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: Prove that Paul or Muhammad had a Revelation. Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 10 Next >>
Author Message
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1925
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 30 November 2012 at 5:13pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

It was an established law, a common fact so it would not have to spell it out again. If such the case was a common law which we both agree and here in this instance it is being applied to criminal law it would even more so apply to prophet hood which is more of a serious nature then even criminal law.


This is just your own opinion.  The "established law" clearly stipulated that it was in matters regarding crimes and had nothing to do with prophets.  To further prove this, consider the example of Jeremiah (pbuh), according to the Bible.  When reading Chapter 1 of the Book of Jeremiah, we are told that he received "the Word of the Lord", yet nothing is said about any eye-witnesses to this incident:

"The word of the Lord came to me, saying,

“Before I formed you in the womb I knewa]">[a] you,
    before you were born I set you apart;
    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

“Alas, Sovereign Lord,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.”

But the Lord said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am too young.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord.

Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.”" (Jeremiah 1:4-10)

Where were the eye-witnesses?

Originally posted by Kish

Incorrect, eye-witnesses was a principle in the Law of establishing every matter at the mouth of two or three witnesses, be it criminal law, settling a matter, prophet hood or anything else that is deemed as fact and believable.

Once again, you are voicing your own opinion, without any corroborating evidence.  Let's read the verse again, shall we?

"One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (Deuteronomy 19:15)

The "matter" being referred to is the accusation of a crime or offense.  Nothing is said about claimants to prophethood.  It was not a crime to claim prophethood, was it?  The only crime was when a self-proclaimed prophet made a prophecy which did not come true, which was the sign that he is in fact a false prophet.

Originally posted by Kish

Are you suggesting that it applies to one and not the other? Dismiss it when referring to prophet hood but apply it only to criminal law?

I am not saying that.  The Bible says that and that is how the Jews interpreted it.

Originally posted by Kish

Muhammad did not follow the Law of Moses in establishing or confirming a matter as truth, which is the touchstone of any true religion.

I have already dealt with this. 

Originally posted by Kish

But you conveniently left Q 2:282 out "If the party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, let his guardian dictate faithfully. And get two witnesses out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women."

The Sura of the Table (Al-Ma'ida) 5:109 from 10 A.H. reads,

"O ye who believe! When death approaches any of you, (take) witnesses among yourselves when making bequests---two just men."

Are these criminal offenses?

You are confusing the Law of Moses with the Sharia.  As I stated before, the Law of Moses was for the Jews only.  The Sharia is for all mankind and supercedes all previous laws.  It was the Law of Moses which stipulated that eye-witnesses were needed for criminal offenses.    The Sharia stipulates that witnesses were needed in many instances, such as criminal cases, financial disagreements (as per 2:182) and making last requests or wills (as per 5:106 - not 109 as you erroneously wrote).

Moreover, if you had read my last post carefully, you would have seen the commentary of Rashi on Deuteronomy 19:15, which clearly spelled out that the verse could be applied to all criminal cases, which naturally also includes financial disagreements:

"where his testimony would lead to the accused being punished, either with corporal punishment or with or monetary punishment."  

Originally posted by Kish

The Sura of the Light (Al-Nur) 24:4 from 5-6 A.H. requires four witnesses in order to sustain an accusation of marital infidelity. It reads,

"And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors."

So I ask you, if two or four witnesses are necessary in human matters, how much more important it is to have two or more witnesses establishing a word as "the Word of God" come by revelation? No wonder God has used not just ONE man to deliver his message, nor just 2 or 3 witnesses, but 40 prophets.

That's a question for you to answer, because it the Bible which does not require witnesses to corroborate a prophet's claims of receiving divine revelation.  The Bible's test for a prophet was not in witnesses but in whether his prophecies came true.  As I stated before, if witnesses were required, who witnesses Jeremiah's first experience? 

Now of course, in order for anyone to verify whether a prophet's claims about the future came true or not, then witnesses would be needed.  But witnesses were not required to prove the claim that one had a divine experience, as in Jeremiah's example.

As it stands, plenty of people witnessed the prophecies of the Hebrew prophets as well as the prophecies of Muhammad (pbuh).

Originally posted by Kish

From this we understand that when Muhammad spoke to the people of Mecca saying that he was a prophet, and the Meccans and the Jews demanded that Muhammad should show them some confirming miracle, it was not just because of hard-hearted unbelief.

Now you are talking about miracles, which is a different situation altogether.  Before, you were talking about revelation. 

Muhammad (pbuh) did perform miracles, which many people witnessed.  One of these was the splitting of the moon, which the Quran states was witnessed by the unbelievers.  But the unbelievers still refused to believe, claiming that the miracle was actually the work of a magician:

"The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.  But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic."  They reject (the warning) and follow their (own) lusts but every matter has its appointed time." (55:1-3)

Originally posted by Kish

That may have been true of many of them, but as the Quran itself admits, some of the Jews were honorable and feared God. The Jews and others in Mecca were saying, "One witness is not enough. We need a confirming witness from God." They were doing exactly what God has commanded men to do, because Jehovah (YHWH), the Eternal One, has ruled for our sake that there must be two or more witnesses.

You have absolutely no proof for this.  You are just making stuff up based on your pre-conceived (and erroneous) understanding of Deuteronomy 19:15. 

Originally posted by Kish

However, the key factor here is Muhammad failed to have two or more witnesses to confirm his revelation as fact, unlike Moses, Jesus and Paul. In fact in all three men, had manifestations that God’s Holy Spirit was with them in front of all to see. That in itself proves that God was backing these men.

Not so, as I proved.  Where were the witnesses for Jeremiah?  In fact, the Bible never mentions that any person witnessed the revelation coming to any of the Hebrew prophets, whether Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea etc.


Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1925
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 30 November 2012 at 6:30pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

Well, how can one even come close to being a messenger of God if he cannot follow a simple Law? Unless of course he thinks he is above the Law and can break them at will, I don’t think you want to go there with me on that one!


With this statement, you have shown yourself to be incapable of rational thought!  Thank you!

Originally posted by Kish

But let me remind you, the post is not on prophet hood but whether or not the revelations of these men were true. That will determine whether or not they were sent by God.


The two are one and the same.  One cannot be a false prophet and yet bring a true revelation! 

Originally posted by Kish

Seriously, this is all you have when no enemy of Christianity (Roman or Jew), scholars or historian said otherwise until the 19th Century, not even ancient Islam?


Are you aware of any early non-Christian scholars who even read the Book of Acts?  Can you give us even one example of a non-Christian who read the Book of Acts and did not consider the accounts of Paul's encounter to be contradictory?

As is usual with you, you fail to offer a rational answer to the issue raised but instead try to change the subject.  Why were the different accounts in Acts contradictory?  Answer the question, please!

Originally posted by Kish

The only thing evident here is that you are entitled to an opinion and that no two people who see and explain the same thing the same.


Really?  Then what was the purpose of being "inspired"?  This wasn't just a matter of two people explaining the same thing a little differently.  It was a matter of two people contradicting each other on the same thing.

Originally posted by Kish

Another weak attempt by Islamispeace to assume what Paul is saying here. Throughout the Holy Scriptures including the fourteen books the Apostle Paul wrote in the New Testament, they all clearly differentiate God and Christ.


Another evasive response by Kish.  You completely ignored the verses I mentioned and instead refer to other verses in the New Testament.  Even if Paul differentiated between God and Jesus in other verses, he clearly referred to Jesus as God in the verses I mentioned:

"To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:2-3)

"For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." (Titus 2:11-14)

Is Jesus your Lord, Kish?  He certainly was to Paul and it was in his name that Paul wrote, thereby contradicting Deuteronomy 18:

"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”" (Deuteronomy 18:20)

Originally posted by Kish

Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.

“of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus” The Riverside New Testament, Boston and New York.

 

“of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus” A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York and London.

 

“of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ” La Sainte Bible, by Louis Segond, Paris

 

“of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus” The New American Bible, New York and London.

In this place we find two nouns connected by καί (kai, “and”), the first noun being preceded by the definite article του̃ (tou, “of the”) and the second noun without the definite article. This indicates that when two distinct persons are connected by καί, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person.

A detailed study of the construction in Tit 2:13 is found in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp. 439-457

Again, Paul was talking about two distinct persons as shown throughout the rest of his writings. Nice try anyway.


Kish, are you forgetting that in referring to the "appearance" of the Lord, Paul was referring to the second coming?  Who will appear on the second coming?  Jesus!  As "Barnes' Notes on the Bible" states:

"Of the great God - There can be little doubt, if any, that by "the great God" here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus, for it is not a doctrine of the New Testament that God himself as such, or in contradistinction from his incarnate Son, will appear at the last day. It is said, indeed, that the Saviour will come "in the glory of his Father, with his angels" Matthew 16:27, but that God as such will appear is not taught in the Bible. The doctrine there is, that God will be manifest in his Son; that the divine approach to our world be through him to judge the race; and that though he will be accompanied with the appropriate symbols of the divinity, yet it will be the Son of God who will be visible. No one, accustomed to Paul's views, can well doubt that when he used this language he had his eye throughout on the Son of God, and that he expected no other manifestation than what would be made through him.In no place in the New Testament is the phrase ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ epiphaneian tou Theou - "the manifestation or appearing of God" - applied to any other one than Christ. It is true that this is spoken of here as the "appearing of the glory - τῆς δόξης tēs doxēs - of the great God," but the idea is that of such a manifestation as became God, or would appropriately display his glory." [1]

Originally posted by Kish

This means that the first resurrection begun early in Christ’s presence, and it continues “during his presence.” So, he did return, first in the flesh, then spirit. How else was he able to talk to the Apostle Paul while on the road to Damascus? (1 Corinthians 15:23) What you also failed to grasp is that rather than occurring all at once, the first resurrection takes place over a period of time.


Oh please.  The only one to witness Jesus' alleged "spiritual" return was Paul.  Yet, clearly he is referring to other Christians as well.  Moreover, the language of the verses is clearly to the resurrection of the dead as well as the Rapture: 

"According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words." (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18)

He was clearly talking about the second coming.  He believed it was going to happen in his lifetime and Christians were eagerly expecting it as 1 John 2:18 corroborates.

Originally posted by Kish

Everything Paul said came true. That is why no one contested what Paul and that small ban of Christians wrote, it was part of the then known history and nothing has changed. Of course NOW in this day and age modern-day skeptics wants to say otherwise.


Pure Christian propaganda...Who says no one contested what Paul wrote?  What is your evidence?  The New Testament?  Talk about a circular argument!

There are other places where Paul clearly states that the end is near:

"And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light." (Romans 13:11-12)

"The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." (Romans 16:20)

"What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away." (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)

"These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come." (1 Corinthians 10:11)


Paul expected Jesus to return in his lifetime.  Since that obviously did not happen, he made a false prophecy. 
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1925
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 30 November 2012 at 8:06pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

Now, here is where truth always prevail over falsehood.


The truth has already prevailed, as evidenced by your pathetic posts up to now!

Originally posted by Kish

Not so fast! And skip the 2 or more eye-witness law that he failed to keep to confirm that his revelation was indeed a true testimony from God, not a chance. That alone disqualifies him just from not being a good example and being a law abiding citizen let alone a true servant and messenger of God. How can Muhammad be a messenger of God when he cannot even follow God’s law concerning eye-witnesses to establish a matter as being true opposed to being false?


Still stuck on that, are we Kish?  Your Bible is clear on the issue.  Kindly name the people who witnessed Jeremiah receiving the revelation. 

Originally posted by Kish

As I have shown you, not only by using the Holy Scriptures but also the Quran, it does not apply to just criminal cases but in any matter where truth needs to be established concerning God’s law. Again, if this was to apply in settling human matters so more importantly would it apply when it comes to matters representing the most high God which is why that law/principle is applied throughout the entire 66 books of the Holy Scriptures and it’s 40 Prophets.


You showed nothing, except your own ignorance. 

Originally posted by Kish

Muhammad and others comes along decades later and wants to change the whole dynamics of things, not hardly. Even Moses and Jesus testimonies required two or more witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) to establish a matter as being true.


So far, you have failed to prove any of this.  It is just your own opinion, which unfortunately for you, is not supported by your "Holy Scriptures"!

Originally posted by Kish

This my friend was a rule of thumb throughout the whole Scriptures (OT and NT) to root out false prophets and false prophecies, the very criteria that many men failed during and after Jesus ascension to heaven.


Apparently, no one told this to Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the other prophets.  Oops!

Originally posted by Kish

Oh really, when, who and where was the name of Allah first applied, certainly not by Israel, although the God of Israel Jehovah/Yahweh (YHWH) is still being used today, the Dead Sea Scroll confirms that.


It was used by the Arabs, regardless of their religion.  In fact, there is a trilingual pre-Islamic Christian inscription which phonetically spells "Allah" as God.  The inscription states:

"With the help of God (الاله)! Sergius, son of Amat Manaf, and Tobi, son of Imru'l-qais and Sergius, son of Sa‘d, and Sitr, and Shouraih."

Also, as the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia states under "Allah":

"...the word Allah is used by all Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. Allah, as a deity, was probably known in pre-Islamic Arabia." [1]

In addition, Kenneth J. Thomas, of "United Bible Societies", states in his articles "Allah in Translations of the Bible":

"Christians have used the word Allah from pre-Islamic times." [2]

The Quran states that Allah sent messengers to all people to speak in their language, so that they may come to worship the One God.  Just because the Jews called God "Yahweh" does not mean that was His one and only name.  In fact, the Quran states that He has 99 names, such as the Al-Rahman (The Merciful).  A Muslim can call upon Him by any of these names, and he would still be calling upon the God of Abraham.

Educate yourself further by watching this excellent video on Youtube by a Yemeni Jew, who as he speaks Arabic, knows that Jews and Muslims worship the same God:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65zyICBKBPI

Originally posted by Kish

In fact who was the chief god of the Kaaba and who worshiped him? That’s another question I’m looking for an answer too. You and I know that Allah is really not a name but a descriptor that literally means “the god” like saying “elohim” or “theos” these are not names but titles.


Regardless of your rants, Allah (swt) was worshiped by Arabic Jews and Christians long before Muhammad (pbuh).  They had no problem calling Him "Allah".  Also, as I showed, the Quran clearly states that all the prophets were sent by Allah (swt).  The fact that it refers to the same prophets that Jews and Christians acknowledge shows that Allah is the God of Abraham (pbuh).  Your personal and ignorant mean nothing.

Originally posted by Kish

So did Muhammad speak in the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? A resounding no.


Say what you will.  The Quran gives a clear answer:

"Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."" (2:136)

Originally posted by Kish

Here is what the scholars say about the title name Allah:

It is not related that the Black Stone was connected with any special god. In the Ka'ba was the statue of the god Hubal who might be called the god of Mecca and of the Ka'ba. Caetani gives great prominence to the connection between the Ka'ba and Hubal. Besides him, however, al-Lat, al-`Uzza, and al-Manat were worshipped and are mentioned in the Kur'an; Hubal is never mentioned there. What position Allah held beside these is not exactly known. The Islamic tradition has certainly elevated him at the expense of other deities. It may be considered certain that the Black Stone was not the only idol in or at the Ka'ba. The Makam Ibrahim was of course a sacred stone from very early times. Its name has not been handed down. Beside it several idols are mentioned, among them the 360 statues. (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1987, Islam, p. 587-591)

"The verses of the Qur'an make it clear that the very name Allah existed in the Jahiliyya or pre-Islamic Arabia. Certain pagan tribes believed in a god whom they called 'Allah' and whom they believed to be the creator of heaven and earth and holder of the highest rank in the hierarchy of the gods. It is well known that the Quraish as well as other tribes believed in Allah, whom they designated as the 'Lord of the House' (i.e., of the Ka'ba)...It is therefore clear that the Qur'anic conception of Allah is not entirely new." A Guide to the Contents of the Quran, Faruq Sherif, (Reading, 1995), pgs. 21-22., Muslim)

According to al-Masudi (Murudj, iv. 47), certain people have regarded the Ka'ba as a temple devoted to the sun, the moon and the five planets. The 36o idols placed round the Ka'ba also point in this direction. It can therefore hardly be denied that traces exist of an astral symbolism. At the same time one can safely say that there can be no question of any general conception on these lines. The cult at the Ka'ba was in the heathen period syncretic as is usual in heathenism. (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1987, Islam, p. 587-591)

     

Your plagiarism of like-minded, ignorant Christians does not reveal anything new!  Every Muslim knows that the pagan Arabs acknowledged Allah as the supreme God.  This is nothing new, Kish!  That was the whole point of Prophet Muhammad's mission.  It was to destroy idolatry and bring the Arabs back to the worship of the One God. 

And as I showed above, Arab Jews and Christians were perfectly content in calling upon "Yahweh" as "Allah".  Your desperate attempts to show that Allah is not the same God as "Yahweh" only exposes your own ignorance and blaspheming nature.    

The only one who did not call upon the God of Abraham was Paul.  He wrote his letters in the name of Jesus, his so-called "Lord". 

Originally posted by Kish

Jehovah" is the only revealed proper name for the "Elohim" of the Old Testament Here is my scriptural proof (Exodus 3:13; 6:3) Historical and archeological proof is available everywhere from non-Christians sources or at any Museum. Can you say the same with allah? If so, feel free to show the forum its use before Muhammad

Your request has already been granted, with the evidence given above.

Earth to Kish: The Jews were not the only ones to be given God's message.  Allah sent prophets to all people, not just to one group of people.  He sent His message to all in their own languages, so they may have referred to Him under different names and titles.  With the coming of the universal message of Islam, it is now proper to call Him "Allah" or by any of the other 99 names mentioned in the Quran.  As Saeed Malik so succinctly states in his book "A Perspective on the Signs of Al-Quran:Through the Prism of the Heart":

"Call Him God; call Him Allah or Call Him Rahman or Call Him by any other name because He is One (Al-Wahid) and there is no other (Al-Ahad)."

How long will you persist in your blasphemy?  Judgment awaits you in the hereafter.  Open your eyes to the truth, before it is too late!

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
Matt Browne
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2010
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 825
Quote Matt Browne Replybullet Posted: 02 December 2012 at 3:04am
We cannot prove that Paul or Muhammad had a revelation. There isn't a single proof and there never will be. We can only believe that they had a revelation. This is why there is the term 'religious beliefs'.

A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2397
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 03 December 2012 at 11:58am
Originally posted by Matt Browne

We cannot prove that Paul or Muhammad had a revelation. There isn't a single proof and there never will be. We can only believe that they had a revelation. This is why there is the term 'religious beliefs'.



Matt,
wrong again,
Paul was not a prophet he did not receive any revelations from God, in case if he did his revelations will be inline to what God has revealed before, it did not.
Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was an unlearned man, what was revealed to him as the Quran is in line with divine quality of consistency throughout this great book. If it was not a revelation then it was a miracle and source of both is God, you pick one, I say it's both.
Hasan
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Matt Browne
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2010
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 825
Quote Matt Browne Replybullet Posted: 04 December 2012 at 5:47am
Sorry, Hasan, but that's still not a proof. We can't know for sure whether Muhammad experienced a revelation or a miracle and whether the source is God. All humans are fallible. Only God knows the ultimate truth according to the Qur'an. But we can believe that Muhammad experienced a revelation or a miracle. That's fine with me.

A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 06 December 2012 at 4:18pm

Originally posted by Islamispeace

When reading Chapter 1 of the Book of Jeremiah, we are told that he received "the Word of the Lord", yet nothing is said about any eye-witnesses to this incident:

So let me take this from the top. I said . . .

Originally posted by Kish

In the Quran ONLY Muhammad talks about his “so-called” revelation from God, no one else can even confirm it or even eye-witness it.

No one, I mean no one:

A.    In the Quran confirmed Muhammad’s revelation

B.    Eye-witnessed Muhammad’s revelation

The Scriptural Law in the OT and NT was and still is . . .

Originally posted by Kish

Deuteronomy 19:15 . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good
Matthew 18:16 . . .  in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.
2 Corithians 13:1 . . .This is the third time I am coming to YOU. “At the mouth of two witnesses or of three every matter must be established.

 

I also present the words of Jesus himself in the “Two or more Witness” principle

John 8:17, 18 Jesus said: “In your own Law it is written, ‘The witness of two men is TRUE.’ I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”

 

Are you saying that the Prophet Jesus was guilty of a criminal offense, of course not but was establishing his sayings and teachings as TRUE

 

John 8:11 “If we receive the witness men give, the witness God gives is greater, because this is the witness God gives, the fact that he has borne witness concerning his Son.

 

Hebrew 10:28.29 Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three. 29 Of how much more severe a punishment, do YOU think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God and who has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt?

Again, if this just was applied to human matters and it’s not but if it was how much more so when concerning to spiritual matters.

 

The topic here is “Prove that Paul or Muhammad had a Revelation” not Jeremiah, so for the forums benefit I’ll get straight to the point on this one.

By your own admission you quoted . . .

Originally posted by Islamispeace

"The word of the Lord came to me,

 

What better witness then the Lord as Jesus himself mentions in John 8:11 above? Unlike Muhammad, there was no confusion as to who spoke to Paul and or Jeremiah whatsoever, they knew who it was. In fact it came from the Lord personally, how do we know? Because Gabriel does not appoint prophets, he never did, he is a messenger of God. That is why you have never seen him in the roll of appointing or anointing prophets of God, AT ALL! On the other-hand, Muhammad has Gabriel portrayed in the Quran as one who appoints and anoints although much, much, much later he said that it was believed to be Gabriel that spoke to him, but he really was freighted and unsure because this so called “angel” violently chocked him, unlike any of God’s angels in any roll.  

Now; who besides “the Lord” confirmed Jeremiah’s Prophet Hood to make it authentic and to follow the “Two or More” principle of the Law? I’ll be brief . . .  

 

Daniel 9:2 . . . Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years . . .

Ezra 1:1 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm, and also in writing, saying

Matthew 2:17 Then that was fulfilled which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying:

 

Matthew 16:14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others E·li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

 

As you can see, there was no question that Jeremiah was a true prophet of God and Paul was an Apostle to the Nations as confirmed by the prophets and the Apostles of Jesus; again only Islam disagrees, but we know why.  

 

So, we have more than enough information to address this issue whether, you agree with it or not, the Scriptures show you over and over again so you cannot change the law. Furthermore you don't even believe in 100% of the Bible. The only parts in the Bible that you do believe in are the ones that you assume supports Mohammed and his belief so what is that, maybe 5% of the Bible? Also, you cannot believe in the Old Testament and not believe in the New Testament and vice versa.  In fact more than 90% of the earth's population owns a Bible in their own language; you can't say that for the Quran.  So whether you agree with the two or more witness principle that is stated in the Bible it is neither here or there it is very well-documented as I’ve just shown. So you can keep dancing around this “Two or more Witness” principle all you want you have nothing to support or confirm Muhammad’s revelation.


Next point

Originally posted by Islamispeace

As it stands, plenty of people witnessed the prophecies of the Hebrew prophets as well as the prophecies of Muhammad (pbuh).

And as shown, plenty of the prophets confirmed as true the prophethood of Jeremiah by using the “Two or more Witness” principle. I’ll repeat what I said  . .

Originally posted by Kish

In the Quran ONLY Muhammad talks about his “so-called” revelation from God, no one else can even confirm it or even eye-witness it.

No one, I mean no one:

A.    In the Quran confirmed Muhammad’s revelation or

B.    Eye-witnessed Muhammad’s revelation

Long story short, Jeremiah, Paul and even Jesus himself had both A and B according to the principle of the LAW.

Muhammad, had neither A and or B.



Edited by Kish - 06 December 2012 at 4:20pm
IP IP Logged
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 06 December 2012 at 4:32pm

Originally posted by kish

Originally posted by Kish


Everything Paul said came true. That is why no one contested what Paul and that small ban of Christians wrote, it was part of the then known history and nothing has changed. Of course NOW in this day and age modern-day skeptics wants to say otherwise.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Pure Christian propaganda...Who says no one contested what Paul wrote?  What is your evidence?  The New Testament?  Talk about a circular argument!

There are other places where Paul clearly states that the end is near:

Of course he glosses over it, nothing to show who contested Paul’s miracles and encounter with Jesus, not even the Jews, Romans and Greeks who were the persecutors and enemies of Christianity. Only modern day maybe 19th Century Jonny come lately scholars who say otherwise base on pure assumptions at best.

IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 10 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