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: 04 November 2011 at 5:23am
Dear Kish,
 
Why don't you just post a list of the questions you have asked that neither isla nor any other has answered.  Just make it a simple list.  He tends to avoid answering questions where the answers might just indicate he is wrong, and he uses all kinds of verbal tirades to distract from the questions in hopes that no one will remember the questions.  Just list them all off and see if he'll dare to answer any of them truthfully.  Keep up the great work.
 
God bless you,
 
Jack Catholic
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1804
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 05 November 2011 at 12:50pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Kish,
 
Why don't you just post a list of the questions you have asked that neither isla nor any other has answered.  Just make it a simple list.  He tends to avoid answering questions where the answers might just indicate he is wrong, and he uses all kinds of verbal tirades to distract from the questions in hopes that no one will remember the questions.  Just list them all off and see if he'll dare to answer any of them truthfully.  Keep up the great work.
 
God bless you,
 
Jack Catholic


Because even if I did not answer his questions (care to point out which one?), it would not change the fact that he has avoided answering several questions I have posed.  Tu quo que fallacies will not save you Christians from the facts, Jack.  Perhaps you can try to answer the questions Kish has avoided.  You have tried to interject in this thread, so why not interject by actually taking part in the discussion?  Try to save your Jehovah's Witness friend.  I dare ya!  Big%20smile       
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: 06 November 2011 at 3:08pm
Dear Isla,
 
Actually, why don't you make a list of your unanswered questions, you know, A, B, C, and see if he'll take the challange.  Sometimes your style of posting, though fun for some, can get a bit distracting.  If he posts his list, and you post your list, then we will all be treated to a sort of duel, if you know what I mean.  Should be fun, don't you think?
 
The looser is the guy who doesn't answer all of the other's questions from the list.Big%20smile
 
Allah's 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: 06 November 2011 at 7:26pm

Islamispeace, I’m still waiting for you or anyone else to post the debates that took place about the Gospel of Jesus not being true. You continue to conveniently ignore what I said in the beginning of this post and that is this, the Gospel was never seriously debated until several hundred years ago. Why so if the Gospel was NOT the inspired word of God?

All you have done was talk about what language the Gospel should have been written in, what some scholar or church fathers had said about it, who disagreed with its teachings and how it evolved over several years later, these questions are nice but way off topic and not even coming close to answering my original question.     

Then like the rest of your comrades you come with a barrage of questions which is ok, once you’ve addressed at least the first question I asked you.  

Once I address even those question you then switch gears and talk about what translation I used, sacrifices or who wrote what, in order to change the subject and then address that with a lengthy response rather than answer the initial question in regards to the Gospel.

Then you try to distract by playing word games and misquoting me, here is one of many examples. I said . . .

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.

Then you cunningly misquote me by saying that I said “all” people accepted the Gospel.  My quote clearly says early Christians accepted the Gospel, not all people accepted the Gospel.  

The issue is not whether you or Islam agrees or disagrees with the Gospel; it never has been since it has been part of the Bible canon before the birth of Muhammad and Islam. In fact, Islam is considered a baby religion in comparison to these two other major religions, Judaism and Christianity, and the Quran is the first holy book for Muslims.  

I must say though that you do choose carefully what battle to fight although it makes your argument weak and premature.

So, in a nutshell some Muslims say (not all) the Gospel we have today of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the original sayings of Jesus.

Originally posted by islamispeace

As explained before, it was referring to the original Gospel sent via Jesus (pbuh) and not the "Gospel according to so and so".

There lies the first mistake; Muslims have been lead astray to believe that Jesus sent a Gospel. Jesus is the Gospel!   

Jesus birth, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection were all prophesied in the Old Testament to the smallest detail which I’ve shown you. The point I’ve also made is, the four canonicial Gospels were universally accepted before the end of the second century.

Tatian’s widely used Diatessaron (a Greek term meaning “through [the] four”), compiled between 160 and 175 C.E., was based on only the four canonical Gospels and none of the Gnostic. Also noteworthy is an observation by Irenaeus of the late second century C.E. He asserted that there must be four Gospels, as there are four quarters of the globe and four cardinal winds. Though his comparisons may be questioned, his point supports the idea that there were only four canonical Gospels at the time. Daaa, this is what I’ve been saying all along.

 Even Islam believes the Gospel was accepted by his followers by the end of the second century, right? That is why during the first 17 centuries of our Common era, the reliability of the Gospels was never seriously debated, because hundreds of people eye-witnessed the actual accounts.

Guess what that means islamispeace? It means that the four Gospels were accepted as truth back then and what we have today have remained largely unchanged from the second century onward, whether Muhammad or Islam agrees with it or not really doesn’t matter, historical evidence speaks for itself.

Originally posted by islamispeace

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. 

Then clearly you are in denial to the fact of what you yourself admitted about the Gospel being universally accepted by the end of the second century by Christians. Besides, if everyone did not accept Jesus why would everyone accept the Gospel silly, which is not even realistic?  

In any event, how is this for more conclusive evidence and proof - The Ancient manuscripts of the Diatessaron, provided definitive evidence that the four Gospels—and only the fourwere already well-known and accepted as a collection by the middle of the second century C.E. 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.”

Where YOUR ancient manuscripts to counter argue this point that the Gospel was indeed accepted, where?

You also said alterations and not Jesus teachings, why? So, you can have a play with words and the translation game again? What Jesus taught is in the Gospel that’s all you need to remember, they were universally accepted as was proven by his followers in the second century so how will anything be altered after that? They would have to track down and burn every single Gospel of Jesus that was written and circulated throughout the Mediterranean world and areas extending from Britain to Mesopotamia during that time which would amount up to thousands of copies. I can prove that is what happened to the Quran can you prove that is what happened with the Gospel?

Here is my one and only question to islamispeace or any Muslim:

Have you found a Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that teaches other then what we have today which is essentially the same as what was published and circulated in the second century?

If not, then God’s written instructions for life are found in the good news of the Gospel.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Because even if I did not answer his questions (care to point out which one?), it would not change the fact that he has avoided answering several questions I have posed.  Tu quo que fallacies will not save you Christians from the facts, Jack.  Perhaps you can try to answer the questions Kish has avoided.  You have tried to interject in this thread, so why not interject by actually taking part in the discussion?  Try to save your Jehovah's Witness friend.  I dare ya!    

Questions, questions and more questions to my questions, you never give answers and whether you realized it or not, you are admitting to defeat. The OLD divide and conquer maneuver to gain or maintain a power position from your opponent when all else fails.

P.S. This time present some scholarly work from ancient time not modern free thinking from the 19 century.

Originally posted by ISLAMISPEACE

  Yes AD 170, which would be roughly 140 years AFTER Jesus!  How does this prove their historical reliability? 

Wow! You are incredibly forgetful of your own book and what it has to say about Jesus, Mary and where to find truth and guidance. I knew we would end up right back to where I started God’s written instructions for life. Do you know exactly where the Quran came up with the concept of Gabriel, Mary, Joseph and Jesus, do you? Again, again and again the Quran continues to quotes the Gospel over and over and over again and you ask how does this prove the historical reliability? You are truly piece of work! More than likely Muhammad wrote these sacred writings of the Gospel based on historical evidence and then plagiarized them to fit himself, why else would he accept his birth and resurrection. Why else would he say God’s promises are in the Gospel (9:111) unless he talks with a double tongue and didn’t believe it himself? Why else would he say Muslims should believe it 3:84, 4:136? Why would he even compare Muslims worship to a parable of Jesus in the Christian Gospel, its unreliable! In fact how could Allah judge those for rejecting the Gospel if corrupt, altered or edited (40:70)?

You are chasing your tail and doing a good job at it!  

However, you or anyone else have yet to show one shred of historical evidence to show and support what Jesus taught his disciples should NOT be part of the Gospel! Why is that? Where is this pristine Gospel you were referring to other than what we have now? Do you have historical proof that there was another pristine Gospel other than what we have in our possession or is this just another assumption of yours?   

Prove that Jesus teachings which are outlined in the Gospel by his Apostles are historically incorrect, unreliable, and false and have been tampered with; you haven’t been able to do yet so I won’t hold my breath.

Now, about the Diatessaron, this was compiled between 160, 175 C.E. and was accepted, when was the The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller compiled, in the 18 or 19th century?  I said it before and I’ll say it again . . .

Originally posted by kish

Before Muhammad and even amongst Christ’s enemies in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Century all the way to the 17th & 18th century the written Gospel was accepted; no serious debates about it whatsoever, hands-down. What took so long for this one to surface?

Also, what does being “bias” have to do with being “truthful”? This is clearly a personal attack, in history, this is known as the 'genetic fallacy'; in philosophy it is called the 'argumentum ad hominum' one has nothing to do with the other, I guess that’s 19th century skeptical literature for ya!

No wonder the Gospel began to be debated much, much later on in time, no one had anything conclusive to offer so instead they attack the writers character as if somehow that disqualifies the truthfulness of what they have presented, much like what you do islamispeace.  Follow his post and you will see exactly what I mean, he is the only one who goes after people’s character. I see you really have it in for Jack Catholic and especially this person named Shibboleth, you even took the liberties in posting several topics about his “follies,” “exposing” him etc….

He must of really hit a nerve and pinned you down, huh? 


Kish



Edited by Kish - 07 November 2011 at 9:54pm
IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2397
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 08 November 2011 at 2:22pm
Kish,
if you have read, I mean really read around this forum you would find many answers to your questions or assumptions.
First of all please don't present your mixed up rather messed up understanding of Islamic position on Gospel.

In Islam, Jesus is not son of God, nor God. So their goes your claim that the Prophet (pbuh) has somehow stole or invented Islam from the Bible.
In Islam, Gospel was given to Jesus, not to John, Mark and so on.
The Quran is also very clear that Gospel and all other previous scriptures were from God and it makes sense, when God determines, He sends a prophet and a book when needed.

In Quran, God mentions those who changed meanings of/ or word of God to their own purpose for their disbelief.
57:27 (Y. Ali) Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our apostles: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah. but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors.
5:13 (Y. Ali) But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

Even the Bible has a similar verse:
Jeremiah 8:8
How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood.
Again, you would still not agree even as the evidence is loud and clear.
I think, unless you have other motives and not interested in truth, it would not matter if I write one such proofs to prove you wrong or a book, you will still deny it, as so far evident. But, I do not give up on you, there are many things that point to problems with the present day versions of the Bible. I will again quote just a few, you have the book, you know it.
Here are two of Bible's contrasting verses, teaching opposite thus suggesting problems with its authenticity:
(Jacob is quoted to have said that he has seen God)30And Jacob called the name of the place Phanuel, saying: I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been saved.

Now, I will quote a verse from NT, that opposes this idea of Jacob:
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Here is another one, this one is regarding sin, note the opposite teachings suggest human error.
Matthew 5:30
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
30 "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of the parts of your body than for your whole body to go into hell!"
I don't think there need any explanation, it is pretty clear what it says. But read this completely opposite idea given in the same book (the Bible).
1John 2: 1 "My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ the righteous One. 2 He Himself is the propitiation [a] for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world."

For a man of reason, these example are enough to conclude that there is something wrong with this book, and I don't believe that Jesus, a man from God would speak opposing things. It must be those who took the job of putting together the Bible, who rewrote it in its long journey. But that's something as one's word's against the other. It is for that reason that I resort to more meaningful way. To test the source, I would like to know what is your response, even though those quotes are self explanatory in proving my point.
Hasan


Edited by honeto - 08 November 2011 at 2:32pm
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 09 November 2011 at 12:36pm

Originally posted by honeto

Kish,
if you have read, I mean really read around this forum you would find many answers to your questions or assumptions.

From day one none of my questions have been answered with any sort of historical proof or even eyewitnesses to prove even the foundation of Islam, starting with Ishmael not being the one named in the Quran as the one whom Abraham was about to sacrifice, to Muhammad’s encounter in the cave with some spirit who LATER on was decided to be named Gabriel.

Show everyone some historical and archeological proof or at least names of eye witnesses to confirmed that these events actually happened? You, islamispeace and other’s responded with, Moses had no eye-witnesses of what happened to him when up on the mountain either, are you serious, how lame an answer is that.

Originally posted by honeto

First of all please don't present your mixed up rather messed up understanding of Islamic position on Gospel.

Well stop using the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that Muhammad plagiarized in the Quran and then complain the Christians are wrong because it doesn’t match up, get your own Messiah! . Besides, where else did Muhammad get the account of the virgin birth of Mary, from Readers Digest?

Originally posted by honeto

In Islam, Gospel was given to Jesus, not to John, Mark and so on.

Which Muslims have been unable to prove since day one, you care to prove otherwise? Who eye witnessed that event?

Originally posted by honeto

In Quran, God mentions those who changed meanings of/ or word of God to their own purpose for their disbelief

So simply show everyone the text before it was (as you say) “changed” that should be easy enough. Show us that this is not just another one of Islam’s assumptions.

Originally posted by honeto

Jeremiah 8:8
How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood

Now, this is hilarious because Muslims don’t even subscribe to anything Jeremiah says but this you agree with, how utterly convenient. But, let say you do, where he says the Gospel has been changed? Did the scribes write the Gospel as well? Who were the scribes and what was the falsehood Jeremiah was refereeing to? Of course these questions will go unanswered, AGAIN!

Originally posted by honeto

 Again, you would still not agree even as the evidence is loud and clear

Evidence of Jeremiah? Prove it by answering the questions in red then.

Originally posted by honeto

 Here are two of Bible's contrasting verses, teaching opposite thus suggesting problems with its authentic

I guess God failed to keep his promise in preserving his word, or perhaps just perhaps it is Islam’s misunderstanding of his word. I bet my life that God kept his promise and Islam is way off course.

Originally posted by honeto

For a man of reason, these example are enough to conclude that there is something wrong with this book, and I don't believe that Jesus, a man from God would speak opposing things. It must be those who took the job of putting together the Bible

Or that God is all powerful like we all agree and can preserve his word like he said he would in his Holy Word which we both agree and that encounter that Muhammad had in the cave was all made up (After all he was choked several times before agreeing to recite) doesn’t that make more since? YES!

IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1804
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 09 November 2011 at 7:30pm
Originally posted by Kish

Islamispeace, I’m still waiting for you or anyone else to post the debates that took place about the Gospel of Jesus not being true. You continue to conveniently ignore what I said in the beginning of this post and that is this, the Gospel was never seriously debated until several hundred years ago. Why so if the Gospel was NOT the inspired word of God?

All you have done was talk about what language the Gospel should have been written in, what some scholar or church fathers had said about it, who disagreed with its teachings and how it evolved over several years later, these questions are nice but way off topic and not even coming close to answering my original question.


If you choose to ignore the evidence I have presented thus far in answer to your question, then there is nothing further I can do.  I have shown conclusively that the Gospels were not unanimously accepted until the late 2nd century.  That means that their authenticity was being debated.  I also showed that the early Church fathers differed in the gospels they used.  You tried to get around this fact by arguing that they all still believed that Jesus was the son of God, to which I retorted that they also believed in the trinity and that Jesus was God.  After that, you changed gears and chided me for relying on these Church fathers instead of relying on "Jesus and his apostles".  Even your own sources showed that there were differences in which books to accept, as in the example of Revelations, which was rejected by some people.  The Christian canon was always in a fluid state. 

Originally posted by Kish

Then like the rest of your comrades you come with a barrage of questions which is ok, once you’ve addressed at least the first question I asked you.
 

This is a typical Christian tactic.  You pretend like I haven't answered your question and then stall in answering the questions I have posed to you.  Even if I haven't answered your question, what does that have to do with answering my questions? 

Originally posted by Kish

Then you cunningly misquote me by saying that I said “all” people accepted the Gospel.  My quote clearly says early Christians accepted the Gospel, not all people accepted the Gospel.
 

I was never implying "all people" as in non-Christians as well.  It is implied that we are talking about Christians and not non-Christians, Kish.  So, if anyone is "misquoting" anyone, it is you.  I never said that you claimed that all people (non-Christians included) accepted the Gospels. 

Originally posted by Kish

The issue is not whether you or Islam agrees or disagrees with the Gospel; it never has been since it has been part of the Bible canon before the birth of Muhammad and Islam. In fact, Islam is considered a baby religion in comparison to these two other major religions, Judaism and Christianity, and the Quran is the first holy book for Muslims.
 

Irrelevant as usual.  By that token, Christianity is also younger than Judaism.  What's your point?

Originally posted by Kish

I must say though that you do choose carefully what battle to fight although it makes your argument weak and premature.

So, in a nutshell some Muslims say (not all) the Gospel we have today of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the original sayings of Jesus.

 

All Muslims say this.  You can pretend that they don't, but it is unanimously accepted by all Muslims that the Gospels are corrupt.  In any case, these are irrelevant musings on your part again.  So far, you have not responded to any of the points from my last rebuttal.

Originally posted by Kish

There lies the first mistake; Muslims have been lead astray to believe that Jesus sent a Gospel. Jesus is the Gospel!


Again, you divert to an unrelated issue which was dealt with a few weeks ago.  You need to organize yourself Kish.  You are jumping from post to post. 

The Quran doesn't say that "Jesus sent a Gospel".  It says the he was sent with the Gospel.  His teachings were the Gospel.  The only ones who have been led astray are the myriad number of Christian sects, some who believe that he is only the "son of God" while most believe that he is the son of God but also God Himself in a trinity, both of which are beliefs that contradict God's true message which has been disseminated to mankind for thousands of years. 

Originally posted by Kish

Jesus birth, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection were all prophesied in the Old Testament to the smallest detail which I’ve shown you. The point I’ve also made is, the four canonicial Gospels were universally accepted before the end of the second century.


This is nonsense, of course.  The so-called "prophecies" have been refuted as out of context verses and deliberate mistranslations.  Regarding the Gospels, I have always maintained that the Gospels were only accepted in the late 2nd century!  So, what you just said is nothing new to me.  But the fact that it took nearly 150 years, and many changes to the text (as Celsus and Origen noted) until they were accepted shows conclusively that the Gospels were being debated and altered. 

Originally posted by Kish

Tatian’s widely used Diatessaron (a Greek term meaning “through [the] four”), compiled between 160 and 175 C.E., was based on only the four canonical Gospels and none of the Gnostic. Also noteworthy is an observation by Irenaeus of the late second century C.E. He asserted that there must be four Gospels, as there are four quarters of the globe and four cardinal winds. Though his comparisons may be questioned, his point supports the idea that there were only four canonical Gospels at the time. Daaa, this is what I’ve been saying all along.


LOL Again, you simply repeated your initial claims while ignoring the facts.  To repeat James Still's observations:

"...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

Even Islam believes the Gospel was accepted by his followers by the end of the second century, right? That is why during the first 17 centuries of our Common era, the reliability of the Gospels was never seriously debated, because hundreds of people eye-witnessed the actual accounts.

Guess what that means islamispeace? It means that the four Gospels were accepted as truth back then and what we have today have remained largely unchanged from the second century onward, whether Muhammad or Islam agrees with it or not really doesn’t matter, historical evidence speaks for itself.
 

LOL Oh what nonsense!  By the end of the 2nd century, the so-called "followers of Jesus" had turned him into a god!  How then can you maintain that they were "his followers"?  The reliability of the Gospels was debated from their origin and it took 150 years and many alterations until they were finally accepted.  That is what matters.  It does not matter that once they were accepted by the Church, there were no debates after that.  That is irrelevant!  Of course, we can also point out that one of the reasons for this lack of debate was that the Church silenced anyone who disagreed, as I have shown in past posts.

Originally posted by Kish

Then clearly you are in denial to the fact of what you yourself admitted about the Gospel being universally accepted by the end of the second century by Christians. Besides, if everyone did not accept Jesus why would everyone accept the Gospel silly, which is not even realistic?
 

Again silly, I thought you were smart enough to realize that by "all people", it is implied that we are talking about Christians.  Obviously, I misjudged your intellect.  I will try to be more careful in the future.  LOL

Originally posted by Kish

In any event, how is this for more conclusive evidence and proof - The Ancient manuscripts of the Diatessaron, provided definitive evidence that the four Gospels—and only the fourwere already well-known and accepted as a collection by the middle of the second century C.E. 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.”
 

Again, this is nothing new to me!  I have been saying all along that the Gospels were not accepted by mainstream Christians until the late 2nd century!  What's your point?

Originally posted by Kish

Where YOUR ancient manuscripts to counter argue this point that the Gospel was indeed accepted, where?


Um, have you ever heard of the Gnostic Gospels?  Ever heard of the "Gospel of Truth"?  Ever heard of the Montanists?  The existence of these groups shows that Christianity was in a fluid state.  Each group had its own beliefs and regarded certain books as being more authoritative than others.  Also, consider the Gospel of Mark again.  Consider that Papias, whose writings now exist only in fragments, had to defend the authority of Mark as James Still describes:

"Papias defends Mark against a presbyter who argued that Mark had misinterpreted certain events in his gospel...Apparently, some contemporaries of Papias took exception with Mark's accuracy since Papias feels the need to come to Mark's defense, suggesting that Mark "made no mistake" in his recollection of Peter's teachings even though he did not write them down in order" [Ibid.]. 

Now Kish, answer the question.  Why did Papias have to defend Mark from this "presbyter" if, as you claim, his Gospel was well-accepted?  You wanted evidence that the authority of the Gospels were being debated, which I have already provided.  Here I have given you some more evidence.    

Originally posted by Kish

You also said alterations and not Jesus teachings, why? So, you can have a play with words and the translation game again? What Jesus taught is in the Gospel that’s all you need to remember, they were universally accepted as was proven by his followers in the second century so how will anything be altered after that? They would have to track down and burn every single Gospel of Jesus that was written and circulated throughout the Mediterranean world and areas extending from Britain to Mesopotamia during that time which would amount up to thousands of copies. I can prove that is what happened to the Quran can you prove that is what happened with the Gospel?


Your irrelevant ramblings about the Quran aside, the answer to your question is a resounding 'yes'.  Besides Constantine's decree to burn all "heretical" books, there is also the example of the Theodosian Code.  I guess you have not heard of it, so here is a little history lesson.  According to Prof. Haig Bosmajian:

"[t]he Christians' book burning rituals that were to last for several centuries were well on their way in the fourth and fifth centuries, with both Church and state involved in the fiery extermination of blasphemous, heretical books and their authors. [...]

The Theodosian Code commanded that the books containing the doctrines of the 'Eunomian and Montanist [heretical] superstitions' were to be sought out and 'be consumed with fire immediately under the supervision of the judges'" ["Burning Books", p. 39].
 

So, there you go Kish.  There were indeed attempts by the Church to burn all heretical books.  That is why the Nag Hammadi codices were only recently discovered, after being hidden away for nearly 2,000 years.  Their caretakers did not want them to be burned! 

Originally posted by Kish

Here is my one and only question to islamispeace or any Muslim:

Have you found a Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that teaches other then what we have today which is essentially the same as what was published and circulated in the second century?

If not, then God’s written instructions for life are found in the good news of the Gospel.

Wow, what a non-sequitur!  Even if there wasn't a gospel "that teaches other then what we have today...", how would that prove that "God's written instructions for life are found in the...Gospel"?   

But anyway, to answer your question, the fact of the matter is that extant manuscripts show without a doubt that the original Gospels did indeed contain material that does not conform to the modern copies.  I have given several examples already in this thread and others.  Besides the contradiction in Matthew 26 regarding Jesus denying being the son of God, there are other examples where the original text said something quite different from what modern copies say.  I gave the example of Mark 1:11 which had Adoptionist undertones in one Greek manuscript and several Latin ones as well.  There is also the example of the Pericope de Adultera not being present in most early copies of the Gospel of John.  There is also the ending of Mark 16, where most early copies end at verse 9, even though many modern Bibles have the additional verses which were obviously added later.  All of these examples are proof that the Gospels underwent many changes.  So, the answer to your question is once again a resounding 'yes'! 

Originally posted by Kish

Questions, questions and more questions to my questions, you never give answers and whether you realized it or not, you are admitting to defeat. The OLD divide and conquer maneuver to gain or maintain a power position from your opponent when all else fails.

P.S. This time present some scholarly work from ancient time not modern free thinking from the 19 century.

LOL Typical Christian attempts to question modern scholarship when it disagrees with them.  I have answered all of your questions Kish.  You, on the other hand, have avoided many of my questions like the plague!  I can't say I don't blame you.  Those are difficult questions to answer since they require you to come out of your little ideological bubble in which you have been trapped by years of steady brain-washing. 

Originally posted by Kish

Wow! You are incredibly forgetful of your own book and what it has to say about Jesus, Mary and where to find truth and guidance. I knew we would end up right back to where I started God’s written instructions for life. Do you know exactly where the Quran came up with the concept of Gabriel, Mary, Joseph and Jesus, do you? Again, again and again the Quran continues to quotes the Gospel over and over and over again and you ask how does this prove the historical reliability? You are truly piece of work! More than likely Muhammad wrote these sacred writings of the Gospel based on historical evidence and then plagiarized them to fit himself, why else would he accept his birth and resurrection. Why else would he say God’s promises are in the Gospel (9:111) unless he talks with a double tongue and didn’t believe it himself? Why else would he say Muslims should believe it 3:84, 4:136? Why would he even compare Muslims worship to a parable of Jesus in the Christian Gospel, its unreliable! In fact how could Allah judge those for rejecting the Gospel if corrupt, altered or edited (40:70)?

Again, you try to divert to the Quran when you know you have been cornered!  Get a clue Kish!  The Quran is not dependent on the Bible.    Also, the earliest copy of the Bible in Arabic is from the 9th century, so the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would not have had access to any Bible in his language.  Even if he did, he would not have been able to use it since like many Arabians, he could not read or write. 

Originally posted by Kish

However, you or anyone else have yet to show one shred of historical evidence to show and support what Jesus taught his disciples should NOT be part of the Gospel! Why is that? Where is this pristine Gospel you were referring to other than what we have now? Do you have historical proof that there was another pristine Gospel other than what we have in our possession or is this just another assumption of yours?
 

If you won't open your eyes to the evidence I have already given, that is your problem.  Denial is a very ugly thing!  The Gospel was taught by Jesus (pbuh) to his followers.  The evidence we have seen thus far shows that in the decades after Jesus, there were many different groups fighting to claim Jesus for themselves and they used different writings to support their causes.  The so-called "Gospels" were among these books.  They were written decades after Jesus (pbuh) by anonymous people and they were debated for decades more until finally they were accepted by the heretical Church which had by then turned the human Jesus into a god.

Originally posted by Kish

Prove that Jesus teachings which are outlined in the Gospel by his Apostles are historically incorrect, unreliable, and false and have been tampered with; you haven’t been able to do yet so I won’t hold my breath.

I have already provided much evidence, which you choose to ignore (as expected).  Much of the Gospels are not Jesus' teachings.  These include the "son of God" myth, because such teachings would contradict his Jewish upbringing.  Jesus' mission was mostly concerned with the "Kingdom of God".  He saw himself as a servant of God, not His son.  I recommend you read "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus" by Geza Vermes.  This book does a good job of stripping away centuries of Church doctrine to present the historical Jesus, a Jewish prophet who had come to guide the Children of Israel. 

Originally posted by Kish

Now, about the Diatessaron, this was compiled between 160, 175 C.E. and was accepted, when was the The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller compiled, in the 18 or 19th century?  I said it before and I’ll say it again . . .

Also, what does being “bias” have to do with being “truthful”? This is clearly a personal attack, in history, this is known as the 'genetic fallacy'; in philosophy it is called the 'argumentum ad hominum' one has nothing to do with the other, I guess that’s 19th century skeptical literature for ya!

  

LOL Again, special pleading does not change the facts.  Instead of responding to the article, you question its credibility or the time period it was written in!  Do you know what that's called?  It's an ad hominem fallacy!  Can anyone define irony for me? 

Originally posted by Kish

No wonder the Gospel began to be debated much, much later on in time, no one had anything conclusive to offer so instead they attack the writers character as if somehow that disqualifies the truthfulness of what they have presented, much like what you do islamispeace.  Follow his post and you will see exactly what I mean, he is the only one who goes after people’s character. I see you really have it in for Jack Catholic and especially this person named Shibboleth, you even took the liberties in posting several topics about his “follies,” “exposing” him etc….

He must of really hit a nerve and pinned you down, huh?

Yes, I expose the ignorance and inaccuracies that people like you like to dabble in.  You know you remind me much of Shibbo.  If I didn't know better, I would say you guys were twins!  It's actually quote uncanny how both of you follow the same general tactics, which include but are not limited to plagiarism, shabby research, avoidance of certain questions, inaccurate statements etc.  Did you read the thread "Shibbo's Follies"?  It catalogs the many inaccurate statements he made, followed by a refutation of each claim.  As usual, you choose to whine about my perceived "attacks" instead of actually trying to refute my claims.  How could Shibbo have "pinned me down" when he made so many inaccurate statements?  Don't make me laugh Kish!   

And finally, here are the parts you have yet to answer:

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
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 10 November 2011 at 3:31am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Isla,Actually, why don't you make a list of your unanswered questions, you know, A, B, C, and see if he'll take the challange.  Sometimes your style of posting, though fun for some, can get a bit distracting.  If he posts his list, and you post your list, then we will all be treated to a sort of duel, if you know what I mean.  Should be fun, don't you think?  The looser is the guy who doesn't answer all of the other's questions from the list.

 

Let’s Go! I’ll even let Isla ask the first “three” question. And since we all believe in the Torah it will be the Torah that determines whether the answers are correct or not. Ancient manuscripts with references included adds weight to the answers, NOT modern day free skeptical thinking. Bias accusations and assumptions are not allowed.   



Edited by Kish - 10 November 2011 at 3:31am
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