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: 2095
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 24 October 2011 at 5:17pm
So now Kish is so desperate that he is pulling stuff from posts I made weeks and months ago and responding to them now, instead of responding to the issues were are currently discussing!  How sad and pathetic!  If this the best Christianity has in terms of intellectuals, then the battle for souls is already half won, inshaAllah! 

So Kish, I will only respond to the issues dealt with in my last post to which you responded.  The rest of your response will go in the garbage dump (metaphorically that is).

Originally posted by Kish

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?


Kish thinks he is pretty slick using a particular English translation to "prove "his point.  Actually Kish, by using this translation, you have proven that you are a Jehovah's Witness!  You have trying to hide it, but now it is clear!  You took this translation directly from a Jehovah's Witness website.  Here is the link:

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm


Now, is this translation accurate?  Let us see other translations:

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.” (NIV)

"64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (KJV)

"64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (ASV)

"64Jesus said to him,
"You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."" (ESV)

"64 Jesus said to him, Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half of the virtue of God [nevertheless, I say to you, from henceforth, ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half of God's virtue], and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Wycliffe Bible)

"64Jesus saith to him, `Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming upon the clouds, of the heaven.'" (Young's Literal Translation)


We see a pattern here.  Most English translations say 'Thou hast said" or "You have said so" which implies that Jesus is denying the title of "son of God".  But what is even more amazing is that mistranslations like the WatchTower Bible retain the "son of Man" phrase which makes the translation utterly absurd.  Why would Jesus say he is the son of God and then say "I tell you that you will see the son of Man..."  Wouldn't it have made more sense to say "I tell you that will see the son of God..."? 

But there is more to consider.  According to Strong's Concordance Dictionary, the Greek word used after the phrase "Thou hast said" is "πλὴν" (plēn) which means "however, nevertheless, but, except that, yet." [1].  Obviously, if Jesus was saying "Thou hast said.  Nevertheless..." or "Thou hast said.  However..." it would imply that he is denying the title.  To give more support to this fact, let us see what Biblical scholar Geza Vermes states:

"The phrase implies a negative answer according to rabbinic literature (see The Changing Faces of Jesus, 181-3).  It should be observed that in conformity with mainstream tradition some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel read 'You say that I am'" (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. 26).


The reference to Mark's Gospel is due to the fact that it states that Jesus replied in the affirmative while both Matthew and Luke state that Jesus replied in the negative.  Yet Vermes states that some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel have been changed to conform to Matthew and Luke. 

In light of these facts, it is obvious Kish that you are grasping at straws.  Of course, I don't expect you to admit your error.  You will invariably respond to the evidence I have presented in the way typical of many blind Christians, which is to close your eyes and cover your ears and yell "la la la la la la..." LOL

Originally posted by Kish

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


I agree but unfortunately, all you have been doing is expressing your personal opinions/beliefs with no supporting evidence. 

Originally posted by Kish

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.


"Canonicity"?  Is that a word?  Anyway, the point is that the authority of all four Gospels was obviously not set in stone even in the early 2nd century.  Mark's Gospel was supposedly the first one written, yet Ignatius never even refers to it once!  And guess what?  Mark's Gospel is believed by scholars to be the template for which Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels!  So if Ignatius did not refer to Mark, his references to Matthew and Luke would also be called into question since they were based on Mark!  Shocked  Also, his failure to refer to John's Gospel is significant because it was supposedly written near the end of the 1st century.  It would have been circulated by the early 2nd century so there is no reason why Ignatius would not have referred to it.  And of course, the earliest definitive references to John comes much later in the late 2nd century or mid-2nd century (if we assume Justin Martyr did refer to it). 

Originally posted by Kish

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.


Yet he did not use all of the canonical books, including two Gospels.  That represents a problem with the authority of all four Gospels. 

Originally posted by Kish

Are you again accepting some of his writings that disagree with Islam’s beliefs that Jesus is not God son?


LOL Not at all!  That is the not the point.  The point is to refute your claim that the Gospels were all accepted without question from the very start.  This claim is indubitably false.  The fact that there was an evolution of the Christian canon shows that Christians were not sure which books to believe and which to reject.  That in itself calls all of the standard Church tradition regarding Jesus into question. 

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?


Ignatius also believed in a primitive form of the trinity.  I have already proven this.  Where was he getting this belief from if not from the books he was aware of?  How does that prove the authority of those books as authentic sources on the life of Jesus?  The answer is it does not prove anything.

Originally posted by Kish

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.


As usual, you have completely missed the point.  When I referred to these people, it was to prove that the Gospels were not accepted by everyone, as you claimed.  I was not even referring to the beliefs espoused in those documents.  However, the fact that the Gospels were not as authoritative  as you suggest shows that the stories regarding Jesus (which include his alleged crucifixion and resurrection) were also not as authoritative.  They actually contradict some other early sources such as the Didache which never mentions Jesus' death and crucifixion. 

Originally posted by Kish

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.


Clearly false as there are numerous differences between each of the four Gospels.  I gave one example above regarding Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin and his reply to the High Priest.  What you also fail to realize is that Ignatius and Justin Martyr were both writing in the 2nd century, so their historical reliability is in question since they were separated from Jesus by ~80 years and ~120 years, respectively. 

Originally posted by Kish

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.


Your point being?  This is all irrelevant.  Just because people are willing to die for their beliefs does not mean their beliefs must be correct.  People of all religions are willing to die for their beliefs. 

Originally posted by Kish

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.


Again, you missed the point!  Irenaeus was the absolute first Church father to claim that there are 4 canonical Gospels.  His reasoning was also childish at best.  Here is why he believed there were "four" Gospels:

"But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the 'pillar and ground' of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner demiourgos of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit" (Against Heresies 3.11.8).

How childish!  Irenaeus did not consider the historical evidence or whether these "four Gospels" were even reliable witnesses.  Rather, he based his faith in these Gospels on the completely unrelated fact that there are "four zones in the world"!  WOW! 

Also, Irenaeus clearly believed that Jesus was God.  That wouldn't sit well with you now would it?  Here is what he wrote:

"For this reason [it is ,said], "Who shall declare His generation?"(1) since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him?"(2) But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him,(3) knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man,"(4) is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures,(5) that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (Against Heresies, 3:19:2).

These people were blasphemers and not historically reliable. 

Originally posted by Kish

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!



All of the people you have referred to believed, in some form, that Jesus was God!  Your "REFERENCES" shoot you in the foot. 

Originally posted by Kish

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!



LOL You are so hilarious!  Do you forget that I mentioned before that Irenaeus also accepted the authority of the "Shepherd of Hermas", which was rejected by the Church?  Also, you admitted that the Book of Revelation was "rejected by some"!  Therefore, the Christians could not agree on what books to accept.  That is what I have been saying all this time, dude!  Thank you for proving it with your own words! Clap

Originally posted by Kish

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.
 

Confused Yeah, I have been saying that the Gospels were not accepted until the LATE 2ND CENTURY all this time!  Are you paying attention Kish?  Do you know what this means?  It means that the by the time the Gospels were accepted, it had already been more than 150 years since the time of Jesus (pbuh).  Not exactly historically viable!  LOL As such, your fallacious argument that since the Gospels were accepted before Muhammad (pbuh) was born is indicative of your childish logic since it still does not prove that they were historically reliable accounts of Jesus' life. 

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.”
 

Yes AD 170, which would be roughly 140 years AFTER Jesus!  How does this prove their historical reliability?  Why did it take so long for them to be accepted and canonized?  You delirious Christians have no answers, only assumptions based on leaps of faith.  Referring to the Diatessaron, James Still writes:

"...Tatian will later create the Diatessaron, a harmony that omitted and redacted material from the four gospels and which was very popular, circulating widely in the West as well as in Syria. This demonstrates that even at this late date the gospels were still not afforded the same inerrant status as the Hebrew scriptures. The fact is the various communities were free to develop the material about Jesus depending upon their needs. The Gospel of John, for instance, thrived in Alexandria among the Mandaean Gnostics for many decades before it came to be circulated outside of that city and eventually canonized. The fact that we have many different extant gospels, both canonical and noncanonical, emphasizing different aspects of Jesus' teaching, demonstrates that no clear ideology had yet emerged from the various primitive communities. To suggest that one gospel is more authoritative than another, simply because it represents the teachings of the church today, is nothing more than an arbitrary decision based on a normative prejudice. The external evidence is very clear: the written gospels were profitable for teaching but not considered more authoritative than the thriving oral tradition circulating among the ancient communities during the first two hundred years" (The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller). 

Originally posted by Kish

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


Well, if you close your eyes and ears, refusing to look at the evidence already presented, then I am afraid you will keep waiting.................................and waiting..........................................and waiting.................................until it's too late to realize that you are in denial!  Big%20smile

Originally posted by Kish

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.


As mentioned already, all or most of these people also believed that Jesus was God.  Also, none of them were in full agreement as to the correct canon of the Bible.  Who are you trying to convince?  Me or yourself?  Snap out of it, Kish.  Come back Earth! 

Originally posted by Kish

Stick a fork in it, you are done!
 

LOL If you say so.  I say let the evidence do the talking. 

Originally posted by Kish

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.


What passion!  Unfortunately, your prayer is misplaced as has been shown.  Your passionate failure can be represented by the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5atPYaxX0lM&feature=related


And once again, before I close, here are the parts about Jesus' crucifixion you failed to respond to:

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.

You can't run.  Until you respond, I will keep pushing these points in your face.  The longer you avoid these points, the more you damage your own position. 
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: 24 October 2011 at 5:35pm

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?

Since this was proven beyond the shadow of doubt just by using Islamispeace references, now another question, then another question, then another, right?

Originally posted by mansoor ali

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.

Does not the Quran say that Jesus was resurrected?

God caused Christ to die, raised him to life, and then lifted him up to Him.—Āl ‘Imrān [3]:55, NJD; Maryam [19]:33, NJD

Quran only acknowledges what the Bible wrote 600 years prior. And since you rather believe Josepphus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata,Tacitus rather than the Holy Bible or even your Quran I don’t know what else to tell you but to pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who is none other than [YHWH] Jehovah God for guidance. 

Originally posted by mansoor ali

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? 

Let’s cut through the chase because this very weak, weak argument has already been CRUSHED many, many times! So I’m going to make this short and simple for you.

Jesus was greater than all the Prophets; did he have any eye-witnesses of his anointing? YES! Prophet-hood? YES! MIRACLES? YES!  

As per your belief Muhammad was a greater prophet, did he have any eye-witnesses of his prophet-hood in the cave? NO! Anointing if any? NO! Miracles if any? NO! At the most show me even two witnesses in order for every matter to be established according to Mosaic Law.

In fact answer this question no dynamic duo Mansoor ali and islamispeace, Why in the Holy Scriptures did Jesus mention Moses and these other Prophets by NAME but did NOT mention Muhammad by name, why?

I can’t wait to hear ‘yawls’ answer, this should really be good………………………………………..

Originally posted by mansoor ali

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.

That statement is so far from the truth I’m surprise your mouth could even get those words out. I guess that is what your Quran teaches you, since the Quran is the first book for Muslims. As far as Muhammad is concern, there was not even a Mecca or a kaaba let alone a prophet named Muhammad or anyone with that name.

 



Edited by Kish - 24 October 2011 at 5:49pm
IP IP Logged
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 25 October 2011 at 12:49pm

Now you are being juvenile and picky about translations, you have yet been able to answer any of my questions with references on any debates that took place beginning in the 1st Century down through the 10th Century to disprove the canonicity of the Gospel. Everyone knows that Jesus and his heavenly father mentions and acknowledge one another as father and son. What is ironic so does your Quran.   

Originally posted by islamispeace

So now Kish is so desperate that he is pulling stuff from posts I made weeks and months ago and responding to them now, instead of responding to the issues were are currently discussing!  How sad and pathetic! 

Grow up, be a man or (woman) face the facts, stop crying and answer the questions

Originally posted by islamispeace

So if Ignatius did not refer to Mark, his references to Matthew and Luke would also be called into question since they were based on Mark!

An assumption you came up with.

Originally posted by islamispeace

That in itself calls all of the standard Church tradition regarding Jesus into question. 
  

Another assumption you came up with.

Originally posted by islamispeace

When I referred to these people, it was to prove that the Gospels were not accepted by everyone, as you claimed.

As I clamed, now, you are back-peddling again.

Originally posted by islamispeace

What you also fail to realize is that Ignatius and Justin Martyr were both writing in the 2nd century, so their historical reliability is in question since they were separated from Jesus..
 

Yet, another assumption you came up with, Wow! All these men wrote, quoted and used the Gospel but yet the reliability of the Gospel is in question, I’ve heard everything now.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Moreover, Justin Martyr's clear reference to only 3 Gospels is yet more evidence of the evolving authority of the Gospels.
 

Don’t care if it was one or two Gospels it was accepted as part of the Bible’s canon

Originally posted by islamispeace

Your point being?  This is all irrelevant. Just because people are willing to die for their beliefs does not mean their beliefs must be correct.  People of all religions are willing to die for their beliefs.
   

Yet, you tried to use Justin’s writings to disprove the authenticity of the Gospel which he himself LIVED and DIED for its beliefs! Yea, that would certainly make it relevant, that’s my point!

Originally posted by islamispeace

All of the people you have referred to believed, in some form, that Jesus was God!  Your "REFERENCES" shoot you in the foot. 
 

First correction, YOUR flimsy apologist references, not mine. Secondly, I didn’t even need to bring my references into the picture; how’s your foot?

Originally posted by islamispeace

Also, you admitted that the Book of Revelation was "rejected by some"!  Therefore, the Christians could not agree on what books to accept.  That is what I have been saying all this time, dude!  Thank you for proving it with your own words!
 

Prove I said that, which like everything else you cannot. Do what you do best, cut and paste where I said that. Of course you will also ignore this chance to prove me wrong. We will wait for the date when it was posted.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Also, none of them were in full agreement as to the correct canon of the Bible.  Who are you trying to convince?  Me or yourself?  Snap out of it, Kish.  Come back Earth! 
 

We are talking about the Gospel, now you are all over the place grasping for straws about the Bible (OT and NT), you’re a senior member????? Kidding me, right?

Originally posted by islamispeace

Yeah, I have been saying that the Gospels were not accepted until the LATE 2ND CENTURY all this time!

But, who are you? Jews by the thousands were getting baptized and accepted the Gospel before the death of the last Apostle John, if you would have read it as you are told to by your Quran you would have know that. It’s your denial and pride that perhaps is in your way.

According to available evidence AGAIN, the Gospels were written between the years 41 and 98 C.E. Jesus died in the year 33 C.E. You haven’t shown me anything different except what some early church fathers or students of the Apostles wrote which I still had to school you on.

It’s a shame and an abomination that you rather accept and put stock in what they wrote rather than Jesus and his Apostles. Logic is not a universal key as I always said.   

Professor M. Blaiklock said it BEST!

"The evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history."—PROFESSOR E. M. BLAIKLOCK

IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2095
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 26 October 2011 at 1:48pm
Again, Kish chooses to ignore everything all the evidence which contradicts his claims, instead resorting to more special pleading.  Case in point:

Originally posted by Kish

Now you are being juvenile and picky about translations, you have yet been able to answer any of my questions with references on any debates that took place beginning in the 1st Century down through the 10th Century to disprove the canonicity of the Gospel. Everyone knows that Jesus and his heavenly father mentions and acknowledge one another as father and son. What is ironic so does your Quran.  


First of all, you are lumping two issues together.  The issue of the translations have nothing to do with the issue of "debates" regarding the Gospels.  Second, instead of actually responding to the issue of the translations, you choose to disregard the evidence and play a game of leap-frog. 

I showed why your sly and weaselly attempt to use a specific translation of Matthew 26:63 was a pathetic attempt to deny the obvious contradiction which exists in the Gospels.  Moreover, by using the WatchTower's translation, you essentially changed your argument regarding Matthew 26:63.  First, you claimed that Jesus was simply not saying who he was because he was dealing with unbelievers or "puny mortal(s)" as you put it (which implies your agreement that he was denying being the son of God in front of the Sanhedrin).  When you realized that this argument was whacky, you changed your argument and claimed that Jesus did in fact accept the title of "son of God" and used a Jehovah's Witness translation to support your claim.  I refuted by showing that the translation is pitifully wrong and that Jesus was clearly denying the title.  As usual, you have no actual response.

By the way, you have failed to show that the Gospels were accepted by everyone in the 1st century.  All the evidence suggests that they were not accepted until the late 2nd century which would mean that it took 150 years for the Christian world to decide that there were only 4 "gospels".  In addition, the first person to limit the number to four was Ireneaus, who as I showed, did not use historical evidence to come to that conclusion but rather a childish argument about the four "zones" of the earth!  How ridiculously absurd the early Church was! LOL

Originally posted by Kish

Grow up, be a man or (woman) face the facts, stop crying and answer the questions


LOL This coming from a person who has ignored nearly every question I have posed to him! 

Originally posted by Kish

An assumption you came up with.
Another assumption you came up with.


And ones which you cannot refute! 

Originally posted by Kish

As I clamed, now, you are back-peddling again.


How so?  Am I responsible for your straw-man arguments!  NO!

Originally posted by Kish

Yet, another assumption you came up with, Wow! All these men wrote, quoted and used the Gospel but yet the reliability of the Gospel is in question, I’ve heard everything now.


Wrong, they quoted certain parts of the "gospels", not the whole text.  Moreover, since it took that long for the Church fathers to use those sources, which were already decades old and undergoing many changes (as I have shown previously), their historical reliability falls into question.  Also, I have shown that some of the Church fathers like Origen, and non-Christians like Celsus were aware that Christians were making changes to the manuscripts as they pleased.  All of this evidence damages the historical validity of the entire Christian Bible. 

Originally posted by Kish

Don’t care if it was one or two Gospels it was accepted as part of the Bible’s canon
   

Care or not, it is evidence that the Christian canon was not finalized which implies that disagreements did exist. 

Originally posted by Kish

Yet, you tried to use Justin’s writings to disprove the authenticity of the Gospel which he himself LIVED and DIED for its beliefs! Yea, that would certainly make it relevant, that’s my point!


WOW, what childish logic!  Just because he believed they were truthful and was willing to die for that belief does not prove that they were truthful.  As I said, people of all religious traditions have been willing to die for their beliefs.  This included Gnostics like Priscillian and Ptolemy (who was executed by the Romans around 180 CE)! 

Originally posted by Kish

First correction, YOUR flimsy apologist references, not mine. Secondly, I didn’t even need to bring my references into the picture; how’s your foot?


What?  You argued that the Church fathers I referred to all believed that Jesus was the son of God.  This was your pathetic way of trying to dismiss the evidence that they all had differing views on the canonized books.  I countered that they also believed that he was God, which is to show you that what they believed is irrelevant here since we are talking about why they had differing views on which books were authoritative.  What is your response to this?  Do you deny that these Church fathers believed that Jesus was God?  Like I said, you shot yourself in the foot!  Ouch!  Ouch

Originally posted by Kish

Prove I said that, which like everything else you cannot. Do what you do best, cut and paste where I said that. Of course you will also ignore this chance to prove me wrong. We will wait for the date when it was posted.
 

Right here:

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. (October 23, 5:23 PM)

By the way, as is typical of you, this statement was actually copied from the internet, probably from the following website:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/2010/10/canon-established.htm

How will you weasel your way out of this one!  Big%20smile

Originally posted by Kish

We are talking about the Gospel, now you are all over the place grasping for straws about the Bible (OT and NT), you’re a senior member????? Kidding me, right?


Um, the Gospels are part of the canon, aren't they?  So how am I "all over the place"?  You are not even making sense anymore, Kish!  I think you are getting angry or frustrated at all the evidence which you have unable to refute.  You shouldn't get mad, because you are not doing anyone favor by denying the evidence.  All you are doing is dooming yourself. 

Originally posted by Kish

But, who are you? Jews by the thousands were getting baptized and accepted the Gospel before the death of the last Apostle John, if you would have read it as you are told to by your Quran you would have know that. It’s your denial and pride that perhaps is in your way.


Oh please.  Spare me your Church lies.  What historical evidence do you have that "thousands of Jews were getting baptized..."?  Don't go quoting the NT again! 

Originally posted by Kish

According to available evidence AGAIN, the Gospels were written between the years 41 and 98 C.E. Jesus died in the year 33 C.E. You haven’t shown me anything different except what some early church fathers or students of the Apostles wrote which I still had to school you on.


WRONG!  The first Gospel written was that of Mark, which scholars believe was written some time around 70 CE.  The very first NT documents written were the letters of Paul, who never even met Jesus (aside from his alleged encounter on the road to Damascus which has never been proven to be true).

Originally posted by Kish

It’s a shame and an abomination that you rather accept and put stock in what they wrote rather than Jesus and his Apostles. Logic is not a universal key as I always said.
 

How ironic!  Now you are disowning the Church fathers you so zealously and passionately quoted in your last post!  I think your goose is cooked Kish.  Logic is certainly not one of your fortes!

Originally posted by Kish

Professor M. Blaiklock said it BEST!

"The evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history."—PROFESSOR E. M. BLAIKLOCK
 

LOL  Sure, sure.  I bet he would have loved to prove it!  I think about 99% of historians would disagree with him. 

Now, here are the parts you did not respond to:

A.  Kish thinks he is pretty slick using a particular English translation to "prove "his point.  Actually Kish, by using this translation, you have proven that you are a Jehovah's Witness!  You have trying to hide it, but now it is clear!  You took this translation directly from a Jehovah's Witness website.  Here is the link:

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm


Now, is this translation accurate?  Let us see other translations:

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.” (NIV)

"64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (KJV)

"64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (ASV)

"64Jesus said to him,
"You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."" (ESV)

"64 Jesus said to him, Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half of the virtue of God [nevertheless, I say to you, from henceforth, ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half of God's virtue], and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Wycliffe Bible)

"64Jesus saith to him, `Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming upon the clouds, of the heaven.'" (Young's Literal Translation)


We see a pattern here.  Most English translations say 'Thou hast said" or "You have said so" which implies that Jesus is denying the title of "son of God".  But what is even more amazing is that mistranslations like the WatchTower Bible retain the "son of Man" phrase which makes the translation utterly absurd.  Why would Jesus say he is the son of God and then say "I tell you that you will see the son of Man..."  Wouldn't it have made more sense to say "I tell you that will see the son of God..."? 

But there is more to consider.  According to Strong's Concordance Dictionary, the Greek word used after the phrase "Thou hast said" is "πλὴν" (plēn) which means "however, nevertheless, but, except that, yet." [1].  Obviously, if Jesus was saying "Thou hast said.  Nevertheless..." or "Thou hast said.  However..." it would imply that he is denying the title.  To give more support to this fact, let us see what Biblical scholar Geza Vermes states:

"The phrase implies a negative answer according to rabbinic literature (see The Changing Faces of Jesus, 181-3).  It should be observed that in conformity with mainstream tradition some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel read 'You say that I am'" (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. 26).


The reference to Mark's Gospel is due to the fact that it states that Jesus replied in the affirmative while both Matthew and Luke state that Jesus replied in the negative.  Yet Vermes states that some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel have been changed to conform to Matthew and Luke. 

B.  Yes AD 170, which would be roughly 140 years AFTER Jesus!  How does this prove their historical reliability?  Why did it take so long for them to be accepted and canonized?  You delirious Christians have no answers, only assumptions based on leaps of faith.  Referring to the Diatessaron, James Still writes:

"...Tatian will later create the Diatessaron, a harmony that omitted and redacted material from the four gospels and which was very popular, circulating widely in the West as well as in Syria. This demonstrates that even at this late date the gospels were still not afforded the same inerrant status as the Hebrew scriptures. The fact is the various communities were free to develop the material about Jesus depending upon their needs. The Gospel of John, for instance, thrived in Alexandria among the Mandaean Gnostics for many decades before it came to be circulated outside of that city and eventually canonized. The fact that we have many different extant gospels, both canonical and noncanonical, emphasizing different aspects of Jesus' teaching, demonstrates that no clear ideology had yet emerged from the various primitive communities. To suggest that one gospel is more authoritative than another, simply because it represents the teachings of the church today, is nothing more than an arbitrary decision based on a normative prejudice. The external evidence is very clear: the written gospels were profitable for teaching but not considered more authoritative than the thriving oral tradition circulating among the ancient communities during the first two hundred years" (The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller).


C.  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.


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: 27 October 2011 at 12:07pm
Dear MansoorAli and all other Muslims,
 
You, MansoorAli, said that the prophesies regarding Muhammad in the Holy Bible are veague because of the false verses surrounding them. 
 
Right!LOL
 
I'd like to see those prophesies and the "false verses" that surround them.  That should be an excelent string that would get a real run for the effort.  I hope you will consider it...
 
Blessings,
 
Jack Catholic
IP IP Logged
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 27 October 2011 at 6:04pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

Second, instead of actually responding to the issue of the translations, you choose to disregard the evidence and play a game of leap-frog.

Firstly, you want me to respond to the issue of translations and I’m the one playing leap frog when this topic is on the Gospel, you’re a blast. Another attempt to try and change the topic.

Secondly, all your arguments thus far have been assumptions, case and points.

Originally posted by islamispeace

…Why would Jesus say he is the son of God and then say "I tell you that you will see the son of Man..."  Wouldn't it have made more sense to say "I tell you that will see the son of God..."?  I refuted by showing that the translation is pitifully wrong and that Jesus was clearly denying the title.  As usual, you have no actual response.

As usual, another assumption, simply because you my friend come to your own conclusions AND are unable to prove what Jesus meant, especially since Jesus referred to himself on many, many occasions as ‘the Son of God’ and ‘the son of man’ throughout the Gospel.

So, whether it is the New American Standard Bible of Matt 26:63 which says “Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you…” Or the Jehovah’s Witness translation or even the translations that you used, throughout the Gospel and the NT we know Jesus referred to himself as ‘the son of God’ and ‘the son of man’ but it’s becoming obvious that you are running out of excuses.

Originally posted by islamispeace

By the way, you have failed to show that the Gospels were accepted by everyone in the 1st century.

Now I said everyone accepted the Gospel in the 1st cent., more word play from islamispeace. I’m still waiting for all the other words you put in my mouth to try to make your argument stick. Do what you do best and cut and paste what I’ve said.

Originally posted by islamispeace

All the evidence suggests that they were not accepted until the late 2nd century which would mean that it took 150 years for the Christian world to decide that there were only 4 "gospels"

Your assumptions will get you nowhere Mr. Assume, splitting hairs again, but go ahead. The early Christians accepted the Gospel before the death of John, the last Apostle, which was before the 2nd century. You may prefer to accept what the students of the Apostles had to say about these books, as they themselves often admitted to as being but I’ll stick to the source, what the teachers themselves said, Jesus and his twelve Apostles.

Even taken your theory into consideration, the Gospels—as we have them today have remained largely unchanged from the second century onward, that is what really matters and since such is the case when Muhammad received it he was correct in what he said about it.

No wonder there are still only four accounts of the Gospel of Jesus which I’ve been saying all along that are part of the Bible’s canon. As you are learning, God’s Holy Word cannot be altered, by anyone, be they Jew, Christian or Muslim. That is why no one, even today can show any alterations in the Gospel only what others have tried to add but failed.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Care or not, it is evidence that the Christian canon was not finalized which implies that disagreements did exist.

And yet with that being said you still can’t disprove that Jesus was the son of God, died on a torture stake and was resurrected.  

Originally posted by islamispeace

Right here: In this connection it may be observed

Now all of a sudden you cannot quote me within the brackets like I just did

Originally posted by islamispeace

The first Gospel written was that of Mark.

Why, because it is the shortest, wrong again. What is the matter you don’t believe the third-century theologian Origen no more who said that Matthew was the first or are you again going by what these 18th or 19th century scholars are saying? After all Matthew was an Apostle and an eyewitness which I know you’re not too big on eyewitnesses.

Originally posted by islamispeace

A.  Kish thinks he is pretty slick using a particular English translation to "prove "his point.  Actually Kish, by using this translation, you have proven that you are a Jehovah's Witness!  You have trying to hide it, but now it is clear!  You took this translation directly from a Jehovah's Witness website.  Here is the link:

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm

Does this mean you are one of Jehovah’s witnesses since you have access to it as well? I sincerely doubt it but thanks for the link.

Psalms 83:18 That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2397
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 29 October 2011 at 5:20pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

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


Jack,
tell me if this is not a joke, because I cannot stop laughing of what you wrote. Please tell me, so I can proceed.
Hasan
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: 2095
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 31 October 2011 at 7:05pm
Originally posted by Kish

Firstly, you want me to respond to the issue of translations and I’m the one playing leap frog when this topic is on the Gospel, you’re a blast. Another attempt to try and change the topic.


Confused What?  We were talking about how the "Gospel" of Matthew shows Jesus (pbuh) denying the title of "son of God".  In an attempt to disprove my assertion, you presented a specific translation of the verse in question, which I showed was pitifully wrong.  Instead of trying to respond to my points, you continue to make irrelevant statements.

Originally posted by Kish

Secondly, all your arguments thus far have been assumptions, case and points.


LOL Right, so presenting the linguistic evidence and the statements of a scholar like Geza Vermes in support of my claims is interpreted by you as "assumptions".  Sure, sure. 

Originally posted by Kish

As usual, another assumption, simply because you my friend come to your own conclusions AND are unable to prove what Jesus meant, especially since Jesus referred to himself on many, many occasions as ‘the Son of God’ and ‘the son of man’ throughout the Gospel.


And you like to simply ignore the evidence.  Would like me to post it again?  Here it is in italics:

Kish thinks he is pretty slick using a particular English translation to "prove "his point.  Actually Kish, by using this translation, you have proven that you are a Jehovah's Witness!  You have trying to hide it, but now it is clear!  You took this translation directly from a Jehovah's Witness website.  Here is the link:

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm


Now, is this translation accurate?  Let us see other translations:

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.” (NIV)

"64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (KJV)

"64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (ASV)

"64Jesus said to him,
"You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."" (ESV)

"64 Jesus said to him, Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half of the virtue of God [nevertheless, I say to you, from henceforth, ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half of God's virtue], and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Wycliffe Bible)

"64Jesus saith to him, `Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming upon the clouds, of the heaven.'" (Young's Literal Translation)


We see a pattern here.  Most English translations say 'Thou hast said" or "You have said so" which implies that Jesus is denying the title of "son of God".  But what is even more amazing is that mistranslations like the WatchTower Bible retain the "son of Man" phrase which makes the translation utterly absurd.  Why would Jesus say he is the son of God and then say "I tell you that you will see the son of Man..."  Wouldn't it have made more sense to say "I tell you that will see the son of God..."? 

But there is more to consider.  According to Strong's Concordance Dictionary, the Greek word used after the phrase "Thou hast said" is "πλὴν" (plēn) which means "however, nevertheless, but, except that, yet." [1].  Obviously, if Jesus was saying "Thou hast said.  Nevertheless..." or "Thou hast said.  However..." it would imply that he is denying the title.  To give more support to this fact, let us see what Biblical scholar Geza Vermes states:

"The phrase implies a negative answer according to rabbinic literature (see The Changing Faces of Jesus, 181-3).  It should be observed that in conformity with mainstream tradition some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel read 'You say that I am'" (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. 26).


The reference to Mark's Gospel is due to the fact that it states that Jesus replied in the affirmative while both Matthew and Luke state that Jesus replied in the negative.  Yet Vermes states that some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel have been changed to conform to Matthew and Luke.
 
    
This is the evidence.  As you can see, it is not based on my own "assumptions".  The only assumptions are on your part.

Originally posted by Kish

So, whether it is the New American Standard Bible of Matt 26:63 which says “Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you…” Or the Jehovah’s Witness translation or even the translations that you used, throughout the Gospel and the NT we know Jesus referred to himself as ‘the son of God’ and ‘the son of man’ but it’s becoming obvious that you are running out of excuses.


Wrong!  The translations I showed all say the same thing, which is that Jesus (pbuh) was denying the title.  By saying "you said so", he was saying that they (the Jews) have made this accusation but he was not accepting responsibility.  And then by saying "nevertheless" or "however", that seals the deal because that Jesus is saying that no matter what they think, he is not accepting their accusations against him. 

Originally posted by Kish

Now I said everyone accepted the Gospel in the 1st cent., more word play from islamispeace. I’m still waiting for all the other words you put in my mouth to try to make your argument stick. Do what you do best and cut and paste what I’ve said.


Are you delirious or purposefully trying to backtrack on your comments?  Here is what you wrote on October 25:

Now you are being juvenile and picky about translations, you have yet been able to answer any of my questions with references on any debates that took place beginning in the 1st Century down through the 10th Century to disprove the canonicity of the Gospel.

I already knew you were a deceiver, but you are really not helping your own cause by lying even more. 

Originally posted by Kish

Your assumptions will get you nowhere Mr. Assume, splitting hairs again, but go ahead. The early Christians accepted the Gospel before the death of John, the last Apostle, which was before the 2nd century.
 

You have yet to prove this.  Talk about assumptions!  LOL  Ironically, here you are claiming that the Gospels were accepted in the 1st century, yet you were asking above when you had claimed that!  Wake up, Kish. 

Originally posted by Kish

You may prefer to accept what the students of the Apostles had to say about these books, as they themselves often admitted to as being but I’ll stick to the source, what the teachers themselves said, Jesus and his twelve Apostles.


What did they say?  You haven't presented any conclusive evidence of what they said.  Assuming the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus (pbuh), you have yet to prove that they were accepted by everyone or that they did not undergo any alterations over the coming decades. 

Originally posted by Kish

Even taken your theory into consideration, the Gospels—as we have them today have remained largely unchanged from the second century onward, that is what really matters and since such is the case when Muhammad received it he was correct in what he said about it.


The archaeological and historical evidence suggests the exact opposite.  The Gospels were undergoing continuous changes.  Both Christian and non-Christians were aware of these changes (see my references to Origin's Contra Celsus).  

Originally posted by Kish

No wonder there are still only four accounts of the Gospel of Jesus which I’ve been saying all along that are part of the Bible’s canon. As you are learning, God’s Holy Word cannot be altered, by anyone, be they Jew, Christian or Muslim. That is why no one, even today can show any alterations in the Gospel only what others have tried to add but failed.


LOL Then you are obviously suffering from a bad case of denial.  The evidence is overwhelming that changes have been made to the Gospels.  I have mentioned some in this thread already. 

Originally posted by Kish

And yet with that being said you still can’t disprove that Jesus was the son of God, died on a torture stake and was resurrected.


The burden of proof is on you to prove this.  It is not on me to prove that he was not "resurrected".  You are the one who insists that this extraordinary event occurred.  You have to prove it.  And since you have failed to prove the Gospels' historical reliability or the contradictions that exist between the Gospels (via Matthew 26:63), that weakens your argument from the get-go.

Originally posted by Kish

Now all of a sudden you cannot quote me within the brackets like I just did
 

Huh?  I just showed you where you wrote (or where the person you blindly copied wrote) that Revelation was not agreed upon by everyone, as you requested!  Do you like it better like this:

Originally posted by Kish

n 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. (October 23, 5:23 PM)


Since you are denying that you wrote this, I think what happened was that you mistakenly copied more than you intended from the link I provided.  You didn't bother to read what you were plagiarizing and ended up pasting more than you wanted, thereby weakening your argument further.   Like I asked before, how will you weasel your way out of this one?     

Originally posted by Kish

Why, because it is the shortest, wrong again. What is the matter you don’t believe the third-century theologian Origen no more who said that Matthew was the first or are you again going by what these 18th or 19th century scholars are saying? After all Matthew was an Apostle and an eyewitness which I know you’re not too big on eyewitnesses.


Modern scholarship considers Mark's Gospel to be the first one written.  Origen wrote that he had learned by "tradition" that Matthew's Gospel was the first one written.  He was not basing his claim on historical research but on Church tradition.  Even if we assume that Matthew's Gospel was written first, the point is that your claim that the Gospels were written between 41 and 98 CE is flat-out wrong. 

Originally posted by Kish

Does this mean you are one of Jehovah’s witnesses since you have access to it as well? I sincerely doubt it but thanks for the link.
   

Um, its on the internet Kish.  You know, the internet?  That thing that allows you to surf different websites from around the world? 

To answer your hilarious question, no I am not a "Jehovah's Witness".  The JWs are a false religion, in my view.  However, I do believe that they are a bit closer to the truth than mainstream Christians.  The fact that they reject the trinity is welcome news to my ears. 

Now, here are the parts you did not respond to:

A.  Yes AD 170, which would be roughly 140 years AFTER Jesus!  How does this prove their historical reliability?  Why did it take so long for them to be accepted and canonized?  You delirious Christians have no answers, only assumptions based on leaps of faith.  Referring to the Diatessaron, James Still writes:

"...Tatian will later create the Diatessaron, a harmony that omitted and redacted material from the four gospels and which was very popular, circulating widely in the West as well as in Syria. This demonstrates that even at this late date the gospels were still not afforded the same inerrant status as the Hebrew scriptures. The fact is the various communities were free to develop the material about Jesus depending upon their needs. The Gospel of John, for instance, thrived in Alexandria among the Mandaean Gnostics for many decades before it came to be circulated outside of that city and eventually canonized. The fact that we have many different extant gospels, both canonical and noncanonical, emphasizing different aspects of Jesus' teaching, demonstrates that no clear ideology had yet emerged from the various primitive communities. To suggest that one gospel is more authoritative than another, simply because it represents the teachings of the church today, is nothing more than an arbitrary decision based on a normative prejudice. The external evidence is very clear: the written gospels were profitable for teaching but not considered more authoritative than the thriving oral tradition circulating among the ancient communities during the first two hundred years" (The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller).


B.  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. 
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