally you admit it. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th regardless they were accepted way before a Muhammad AS PART OF THE BIBLE’S CANON, inspired.

 

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

 Oh please.  Whether it was "debated" or "questioned" is actually the same thing.  Why would they be "questioning" it if not for the purpose of "debating"?  The fact is that the Gospel accounts were questioned and debated.  Some only became accepted over time.  That implies that there were debates. 
 

Wow, questioning and debating is the same thing. Then is shouldn’t be hard for you to present the debates, right! Still waiting………………………………………………..

Not only were the “Gospel” and the “Apostle” placed on the same footing as collected Scripture by Clement of Alexandria, but they were equated with the Hebrew Scriptures. (Miscellanies, Book 4) Justin tells us that at the meetings of the early Christians “the memoirs of the apostles or the writing of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.” (1 Apology 67) Ignatius, Theophilus and Tertullian also spoke of the Prophets, the Law and the Gospel as equally authoritative.—Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 5.1; Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 3, chap. 12; On Prescriptions Against Heretics, chap. 36.

Stick a fork in it, you are done!

All praise to Jehovah God, the Creator of this incomparable Book the Holy Scriptures! It can equip us completely and put us on the way to life.

Peace,

Kish

 

 

         

     

 



Edited by Kish - 23 October 2011 at 5:28pm
IP IP Logged
Mansoor_ali
Male  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 September 2008
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
Quote Mansoor_ali Replybullet Posted: 24 October 2011 at 1:12am
Originally posted by Kish

With so much historical evidence regarding Jesus birth, life and DEATH, the real question is why don’t Muslims who say they believe in Jesus support this crucial argument?


Where are historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?Josepphus,Thallus,Pliny the Younger,Lucian of Samosata,Tacitus never mention any resurrection of Jesus Christ.You can click here to read a full article about this topic.

Originally posted by Kish

It is because Moses and Jesus spoke about false prophets that would come in Jesus name; Muhammad fits that prophecy like a glove on hand.

Another mistake.Muhammad doesnot fit the description of a false prophet.Muhammad never came in Jesus name.Muhammad came for Allah's cause,not Jesus.There is not a single Quranic verse or authentic Haidth which says that Muhammad came in Jesus name.

Originally posted by Kish


The individuals who islamispeace even mentions where around during and after the first few centuries of the Gospel, where Islam’s support was? Nowhere to be found because there was no Allah, Muslims or Quran until that event in the cave that only Muhammad can say happened because there is no proof or eyewitnesses that it ever happened just Muhammad’s word.

Proof or eyewitnesses?First of all,Muhammad was indeed foretold in the Bible but these prediction are vague when looked at along with the other verses that are corrupted.For example,when Jesus referred to the comforter to come he is actually referring to Muhammad.However,it is not clear because of the false verses surrounding it.

Now about eyewitnesses.

1- Did Moses have any witnesses?

2- Did King David have any witnesses?

3- Did Solomon, Ezra, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Job and the rest of the Prophets foretold each others?

4- Were the Disciples of Jesus foretold in the Bible?

5- Was the Disciple Paul foretold in the Bible, since he never even met Jesus in person?

The answer to the all of the above is NO!  Non of the Bible's Prophets except for Jesus and Muhammad was ever foretold.  They just happened without any prior warnings. 

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