Print Page | Close Window

God’s written instructions for life.

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21316
Printed Date: 23 July 2014 at 8:51am


Topic: God’s written instructions for life.
Posted By: Kish
Subject: God’s written instructions for life.
Date Posted: 08 July 2011 at 1:55pm

Where can I find God’s written instructions for life?

That is my Question. I read, read and read but I know more is needed to please God fully. To be honest it’s quite wearisome at times reading different sacred books. From what I’ve read God does not speak to us directly as he did in the past so how does he communicate with people today? There are good people in every religion but I’m more of a spiritual person then a religious one. It seems that all the prophets did great things but that’s back then, what about now?  

I’m trying to find out which of the sacred books can stand the test of time (scrutinize). Can a person judge a religion by its followers, I guess, I really don’t know at this point. What I do know is that God is omnipotent and he offers something better and I can’t convince myself that he left it all up to chance. So, I’m concerned with the hard core facts, what his written word has to say and I guess everything else will work themselves out eventually.    

Where can I find God’s written instructions for life and please provide me with references (texts) so I can research it and compare one with the other and if I have any questions I’ll present them back here on this forum.    

Thanks in advance,

Kish




Replies:
Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 16 July 2011 at 9:56pm

Hi, as I wait for an answer to my first question, in my studies I’ve read this verse in the Quran, can someone shed a little light on it for me.

(S) 2:4 “[The righteous] trust what has been revealed to you and to others before you, and firmly believe in the life to come.”

Can someone explain to me what is meant by “what has been revealed” and also explain to me whom it was revealed to and what life it's referring to? Because this verse sounds as if it is giving advice as to how to achieve written instructions for life.


Kish



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 17 July 2011 at 10:53am
Originally posted by Kish

Hi, as I wait for an answer to my first question, in my studies I’ve read this verse in the Quran, can someone shed a little light on it for me.

(S) 2:4 “[The righteous] trust what has been revealed to you and to others before you, and firmly believe in the life to come.”

Can someone explain to me what is meant by “what has been revealed” and also explain to me whom it was revealed to and what life it's referring to? Because this verse sounds as if it is giving advice as to how to achieve written instructions for life.


Kish

Hi Kish.  The verse is referring to the Quran which was to revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) and the previous pristine scriptures like the Torah and the Gospel which were revealed to Moses and Jesus (pbut), respectively.  The "life" to come is a reference to the Afterlife, which the Quran assures us will come. 

As far as your main questions, I think you have already taken the first step to finding God's written instructions.  They are in the Quran and the Sunnah.  Now of course, a Christian or Hindu may tell you that they are found in their own scriptures.  At that point, it is up to you to decide.  Pray to God for guidance and be sincere in your search and inshaAllah, you will find the answers you seek. 



-------------
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)



Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 17 July 2011 at 8:33pm

Your feedback is appreciated, and I realize that knowing which books are Gods written word is not enough as I read. According to (S) 5:68 “Say: ‘People of the Book, you shall not be guided until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord.’”

Are you confirming what the Quran say’s by saying that the Torah and the Gospel should be recognized and obeyed as well?   

Also, this afterlife is it in heaven forever or on earth forever, because the concept of heaven only entered into the picture during the Gospel account, not before. No where can I find the concept of heaven in the Torah, the Law or the Psalms in my studies.  



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 18 July 2011 at 6:26pm
Originally posted by Kish

Your feedback is appreciated, and I realize that knowing which books are Gods written word is not enough as I read. According to (S) 5:68 “Say: ‘People of the Book, you shall not be guided until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord.’”

Are you confirming what the Quran say’s by saying that the Torah and the Gospel should be recognized and obeyed as well?   

Also, this afterlife is it in heaven forever or on earth forever, because the concept of heaven only entered into the picture during the Gospel account, not before. No where can I find the concept of heaven in the Torah, the Law or the Psalms in my studies.  



The Quran confirms the previous, uncorrupted scripture.  Notice in my response I used the word "pristine".  God sent down the Quran to confirm and renew the teachings of the previous scriptures and to correct the errors and falsehoods that had been added to them.  In the same Surah which you quoted, it is written:

"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.

From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, -" (5:13-15)

Regarding the afterlife, it is in Paradise or in Hell, depending on a person's choices.  In Islam, Paradise is described as a Garden which has been created for the righteous:

"
Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden whose width is that (of the whole) of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous,-
" (3:133)

Even if the concept of an afterlife is not present in the Torah, it does not matter to Muslims because we believe in the Quran and the present Torah is not authoritative for us.  It would be better if you asked a Jewish scholar about the Jewish concept of the afterlife.   



-------------
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)



Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 19 July 2011 at 9:41pm

Yet, the Quran also says “Those to whom the burden of the Torah was entrusted and yet refused to bear it are like a donkey laden with books.”—(S) 62:5

How can the Quran credit the ‘Torah, Psalms and Gospel’ by saying observe them, then discredit them by saying they have errors?

The Quran teaches these three writings the Torah, Psalms and Gospel are from God correct?

The Quran teaches that they should both be recognized and obeyed, correct? What am I missing here, either they are from God or they are not.

You say “The Quran confirms the previous, uncorrupted scripture.”

Why didn’t Jesus say the Torah, Psalms and Gospel were corrupted when he was on earth? He never did, in fact he confirms the previous uncorrupted scriptures as you say Muhammad did. These are major, major, major conflicts my friend.

The Gospel (Four different writers) never said the Psalms and the Torah are in error nor the Psalms (King David and others) the Torah. This is a grave error that has been made against these "Holy Scriptures" because 2 Timothy 3:16 says " All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness.

Are you saying that God's inspired scriptures are wrong? Or are you saying it's interpretations are wrong there is a difference? 

Qur’an reads: “After those prophets We sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light, corroborating that which was revealed before it in the Torah, a guide and an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgements on Allah’s revelations.” (S) 5: 46, 47.

Why would Muhammad say the previous scriptures were corrupted when Jesus who the Quran holds in high esteem does not?  I think you’re really going out on the limb here. Can one really have guidance and light in the Gospel if it were corrupted with errors and falsehoods?

From what I see thus far respectively your explanation doesn’t seem to be in harmony with what even the Quran is telling us because I thought the Quran was written for the purpose of confirming these books and not to reject its faith.

(S) 2:41 And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone.  

Waaminoo bima anzaltu musaddiqanlima maAAakum wala takoonoo awwala kafirinbihi wala tashtaroo bi-ayatee thamananqaleelan wa-iyyaya faittaqooni

Children of Israel . . . Have faith in My revelations, which confirm your Scriptures.”

Kish



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 July 2011 at 7:49pm
Yet, the Quran also says “Those to whom the burden of the Torah was entrusted and yet refused to bear it are like a donkey laden with books.”—(S) 62:5 How can the Quran credit the ‘Torah, Psalms and Gospel’ by saying observe them, then discredit them by saying they have errors? The Quran teaches these three writings the Torah, Psalms and Gospel are from God correct? The Quran teaches that they should both be recognized and obeyed, correct? What am I missing here, either they are from God or they are not.You say “The Quran confirms the previous, uncorrupted scripture.”


As I said, the Quran came to confirm the truth contained in the previous scriptures as well as to correct the errors which had been added to them.  No one said the entire Torah or Gospel has been corrupted.  There is some truth and some falsehood.  That is why the Quran was sent down.  You are only looking at one side of the coin and ignoring the other.

Why didn’t Jesus say the Torah, Psalms and Gospel were corrupted when he was on earth? He never did, in fact he confirms the previous uncorrupted scriptures as you say Muhammad did. These are major, major, major conflicts my friend.
 

How do you know?  Are you basing this on the Gospel accounts, which were written decades after Jesus?  He was sent to the Children of Israel because they had strayed from the straight path.  The Gospel served to confirm the truth of the previous scriptures but also to erase the falsehoods that some among the Jews had added to the teachings.  Jesus also made some changes to the Mosaic Law, with God's authority of course.

The Gospel (Four different writers) never said the Psalms and the Torah are in error nor the Psalms (King David and others) the Torah. This is a grave error that has been made against these "Holy Scriptures" because 2 Timothy 3:16 says " All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness.
  

We are not talking about the opinions of the Gospel writers.  We are talking about what the Quran says about the previous scriptures.  Furthermore, of course the Gospel writers never claimed the Old Testament was not trustworthy.  Their entire theological case depended upon the OT!  Without it, they could not develop the idea that Jesus was prophesied by the earlier prophets.  Therefore, they had a dogmatic reason to not case the OT aside.  And yet, the 2nd century heretic Marcion did just that.  He could not see how the OT could be compared to the NT and came up with the ridiculous belief that the God of the OT was some lesser, evil God. 

Are you saying that God's inspired scriptures are wrong? Or are you saying it's interpretations are wrong there is a difference?


First of all, the scriptures were not "inspired".  The scriptures are the literal words of God, dictated to mankind through His prophets and messengers.  They are not the words of men who claimed they were inspired.  There is a big difference.  Second, God's literal words were entrusted to mankind but over the centuries, these words were edited and redacted by anonymous people.  There is plenty of historical and archaeological evidence to support this.  That is the reason the Quran was sent down and God has promised to protect the universal message contained in it forever.

Qur’an reads: “After those prophets We sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light, corroborating that which was revealed before it in the Torah, a guide and an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgements on Allah’s revelations.” (S) 5: 46, 47.


See above.  Why do you think God needed to send the Gospel, which contained "guidance and light" when the Torah was already sent and was in its pristine condition, as you assume?  What was the purpose of sending another book when one was already present?  The answer is that the Gospel was sent to confirm the truth and to eliminate the falsehood.   

From what I see thus far respectively your explanation doesn’t seem to be in harmony with what even the Quran is telling us because I thought the Quran was written for the purpose of confirming these books and not to reject its faith.


That is because you are only reading certain parts of the Quran while ignoring others.  It makes it very clear that some of the beliefs of the Jews and Christians are blasphemous and wrong.  Some of these beliefs are found in the books of these two groups.  How then can anyone claim that the Quran upholds those books?  For sure, it confirms the most important teaching that has been preserved, that of the Oneness of God.  But it also strongly denies what it deems the falsehoods, such as claiming that Jesus is God's son or God Himself.  You are erroneously assuming that the "confirmation" means the whole modern version of the Torah or Gospel is considered to be true, when that is not the case. 



-------------
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)



Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 20 July 2011 at 10:54pm

So, what you are saying according to the Quran the writings of the Holy Bible are written in falsehood although there are some truths to them (According to the Quran)? That is really odd because neither Jesus nor his Apostles ever mentioned errors or falsehoods in the previous Holy writings only in some of their beliefs and later teachings, a big, big difference.

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

I can, if you’re basing it on the Quran written centuries later after the completion of the Gospel. Honestly, which sounds odder to you decades or centuries?

Besides, Muhammad died before the completion of the Quran.

Originally posted by islamispeace

First of all, the scriptures were not "inspired".

Well, just as Muslims believe the Quran were inspired so do Christians the Gospel and Jews the Torah, so let’s not beat a dead horse on this post but deal with logic please. The unique difference I would say is that Muhammad specifically mentions the Torah, Psalms and Gospel not the other way around.

Wouldn’t you say that puts the Quran in a very questionable and awkward position, especially considering the verses from the Quran itself regarding the previous scriptures?

Originally posted by islamispeace

Why do you think God needed to send the Gospel, which contained "guidance and light" when the Torah was already sent and was in its pristine condition, as you assume?  What was the purpose of sending another book when one was already present? The answer is that the Gospel was sent to confirm the truth and to eliminate the falsehood.

First - Matthew 5:17 “Do not think I (Jesus) came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; (No error, no falsehoods and no need to destroy it)

Second – Luke 4:43 Jesus said: “To other cities I must declare the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this I was sent forth.”

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines “Gospel” as “the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation.”

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says that in the Christian Greek Scriptures (the “New Testament”), the Gospel “denotes the good tidings of the Kingdom of God and of salvation through Christ, to be received by faith, on the basis of His expiatory death.”

Originally posted by islamispeace

That is because you are only reading certain parts of the Quran while ignoring others.  It makes it very clear that some of the beliefs of the Jews and Christians are blasphemous and wrong. 

Some of their beliefs yes, but the Holy writings of the Torah, Psalms and Gospel, no; it all depended on what Jewish set you spoke with regarding their belief. Plus, if you’re comparing Judaism and Christianity to the Quran it would appear to be blasphemous, their teachings are much different from Islam, it’s like night and day. That would totally be understandable, logically speaking.

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Some of these beliefs are found in the books of these two groups.  How then can anyone claim that the Quran upholds those books?  For sure, it confirms the most important teaching that has been preserved, that of the Oneness of God. 

Again, you’re expecting the Quran to uphold these books when it appears from what you’re explaining that they diametrically oppose each other because of their teaching of Jesus being God son or a god himself. Why would the previous scriptures of long ago all of a sudden be changed because of this one much later book the Quran?

As you already mentioned the Old Testament upholds the New Testament and the New Testament the Old, why would it be concerned with upholding anything else other than what it was meant to do?

You’re mixing apples (Bible) with oranges (Quran) you will always tell them apart!  

Kish



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 21 July 2011 at 5:30pm
Hi Kish,
I think you are being too judgmental without fully understanding the answers. 
I will try my take on some of the issues you seem to have.
Let me say this first, as this is an Islamic forum you will hear answers from Islamic perspective. And since Islam teaches us to follow logic, common sense, thoughtfulness and truth in our practices, things should make sense to every man of faith regarless of their way of belief as long as it is based on same basic principals.
To your first point in your post above I would say this:
God has sent his guidance for mankind since Adam. Different times different guides God sent with his word of guidance. That is why we see many names of prophets in scriptures.
Through the Quran, I learn that for each time or era there was a prophet to guide people. Those people would be judged according to the critarian or guide sent for their time.
According to that understanding, for example, Prophet David (pbuh) was sent to guide people of his time and until the next prophet would be sent. Those who would beleive in him to be God's prophet would be the true beleivers, those who would not would be the disbelievers, and once he has given the prophethood and a book, the previous prophet and book do not apply no more. Same way when God sent Jesus (pbuh) as a prophet to guide people the previous prophet's era had ended. So those who believed in him as God's guide and in his message as God's word became true beleivers, those who did not became disbeleivers regardless of what they call themselves. On the same note when God sent Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and sent through him the Quran, those who believed in him as a prophet and word of God sent through him as "word of God" became true beleivers and those who rejected him as such and rejected God's word sent through him became as disbeleivers regardless of what they call themselves.
So answering your first two lines, Quran does not say the way you are saying. Quran says that Torah, Gospel and other previous scriptures were sent by God, each for a time. And only after people left what God sent, whether by altering it, forgetting it or modifying it to fit their way, He being the Merciful, sent us (humanity) again his guidance in the form of a new and pure word of guidance from Him. Once we received a new and pure word of God, it is the one according to which we will be judged, even if we do not beleive in it. We will not be judged by an older scripture as the Quran is the last one sent for all of us that live or born after its arrival, and we will be judged by its standards.
We do acknowledge, beleive and love all of the propehts and what they broughts as word of God, because God has told us to do so as part of our beleif in His word. The Quran, as the pure word of God is complete for a beleiver to live this life sucessfully as well as to work toward the next, a desireable hereafter "the Salvation".  
 
On  the issue of Gospel being sent to fulfill the Law, do you think these things mantioned in the OT really could be ever fulfilled or that this was part of the fulfillment what Jesus meant, I will just quote a few of these OT quotes, there are many others like them:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Or do you think that these are not God's words?

Let us see before we go any further so we benefit from this talk and not get cofused with dealing with too many issues at a time!
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 July 2011 at 7:57pm
Originally posted by Kish

So, what you are saying according to the Quran the writings of the Holy Bible are written in falsehood although there are some truths to them (According to the Quran)? That is really odd because neither Jesus nor his Apostles ever mentioned errors or falsehoods in the previous Holy writings only in some of their beliefs and later teachings, a big, big difference.

Again, you are basing your view of what "Jesus mentioned" on the assumption that the Gospel accounts about what Jesus "said" are accurate.  You have presented no proof for that. 

The Quran states that God sent the Torah and Gospel.  These were true revelations, with no falsehood.  Falsehood was added to them by people over the course of centuries.  Hence, this necessitated the sending of another revelation, this one being the final one. 


Originally posted by Kish

I can, if you’re basing it on the Quran written centuries later after the completion of the Gospel. Honestly, which sounds odder to you decades or centuries?

The difference is that you do not yet know which book to follow.  Wasn't that the whole reason you opened this thread?  So, the question is why do you assume the Gospels are accurate? 

To answer your question, the Quran is not a biography about Jesus (pbuh).  The Gospels, on the other hand, claimed to be accounts of Jesus' ministry based on eye-witness testimony.  So, if anything, it is the Gospels which need to prove their authority on this matter.  If it cannot be proven, then we can safely move the Gospels aside. 

Originally posted by Kish

Besides, Muhammad died before the completion of the Quran.
  

Incorrect.  It was finished before Muhammad's death.  It was only compiled into book form after his death.  There is a difference.  

Originally posted by Kish

Well, just as Muslims believe the Quran were inspired so do Christians the Gospel and Jews the Torah, so let’s not beat a dead horse on this post but deal with logic please. The unique difference I would say is that Muhammad specifically mentions the Torah, Psalms and Gospel not the other way around.

OK, let's "deal with logic".  Are you saying you are a Jew or a Christian?  How could that be if you opened this thread to determine where you could find "God's instructions for life".  So, logically speaking, how can you be certain that the Torah or the Gospels are "inspired"?

The point I was making was that the scriptures, according to the Islamic view, were not "inspired".  Inspiration means that people wrote the words under divine guidance.  The Islamic view is that God literally dictated His word to mankind through His prophets and messengers. 

Originally posted by Kish

Wouldn’t you say that puts the Quran in a very questionable and awkward position, especially considering the verses from the Quran itself regarding the previous scriptures?
     

Why?  Actually, since the Quran maintains (regardless of your opinions) that the Torah and the Gospel have been altered and historical evidence exists to support this, I think the Quran is in a very strong position.  As an example of the evidence, consider that scholars largely agree that the modern version of the Torah was written by multiple authors.  This theory is called the "Documentary Hypothesis".   

Originally posted by Kish

First - Matthew 5:17 “Do not think I (Jesus) came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; (No error, no falsehoods and no need to destroy it)

Second – Luke 4:43 Jesus said: “To other cities I must declare the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this I was sent forth.”

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines “Gospel” as “the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation.”

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says that in the Christian Greek Scriptures (the “New Testament”), the Gospel “denotes the good tidings of the Kingdom of God and of salvation through Christ, to be received by faith, on the basis of His expiatory death.”

Yet, we also find in another Gospel, the following:

"2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

   But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground." (John 8:2-8)

I use this passage for two reasons.  First, it contradicts the passage from Matthew that you presented which seems to say that Jesus (pbuh) did not abolish the Law of Moses (the Christians would disagree with you but that is not important here).  In this passage from John, Jesus refuses to stone the adulteress as the Law of Moses required.  This would indicate that Jesus was abolishing the Law.  Second, I present this passage as evidence of the Gospels' corruption.  This passage, known as the Pericope de Adultera, is considered spurious and most scholars believe it was not part of the original copy of John's Gospel.  According to Bart Ehrman:


"Despite its popularity, the account is found in only one passage of the New Testament, in John 7:53-8:12, and it appears not to have been original even there" (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, p. 63).

Originally posted by Kish

Some of their beliefs yes, but the Holy writings of the Torah, Psalms and Gospel, no; it all depended on what Jewish set you spoke with regarding their belief. Plus, if you’re comparing Judaism and Christianity to the Quran it would appear to be blasphemous, their teachings are much different from Islam, it’s like night and day. That would totally be understandable, logically speaking.

I disagree.  If anything, the Torah and Quran are more similar than the Torah and the Gospels.  The Torah and Quran deny the teachings of original sin, blood sacrifice for salvation, and the incarnation of God in human form.  It is for this reason that Jews are forbidden to enter churches, according to the rulings of most rabbis.  However, Jews are allowed to enter mosques http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/276,2400/Am-I-allowed-to-enter-a-church-or-mosque.html - [1] .  The reason given is the theological similarities between Judaism and Islam.  So, logically speaking, it seems that comparing Christianity and Judaism is a better example of comparing "night and day".

Originally posted by Kish

Again, you’re expecting the Quran to uphold these books when it appears from what you’re explaining that they diametrically oppose each other because of their teaching of Jesus being God son or a god himself. Why would the previous scriptures of long ago all of a sudden be changed because of this one much later book the Quran?

Who says they were changed because of the Quran?  I don't fully understand your question. 

Originally posted by Kish

As you already mentioned the Old Testament upholds the New Testament and the New Testament the Old, why would it be concerned with upholding anything else other than what it was meant to do?

I never said this.  I said the Gospel writers believed the two were in agreement.  I didn't say I agreed with them.  Furthermore, you pointed out yourself previously how the matter of the afterlife first appears in the Gospels and not the Torah.  This would be a glaring difference, would it not?  So, how can you maintain that the "Old Testament upholds the New Testament" and vice-versa?  The Jews would definitely disagree with you here.  The fact is that the NT flat-out contradicts the OT is several areas.  The most important and glaring difference is in regards to God and whether He has a son who is really Himself.  The OT denies that God is a trinity, while the NT tries hard to say that God is a trinity. Of course, the latter is really up to interpretation and whether you actually believe the trinitarian verses are authentic or not.  Many, if not all, of them are not authentic.  There are many other examples of contradictions between the OT and the NT.  In light of these, I have a hard time accepting that the two uphold each other.

Originally posted by Kish

You’re mixing apples (Bible) with oranges (Quran) you will always tell them apart!
     

Except that the "apples" actually have some grapes in them (NT), so we can actually tell all three apart, although upon comparison, the apples are more similar to the oranges, but the grapes are not.  Even so, it can be said (without any intention of being offensive) that the apples and the grapes are a little rotten (corrupted).  Again, I don't say this to be offensive to anyone.  I am just using your analogy in light of the facts I presented above.



-------------
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)



Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 22 July 2011 at 12:38pm

Originally posted by honeto

We will not be judged by an older scripture as the Quran is the last one sent for all of us that live or born after its arrival, and we will be judged by its standards.

The Holy Scriptures would disagree, as you would agree that the oneness of God establishes itself within the Torah first, Psalms second, Gospel third and the Quran fourth if you will. What you are misunderstanding is that God’s principles NEVER change but his LAWS could. Life’s key principles, of course, are spiritual.

Isaiah 40:8 “The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.”

Divine principles do not become outdated or pass away. The inspired words of the prophet Isaiah proves true.

Originally posted by honeto

 The Quran, as the pure word of God is complete for a beleiver to live this life sucessfully as well as to work toward the next, a desireable hereafter "the Salvation".

Which I respect, however Christians alike view the Gospel as pure but see Jesus as their only salvation, which becomes a major issue not because of what the Quran says about Jesus but what it failed to say about Jesus.

1 John 4:14, 15 In addition, we ourselves have beheld and are bearing witness that the Father has sent forth his Son as Savior of the world. 15 Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God.  

Acts 5:31 God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.  

This is the whole point of the Gospel (Good News) which the Quran acknowledges but rejects this fundamental truth.

Originally posted by honeto

On  the issue of Gospel being sent to fulfill the Law, do you think these things mantioned in the OT really could be ever fulfilled or that this was part of the fulfillment what Jesus meant, I will just quote a few of these OT quotes, there are many others like them:

First you must understand the purpose of the Law and why it was giving ONLY to the Nation of Israel, do you know why? Second question which you posed, did Israel fulfill the law perfectly’? Nonetheless, Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly; the Gospel was only the forum that was used to get it out there to the people after Jesus, Muhammad and millions of others who would benefit from its message.

Would you say Muhammad benefited from his message, most Muslims would agree that he did, why else would it be mentioned over and over again in the Quran.  

If most if not all Muslims would agree, how did salvation move away from Jesus and his followers to Muhammad and his followers?  

Matthew 1:21 She (Mary) will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins

Acts 4:12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.

Again, Divine principles do not become outdated or pass away and salvation is a divine principle.

Do you believe that God’s written instruction for life (Salvation) can be in both the Holy Scriptures and the Quran? From the points that were made in the scriptures above Christians would say no, and rightly so.

My question to Hasan is, did salvation come to all mankind after Jesus or after Muhammad?

Kish



Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 22 July 2011 at 7:44pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

Again, you are basing your view of what "Jesus mentioned" on the assumption that the Gospel accounts about what Jesus "said" are accurate.  You have presented no proof for that. 
 

Actually, using deductive reasoning I’m basing it on the Gospel and the Quran, two revered books of faith as my premise. Why would either holy book speak inaccurately of Jesus unless there is a motive, which is what the word assumption implies?    

Luke 1:1-3 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The·ophi·lus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally

Acts 1:3 To these also by many positive proofs he showed himself alive after he had suffered, being seen by them throughout forty days and telling the things about the kingdom of God.

(S) 4:162 But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee:

Without beating a dead horse, based on what I’ve shown on this thread using both holy books the Gospel is an accurate account of Jesus.

If there’s foul play then why would the Quran say the Gospel is a book of “guidance and light” logically can it be both? If cannot be both, why would the Quran contradict itself and the Gospel? On the other hand the teaching of Jesus and salvation is consistent within the Gospel.

The difference is that you do not yet know which book to follow.

Originally posted by islamispeace

The difference is that you do not yet know which book to follow.

For argument sake if I’m wrong whatever book I follow, that doesn’t make you right, logic is logic just as truth is truth based on arguments and statements. Right now what I’m getting is illogical reasoning based on your explanation of the Quran and what it has to say about the Gospel, it is inconsistent with itself and the Gospel in which it acknowledges.  My premise based on the Gospel being accurate is not an assumption but a fact based on the evidence of both the Bible and the Quran. What you have presented as your defense is the very book that denies its facts, doesn’t that defy logic?  

And on top of that, you sincerely feel that the Gospel which was completed around the end of the first century/beginning of the second century and was accepted as a collection by the middle of the second century has to prove itself when the Quran itself was not even a whisper? We are talking about 1,000 years later when the Quran was completed? But, yet the Gospel has to prove its authority on the matter, what’s wrong with that logic?

In any case in the 19th century, critics began to promote the view that none of the Gospels were written before the middle of the second century C.E. and as you said “were moved to the side”

However, 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.”

Professor F. F. Bruce observes: “One of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ (Acts 2:22).”

On that note it’s Muslims and not Quran that has to disprove the authenticity of the Gospel for just these four reasons alone.

(1)    What eyewitnesses had seen and herd

(2)    What the Quran itself has confirmed about the Gospel

(3)    The completion of the Gospel and its acceptance

(4)    What discoveries themselves have shown about the Gospel

Originally posted by islamispeace

The point I was making was that the scriptures, according to the Islamic view, were not "inspired"

Point taken

Originally posted by islamispeace

As an example of the evidence, consider that scholars largely agree that the modern version of the Torah was written by multiple authors.  This theory is called the "Documentary Hypothesis".

Not for nothing but if I’m going to discuss theories I’d rather talk about evolution that also is not scientifically accurate, which I’m sure you would agree.

Regarding the “Law” you failed to realize that Jesus did fulfill the law by keeping it perfectly therefore the law was no longer binding. It was not until after Jesus’ death that the Law covenant was taken away (nailed above his head).

Colossians 2:13 Furthermore, though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of YOUR flesh, [God] made YOU alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.

Whether you agree or not, everything as you can see is very, very well documented! Christians are under a new law, “the law of the Christ.” (Galatians 6:2) The former Law covenant given through Moses to Israel came to an end when Jesus’ death fulfilled it as the scripture (Colossians) denotes above.

As far as the spurious or uncanonical written you quoted, they are just that, uncanonical. Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546). Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical. However, the Catholic Church, following Augustine’s lead, included such additional writings in the canon of sacred books determined by the Council of Carthage in 397 C.E.

Originally posted by islamispeace

 I said the Gospel writers believed the two were in agreement.  I didn't say I agreed with them.

Whether you or I agree (Which I do BTW) or not that is beside the point, they were accepted as canon. There is nothing anyone can do about it, 20 Centuries later. As far as the trinity, you will never even find that word in the NT so there goes another theory up in smoke.

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Even so, it can be said (without any intention of being offensive) that the apples and the grapes are a little rotten (corrupted)

I have no qualms in disagreeing with you here except adding the oranges as well.

According to the Gospel this was bound to happen as prophesied by Jesus.

Matthew 13: 16-20 “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits YOU will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; 18 a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits YOU will recognize those [men].  

So, I pose the same question to you as I pose to Hasan, did salvation come after Jesus or after Muhammad?



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 July 2011 at 11:36am
Originally posted by Kish

Without beating a dead horse, based on what I’ve shown on this thread using both holy books the Gospel is an accurate account of Jesus.

If there’s foul play then why would the Quran say the Gospel is a book of “guidance and light” logically can it be both? If cannot be both, why would the Quran contradict itself and the Gospel? On the other hand the teaching of Jesus and salvation is consistent within the Gospel.

The difference is that you do not yet know which book to follow.


You can only conclude this if you ignore all the facts.  The Quran very clearly spells it out that the previous scriptures are not in pristine condition.  Ignoring this fact and clinging to other verses by themselves will obviously lead to confusion, which is what you here. 

As I have said several times now, when the Quran speaks positively of the Torah and Gospel, it is referring to the original revelations, not the edited versions.  Once you understand this, you will how see misguided your question is. 

Originally posted by Kish

For argument sake if I’m wrong whatever book I follow, that doesn’t make you right, logic is logic just as truth is truth based on arguments and statements. Right now what I’m getting is illogical reasoning based on your explanation of the Quran and what it has to say about the Gospel, it is inconsistent with itself and the Gospel in which it acknowledges.  My premise based on the Gospel being accurate is not an assumption but a fact based on the evidence of both the Bible and the Quran. What you have presented as your defense is the very book that denies its facts, doesn’t that defy logic?

I am giving you the Islamic perspective, because I am a Muslim.  You asked the question where you could find God's written instructions.  Obviously, as a Muslim, I believe you can find them in the Quran and the Hadiths.  I also said that if you want to learn about other perspectives, you should go ask experts on those perspectives.  For example, I said that if you want to get the Jewish perspective on the afterlife, you should ask a Jewish scholar.  But, I have also given you the proofs of why I believe the Quran is right.     

Your view on "logic" is a tad skewed.  First of all, using the Bible to prove the Bible's accuracy is a circular argument.  That is not logical.  Second, as I have shown multiple times, the Quran does not say that the Torah and the Gospel that we have today are authoritative.  It routinely criticizes the beliefs of the Jews and Christians which can be found in their scriptures.  How then can one maintain that the Quran upholds the two?  You will also notice that the Quran refers to the "Gospel" (in the singular) and not "Gospels" (in the plural).  No where does it say the "Gospel according to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John" is "guidance and light".  And no where does it refer to the other books of the New Testament, such as the letters of Paul and the Book of Revelation. 

Originally posted by Kish

And on top of that, you sincerely feel that the Gospel which was completed around the end of the first century/beginning of the second century and was accepted as a collection by the middle of the second century has to prove itself when the Quran itself was not even a whisper? We are talking about 1,000 years later when the Quran was completed? But, yet the Gospel has to prove its authority on the matter, what’s wrong with that logic?
  

1000 years later?  What are you talking about?  The Quran was completed in 632 CE, within the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  The Gospels were not fully accepted until at least 150 CE, more than 120 years after Jesus (pbuh).  Given these facts, of course I feel that the Gospels have more to prove than the Quran.  Furthermore, the Gospels present a Jesus who is both human and divine.  This is a new and extraordinary concept and one which requires extraordinary evidence. 

Originally posted by Kish

However, 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.”
  

What does this prove about the authenticity of the Gospels?  I never disputed that the Gospels became accepted by the mid-2nd century.  The question is why did it take so long?  You also ignore the fact that the Diatessaron, as late as it was, was an edited version of the Gospels, all rolled into one.  It has additions and omissions which differ from the Gospels.  How this proves the Gospels to be accurate, historical accounts of Jesus is beyond me.  

Originally posted by Kish

On that note it’s Muslims and not Quran that has to disprove the authenticity of the Gospel for just these four reasons alone.

(1)    What eyewitnesses had seen and herd

(2)    What the Quran itself has confirmed about the Gospel

(3)    The completion of the Gospel and its acceptance

(4)    What discoveries themselves have shown about the Gospel

First, I have already provided some evidence to prove the corruption of the Gospels.  Second, I have already refuted #2 several times.  Third, #1, #3 and #4 are non-sequiturs which you have yet to prove.  Which eye-witnesses are you referring to?  Of the 4 Gospels, only two were purportedly written by alleged eye-witnesses and of those, it is believed by scholars that the Gospel of Matthew used Mark as its template.  John's Gospel is so different that scholars like Geza Vermes tend to disregard it completely (see "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus").  When was the Gospel(s) actually completed?  What "discoveries" (besides the historically late Diatesseron) are you referring to? 

Originally posted by Kish

Not for nothing but if I’m going to discuss theories I’d rather talk about evolution that also is not scientifically accurate, which I’m sure you would agree.

Now you are resorting to special pleading.  The Documentary Hypothesis is just as good a theory as saying that the Torah and Gospels are accurate and free of any editing.

Originally posted by Kish

Regarding the “Law” you failed to realize that Jesus did fulfill the law by keeping it perfectly therefore the law was no longer binding. It was not until after Jesus’ death that the Law covenant was taken away (nailed above his head).
  

How did he "fulfill" the Law?  If anything, the Gospels say that he broke the Law on many occasions and so did his disciples.  The Pericope de Adultera, if it actually happened, would be proof that he did not fulfill the Law.  Of course, since scholars believe the Pericope is unreliable, it probably did not happen and so we have a Gospel which recounts an unreliable story which also happens to contradict the other Gospels' claim that Jesus fulfilled the Law.  Furthermore, we have here yet another example of how the Gospels contradict the Old Testament, since the Book of Isaiah says that the covenant was to be kept forever:

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

Originally posted by Kish

Whether you agree or not, everything as you can see is very, very well documented! Christians are under a new law, “the law of the Christ.” (Galatians 6:2) The former Law covenant given through Moses to Israel came to an end when Jesus’ death fulfilled it as the scripture (Colossians) denotes above.

Well documented or not, this contradicts the Old Testament, as shown above.

Originally posted by Kish

As far as the spurious or uncanonical written you quoted, they are just that, uncanonical. Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546). Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical. However, the Catholic Church, following Augustine’s lead, included such additional writings in the canon of sacred books determined by the Council of Carthage in 397 C.E.
 

I never referred to the apocryphal books.  I referred to a popular passage from the Gospel of John which historical evidence suggests was not in the original Gospel but was added later.  If this is not proof of corruption, then I don't know what is. 

Originally posted by Kish

Whether you or I agree (Which I do BTW) or not that is beside the point, they were accepted as canon. There is nothing anyone can do about it, 20 Centuries later. As far as the trinity, you will never even find that word in the NT so there goes another theory up in smoke.

Yes, they were accepted by 2nd century Christians who were not alive when Jesus preached.  That does not prove their authenticity. 

As far as the trinity is concerned, you are correct that it is not found in the New Testament.  But, the same Christians who you say accepted the Gospels as accurate also accepted the trinity as the true teaching.  Why do you take their word for it when it comes to the Gospels' accuracy but not for their acceptance of the trinity?  For sure, the trinity was invented by the Church fathers, but it was done to harmonize the seemingly blasphemous verses from the Gospels which showed Jesus as a god.  Obviously, they could not say that there were multiple gods, so they invented the concept of triunity to harmonize the verses and declare themselves to be monotheists. 

Originally posted by Kish

I have no qualms in disagreeing with you here except adding the oranges as well.

Except that you have not shown any evidence of the rotting of the "oranges".  Just saying so does not make it so.

Originally posted by Kish

So, I pose the same question to you as I pose to Hasan, did salvation come after Jesus or after Muhammad?

Brother Hasan has already answered your question.  Jesus (pbuh) was sent only to the Jews.  If they believed in him, they would be saved.  Those who took him as a god were disbelievers and will not be saved.  Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to all mankind, and so everyone must believe in him and his message in order to be saved.  Belief in all the prophets is a requirement for salvation, but the Quran supersedes the previous revelations.       

Before I close, I noticed you had nothing to say about the points I raised concerning the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament.  These differences categorically refute the claim that the two uphold each other. 


-------------
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)



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 25 July 2011 at 5:36pm
Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by honeto

We will not be judged by an older scripture as the Quran is the last one sent for all of us that live or born after its arrival, and we will be judged by its standards.

The Holy Scriptures would disagree, as you would agree that the oneness of God establishes itself within the Torah first, Psalms second, Gospel third and the Quran fourth if you will. What you are misunderstanding is that God’s principles NEVER change but his LAWS could. Life’s key principles, of course, are spiritual.

Isaiah 40:8 “The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.”

Divine principles do not become outdated or pass away. The inspired words of the prophet Isaiah proves true.

Originally posted by honeto

 The Quran, as the pure word of God is complete for a beleiver to live this life sucessfully as well as to work toward the next, a desireable hereafter "the Salvation".

Which I respect, however Christians alike view the Gospel as pure but see Jesus as their only salvation, which becomes a major issue not because of what the Quran says about Jesus but what it failed to say about Jesus.

1 John 4:14, 15 In addition, we ourselves have beheld and are bearing witness that the Father has sent forth his Son as Savior of the world. 15 Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God.  

Acts 5:31 God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.  

This is the whole point of the Gospel (Good News) which the Quran acknowledges but rejects this fundamental truth.

Originally posted by honeto

On  the issue of Gospel being sent to fulfill the Law, do you think these things mantioned in the OT really could be ever fulfilled or that this was part of the fulfillment what Jesus meant, I will just quote a few of these OT quotes, there are many others like them:

First you must understand the purpose of the Law and why it was giving ONLY to the Nation of Israel, do you know why? Second question which you posed, did Israel fulfill the law perfectly’? Nonetheless, Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly; the Gospel was only the forum that was used to get it out there to the people after Jesus, Muhammad and millions of others who would benefit from its message.

Would you say Muhammad benefited from his message, most Muslims would agree that he did, why else would it be mentioned over and over again in the Quran.  

If most if not all Muslims would agree, how did salvation move away from Jesus and his followers to Muhammad and his followers?  

Matthew 1:21 She (Mary) will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins

Acts 4:12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.

Again, Divine principles do not become outdated or pass away and salvation is a divine principle.

Do you believe that God’s written instruction for life (Salvation) can be in both the Holy Scriptures and the Quran? From the points that were made in the scriptures above Christians would say no, and rightly so.

My question to Hasan is, did salvation come to all mankind after Jesus or after Muhammad?

Kish

 Kish,
I never said God's principles change. I will add, nor does Hid Godhood. Unlike the Christian Trinity which never existed or mentioned in any previous scriptures or Hindu, Greek, Roman multiple gods, God has always been One and Only.
What I said and say again is that previous scriptures are no longer in their " pure word of God" status. The only reason God sent His pure word and a warner, a prophet again and agian was due to fact that people would due to their disbelief would deny and alter God's word to fit their purpose. As there also are people who stand up for the truth, the ones who seek God's guidence, God blesses them with His pure word. If you read my line that you quoted, it clearly speaks to what I mean. There is no other why there were so many prophets sent in various times to various people.
 
The answer to your question is in my above explaination. If I had lived in the time of Jesus (pbuh) and after him until God sent prophet Mohammed (pbuh) I would have salvation through following what God revealed through Jesus (pbuh). After God sent His Final Testament to Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and since I live in time following him, to achieve salvation I must follow what  God revealed for mine, your and all that will come yet, till the end.
 
I understand that there are good instructions of benefit in many books from before, but have human element of imperfection in them, thus may take us wrong way without knowing. And for that very purpose, the All knowing has blessed us with a pure word from Himself for our guidance.
 
Hasan
 


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 25 July 2011 at 5:46pm
Jack, I mean, Larry, I mean Kish,
you wrote: "... On the other hand the teaching of Jesus and salvation is consistent within the Gospel"
Is this suppose to be a joke, or are you serious about this, are you? please let me know so I can open my notes on the two most contraditory issues of the Bible, "Jesus and Salvation" that you claim to be without contradiction in the Bible. Please don't take offence, I am serious, I just want to know if you are?
Thanks,
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 26 July 2011 at 10:04am

Originally posted by islamispeace

   As I have said several times now, when the Quran speaks positively of the Torah and Gospel, it is referring to the original revelations, not the edited versions.  Once you understand this, you will how see misguided your question is. 

If what you say has any truth to it and this is not just an assumption because of what you believe as a Muslim, serious implication are now put on the Quran and Islam as well.

1st Where are the so-called “original” or copies of the original Gospel that you speak of to show its corruption, at a Museum?  

2nd What are you comparing the Gospel account to too show up these corruptions? 

3nd Why did not Jesus say the Torah and the Gospel was corrupted as Muhammad says it is?

4th Why would Prophet Muhammad frequently include and recognize these instructions for life from the Gospel and refer to them as the word of God in the Quran?

5th If they were corrupted before Muhammad, what date and by whom, at least twelve other verses say that the Quran was written for the purpose of confirming these books?

Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgments on Allah’s revelations.” (S) 5:46, 47.

Judge in accordance, how could you if the Gospel Muhammad had been corrupted?

6th If they were corrupted after you should be able to show the verses of the alleged corruption, and compare them to what as you say to the “pristine” or “uncorrupted” version”?

7th What would prevent this ‘final’ revelation from getting corrupted or edited since it happened before as you say, maybe it could happen again, again and again although God previously promised that it wouldn’t?

So many implications as you can readily see!

However, Isaiah 40:8. “The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.”

I’ll wait to see your uncorrupted version and if you’re unable to provide that which you likely are, it is only because the Quran that came centuries later disagrees with the Bible, which of course is why you disagree. That is quite understandable since the Quran does not teach Salvation through Jesus.

But don’t expect the Gospel and the Torah to confirm and conform to a book that was completed several hundred years later which is what it sounds like you’re doing.

Example; as you say your Quran…….

Originally posted by islamispeace

   routinely criticizes the beliefs of the Jews and Christians which can be found in their scriptures.

 I would expect so since Islam does not accept Jesus as the ransom sacrifice of the son of God but the Jews who converted over to Christianity did because of what the Mosaic Law in the Torah prepared them for, which was the Great Sacrifice of the Lamb (Sheep) of God, Jesus. If you were aware of the use of the word lamb (Sheep) in the Torah “Old Testament” and what those sacrifices represented you would know why Jesus is referred to as the sacrificial Lamb (Sheep) of God in the Gospel “New Testament.” 

John 1:29 See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!”

Isa. 53:7 “He was being brought just like a lamb to the slaughtering.”

Originally posted by islamispeace

   Furthermore, the Gospels present a Jesus who is both human and divine. 

And the Quran does not.

Originally posted by islamispeace

    This is a new and extraordinary concept and one which requires extraordinary evidence. 

Like the virgin birth of Mary? That was certainly a new and extraordinary concept and the Quran acknowledges and also agrees!

God caused Christ to die, raised him to life, and then lifted him up to Him. (S) 3:55, 19:33, NJD

God rendered him to be in honor in this world and forever after and in the company of those nearest to God. (S) 3:45.  

Is it not true that Jesus died as a human before he was resurrected to heaven? It said in the Quran that Jesus died. Perhaps it requires more faith on your part.

Originally posted by islamispeace

   First, I have already provided some evidence to prove the corruption of the Gospels.

No, you only showed how one can interpret or misinterpret a scripture. In order to prove corruption you have to show texts of what was said originally in the scriptures which you cannot. You only showed what the Church fathers wrote afterward but the Church fathers did not write the Gospel.

(Genesis 40:8) “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Not to the church fathers and scholars who are not inspired)

Originally posted by islamispeace

Second, I have already refuted #2 several times. 

 Yea, so the Quran did not mean what it said about the Gospel being a book of guidance and light.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Third, #1, #3 and #4 are non-sequiturs which you have yet to prove.  Which eye-witnesses are you referring to? 

Acts 2:41 Therefore those who embraced his word heartily were baptized, and on that day about three thousand souls were added

Acts 5:28 “We positively ordered YOU not to keep teaching upon the basis of this name, and yet, look! YOU have filled Jerusalem with YOUR teaching, and YOU are determined to bring the blood of this man upon us.

Acts 6:7 Consequently the word of God went on growing, and the number of the disciples kept multiplying in Jerusalem very much; and a great crowd of priests began to be obedient to the faith.

Originally posted by kish

Luke 1:1-3 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The·ophi·lus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally

Acts 1:3 To these also by many positive proofs he showed himself alive after he had suffered, being seen by them throughout forty days and telling the things about the kingdom of God.

(S) 4:162 But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee:

Again, eyewitnesses have been established and If you don’t believe in the eye-witnesses of the Gospel believe at least in what (S) 4:162 and what was revealed before Muhammad, but as you say “it was edited” although you or anyone else can present any texts that can verify your assumptions and accusations.

Originally posted by islamispeace

    How did he "fulfill" the Law?  If anything, the Gospels say that he broke the Law on many occasions and so did his disciples.

The Quran disregards how Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Law, the Gospel tells us as I’ve mentioned already. Also, you fail to realize that Isaiah prophetically pictures Jesus, read Isaiah chapter 6 Jesus is a holy seed bringing the Kingdom of God (Isaiah 53:10 & 8:18) another topic! So this is very much in harmony with the Old Testament and a contradiction to the Quran.

Originally posted by islamispeace

    I never referred to the apocryphal books.  I referred to a popular passage from the Gospel of John which historical evidence suggests was not in the original Gospel but was added later.  If this is not proof of corruption, then I don't know what is. 

Whether YOU refer to them as apocryphal is irrelevant, the Catholic writers do as I quoted from them and which deuterocanonical means. But as you yourself said, they were not of the original which I agree; they were added as I also agree. But if that is corruption, on who’s part God, the Gospel or imperfect men? Imperfect men! You put too much trust in scholars; put trust in God’s Holy word NOT scholars and critics I believe this is seriously confusing you and Hasan greatly understanding not only 'pure true Christianity' but the Quran! 

At that time the Hebrew Scripture canon had already been fixed and did not include any apocryphal books according to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus “There are not with us myriads of books, discordant and discrepant, but only two and twenty [the equivalent of the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], comprising the history of all time, which are justly accredited.” - Against Apion, Book I, par. 8 (according to the translation in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 163)

Originally posted by islamispeace

Yes, they were accepted by 2nd century Christians who were not alive when Jesus preached.  That does not prove their authenticity. 
 

 Not true, they were accepted by first century Christians and Jesus immediate followers (Jews then later non-Jews) then they came in by the 1000’s in the beginning of the 1st Century (33 C.E.) by eye=witnesses as I mentioned right after his death, what great faith, they were not afraid to die for their belief in the Christ to gain salvation! (Read Acts chapter 1, 2 if you like.) Then many more in the 2nd Century believed; all this took place shortly after Jesus death, the Quran does not even come close to the amount of eye-witnesses when it comes to Muhammad and what he accomplished within his life time on the earth and even after, does that prove its authenticity? Islam was divided after Muhammad’s death and people were  assassinated or murdered within.

As Philip Hitti states: “The caliphate is therefore the oldest problem Islam had to face. It is still a living issue. . . . In the words of Muslim historian al-Shahrastāni [1086-1153]: ‘Never was there an Islamic issue which brought about more bloodshed than the caliphate (imāmah).’”

Translator Muhammad Pickthall writes: “All the surahs of the Qur’an had been recorded in writing before the Prophet’s death, and many Muslims had committed the whole Qur’an to memory. But the written surahs were dispersed among the people; and when, in a battle . . . a large number of those who knew the whole Qur’an by heart were killed, a collection of the whole Qur’an was made and put in writing.”

What a double standard you have presented to me about authenticity when only a collection of the Quran was put in writing after the fact.

Originally posted by islamispeace

But, the same Christians who you say accepted the Gospels as accurate also accepted the trinity as the true teaching.  Why do you take their word for it when it comes to the Gospels' accuracy but not for their acceptance of the trinity?
 

That’s an individual choice right, but the Trinity is not a original Christian teaching it started in ancient Babylon first, not Jerusalem.

The Trinity concept stems from ancient Babylon, where the sun-god Shamash, the moon god Sin, and the star god Ishtar (Same star used in Islam) were worshipped as a triad. Egypt followed the same pattern, worshipping Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Assyria’s chief god, Asshur, is portrayed as having three heads. Following the same pattern, images are to be found in Catholic churches depicting God as having three heads.

Besides, I take the word of the “Gospel Writers” Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not additional writings like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon.

Remember, Churchmen or fathers only wrote about Christianity in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. Some of them were Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, and Papias. If the apostles taught the Trinity doctrine, then yes those Apostolic Fathers should have taught it too but no evidence support the Apostles taught that theory. Whether other writers later on consciously or unconsciously feel into what Jesus prophesied about, the “weed and the wheat class” that’s a whole other story.

Originally posted by islamispeace

For sure, the trinity was invented by the Church fathers, but it was done to harmonize the seemingly blasphemous verses from the Gospels which showed Jesus as a god. 
 

Which one(s)? “seemingly?” However, the early Christians and Apostolic fathers did not accept that concept at all I believe.

One of the earliest non-Biblical statements of Christian faith is found in a book of 16 short chapters known as The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some historians date it before or about the year 100 C.E. Its author is unknown.2

The Didache deals with things people would need to know to become Christians. In its 7th chapter, it prescribes baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” the same words Jesus used at Matthew 28:19.3 But it says nothing about the three being equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom which is what the Trinity theory teaches.

Clement of Rome, thought to have been a “bishop” in that city, is another early source of writings on Christianity. It is believed that he died about 100 C.E. In the material said to have been written by him, he makes no mention of a Trinity, either directly or indirectly. In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, he states:

“Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.”

“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.”

Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, lived from about the middle of the first century C.E. to early in the second century. Assuming that all the writings attributed to him were authentic, in none of them is there an equality of Father, Son, and holy spirit.

Ignatius calls Almighty God “the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,” showing the distinction between God and His Son.9 He speaks of “God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”10 And he declares: “There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son.”11

9. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, page 52.

10. Ibid., page 58.

11. Ibid., page 62.

Thus, in those late-first-century and early-second-century writings of the Apostolic Fathers, there is no support for Christendom’s Trinity. They spoke of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit just as the Bible does. Look, for example, at Acts 7:55, 56:

Originally posted by kish

So, I pose the same question to you as I pose to Hasan,
did salvation come after Jesus or after Muhammad?

You said

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Brother Hasan has already answered your question.  Jesus (pbuh) was sent only to the Jews.  If they believed in him, they would be saved.

That answer is only partly right, some Jews (Above) not all  believed and were saved (Those who accepted Christ) and they did not have any concept of the trinity in there teachings and nether do "True Christians" (Like myself), besides Jesus was sent to the world of mankind, first to the Jews because of the covenant with Abraham. But, they failed to honor that covenant, so then sent to non-Jews in 36 C.E. which is mentioned here in Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius, the first uncircumcised Gentile convert.

 Kish



-------------


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 27 July 2011 at 12:50pm
Originally posted by honeto

Is this suppose to be a joke, or are you serious about this, are you? please let me know so I can open my notes on the two most contraditory issues of the Bible, "Jesus and Salvation" that you claim to be without contradiction in the Bible.


(Je′sus) [Latin form of the Greek I·e·sous′, which corresponds to the Hebrew Ye·shu′a‛ or Yehoh·shu′a‛ and means “יהוה [Jehovah/YHVH] God Is Salvation”].

Now, that we know Salvation is only tied to Jesus' name, you can continue amusing yourself from your misquoting, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the scriptures that the Quran openly acknowledges and indirectly lends support to.

Kish



-------------


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 27 July 2011 at 7:54pm
Exactly Kish,
you are a joke, what you write is a joke.
Just look at how you start, and now how you are talking. Read the following, what you wrote first, you prove it was a joke as well.
You come out in the cover of a sheep, at least that's what it looks like here:

"Where can I find God’s written instructions for life?That is my Question. I read, read and read but I know more is needed to please God fully. To be honest it’s quite wearisome at times reading different sacred books. From what I’ve read God does not speak to us directly as he did in the past so how does he communicate with people today? There are good people in every religion but I’m more of a spiritual person then a religious one. It seems that all the prophets did great things but that’s back then, what about now?  

I’m trying to find out which of the sacred books can stand the test of time (scrutinize). Can a person judge a religion by its followers, I guess, I really don’t know at this point. What I do know is that God is omnipotent and he offers something better and I can’t convince myself that he left it all up to chance. So, I’m concerned with the hard core facts, what his written word has to say and I guess everything else will work themselves out eventually.    

Where can I find God’s written instructions for life and please provide me with references (texts) so I can research it and compare one with the other and if I have any questions I’ll present them back here on this forum.    

Thanks in advance,

Kish"

It amazing, right and then you make funny statements like "Iesous somehow coreresponds to Hebrew Yeshua" keep making up things Kish and only you and those like you can admire such laughable conclusions. But I hope you seek God's guidance may be He will guide you. And I guess you coming to this website in search of truth will bring  you some fruit at the end, hopefully.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 28 July 2011 at 3:24pm

Originally posted by honeto

Just look at how you start, and now how you are talking.

I’m sorry, what did I miss and what did I say? I didn’t think talking about God was a joke Hasan.

Originally posted by kish

I’m concerned with the hard core facts, what his written word has to say and I guess everything else will work themselves out eventually. Where can I find God’s written instructions for life and please provide me with references (texts) so I can research it and compare one with the other and if I have any questions I’ll present them back here on this forum. 

I didn’t know asking questions and researching answers was a joke. But I guess you’re easily amused, I have no problems with that.

Originally posted by honeto

It amazing, right and then you make funny statements like "Iesous somehow coreresponds to Hebrew Yeshua" keep making up things Kish and only you and those like you can admire such laughable conclusions.

Are you saying that I made this up, because the Septuagint, a Greek Bible has the name reading I·e·sous for (Jesus).

Also, the Hebrew form of “Jesus” is “Jehoshuah,” which is an abbreviated form of “Jehovah-yeshua,” meaning “Jehovah is salvation. And according to the Aramaic language which Christ and his apostles spoke, his name was pronounced “Yeshua”

The Greek transliteration ησος (Iēsous) *jesu-os → http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Greek - - ˈ - [j - ˈ - ʕ] (top two) and Late Biblical Hebrew Yeshua http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Hebrew - - ˈ - ʕ] (bottom).

The English name Jesus derives from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin - Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine - Koine Greek name ησος Iēsoûs.

Anyway, you made your point and I made mines, but you said nothing on the supposed contradiction of “Jesus and Salvation” which as explained means his very name!

Kish



-------------


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 28 July 2011 at 4:33pm
Originally posted by Kish

1st Where are the so-called “original” or copies of the original Gospel that you speak of to show its corruption, at a Museum?


There are no surviving "original' copies because all we have today are accounts written in Greek, instead of in Aramaic, which is the language Jesus (pbuh) spoke.  Heck, we don't even have the original Greek manuscripts!  As Bart Ehrman puts it, all we have are "copies of copies".  The irony is that even those copies show tell-tale signs of corruption.  There are numerous additions, deletions and alterations which prove clearly that the Gospels underwent several evolutions before they reached the "final" form which we have today. 

Originally posted by Kish

2nd What are you comparing the Gospel account to too show up these corruptions?
 

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

Originally posted by Kish

3nd Why did not Jesus say the Torah and the Gospel was corrupted as Muhammad says it is?
 

You still cannot understand the absurdity of this question.  How do you know Jesus did not say this?  In order to prove that he did not say this, you would have to prove that the Gospel accounts are accurate.  You have not done that.  On the other hand, I have provided evidence that the Gospel accounts are not accurate or historically reliable. 

Originally posted by Kish

4th Why would Prophet Muhammad frequently include and recognize these instructions for life from the Gospel and refer to them as the word of God in the Quran?


He referred to the previous scriptures to confirm the truth that has survived, such as the truth of the Oneness of God.  It was in no way an endorsement of the entire collection of writings, some of which clearly contradict the teaching of authentic monotheism.

Originally posted by Kish

5th If they were corrupted before Muhammad, what date and by whom, at least twelve other verses say that the Quran was written for the purpose of confirming these books?
 

They were not corrupted all at once or by one person.  They "evolved" over the course of several decades and centuries before a "final" product was accepted.  Even the early Church fathers knew of this evolution.  For example, Origen wrote the following (as quoted by Ehrman):

""The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please" (Misquoting Jesus, p. 52)."

This is pretty damning testimony from a prolific Christian writer.

Originally posted by Kish

Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgments on Allah’s revelations.” (S) 5:46, 47.

Judge in accordance, how could you if the Gospel Muhammad had been corrupted?

The same surah also accuses the Jews and Christians of forgetting a large portion of the message sent to them.  I have already quoted the relevant verses.  Furthermore, you are completely misunderstanding verse.  Perhaps we should let Ibn Kathir clarify it for us:

"(Let the people of the Injil judge by what Allah has revealed therein.) meaning, so that He judges the people of the Injil by it in their time. Or, the Ayah means, so that they believe in all that is in it and adhere to all its commands, including the good news about the coming of Muhammad and the command to believe in and follow him when he is sent."  

Obviously, the prophecy of Muhammad's coming is not present in the Gospels, unless you believe that "parakletos" was the Greek corruption of the original Aramaic.  Either way, it is obvious that the Quran is not referring to the current "Gospels".

Originally posted by Kish

6th If they were corrupted after you should be able to show the verses of the alleged corruption, and compare them to what as you say to the “pristine” or “uncorrupted” version”?

I have already shown you one example of a passage which was added later on, to which you have yet to respond.  All you have been doing is running in circles and resorting to special pleading.  There are many examples which any serious student of New Testament criticism would be aware of.  If you want more examples, I suggest you read Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" as well as Vermes' "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus". 

Originally posted by Kish

7th What would prevent this ‘final’ revelation from getting corrupted or edited since it happened before as you say, maybe it could happen again, again and again although God previously promised that it wouldn’t?
  

It certainly could, but it hasn't.  God promised to protect the final revelation.  It says so in the same Quran you have been trying to (mis)quote:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)." (15:9)

In order to cast doubt on this matter, you would actually have to show clear-cut examples (like I have shown with the Gospels) instead of playing the "would" or "could" game. 

Originally posted by Kish

So many implications as you can readily see!

Yes, and most of them are completely ridiculous, as I have shown!

Originally posted by Kish

However, Isaiah 40:8. “The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.”

Apparently, someone forgot to show this to Jeremiah:

8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah 8:8)

How could the word endure "forever" yet also be falsely "handled" by scribes? 

Originally posted by Kish

I’ll wait to see your uncorrupted version and if you’re unable to provide that which you likely are, it is only because the Quran that came centuries later disagrees with the Bible, which of course is why you disagree. That is quite understandable since the Quran does not teach Salvation through Jesus.

Until you provide a reasonable excuse for why someone decided to add the Pericope de Adultera to the Gospel of John, the only thing I can assume is that you are ignoring the evidence.   

Also, the Quran teaches salvation through God only, not through a man.  So of course it disagrees with the Gospels.  The Old Testament, even in its less than pristine form, argues the same thing.  Christians have had to misquote the Old Testament, mangling out of context verses to try to prove that their half man/half god (sounds like Greek mythology) was sent to die for their sins.  

Originally posted by Kish

But don’t expect the Gospel and the Torah to confirm and conform to a book that was completed several hundred years later which is what it sounds like you’re doing.

I don't.  That is what you are trying to do.  I know better.

Originally posted by Kish

I would expect so since Islam does not accept Jesus as the ransom sacrifice of the son of God but the Jews who converted over to Christianity did because of what the Mosaic Law in the Torah prepared them for, which was the Great Sacrifice of the Lamb (Sheep) of God, Jesus. If you were aware of the use of the word lamb (Sheep) in the Torah “Old Testament” and what those sacrifices represented you would know why Jesus is referred to as the sacrificial Lamb (Sheep) of God in the Gospel “New Testament.” 

John 1:29 See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!”

Isa. 53:7 “He was being brought just like a lamb to the slaughtering.

This is exactly what I meant when I said that Christians resort to mangling OT verses out of context to line up with their NT beliefs.  Are you sure you are not a Christian, because your M.O. resembles theirs very closely?  Isaiah 53 is oft-quoted by zealous Christians but it is always out of context.  Anyone who reads the entire chapter would realize there is no way this can be referring to the Messiah.  For example, read Isaiah 53:10 which states:

"Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes #fen-NIV-18722c - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2053&version=NIV#fen-NIV-18722c - c ] his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand."

Since when did Jesus have "offspring"?  It is obvious that the chapter is not talking about any one person.  Instead, it is a metaphor for the nation of Israel.  In fact, if you actually took the time to research this a little more, you would know that the "servant" was clearly identified in Isaiah 49:3 as the nation of Israel:

"He said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”"

Originally posted by Kish

And the Quran does not.

And neither does the Old Testament.  Therefore, the Gospels introduced a new concept which was never taught before.  This is not a problem for the Muslim or the Jew, but it is for the Christian. 

Originally posted by Kish

Like the virgin birth of Mary? That was certainly a new and extraordinary concept and the Quran acknowledges and also agrees!

Now you are just resorting to red herrings.  How is a miraculous birth an "extraordinary concept"?  God created Adam without a father and mother!  Surely, the virgin birth is not a new concept nor is it extremely difficult for the Almighty! 

The point is, which you failed to refute, is that the idea of a human/god hybrid is a new concept which is foreign to monotheism and is more akin to Greek mythology and that for serious monotheists to accept it as the truth would require extraordinary scriptural evidence.

Originally posted by Kish

Is it not true that Jesus died as a human before he was resurrected to heaven? It said in the Quran that Jesus died. Perhaps it requires more faith on your part.

No, it does not.  The Quran says he was not crucified and was raised alive to Heaven.  Also, he was born a human and remained a human.  He was not part human, part God.  This blasphemy is rightfully condemned in the Quran.

Originally posted by Kish

No, you only showed how one can interpret or misinterpret a scripture. In order to prove corruption you have to show texts of what was said originally in the scriptures which you cannot. You only showed what the Church fathers wrote afterward but the Church fathers did not write the Gospel.

I always get a kick out of people who ask for examples of corruption and when they are shown examples, they resort to special pleading and straw-man arguments.  I showed you a clear example of a passage (the Pericope de Adultera) which scholars believe was not in the original (which of course has not survived).  The spurious nature of this passage is proven by the fact that it is found in some late manuscripts but not in the earlier manuscripts.  You have yet to respond to this damning proof of the corruption of the Gospels.  And this is just one example out of many!

Originally posted by Kish

(Genesis 40:8) “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Not to the church fathers and scholars who are not inspired)

Yet another misquote of the Hebrew Bible.  How ironic given that you accused me of "misinterpreting" scripture.  What does Genesis 40:8 actually say?  Let us look:

"8 “We both had dreams,” they answered, “but there is no one to interpret them.”

   Then Joseph said to them, “Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell me your dreams.”"

As you can see, this is not even talking about interpreting scripture but dreams!  And if you keep reading, you will see that Joseph actually interprets the dreams! 

The moral of the story, Kish, is to not accuse someone of "misinterpreting" scripture when you are as guilty as anyone else.  An old Arab proverb states:

"Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Originally posted by Kish

Yea, so the Quran did not mean what it said about the Gospel being a book of guidance and light.

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

Originally posted by Kish

Acts 2:41 Therefore those who embraced his word heartily were baptized, and on that day about three thousand souls were added

Acts 5:28 “We positively ordered YOU not to keep teaching upon the basis of this name, and yet, look! YOU have filled Jerusalem with YOUR teaching, and YOU are determined to bring the blood of this man upon us.

Acts 6:7 Consequently the word of God went on growing, and the number of the disciples kept multiplying in Jerusalem very much; and a great crowd of priests began to be obedient to the faith.

Oh I see.  To prove the Gospel writers' claims of many witnesses, you refer to the Gospel writers own testimony?  Okay.  You know yesterday I saw Bigfoot and so did about a 100 other people. I don't know who they were so you will just have to take my word for it that there were witnesses.  Therefore, Bigfoot must be real because so many people saw it. 

Obviously, you have no actual evidence that there were many witnesses, just as I would have no evidence that many people saw Bigfoot with me.  So, all you have done is to commit a circular argument fallacy.  So I ask again.  What witnesses are you referring to?  What were their names?  Do we have their personal testimonies?

Originally posted by Kish

Again, eyewitnesses have been established and If you don’t believe in the eye-witnesses of the Gospel believe at least in what (S) 4:162 and what was revealed before Muhammad, but as you say “it was edited” although you or anyone else can present any texts that can verify your assumptions and accusations.
    

Your repeated attempts to continue to (mis)quote the Quran will fall on deaf ears since you have been unable to refute anything I have written about the Quran's teachings about the previous revelations.  All you have been doing is repeating ad nauseum the same argument while ignoring the facts.  Unless you have something new to say with regard to this issue, please don't keep repeating the same argument which has been explained enough times already.

Originally posted by Kish

The Quran disregards how Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Law, the Gospel tells us as I’ve mentioned already. Also, you fail to realize that Isaiah prophetically pictures Jesus, read Isaiah chapter 6 Jesus is a holy seed bringing the Kingdom of God (Isaiah 53:10 & 8:18) another topic! So this is very much in harmony with the Old Testament and a contradiction to the Quran.
     

This is of course absurd since you completely failed to respond to the fact that Isaiah 59:21 clearly says that the covenant was supposed to last forever.  So, either there is a contradiction in Isaiah or you are misinterpreting Isaiah or the NT contradicts the OT.  Either way, it is a problem for you and not for me. 

Concerning Isaiah 53, I have proven conclusively that it is not referring to the Messiah but to the nation of Israel.  I will wait for your response. 

Originally posted by Kish

Whether YOU refer to them as apocryphal is irrelevant, the Catholic writers do as I quoted from them and which deuterocanonical means. But as you yourself said, they were not of the original which I agree; they were added as I also agree. But if that is corruption, on who’s part God, the Gospel or imperfect men? Imperfect men! You put too much trust in scholars; put trust in God’s Holy word NOT scholars and critics I believe this is seriously confusing you and Hasan greatly understanding not only 'pure true Christianity' but the Quran!

Certainly, I am not the only one who refers to them as the apocrypha.  Scholars of NT criticism also refer to them as apocrypha and so do non-Catholic Christians.  The Protestants regard them as apocrypha and "uninspired". 

Too much trust in scholars?  Who should I trust then?  You?  A lay person?  A guy who apparently does not even believe in any religion (although I am starting to doubt that given your stringent defense of Christian scripture)?  Come on. 

The corruption is due to imperfect men who clearly were making stuff up to push their own agendas.  It is hard to imagine any other reason for why there were so many "gospels" in circulation and why there are so many differences even between the "canonized" gospels. 

Originally posted by Kish

At that time the Hebrew Scripture canon had already been fixed and did not include any apocryphal books according to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus “There are not with us myriads of books, discordant and discrepant, but only two and twenty [the equivalent of the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], comprising the history of all time, which are justly accredited.” - Against Apion, Book I, par. 8 (according to the translation in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 163)

This is interesting given that the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) contains 24 books, not 22 books.  Therefore, Josephus' list was not complete and differs from the modern Tanakh. 

Originally posted by Kish

Not true, they were accepted by first century Christians and Jesus immediate followers (Jews then later non-Jews) then they came in by the 1000’s in the beginning of the 1st Century (33 C.E.) by eye=witnesses as I mentioned right after his death, what great faith, they were not afraid to die for their belief in the Christ to gain salvation! (Read Acts chapter 1, 2 if you like.) Then many more in the 2nd Century believed; all this took place shortly after Jesus death, the Quran does not even come close to the amount of eye-witnesses when it comes to Muhammad and what he accomplished within his life time on the earth and even after, does that prove its authenticity? Islam was divided after Muhammad’s death and people were  assassinated or murdered within.

You have absolutely no evidence to show that 1st century Christians already accepted all of the Gospels.  The evidence for the evolving canon can be seen by the writings of the same Church fathers you refer to.  Let us consider the three most famous 2nd century Church fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons:

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

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

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

From the above, we see a clear evolution.  Even if we accept that Justin Martyr may have referred to the Gospel of John, it is clear that in the early 2nd century, Ignatius was familiar with only Matthew and Luke.  Therefore, the popularity and usage of the Gospels clearly changed over the course of the 2nd century.  Therefore, the Christian canon evolved!  Since 2nd century Christians clearly had different ideas of what the canon represented, it is absurd to suggest that 1st century Christians already had accepted all of the Gospels and had a unified canon.   

Originally posted by Kish

Translator Muhammad Pickthall writes: “All the surahs of the Qur’an had been recorded in writing before the Prophet’s death, and many Muslims had committed the whole Qur’an to memory. But the written surahs were dispersed among the people; and when, in a battle . . . a large number of those who knew the whole Qur’an by heart were killed, a collection of the whole Qur’an was made and put in writing.”

What a double standard you have presented to me about authenticity when only a collection of the Quran was put in writing after the fact.

The double standard is clearly on your part and so is the manipulation of the facts.  You completely ignore the fact that Pickthall said clearly that "all the surahs...had been recorded in writing before the Prophet's death..."  The first collection was done under Abu Bakr (ra), the successor to Muhammad (pbuh) but the Quran was already complete.  It just had not been brought together in book form, which was not that important at the time.  Furthermore, as Pickthall pointed out, many Muslims had memorized the Quran in its entirety so any attempts to change the Quran would have been instantly recognized and stopped.  No such fail-safe existed for the Bible.  Unfortunately, this is why we have so many variant manuscripts and canons of the Bible.

Originally posted by Kish

That’s an individual choice right, but the Trinity is not a original Christian teaching it started in ancient Babylon first, not Jerusalem.

How is it an "individual choice"?  This is pure special pleading.  Would God be happy with those people for following a teaching which originated in a pagan culture?

The Trinity concept stems from ancient Babylon, where the sun-god Shamash, the moon god Sin, and the star god Ishtar (Same star used in Islam) were worshipped as a triad. Egypt followed the same pattern, worshipping Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Assyria’s chief god, Asshur, is portrayed as having three heads. Following the same pattern, images are to be found in Catholic churches depicting God as having three heads

This is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the trinity was developed to explain the verses which showed Jesus as a divine being who was to be worshiped.  This was the only way to harmonize the Gospels which clearly differed from the monotheism of the Jews.  This is further elucidated below.

Originally posted by Kish

Remember, Churchmen or fathers only wrote about Christianity in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. Some of them were Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, and Papias. If the apostles taught the Trinity doctrine, then yes those Apostolic Fathers should have taught it too but no evidence support the Apostles taught that theory. Whether other writers later on consciously or unconsciously feel into what Jesus prophesied about, the “weed and the wheat class” that’s a whole other story.

This only goes to prove that the original message of Jesus was corrupted by Christians.  Furthermore, of the fathers you mentioned above, Ignatius does indeed mention this heresy in his Epistle to the Magnesians:

"Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union beth fleshly and spiritual." ( http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-magnesians-roberts.html - Chapter 13 )

Originally posted by Kish

Which one(s)? “seemingly?” However, the early Christians and Apostolic fathers did not accept that concept at all I believe.

Every verse which makes Jesus appear as a god had to be harmonized with the monotheistic teachings of the Jews because otherwise, they would imply the existence of multiple gods.  Verses like Titus 2:12-14 clearly show Jesus as a divine being:

"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."  

Originally posted by Kish

One of the earliest non-Biblical statements of Christian faith is found in a book of 16 short chapters known as The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some historians date it before or about the year 100 C.E. Its author is unknown.2

Which is why it was not accepted into the canon.  But go on...

Originally posted by Kish

The Didache deals with things people would need to know to become Christians. In its 7th chapter, it prescribes baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” the same words Jesus used at Matthew 28:19.3 But it says nothing about the three being equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom which is what the Trinity theory teaches.

But then this would be a blasphemy since baptism should only be done in the name of God alone.  Adding the son and Holy Spirit into the mix would imply equality.  It would be like a Muslim like me saying "In the name of Allah and Muhammad".  Such a statement would be anathema to Muslims as it would imply that Allah and Muhammad are equals, astagfirAllah! 

In addition, the Didache is problematic since it fails to mention the two most important doctrines in Christian teaching: the death and resurrection of Jesus and the redeeming nature of his death.  How do you explain this?

Originally posted by Kish

Clement of Rome, thought to have been a “bishop” in that city, is another early source of writings on Christianity. It is believed that he died about 100 C.E. In the material said to have been written by him, he makes no mention of a Trinity, either directly or indirectly. In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, he states:

“Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.”

“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.”

Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, lived from about the middle of the first century C.E. to early in the second century. Assuming that all the writings attributed to him were authentic, in none of them is there an equality of Father, Son, and holy spirit.

Ignatius calls Almighty God “the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,” showing the distinction between God and His Son.9 He speaks of “God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”10 And he declares: “There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son.”11

9. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, page 52.

10. Ibid., page 58.

11. Ibid., page 62.

Thus, in those late-first-century and early-second-century writings of the Apostolic Fathers, there is no support for Christendom’s Trinity. They spoke of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit just as the Bible does. Look, for example, at Acts 7:55, 56:

See above regarding Ignatius.

Originally posted by Kish

That answer is only partly right, some Jews (Above) not all  believed and were saved (Those who accepted Christ) and they did not have any concept of the trinity in there teachings and nether do "True Christians" (Like myself), besides Jesus was sent to the world of mankind, first to the Jews because of the covenant with Abraham. But, they failed to honor that covenant, so then sent to non-Jews in 36 C.E. which is mentioned here in Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius, the first uncircumcised Gentile convert.

So now you are a "true Christian"?  Since when?  If you are a Christian, why didn't you say so in the first place?

Regarding your claim about Jesus and the covenant, I will let Geza Vermes answer for me:

"For if there is one certain conclusion which no serious reader...can escape, it is that these hundreds of sayings have not been produced by one and the same teacher.  They patently represent irreconcilable variations, indeed again and again they display flat contradictions.  Jesus could not declare the proclamation of the good news to be restricted to Jews alone, yet simultaneously wish it to be addressed to all the nations of the earth" ("The Authentic Gospel of Jesus", p. 370).

Also, you said to brother Hasan:

Originally posted by Kish

(Je′sus) [Latin form of the Greek I·e·sous′, which corresponds to the Hebrew Ye·shu′a‛ or Yehoh·shu′a‛ and means “יהוה [Jehovah/YHVH] God Is Salvation”].

Now, that we know Salvation is only tied to Jesus' name, you can continue amusing yourself from your misquoting, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the scriptures that the Quran openly acknowledges and indirectly lends support to.

This is a patently absurd statement.  The fact is that salvation is NOT only "tied to Jesus' name".  Among the other Hebrew names which are "tied to salvation" are:

1. Elisha (My God is Salvation)

2. Hoshea (literally meaning Salvation)

3. Isaiah (Yahweh is Salvation)

Please do some research before making false statements.



-------------
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)



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 28 July 2011 at 4:47pm

Salam,

very detailed and learned reply Islamispeace, may Allah reward you and give you strength to keep spreading the truth. I am just amazed how Kish starts in the first post like really want to learn and then become and acts just like Larry and Jack, self pretending all knowing, and fact denying.
Jakallah,
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 28 July 2011 at 11:11pm

So, your response against points #1 - #6 are all based on assumptions and accusations because you have yet showed any texts or documentation to show and prove what teachings or beliefs of Jesus were corrupted or changed in the Gospel. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all taught and believed what Jesus their leader taught them, that he was the Son of God like Adam was a son of God. Jesus himself said he was the son of God and most importantly his father said that Jesus was his son.

Who have to prove he taught differently, you do! He spoke in favor of the Torah, Psalms, Gospel and the oneness of God that we do know. So it makes logical since that you would have to prove otherwise, not based on assumptions and accusations based on imperfect scholars, believers .   

You have yet proved otherwise but it’s never too late to show us documentations that God, Jesus or his followers taught what Muhammad and the Quran teaches, then perhaps I’ll be persuaded to believe.     

Your argument is that we have no original copies is a very, very, very weak argument as if the Quran has original or copies of originals and the Quran is a much, much younger book, even his closes companions wrote on animal skin and whatever else they could find to write on.

So, all this “previous scriptures” that you’re using as your foundation is all based on assumptions with no show and tell to back up what you are saying.

It’s really a simple task; just show us some texts or verses that Jesus is not the son of God and what his disciples wrote and taught in the Gospel is incorrect about Jesus, that’s all. And since as Origen says the differences are great it shouldn’t be a problem then.

Oh yea…….

In the words of a 17th-century writer, Origen’s critics asserted: “His doctrine in general is absurd and pernicious, a Serpentine deadly poison, which he vomited into the world.” About three centuries after his death, in fact, Origen was formally declared a heretic.

You really put too much stock in philosophers and scholars who taught contrary to Jesus and his disciples.

#7 Speculation,

Originally posted by islamispeace

In order to cast doubt on this matter, you would actually have to show clear-cut examples (like I have shown with the Gospels) instead of playing the "would" or "could" game. 

Originally posted by lslamispeace

It certainly could, but it hasn't.

Double standard I see.

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Until you provide a reasonable excuse for why someone decided to add the Pericope de Adultera to the Gospel of John, the only thing I can assume is that you are ignoring the evidence.

What? apart from what Jesus and his Apostles said and taught about wolves entering into the Christian congregation trying to destroy it from within. These were added also…..

…… writings like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon.

Since it’s been established that not all people have good intentions, how about showing us that the teachings and beliefs of Jesus and his apostles as recorded in the Gospel are incorrect starting with Jesus being the son of God.




-------------


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 29 July 2011 at 1:33pm
Originally posted by Kish

So, your response against points #1 - #6 are all based on assumptions and accusations because you have yet showed any texts or documentation to show and prove what teachings or beliefs of Jesus were corrupted or changed in the Gospel. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all taught and believed what Jesus their leader taught them, that he was the Son of God like Adam was a son of God. Jesus himself said he was the son of God and most importantly his father said that Jesus was his son.


If you want to keep ignoring the one example I gave you, that is not my problem but yours.  As I said, if you want more examples, read the books I recommended.

The very fact that we do not have the original teachings in Aramaic but only the Greek translations makes any attempt at comparing the two to be futile.  However, we can compare the Greek manuscripts and as I have mentioned, the differences are enormous.  To paraphrase Ehrman, there are more differences between the manuscripts than there are words in the entire New Testament!  No amount of special pleading can explain why there are so many differences.  It is true that most are just due to scribal errors but a significant number are also due to deliberate alterations.  Blind faith may keep you from calling a spade a spade, but it does not change the facts.

Originally posted by Kish

Who have to prove he taught differently, you do! He spoke in favor of the Torah, Psalms, Gospel and the oneness of God that we do know. So it makes logical since that you would have to prove otherwise, not based on assumptions and accusations based on imperfect scholars, believers.
 

I already have.  The contradictions between the Tanakh and the New Testament are undeniable.  This would mean either Jesus strayed from the same message that all the prophets had brought or his teachings were altered by his later followers and/or that the Tanakh has been corrupted.  Plenty of evidence has been given already.  If you choose to ignore them and run around in circles, that is your problem.

Originally posted by Kish

You have yet proved otherwise but it’s never too late to show us documentations that God, Jesus or his followers taught what Muhammad and the Quran teaches, then perhaps I’ll be persuaded to believe.    


At this point, I don't really care if you believe or not.  It is obvious you are a Christian who pretended to be an objective researcher with no religious affiliation.  How can reason reach such a person? 

Whether you accept it or not, the amount of scholarly research that has been done has always reached one conclusion: the teachings of Jesus have been altered and essentially lost and the Gospels are the product of an evolving Christian doctrine. 

Originally posted by Kish

Your argument is that we have no original copies is a very, very, very weak argument as if the Quran has original or copies of originals and the Quran is a much, much younger book, even his closes companions wrote on animal skin and whatever else they could find to write on.
 

Yet another red herring and an obvious desperate attempt to divert from the lack of manuscript evidence for the Bible.  Unlike the Bible, the Quran was memorized by hundreds of people in the time of the Prophet.  Also, the language was the same (Arabic).  Further still, we have numerous 1st century AH (after Hijra) manuscripts and inscriptions containing the Quran.  You can see examples here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlyquran.html%20%20 - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlyquran.html 

None of this changes the fact that the NT exists not in the original Aramaic but in the Greek translations, unlike the Quran which was always in the original Arabic.  None of this changes the fact that we have no 1st century manuscripts of the NT.  Therefore, the burden of proof is on the Christian faithful to prove that their scripture is accurate and trustworthy.  Salvation is too important a matter to trust on blind faith alone.          

Originally posted by Kish

It’s really a simple task; just show us some texts or verses that Jesus is not the son of God and what his disciples wrote and taught in the Gospel is incorrect about Jesus, that’s all. And since as Origen says the differences are great it shouldn’t be a problem then.


Consider first that the Tanakh never once refers to the Messiah as the literal son of God.  This fact is confirmed by the Quran (see, it "confirms" the truth and disregards the falsehood!).  Next, consider that historical evidence shows that some NT manuscripts showed an "adoptionist" view of Jesus.  Adoptionism was a heresy condemned by the Church.  The modern version of Mark 1:11 states that God says that Jesus is His son, implying an anti-adoptionist teaching.  However, some manuscripts imply an adoptionist undertone.  Ehrman explains:

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

So it seems the early Christians could not even agree on what "son of God" actually entailed.  Was Jesus the begotten son of God, a metaphorical son of God or the literal son of God?  If he was the metaphorical son of God, then it is no big deal as you yourself pointed out that Adam was also referred to as a "son of God".  In that sense, all the prophets were "sons".  It does not imply anything more than that they were honored by God.  Also, consider that in Matthew 26:62-64, we are told that the High Priest specifically asks Jesus if he was the son of God.  There would be no reason for Jesus to dilly-dally here.  What does he say?  Let's look and see:

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

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

   64You 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.”"

All Jesus had to do here was simply confirm the "truth" and say unequivocally that he is the son of God.  Yet, he says that his accusers think he claimed that title and actually refers to himself as the "son of man".  Was he the son of God or the son of Man?  The Bible is apparently confused as to the correct answer.

Originally posted by Kish

In the words of a 17th-century writer, Origen’s critics asserted: “His doctrine in general is absurd and pernicious, a Serpentine deadly poison, which he vomited into the world.” About three centuries after his death, in fact, Origen was formally declared a heretic.


Oh that's rich.  First of all, which "17th century writer" said this and why does it even matter?  Could you be more specific?  Second, if he was a "heretic", why was he not labelled so in his lifetime by his contemporaries?  Third, we are not even talking about his "doctrine" but rather his honest observation about the alterations of the NT manuscripts!  The guy was just being brutally honest.  He was an eyewitness to the corruption of the Bible.  If only more Christians were this honest.

Originally posted by Kish

You really put too much stock in philosophers and scholars who taught contrary to Jesus and his disciples.
  

And of course that would be your mantra since the facts mean nothing to you.  It is quite convenient that you use "philosophers and scholars" who may confirm your claims (although not always) but when faced with undeniable evidence which runs contrary to your beliefs, you deny the importance of these "philosophers and scholars".  This is pure special pleading and proves your subjective method of argumentation. 

Originally posted by Kish

Double standard I see.
 

LOL If you say so.  Regardless, my point and challenge remain.

What? apart from what Jesus and his Apostles said and taught about wolves entering into the Christian congregation trying to destroy it from within. These were added also…..

…… writings like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon.

Since it’s been established that not all people have good intentions, how about showing us that the teachings and beliefs of Jesus and his apostles as recorded in the Gospel are incorrect starting with Jesus being the son of God.

Shown above. 

Amazingly, you provide here more damning evidence of the corruption of God's word by heretics.  You admit that people added to the text.  Well dear, that is evidence of corruption! 

Now, since you did not respond to my entire rebuttal, I will assume that you agree with my points.  Do you agree that you  misinterpreted many OT verses (such as Genesis 40:8 and Isaiah 53).  Do you agree that the OT and the NT contradict each other?  Do you agree that the Christian canon was not solidified in the 1st century but rather evolved over at least 150 years?  Do you agree that there is no evidence of many eyewitnesses to the claims of the Gospels?  Do you agree that the covenant was supposed to last forever (Isaiah 59:21)?  Do you agree that Josephus' canon was different from the modern canon?  Do you agree that the trinity concept was developed to harmonize the blasphemous verses with monotheism?  Do you agree that some of the church fathers, like Ignatius, did teach a primitive trinitarian belief?  Do you agree that the Didache serves as evidence of evolving Christian dogma?  Do you agree that there are other Hebrew names, besides that of Jesus, which can be "tied to salvation"? 



-------------
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)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 29 July 2011 at 1:34pm
Originally posted by honeto

Salam,

very detailed and learned reply Islamispeace, may Allah reward you and give you strength to keep spreading the truth. I am just amazed how Kish starts in the first post like really want to learn and then become and acts just like Larry and Jack, self pretending all knowing, and fact denying.
Jakallah,
Hasan


Walaikum as-salaam.  Thanks for your words of encouragement.  Let the truth be exposed to all!  Ameen. 


-------------
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)



Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 03 August 2011 at 8:13pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

If you want to keep ignoring the one example I gave you, that is not my problem but yours - - - However, we can compare the Greek manuscripts and as I have mentioned, the differences are enormous - - - It is true that most are just due to scribal errors but a significant number are also due to deliberate alterations.

Oh, because we don’t have the original teachings in Aramaic? That sounds like an excuse not a problem. If Muhammad and early Muslims accepted it why can’t you?

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

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

 

You also blindly said that the “Diatessaron was an edited version although it plainly answers your question ”   

So again I ask the same question as I’ve been asking throughout this thread how about showing us that the teachings and beliefs of Jesus and his apostles as recorded in the Gospel are incorrect starting with Jesus being the son of God. You have failed to show that.

If the differences are so enormous it shouldn’t be a problem, yes you admit to most being scribal errors but still the proof that is in the pudding is from the eating not from the smelling. You repeatedly base your accusations and assumptions that the Gospel is corrupt because of what the scholars edited or deliberately altered. But you still cannot show and prove what Teachings of Jesus according to the Gospel has been altered or changed, starting with him being the son of God, his birth, death and resurrection. The Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all agree with what took place in and around Jerusalem pertaining to Jesus and his life. What conclusive evidence do you have regarding what Muhammad did and saw when he had his private revelation?

Remember, the Law of Israel “At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.” (Deuteronomy 19:15) The law of Prophet Moses was broken, therefore it is Muslims that must prove the Quran as authentic and not Christians regarding the Gospel or the NT.

This indeed is a double standard of the truth being spoken but not confirmed! But, yet you do not question the event when Muhammad had his revelation, how do you know if it ever happened, because he said so? This is weak reasoning on ones part. And please spare me the account of Moses being in the mountains because Jews, Christians and Muslims accept the event that took place but most can’t say the same with Muhammad, there is no historical AND archeological evidence that it ever took place. That is solely based on a Quranic belief and that is a fact! No witnesses at all!    

Originally posted by islamispeace

  Blind faith may keep you from calling a spade a spade, but it does not change the facts.

Again, double standard but you’re correct. At least the Gospel and the book of Acts speak of eye-witnesses and no one disputed it until centuries later but all you can speak of as your argument are scribal errors and alterations from non-inspired scholars who were not there but wrote about it. That is more than what can be said about the Quran

Now, I said …

Originally posted by kish

Who have to prove he taught differently, you do! He spoke in favor of the Torah, Psalms, Gospel and the oneness of God that we do know. So it makes logical since that you would have to prove otherwise, not based on assumptions and accusations based on imperfect scholars, believers . You have yet proved otherwise but it’s never too late to show us documentations that God, Jesus or his followers taught what Muhammad and the Quran teaches, then perhaps I’ll be persuaded to believe.

You have not shown anything except.

Originally posted by islamispeace

  I already have. 

Where? What documentations have you shown that the God of the Bible, Jesus and his followers taught (Gospel) what Muhammad and the Quran teaches? Muhammad and the Quran teach a doctrine contrary to Jesus and the Gospel, until you can prove otherwise what Muhammad teaches as good news is beyond the scriptures as clearly indicated.  

Galatians 1:8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed.

Originally posted by islamispeace

  This would mean either Jesus strayed from the same message that all the prophets had brought or his teachings were altered by his later followers and/or that the Tanakh has been corrupted.

Again, what message was altered? Jesus and his disciples taught the oneness of God. And the Jews were all looking for the messiah to come as prophesied.

“First [Andrew] found his own brother, Simon, and said to him: ‘We have found the Messiah’ (which means, when translated, Christ).”—JOHN 1:41

“You are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)

On two other occasions, Jehovah spoke directly to Jesus from heaven, thereby indicating His approval: once, before three of Jesus’ apostles, and another time, before a crowd of onlookers. (Matthew 17:1-5; John 12:28, 29)

Furthermore, angels were sent from above to confirm Jesus’ status as Christ, or Messiah.—Luke 2:10, 11.

Originally posted by islamispeace

  If you choose to ignore them and run around in circles, that is your problem.

These facts are in the Gospel and the Tanakh but escape the Quran’s notice. But, like most of the Jews in Jesus’ day you to ignore them. 

John 1:45, 49 Philip found Na·thana·el and said to him: “We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Naza·reth.” Na·thana·el answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.

Deuteronomy 18:18 A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you; and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him.

Micah 5:2  “And you, O Bethle·hem Ephra·thah (Jesus birth) the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.

But, yet you insist it was Jesus who went astray, regardless of what scholars may or may not say? And Muslims continue to think 18:18 applies to Muhammad who had no eye-witnesses where as on the other hand many of the Jews were anticipating the coming of the messiah as I have just shown. So, my friend it is not my problem because I believe, neither is it a Christian problem but a problem that you must figure out, quickly.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Therefore, the burden of proof is on the Christian faithful to prove that their scripture is accurate and trustworthy.  Salvation is too important a matter to trust on blind faith alone.

Why, the whole foundation of Islam is based on blind faith, remember, Muhammad in the cave that is where it all started. He received a revelation and no eyewitnesses to testify the truthfulness of it or that it was something other than an angel of God.  

Hint, the Garden of Eve, Muhammad wasn’t the first or the last to have been deceived.

Food for thought: The angel (Gabriel) said to her: “Have no fear, Mary, for you have found favor with God; 31 and, look! you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you are to call his name Jesus. 32 This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and YHVH will give him the throne of David his father. Now, the Quran does acknowledge this although it doesn’t matter because here Gabriel appeared to Zechariah, Mary and Joseph on separate occasions regarding the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus according to the Gospel.

Do you believe Gabriel lied when he said Mary would have a son? Who son was it? Gabriel said he will be called son of the most high because it was through the power of God’s Holy Spirit. You disagree? If so tell us who the father was if Mary was the Mother. Put all the scholarly and manuscripts down and use logic based on reasoning.

If you can believe what Muhammad teaches without solid proof that he spoke with an Angel (No eyewitnesses) why can’t you believe what Gabriel tells you with solid proof (eyewitnesses)?  

I guess you’re really stuck between a rock and a hard place.  

Kish



-------------


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 04 August 2011 at 10:13pm
Kish,
 I would like to say that your meaningless rants which start as what appears to be someone wanting to learn about Islam but who turn out to be a wolf in sheep skin, as aparent in your posts.
 
Here is the bottom line for soemone like you. The Bible as we know it now contains bits and pieces of what Quran tells were books sent to previous prophets. And thus we believe that those books and prophets were from God. We are also told that a Final prophet, Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was sent with the Final Testament, The Quran, which is pure word of God to guide us into the right way. If we follow it, and seek God's pleasure, forgiveness and Mercy, we will achieve salvation, eternal life in Paradise.
Quran clearly states that:
5:15  O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book,-
So, there you have it.
One more important thing, and I suggest you write it down, The Quran is the only book, and let me repeat the only book to not contradict who God is, nor does it contradict how salvation is achieved, a clear sign that it is pure and it is from the All Knowing, God Almighty.
Show me another one, if you can that can do just that, and we can talk.
 
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 August 2011 at 1:56pm
Originally posted by Kish

Oh, because we don’t have the original teachings in Aramaic? That sounds like an excuse not a problem. If Muhammad and early Muslims accepted it why can’t you?

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

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


More circular reasoning.  Also, I have pointed out that even the Greek manuscripts do not agree with each other.  You have not responded to this fact.  How can you?  There is nothing you can say that can explain the numerous differences between the Greek manuscripts and the alterations made to them by scribes.   

Regarding the original Aramaic, my point is that we do not have the original transcript of Jesus' teachings in his native language.  Translating between languages is a tedious task and often leads to the loss of context.  Why has not a single Aramaic text survived?  Why hasn't the Hebrew text survived?  Why only Greek?  You have no answers to these questions, so all you can do is to resort to mindless repetition, much like many of your other brethren on this forum.  In fact, you remind me of another person on this forum.  I think both of you are Jehovah's Witnesses and both of you have the same methodology, using misinterpretations and inaccurate opinions to push your agenda.

Originally posted by Kish

You also blindly said that the “Diatessaron was an edited version although it plainly answers your question ”
    

Which it is.  What's your point?  It proves nothing since it is a mid-2nd century document.  It proves nothing regarding the historical accuracy of the Gospels which were supposedly written in the late 1st century nor does it prove that they have not been altered.  I have provided plenty of evidence that they have been altered. 

Originally posted by Kish

So again I ask the same question as I’ve been asking throughout this thread how about showing us that the teachings and beliefs of Jesus and his apostles as recorded in the Gospel are incorrect starting with Jesus being the son of God. You have failed to show that.
  

LOL Are you reading my response?  In my last post, I provided a passage from the Gospel of Matthew which contradicts the other verses where Jesus is referred to as the son of God:

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

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

   64You 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.”"

These types of internal contradictions show that the Gospels could not even decide whether he was the son of God or not.  I also showed an example of a verse which was altered to remove any adoptionist undertones.  Like typical blind Christians, you ignored these proofs and comically try to assert that I "have failed to show that".  Right...

Consider also that since Jesus was a Jewish prophet, he could not contradict the previous prophets.  None of the previous prophets asserted that the Messiah was the son of God.  This was a new concept and one which was probably borrowed from pagan mythology, much like the trinity concept.  Prove me wrong if you can.

Originally posted by Kish

If the differences are so enormous it shouldn’t be a problem, yes you admit to most being scribal errors but still the proof that is in the pudding is from the eating not from the smelling. You repeatedly base your accusations and assumptions that the Gospel is corrupt because of what the scholars edited or deliberately altered. But you still cannot show and prove what Teachings of Jesus according to the Gospel has been altered or changed, starting with him being the son of God, his birth, death and resurrection. The Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all agree with what took place in and around Jerusalem pertaining to Jesus and his life. What conclusive evidence do you have regarding what Muhammad did and saw when he had his private revelation?
  

I already provided an example of a difference between the manuscripts involving Mark 1:11.  Thus far, all you have done is run around in circles and ask the same ridiculous questions over and over.  Tell me Kish, was Jesus adopted as the son of God, as some Latin manuscripts and one Greek manuscript, suggest or not? 

By the way, I will take the words of educated scholars over lay people such as your any day.  Don't take it personally. LOL

The proof of the evolving Christian dogma can be seen in the examples of the Diatessaron, the Didache, the numerous differences between the Greek manuscripts and the absence of any 1st-century manuscripts of either the Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek texts.  Prove me wrong if you can.  

Regarding your attempted diversion to Muhammad's encounter in the cave of Hira, the fact of the matter is that the angel Gabriel visited the prophet numerous times during his prophethood, sometimes when he was in the company of his followers.  So, there were indeed witnesses!

Originally posted by Kish

Remember, the Law of Israel “At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.” (Deuteronomy 19:15) The law of Prophet Moses was broken, therefore it is Muslims that must prove the Quran as authentic and not Christians regarding the Gospel or the NT.

Clap Again you ignore Isaiah 59:21:

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

No, no Kish.  It is YOU who must prove that the Gospels are authentic.  How can they be authentic when they contradict the Old Testament, which you also claim to uphold?  

Originally posted by Kish

This indeed is a double standard of the truth being spoken but not confirmed! But, yet you do not question the event when Muhammad had his revelation, how do you know if it ever happened, because he said so? This is weak reasoning on ones part. And please spare me the account of Moses being in the mountains because Jews, Christians and Muslims accept the event that took place but most can’t say the same with Muhammad, there is no historical AND archeological evidence that it ever took place. That is solely based on a Quranic belief and that is a fact! No witnesses at all!

Wrong again, as I mentioned above. 

Originally posted by Kish

Again, double standard but you’re correct. At least the Gospel and the book of Acts speak of eye-witnesses and no one disputed it until centuries later but all you can speak of as your argument are scribal errors and alterations from non-inspired scholars who were not there but wrote about it. That is more than what can be said about the Quran

I will refer to once again to my Bigfoot analogy.  Just because the Gospels claim there were witnesses does not make it so.  The authors of the Gospels had an agenda.  They could have easily made up the claim of multiple witnesses.  Who were these witnesses?  So far, you have failed to answer this question. 

No one disputed the Gospel accounts?  Really?  Is that why there were so many "gospels" in circulation?  Is that why Ignatius only mentions passages from two Gospels in his writings?  Come on Kish, wake up and smell the coffee.

Originally posted by Kish

Who have to prove he taught differently, you do! He spoke in favor of the Torah, Psalms, Gospel and the oneness of God that we do know. So it makes logical since that you would have to prove otherwise, not based on assumptions and accusations based on imperfect scholars, believers . You have yet proved otherwise but it’s never too late to show us documentations that God, Jesus or his followers taught what Muhammad and the Quran teaches, then perhaps I’ll be persuaded to believe.

You have not shown anything except.

  

Jesus also said that the Jews killed some of the prophets, a fact which was confirmed by the Quran.  No where in the Torah or the other books of the OT are the Jews accused of killing their own prophets.  As Geza Vermes points out: 

"This echoes the popular tradition, without scriptural foundation, that many of the prophets suffered violent death as a result of their criticism of their contemporaries' behaviour.  According to the apocryphal Lives of the Prophets (of the late first century AD), six of them, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, Amos and Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, were killed." ("The Authentic Gospel of Jesus", pp. 68-69)

Consider also that Jesus said he was the servant of God, which the Quran confirms:

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." (4:171)

Yet Paul referred to Jesus as the "great god and saviour"!  What blasphemy is this?

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.

You have asked for proof.  As always, I have given it to you.  Now after this, if you remain stubborn, that is your problem, not mine.  As I said, if you don't believe, I could care less.  God guides whom He pleases and it is not up to me to make you believe:

"As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe." (2:6)

Originally posted by Kish

Where? What documentations have you shown that the God of the Bible, Jesus and his followers taught (Gospel) what Muhammad and the Quran teaches? Muhammad and the Quran teach a doctrine contrary to Jesus and the Gospel, until you can prove otherwise what Muhammad teaches as good news is beyond the scriptures as clearly indicated.  

Galatians 1:8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed.

The only text that teaches "a doctrine contrary to" Jesus (and the other prophets) are the Gospels themselves.  The Gospels contradict the OT in numerous places.  They contradict themselves in numerous places.  You have been left tongue-tied by these facts which is why you have not responded to it.  Never did the prophets teach such concepts as:

1. Original sin

2. Redemption through blood sacrifice

3. Messiah as the son of God, and others...

Do not think that I don't notice your avoidance of these topics.  I know you avoid them for one reason, which is that you know that they destroy your faith.  So, you choose to cling to your faith through nothing more than self-deluding fantasies and blind acceptance. 

Originally posted by Kish

Again, what message was altered? Jesus and his disciples taught the oneness of God. And the Jews were all looking for the messiah to come as prophesied.
  

Are you even paying attention anymore?  I have given many examples already.  Among these are that the Jews were never looking for the Messiah who is the "son of God" or that he would die for our sins.  They also never, as far we know, believed that the Messiah would return a second time.  The OT never teaches these concepts.  Why?


Originally posted by Kish

These facts are in the Gospel and the Tanakh but escape the Quran’s notice. But, like most of the Jews in Jesus’ day you to ignore them.


LOL Right...so why do the Gospels contradict the Tanakh in some many places? Confused  For once in your life, why don't answer the questions posed to you? 

Originally posted by Kish

John 1:45, 49 Philip found Na·thana·el and said to him: “We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Naza·reth.” Na·thana·el answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.

Deuteronomy 18:18 A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you; and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him.

Micah 5:2  “And you, O Bethle·hem Ephra·thah (Jesus birth) the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.

  

Once again, you resort to selective use of the Tanakh.  Of course it speaks of the Messiah, but what you have failed to answer or are avoiding answering is where in the Tanakh does it say that the Messiah would be:

1. The Son of God

2. That he would be crucified and die for our sins

3. That he would be resurrected

4. That he would return a second time?

Originally posted by Kish

But, yet you insist it was Jesus who went astray, regardless of what scholars may or may not say? And Muslims continue to think 18:18 applies to Muhammad who had no eye-witnesses where as on the other hand many of the Jews were anticipating the coming of the messiah as I have just shown. So, my friend it is not my problem because I believe, neither is it a Christian problem but a problem that you must figure out, quickly.

I never said it was Jesus who went astray.  I was simply stating the possibilities.  The rest of your statement is just empty words, nothing more.  The facts speak for themselves.  Your convoluted opinions mean nothing. 

Concerning Deut. 18:18, you claim it was referring to Jesus (pbuh).  Really?  Let us look at what the Gospels themselves say regarding this prophet to come:

"19 Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders "#fen-NIV-26064c" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26064c - c ] in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.”

 21 They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.” 22 Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23 John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’” "#fen-NIV-26068d" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26068d - d ] 24 Now the Pharisees who had been sent 25 questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”" (John 1:19-25)

Now, just in case you don't get it, let me explain.  This passage from the Gospel of John shows clearly that the prophet mentioned in Deut. 18:18 is not the Messiah, who is a different person altogether.  If the two were one and the same, John the Baptist would have corrected the Pharisees for thinking that they were two different individuals, yet he did not. 

Originally posted by Kish

Why, the whole foundation of Islam is based on blind faith, remember, Muhammad in the cave that is where it all started. He received a revelation and no eyewitnesses to testify the truthfulness of it or that it was something other than an angel of God.
     

This is typical pathetic Christian attempts to divert to other issues when faced with difficult questions about their faith.  If you want to talk about Muhammad (pbuh), we can do so separately.  Don't try to change the topic when you can't answer the difficulties in your religion.  Even so, I have already refuted your claim regarding Muhammad's encounter in the cave above.  Ain't I a nice guy? Big%20smile

Originally posted by Kish

Hint, the Garden of Eve, Muhammad wasn’t the first or the last to have been deceived.

I would remove Muhammad from this statement and put in Paul.  Other than that, I agree with you.  You can join Paul as another deceived one. 

Originally posted by Kish

Food for thought: The angel (Gabriel) said to her: “Have no fear, Mary, for you have found favor with God; 31 and, look! you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you are to call his name Jesus. 32 This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and YHVH will give him the throne of David his father. Now, the Quran does acknowledge this although it doesn’t matter because here Gabriel appeared to Zechariah, Mary and Joseph on separate occasions regarding the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus according to the Gospel.

Do you believe Gabriel lied when he said Mary would have a son? Who son was it? Gabriel said he will be called son of the most high because it was through the power of God’s Holy Spirit. You disagree? If so tell us who the father was if Mary was the Mother. Put all the scholarly and manuscripts down and use logic based on reasoning.

LOL Oh this one takes the cake?  Are you kidding me Kish?  First of all, you once again resort to circular reasoning.  You use the Gospels to prove what the Gospels say!  Sorry, that won't work!  Second, you ask one of the silliest questions I have ever heard.  Whose son was he?  He was Mary's son!  Duh!  The Quran calls him "Isa, the son of Mary".  Who was the father?  No one!  God miraculously created him in his mother's womb to serve as a sign to the Israelites that he was a prophet and the Messiah.  Surely all things are easy for God.  You are the last person in the world who should speak about using logic and reasoning, dearest.

As the Quran says:

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was." (3:59)

Ponder on this truth with a clear mind, free of any bias and fantasies.  You can be saved, but it will take a major effort on your part.

Originally posted by Kish

I guess you’re really stuck between a rock and a hard place. 

Given the numerous times you have been proven wrong in this thread, I think you need to look at yourself first before worrying about me.  I am free of false dogmas!  I am a Muslim and I submit to the Lord of all the worlds! 

Again before I close, let me reiterate that you have avoided responding to the points I have raised which have proven you wrong.  I said in my last post:

Originally posted by islamispeace

Now, since you did not respond to my entire rebuttal, I will assume that you agree with my points.  Do you agree that you  misinterpreted many OT verses (such as Genesis 40:8 and Isaiah 53).  Do you agree that the OT and the NT contradict each other?  Do you agree that the Christian canon was not solidified in the 1st century but rather evolved over at least 150 years?  Do you agree that there is no evidence of many eyewitnesses to the claims of the Gospels?  Do you agree that the covenant was supposed to last forever (Isaiah 59:21)?  Do you agree that Josephus' canon was different from the modern canon?  Do you agree that the trinity concept was developed to harmonize the blasphemous verses with monotheism?  Do you agree that some of the church fathers, like Ignatius, did teach a primitive trinitarian belief?  Do you agree that the Didache serves as evidence of evolving Christian dogma?  Do you agree that there are other Hebrew names, besides that of Jesus, which can be "tied to salvation"?

You can't run from the truth forever, Kish.



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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 August 2011 at 1:59pm
Originally posted by honeto

Kish,
 I would like to say that your meaningless rants which start as what appears to be someone wanting to learn about Islam but who turn out to be a wolf in sheep skin, as aparent in your posts.
 
Here is the bottom line for soemone like you. The Bible as we know it now contains bits and pieces of what Quran tells were books sent to previous prophets. And thus we believe that those books and prophets were from God. We are also told that a Final prophet, Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was sent with the Final Testament, The Quran, which is pure word of God to guide us into the right way. If we follow it, and seek God's pleasure, forgiveness and Mercy, we will achieve salvation, eternal life in Paradise.
Quran clearly states that:
5:15  O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book,-
So, there you have it.
One more important thing, and I suggest you write it down, The Quran is the only book, and let me repeat the only book to not contradict who God is, nor does it contradict how salvation is achieved, a clear sign that it is pure and it is from the All Knowing, God Almighty.
Show me another one, if you can that can do just that, and we can talk.
 
Hasan


Salaam brother.  You are right and there is nothing Kish can do to refute you.  As with other Christians, he will attempt to divert to other issues and will avoid those he cannot answer.  It is really sad but comical at the same time.  Doesn't he remind you of Shibbo? LOL


-------------
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)



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 10 August 2011 at 5:23pm
salam brother,
you know that is exactly what I was thinking, remember 'believer', Shibbo, Jack, Kish all seem to be reincarnations of the same, those who has been resisting the truth. May the Almighty guide them, and make us all better Muslims, Ameen.
Hasan 


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 11 September 2011 at 5:53pm

Originally posted by honeto

We are also told that a Final prophet, Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was sent with the Final Testament, The Quran, which is pure word of God to guide us into the right way.

Just like Eve was told, she would be like God knowing good and bad right, and she fell for it. But, at least there is solid proof that historical event took place in the Garden of Eden. Not so with Muhammad and what he experienced in the cave. Right from the very start, you just have to take his word for it, Muhammad’s first and major mistake.    

Originally posted by honeto

The Quran is the only book, and let me repeat the only book to not contradict who God is, nor does it contradict how salvation is achieved

Okay, but the spirit of God [YHWH] inspired four faithful men to write independent accounts, thus providing a fourfold witness that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised Seed and King, and giving the details of his life, his ministry, his death, his resurrection and salvation. Interestingly enough the Quran contradicts all the above, why, all because as one person said, we don’t have the original transcript in Jesus native language, as if Jesus only spoke Aramaic, spare me.

John 19:19, 20 It was written: “Jesus the Naz·a·rene′ the King of the Jews.” 20 Therefore many of the Jews read this title, because the place where Jesus was impaled was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek.

Acts 6:1 Now in these days, when the disciples were increasing, a murmuring arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the Hebrew-speaking Jews…

Acts 22:2 (Well, when they heard he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, …)

Acts 26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground I heard a voice say to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?

In fact, Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew as I already mentioned to you. So the masses of the people spoke and read Hebrew and at times spoke Galilean Aramaic.

During his ministry Jesus also spoke the highly Aramaized popular Hebrew.”—Biblical Archaeology, 1962, page 243

Furthermore, the teaching and language that Jesus spoke was well accepted, even in Egypt well before Muhammad, the Quran or his teachings.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Regarding the original Aramaic, my point is that we do not have the original transcript of Jesus' teachings in his native language.  Translating between languages is a tedious task and often leads to the loss of context. 

A very weak argument as I explained already. Furthermore, the Holy Scriptures (Hebrew and Greek) do not revolve around Islam, its language, its culture or its religion, understand? The circulation of the Gospels—either as individual books or as part of the Bible—is greater by far than that of any other writings in history. No wonder that Jesus is better known than any man who has ever lived!

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

… Gospels could not even decide whether he was the son of God or not… This was a new concept and one which was probably borrowed from pagan mythology, much like the trinity concept.  Prove me wrong if you can….I already provided an example of a difference

You’re quite comical islamispeace; Jesus himself said that he was the Son of God and of man throughout the whole Gospel, you’re only examples are the ones you consistently take out of context.  

John 3:18 He that exercises faith in him is not to be judged. He that does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

But I guess in your mind he was supposed to convince all those there who didn’t believe, please!

And again, Jesus used the expression “The Son of man” more than any other to refer to himself; Matthew 8:20…But Jesus said to him: “Foxes have dens and birds of heaven have roosts, but the Son of man……

I think you’re reaching for straws now, give it up.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Regarding your attempted diversion to Muhammad's encounter in the cave of Hira, the fact of the matter is that the angel Gabriel visited the prophet numerous times during his prophethood, sometimes when he was in the company of his followers.  So, there were indeed witnesses!

Of course he did if that is what you have been told. But, according to the Law of the Prophet Moses that supposedly you respect and honor, how was this account firmly established and by whom?

Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one dying should be put to death. He will not be put to death at the mouth of one witness.

Deuteronomy 19:15 No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good

This is where Islam seriously falls short since its inception!

Originally posted by islamispeace

Again you ignore Isaiah 59:21:

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

Come on, everyone knows this was contingent on Israel keeping the convent which they did not, next.

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Jesus also said that the Jews killed some of the prophets…Consider also that Jesus said he was the servant of God, which the Quran confirms…

This is not proof or a teaching but a statement that Jesus made, again are we reaching for straws? Try another one of your ‘big foot analogy’ this time be careful where you walk and where you put it.

Again, you have yet proved otherwise but it’s never too late to show us documentations that God, Jesus or his followers taught what Muhammad and the Quran teaches….

Galatians 1:8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed

Such as Jesus not being the “Son of God” that Jesus died on a ‘stake’ and that ‘salvation’ is ONLY through Jesus. Muhammad himself denies these doctrinal teachings of Jesus. Muhammad doesn’t know who Jesus was, how he died and tries to take salvation away from Jesus and bestow it upon himself, now that is BLASPHEMY to the highest power!

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Never did the prophets teach such concepts as:

1. Original sin

2. Redemption through blood sacrifice

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

You should not only read BUT understand the Holy Scripture. Jesus fulfilled the Law as I mentioned on several occasions (Sin, Blood, Messiah) all wrap up in one, very good. Do you even know the purpose of the LAW, its objective?

Once Islam understands WHY the LAW was provided in the first place perhaps you will grasp Jesus’ role in all this. Once you understand WHY Jesus was so unique in being born of a virgin women and resurrected to heavenly life as the Quran acknowledges but doesn’t understand you will come closer to salvation.

Originally posted by islamispeace

  ..so why do the Gospels contradict the Tanakh in some many places?   For once in your life, why don't answer the questions posed to you? 

Wow, you really don’t know the purpose of Law Covenant and how Jesus fulfilled it! I suspect you wouldn’t because the Quran speaks of Jesus birth and resurrection to heaven but don’t give any other explanation as to why it mentions Jesus specifically and not Muhammad.  

Originally posted by islamispeace

…the Jews were never looking for the Messiah

Wrong again. Messiah (ma·shi′ach) means “anointed” or “anointed one.” The Greek equivalent is Khri·stos′, or Christ

Daniel 9:25 The angel Gabriel later told God’s prophet Daniel: “You should know and have the insight that from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks.”

Those were 69 weeks of years—7 years each—that totaled 483 years. They ran from 455 B.C.E. to 29 C.E.

Did the Messiah, the prophet like Moses and long-awaited “seed,” really come in 29 C.E.? Do the math!

John 1:41, 45, 49  First this one found his own brother, Simon, and said to him: “We have found the Mes·si′ah…“We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus   They must have been looking don’t you think?

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

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

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

Persons in the first century, who were in position to question the witnesses and examine the evidence, accepted the historical information as authentic.

Matthew 2:4 and on gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people he began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born.  

Originally posted by islamispeace

"As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe." (2:6)

I agree!

Originally posted by islamispeace

Whose son was he?  He was Mary's son!  Duh!  The Quran calls him "Isa, the son of Mary".  Who was the father?  No one!  God miraculously created him in his mother's womb to serve as a sign to the Israelites that he was a prophet and the Messiah.  Surely all things are easy for God.  You are the last person in the world who should speak about using logic and reasoning, dearest.

Wow again, Jesus had no father but Adam did. No comment…..except where is your logic on this point? Surely then, God is his father. But then again, logic is not a universal key.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Given the numerous times you have been proven wrong in this thread, I think you need to look at yourself first before worrying about me.  I am free of false dogmas!  I am a Muslim and I submit to the Lord of all the worlds!

Then you should read this post over and over again and listen to yourself.

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Do you agree that there are other Hebrew names, besides that of Jesus, which can be "tied to salvation"?

Acts 4:12 “There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”

John 4:42 …and they began to say to the woman: “We do not believe any longer on account of your talk; for we have heard for ourselves and we know that this man is for a certainty the savior of the world.


Sounds to me like another false teaching that Islam is promoting.

Greetings everyone….  



-------------


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 18 September 2011 at 3:05pm
Kish, you had more than a month to respond and still managed to produce a disappointing rebuttal.  It is painful to have to read your weak arguments, but I will do my best.   

A very weak argument as I explained already. Furthermore, the Holy Scriptures (Hebrew and Greek) do not revolve around Islam, its language, its culture or its religion, understand? The circulation of the Gospels—either as individual books or as part of the Bible—is greater by far than that of any other writings in history. No wonder that Jesus is better known than any man who has ever lived!


The only weak argument is your claim that my argument is "weak".  How is it weak?  Your best response to the problem of the missing Aramaic was resort to your erroneous assumption that "Muhammad and early Muslims" accepted the Greek writings.  Not that it matters, but how you do you know this? 

Originally posted by Kish

You’re quite comical islamispeace; Jesus himself said that he was the Son of God and of man throughout the whole Gospel, you’re only examples are the ones you consistently take out of context.

John 3:18 He that exercises faith in him is not to be judged. He that does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

But I guess in your mind he was supposed to convince all those there who didn’t believe, please!

And again, Jesus used the expression “The Son of man” more than any other to refer to himself; Matthew 8:20…But Jesus said to him: “Foxes have dens and birds of heaven have roosts, but the Son of man……

I think you’re reaching for straws now, give it up.

 

LOL Oh I am comical, am I?  You completely ignored the example I gave of the contradiction in the Gospels regarding his claim to be the son of God, citing what you believe to be me taking the verse "out of context".  I gave the context!  The context was Jesus' trial in front of the Sanhedrin.  He was asked a simple question and the answer he gave contradicts the other verses you have provided.  Your argument that he did not give a straight forward answer because he was dealing with unbelievers belies your blind faith.  He was asked if he was the son of God.  He replied "you have said so" which implies that they think he said this.  And then he specifically refers to himself as "son of man", which is not a blasphemous phrase at all, since we are all "sons of man".  The only one "reaching for straws" is you, unfortunately and "comically".  LOL

For convenience, here are the verses again:

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

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

   64You 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.”"

Originally posted by Kish

Of course he did if that is what you have been told. But, according to the Law of the Prophet Moses that supposedly you respect and honor, how was this account firmly established and by whom?

Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one dying should be put to death. He will not be put to death at the mouth of one witness.

Deuteronomy 19:15 No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good

I have already refuted your appeals to the "Law of Moses" since the verses you mentioned are about determining if a person has violated the Law, by worshiping other gods (Deut. 17:3) or breaking other laws (Deut. 19).  It has to do with criminal proceedings only.  Second, it is quite hilarious that you refer to the Law of Moses when it suits your purpose, but it other places, you deny its importance since Jesus supposedly "fulfilled" it.  This is the typical Christian use of double standards and it is why your religion stands on thin ice.  Third, why do you not apply these verses to Paul's claim of meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus?  Who were the people who witnessed this momentous event?  Do not ignore this question, like you ignore most questions which jeopardize your faith. 

Originally posted by Kish

This is where Islam seriously falls short since its inception!
  

LOL Writing in big letters does not make your statement true!

Originally posted by Kish

Come on, everyone knows this was contingent on Israel keeping the convent which they did not, next.

Another typical answer.  If this was true, then Isaiah 59:21 was a false prophecy since it clearly states that the covenant would last "forever" and says nothing of any secondary conditions that had to be fulfilled:

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

Are you saying this is a false prophecy?  

Also, verse 20 specifically states that repentance was all that was needed if the Jews ever strayed from the covenant.  Nothing is mentioned of the covenant being taken away for their repeated transgressions:

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

Originally posted by Kish

This is not proof or a teaching but a statement that Jesus made, again are we reaching for straws? Try another one of your ‘big foot analogy’ this time be careful where you walk and where you put it.
  

What?  What difference does it make that it is "statement" and not a "teaching"?  LOL  Jesus made a statement which is not supported by the Old Testament or any other Jewish historical documents. 

Originally posted by Kish

Again, you have yet proved otherwise but it’s never too late to show us documentations that God, Jesus or his followers taught what Muhammad and the Quran teaches….

I gave you two examples, sweetheart.  You tried to weasel your way out by making a pathetic excuse for one of the examples (Jesus saying that the Jews killed some of the prophets) and completely ignoring the other.  Here is what I wrote about the second example:

Consider also that Jesus said he was the servant of God, which the Quran confirms:

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." (4:171)

Yet Paul referred to Jesus as the "great god and saviour"!  What blasphemy is this?

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.


You have asked for proof.  As always, I have given it to you.  Now after this, if you remain stubborn, that is your problem, not mine.  As I said, if you don't believe, I could care less.  God guides whom He pleases and it is not up to me to make you believe:

"As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe." (2:6)

Come on Kish.  Defend your hero Paul.  Apply the same standards you try to apply to Islam and Muhammad (pbuh) to Paul, the real founder of Christianity.  

Originally posted by Kish

Such as Jesus not being the “Son of God” that Jesus died on a ‘stake’ and that ‘salvation’ is ONLY through Jesus. Muhammad himself denies these doctrinal teachings of Jesus. Muhammad doesn’t know who Jesus was, how he died and tries to take salvation away from Jesus and bestow it upon himself, now that is BLASPHEMY to the highest power.

I have given you two perfectly legitimate examples.  I have also provided an example of the contradictory nature of the Gospels when it came to Jesus being the "son of God".  You have failed to offer an adequate response.  More and more, your religion fails to defend itself against the internal inconsistencies.  No wonder that you are getting more defensive and passionate.  Oh how you have evolved from the sincere truth-seeker with no apparent religious background to the Bible-thumping Christian apologist we all see here!

Originally posted by Kish

You should not only read BUT understand the Holy Scripture. Jesus fulfilled the Law as I mentioned on several occasions (Sin, Blood, Messiah) all wrap up in one, very good. Do you even know the purpose of the LAW, its objective?

Once Islam understands WHY the LAW was provided in the first place perhaps you will grasp Jesus’ role in all this. Once you understand WHY Jesus was so unique in being born of a virgin women and resurrected to heavenly life as the Quran acknowledges but doesn’t understand you will come closer to salvation.

  

Another non-answer using the "you don't understand" scripture argument which is the hallmark of standard Christian propaganda.  I repeat once again:

Never did the prophets teach such concepts as:

1. Original sin

2. Redemption through blood sacrifice

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

Answer the question.  Don't respond to the question with another question.  I don't care about what you believe the purpose of the Law was.  That point of view is based on what the NT says.  I am more interested in what the OT says because you accept both.  Obviously, since the OT preceded the NT, more weight should be given to the former.  For you to appeal to what the NT says here is a circular argument.

Originally posted by Kish

Wow, you really don’t know the purpose of Law Covenant and how Jesus fulfilled it! I suspect you wouldn’t because the Quran speaks of Jesus birth and resurrection to heaven but don’t give any other explanation as to why it mentions Jesus specifically and not Muhammad. 
 

Still no answer, just vague explanations and ridiculous high-talk about not understanding the "purpose of the law covenant".  You have repeatedly claimed that the NT and OT are in "agreement", which is strange since I have pointed out the many contradictions between the two.  So, I ask again:


Why do the Gospels contradict the Tanakh is so many places, if they are supposed to be in agreement?

Even if the covenant was supposed to be replaced with a new one, how does that explain the contradictions?  What does the covenant being replaced have to do with the contradictions?

Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by islamispeace

…the Jews were never looking for the Messiah

Wrong again. Messiah (ma·shi′ach) means “anointed” or “anointed one.” The Greek equivalent is Khri·stos′, or Christ

Are you so desperate in the face of all this evidence proving the absurdity of your claims that you have to resort to deliberately misquoting me?  Here is what I wrote:

Are you even paying attention anymore?  I have given many examples already.  Among these are that the Jews were never looking for the Messiah who is the "son of God" or that he would die for our sins.  They also never, as far we know, believed that the Messiah would return a second time.  The OT never teaches these concepts.  Why?

You have yet to prove that the Jewish concept of the Messiah meant that he would be the "son of God".  Everyone already knows what Messiah means in Hebrew.  That proves nothing about your claim. 

Originally posted by Kish

Daniel 9:25 The angel Gabriel later told God’s prophet Daniel: “You should know and have the insight that from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks.”

This does not answer my question regarding your claim that the Messiah was the son of God.  By the way, did anyone witness Daniel's meeting with Gabriel?  How many witnesses were there?   

Originally posted by Kish

John 1:41, 45, 49  First this one found his own brother, Simon, and said to him: “We have found the Mes·si′ah…“We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus   They must have been looking don’t you think?

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

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

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

Persons in the first century, who were in position to question the witnesses and examine the evidence, accepted the historical information as authentic.

Matthew 2:4 and on gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people he began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born. 

 

Another circular argument.  The only way you can justify your claim that the Messiah was supposed to be the son of God is to quote the NT ad nauseum, when I have stipulated that I am looking for proof that the Jews understood that the Messiah was supposed to be the son of God.  In order to prove this, you have to provide direct evidence from Jewish sources, such as the Tanakh or the Talmud etc.  Quoting the NT to prove what the NT says is nothing more than a childish circular argument. 

Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by islamispeace

"As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe." (2:6)

I agree!

And it applies quite aptly to the likes of you, unfortunately. 

Originally posted by Kish

Wow again, Jesus had no father but Adam did. No comment…..except where is your logic on this point? Surely then, God is his father. But then again, logic is not a universal key.

You are sounding more and more incoherent.  As I said, neither Jesus nor Adam had a father.  That is what makes their creation a miracle.  To make the supposition that since they had no human father, therefore God must be the father is absolute nonsense and sounds more like pagan mythology...sort of like saying Zeus was the father of Hercules because he impregnated his human mother.  Is that what you are saying Kish?  Are you saying that God impregnated Mary???  I seek refuge in Allah (swt) from such disturbing and blasphemous thoughts.  Again, I say that you are the last person on earth to be talking about logic.  Big%20smile

Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Do you agree that there are other Hebrew names, besides that of Jesus, which can be "tied to salvation"?

Acts 4:12 “There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”

John 4:42 …and they began to say to the woman: “We do not believe any longer on account of your talk; for we have heard for ourselves and we know that this man is for a certainty the savior of the world.


Sounds to me like another false teaching that Islam is promoting.

 

Wow.  After repeatedly avoiding this issue, you finally grow a spine and try to offer an intelligent response.  Alas, you failed.  The simple fact of the matter is that you made a claim to brother Hasan regarding the specifics of Jesus' name, which I showed was inaccurate.  Instead of admitting your mistake, you shamelessly try to attack Islam by making more irrelevant references to the NT.  How this serves as an intelligent rebuttal to the issue of Jesus' name being uniquely tied to salvation is beyond me.

Originally posted by Kish

Greetings everyone….
         

Yes, greetings from Planet Kish, where none of us on Earth have ever been.  LOL

By the way, as usual, you ignored certain difficult parts of my response.  I responded to your appeal to Deut. 18:18 and how even the NT fails to identify Jesus (pbuh) as the prophet mentioned therein.



-------------
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)



Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 26 September 2011 at 6:11pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

Kish, you had more than a month to respond and still managed to produce a disappointing rebuttal.  It is painful to have to read your weak arguments, but I will do my best.

Didn’t mean to keep you waiting but I do have other obligations. Nonetheless, you believe my argument is weak but you are giving me your best shot, go ahead and try.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Your best response to the problem of the missing Aramaic was resort to your erroneous assumption that "Muhammad and early Muslims" accepted the Greek writings.  Not that it matters, but how you do you know this?

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

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

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

So indeed that makes it a very strong argument!

Originally posted by islamispeace

"62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God:

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

…(Deut. 17:3) or breaking other laws (Deut. 19).  It has to do with criminal proceedings only

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

Hebrews 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…

2 Corinthians 13:1,2 This is the third time I am coming to YOU. “At the mouth of two witnesses or of three every matter must be established.

Genesis 41:32 And the fact that the dream was repeated to Phar′aoh twice means that the thing is firmly established on the part of the [true] God, and the [true] God is speeding to do it.

Matthew 18:16, 20 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.

1 Corintians 14:27-29 And if someone speaks in a tongue, let it be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns; and let someone translate. 28 But if there be no translator, let him keep silent in the congregation and speak to himself and to God. 29 Further, let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern the meaning.

1 Timothy 5:19 Do not admit an accusation…except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

Second, it is quite hilarious that you refer to the Law of Moses when it suits your purpose, but it other places, you deny its importance since Jesus supposedly "fulfilled" it.

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

Third, why do you not apply these verses to Paul's claim of meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus?  Who were the people who witnessed this momentous event?  Do not ignore this question, like you ignore most questions which jeopardize your faith. 

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

If this was true, then Isaiah 59:21 was a false prophecy since it clearly states that the covenant would last "forever" and says nothing of any secondary conditions that had to be fulfilled: Are you saying this is a false prophecy?  Also, verse 20 specifically states that repentance was all that was needed if the Jews ever strayed from the covenant.  Nothing is mentioned of the covenant being taken away for their repeated transgressions:

 

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

Consider also that Jesus said he was the servant of God, which the Quran confirms:

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

Yet Paul referred to Jesus as the "great god and savior"!  What blasphemy is this?

Wrong again! First of all Titus wrote these words not Paul. Secondly, Jesus AND God is our savior, what is your point? Luke wrote….

46 And Mary said: “My soul magnifies Jehovah [YHWH], 47 and my spirit cannot keep from being overjoyed at God my Savior;

Jude also wrote; to [the] only God our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, might and authority for all past eternity and now and into all eternity. Amen.

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

  Apply the same standards you try to apply to Islam and Muhammad (pbuh) to Paul, the real founder of Christianity.  

Wrong aaagain, Paul, seriously? No way, remember Paul was converted from being a very prominent Jew to a follower of Christ! 1 Cor. 10:4 …and that rock-mass meant the Christ. John 7:37 Now on the last day, the great day of the festival, Jesus was standing up and he cried out, saying: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. (Symbolic) So, of all people, according to the scriptures Paul knew Jesus to be, not according to what someone may think, believe or teach.

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

  I have given you two perfectly legitimate examples.  I have also provided an example of the contradictory nature of the Gospels when it came to Jesus being the "son of God".  You have failed to offer an adequate response.

Really, what I have just responded to was not adequate? Mary, Jesus, Jesus’ own mother, Jesus early followers such as Titus, Peter and Paul believed Jesus to be the son of God? You have not showed me one verse where they did not believe and teach that Jesus is NOT the son of God. What you have shown again was versus taken out of context that Jesus and God are the same, which you or I do not believe, so your argument is pointless and has no foundation whatsoever.

You quoted    

Originally posted by islamispeace

 He was asked if he was the son of God.  He replied "you have said so" which implies that they think he said this.  And then he specifically refers to himself as "son of man"

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

Paul referred to Jesus as the "great god and savior"!
Wrong. Where did Paul say that?

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Paul, the real founder of Christianity.
Wrong. Where did Paul or Jesus say that?

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Now after this, if you remain stubborn, that is your problem, not mine.

Absolutely! I truly hope you follow your own advice.

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Another non-answer using the "you don't understand" scripture argument which is the hallmark of standard Christian propaganda.  I repeat once again:

Never did the prophets teach such concepts as: 1.2.3.

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

Even if the covenant was supposed to be replaced with a new one, how does that explain the contradictions?  What does the covenant being replaced have to do with the contradictions?

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

the Jews were never looking for the Messiah who is the "son of God" or that he would die for our sins… That proves nothing about your claim

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

Originally posted by kish

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

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

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

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

That is good enough AND accepted among Jews and Christians today!

Originally posted by islamispeace

By the way, did anyone witness Daniel's meeting with Gabriel?  How many witnesses were there?

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

I am looking for proof that the Jews understood that the Messiah was supposed to be the son of God. In order to prove this, you have to provide direct evidence from Jewish sources, such as the Tanakh or the Talmud etc. 

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

As I said, neither Jesus nor Adam had a father… Are you saying that God impregnated Mary???  I seek refuge in Allah (swt) from such disturbing and blasphemous thoughts. 

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

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



-------------


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 02 October 2011 at 2:08pm
Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

So indeed that makes it a very strong argument!

  

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

Again, you deliberately ignore what Matthew 26 states:

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

      

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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


All praise is due to Allah (swt)!

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

Consider also Romans 9:5-

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

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

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

I certainly don't think so! 

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

Wrong. Where did Paul say that?

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

Originally posted by Kish

Wrong. Where did Paul or Jesus say that?

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

Originally posted by Kish

Absolutely! I truly hope you follow your own advice.

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

"As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering #fen-NIV-2837a - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2837a - 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 #fen-NIV-2842b - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2842b - 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 #fen-NIV-2843c - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2843c - c ] portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the LORD. It is a sin offering. 13 In this way the priest will make atonement for them for any of these sins they have committed, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.’”"

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

  

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

Never did the prophets teach such concepts as:

1. Original sin

2. Redemption through blood sacrifice

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by kish

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

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

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

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

That is good enough AND accepted among Jews and Christians today

  

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

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

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


"Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do (good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behavior and he starts doing (evil) deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire. And similarly a man amongst you may do (evil) deeds till there is only a cubit between him and the (Hell) Fire, and then what has been written for him decides his behavior, and he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise."" (Sahih Bukhari, Book http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=54&translator=1&start=0&number=430 - #54 , Hadith http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=54&translator=1&start=0&number=430#430 - #430 )

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


-------------
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)



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 03 October 2011 at 1:48pm


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

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 12 October 2011 at 9:05am

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

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

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

Originally posted by kish

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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


Originally posted by kish

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

Never did the prophets teach such concepts as:

1. Original sin

2. Redemption through blood sacrifice

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

 

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

  

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

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

Originally posted by honeto

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

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

Originally posted by honeto

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

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

 

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

 



-------------


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 13 October 2011 at 2:28pm
Kish,
if you missed I was saying that you are wrong when you said: "...that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised Seed and King, and giving the details of his life, his ministry, his death, his resurrection and salvation.Interestingly enough the Quran contradicts all the above,"

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

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 16 October 2011 at 2:37pm
Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24895a - a ] among us [this implies multiple “gospels” were in circulation]…"     

B.  The authority and use of the Gospels among the early Christians evolved over the course of the 2nd century.  The following is what I wrote on the thread forum_posts.asp?TID=19811&PID=155589#155589 - "The Holy Gospel did not Evolve!" on May 7:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance." ( http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/2seth.html - The Second Treatise of the Great Seth )

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

So I repeat:

Never did the prophets teach such concepts as:

1. Original sin

2. Redemption through blood sacrifice

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

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

Never did the prophets God teach such concepts as:

1. Original sin

2. Redemption through blood sacrifice

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

This is the evidence we do have:

Exhibit A: ""Mashiaḥ" (anointed one of God) in Ps. ii. 2, which was formerly thought to have Messianic reference, is now taken as referring either to a Hasmonean king or to Israel. The latter interpretation is that prevailing in the Midrash (comp. Midr. Rabbah and Tanḥuma, Emor; Yalḳuṭ, Toledot, near end; Midr. Shoḥer Ṭob, ad loc.), though the Messianic interpretation occurs in the eschatological description (Pesiḳ. Zuṭarta, Balaḳ)." ( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=510&letter=M&search=messiah - Jewish Encyclopedia, "Messiah" )

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

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

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

The Torah is the Jewish guide to life, and its commandments are the ones referred to here. Do all Jews observe all the commandments? Christianity, in fact, often discourages observance of the commandments in Torah, in complete opposition to this prophecy." ( http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=374:messiah-the-criteria&catid=68:the-jewish-messiah&Itemid=481 - Jews For Judaism, "Messiah: The Criteria" )

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Here is the gist in a nutshell:

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

 

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

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

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

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

Let the truth be told! 


-------------
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)



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


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 18 October 2011 at 7:24pm

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24895a -     

B.  The authority and use of the Gospels among the early Christians evolved over the course of the 2nd century.  The following is what I wrote on the thread http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19811&PID=155589#155589 - on May 7:

As I figured, these are only assumptions and accusations

Originally posted by islamispeace

1.  Ignatius of Antioch can be shown to have referred to only two of the Gospels, and those also only via fragmented verses.  He refers in three instances to the Gospel of Matthew and in one instance to the Gospel of Luke http://ntcanon.org/Ignatius.shtml - Telling to you maybe, Ignatius however, wove in quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, showing his acquaintance with such canonical writings, this in itself is proof! 

Originally posted by islamispeace

2.  Justin Martyr references three of the Gospels, again only via fragments.  He also perhaps refers to the Book of Revelation, but none of the letters of Paul or the Book of Acts http://ntcanon.org/Justin_Martyr.shtml -
 

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

Here is what I said my dear friend…

Originally posted by kish

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

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

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


-------------


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 October 2011 at 11:03am
Jack continues to try to convince himself and like-minded Christians with yet another rant filled with unproven assertions.  What can I say?...


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



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


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


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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 October 2011 at 7:28pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

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


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


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

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


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 October 2011 at 3:04pm
Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

Originally posted by Jack

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

Special pleading will get you know where. But you really believe that a small group of Christians were able to do all that, you must be kidding. In any event 'the council of Nicea' started in 325 A.D. many, many years later.
  

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

Originally posted by Kish

But, what is sad is that in the same breath islamispeace refers to the writings of the Tanakh to disprove the Gospel, make up your mind, which is it?
  

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

Thanks islamispeace,


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


-------------
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)



Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 22 October 2011 at 6:18am

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

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

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

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

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

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



-------------


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 23 October 2011 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by Kish

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

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

"AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_33 - 33   [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_34 - Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_35 - Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_36 - 36   With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'

Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God? http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_37 - 37   Thereupon they retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_38 - 38 When Nakai was brought in he said to them; Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not? http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_39 - 39   Yes, was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, in secret places does Naki http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_40 - 40   [the innocent] slay. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_41 - 41 When Nezer was brought in, he said; Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, And Nezer [a twig] shall grow forth out of his roots. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_42 - 42   Yes, they said, Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth away from thy grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot]. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_43 - 43 When Buni was brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my son], my first born? http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_44 - 44   Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_45 - 45 And when Todah was brought in, he said to them; Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]? http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_46 - 46   Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed, since it is written, Whoso offereth the sacrifice of Todah [thanksgiving] honoured me. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_47 - 47 " [Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a]


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

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


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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

  


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

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

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

   But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”   “Jacob,” he answered.  28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, "#fen-NIV-957f" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2032&version=NIV#fen-NIV-957f - f ] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”

 29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.” But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.  30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, "#fen-NIV-959g" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2032&version=NIV#fen-NIV-959g - g ] saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

 31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, "#fen-NIV-960h" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2032&version=NIV#fen-NIV-960h - h ] and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon." (Genesis 32:24-32)

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

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

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

"As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2837a - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2837a - 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2842b - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2842b - 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2843c - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2843c - c ] portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the LORD. It is a sin offering. 13 In this way the priest will make atonement for them for any of these sins they have committed, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.’”"

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

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

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

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

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


Earth to Planet Kish!  Earth to Planet Kish! 


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



Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 23 October 2011 at 5:22pm

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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


Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

Now to another one of YOUR references, Justin Martyr.


Originally posted by kish

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

You then said. ..

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YES!

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

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

Originally posted by kish

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

 

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

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

Stick a fork in it, you are done!

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

Peace,

Kish

 

 

         

     

 



-------------


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 24 October 2011 at 1:12am
Originally posted by Kish

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


Where are historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?Josepphus,Thallus,Pliny the Younger,Lucian of Samosata,Tacitus never mention any resurrection of Jesus Christ.You can click http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/abuse_and_misuse_of_evidence_by_a_greenhorn_1__the_earliest_non_christian_references_to_jesus__peace_be_upon_him_ - here to read a full article about this topic.

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish


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

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

Now about eyewitnesses.

1- Did Moses have any witnesses?

2- Did King David have any witnesses?

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

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

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

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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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 -
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." http://concordances.org/greek/4133.htm - [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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge - 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" ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/bias2.html - 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 -
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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2837a - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2837a - 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2842b - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2842b - 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2843c - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2843c - 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)



Posted By: Kish
Date 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.

 



-------------


Posted By: Kish
Date 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



-------------


Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PID=159736#159736 - (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 - 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 -
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." http://concordances.org/greek/4133.htm - [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" ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/bias2.html - 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2837a - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2837a - 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2842b - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2842b - 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2843c - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2843c - 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)



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date 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


Posted By: Kish
Date 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 -
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.



-------------


Posted By: honeto
Date 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?"


Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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 -
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." http://concordances.org/greek/4133.htm - [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 http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PID=159785#159785 - 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. forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PID=159736#159736 - (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" ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/bias2.html - 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2837a - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2837a - 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2842b - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2842b - 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2843c - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2843c - 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)



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date 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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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)



Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date 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


Posted By: Kish
Date 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



-------------


Posted By: honeto
Date 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 wa