Print Page | Close Window

Prove that Paul or Muhammad had a Revelation.

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=24128
Printed Date: 30 July 2014 at 12:11am


Topic: Prove that Paul or Muhammad had a Revelation.
Posted By: Kish
Subject: Prove that Paul or Muhammad had a Revelation.
Date Posted: 23 October 2012 at 8:08pm
Please share with us:

What evidence do Christians have that the revelation of the Apostle Paul (Saul) while on the road to Damascus really happened?


What evidence do Muslims have that the revelation in the cave of Hira really happened to the Prophet Muhammad?






Replies:
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 2:52am
Originally posted by Kish

Please share with us:

What evidence do Christians have that the revelation of the Apostle Paul (Saul) while on the road to Damascus really happened?


What evidence do Muslims have that the revelation in the cave of Hira really happened to the Prophet Muhammad?

 
*****ic people like you need proof whilst true believers have FAITH.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 7:41am
Originally posted by Abu Loren

*****ic people like you need proof whilst true believers have FAITH.
 
Well, therein lies the challenge, and some may say folly, of "interfaith dialogue" because how do you debate a persons "FAITH" and belief?  LOL, proof really becomes a slippery slope.  Wallahu Mustaan!


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 10:24am
Originally posted by Kish

Please share with us:What evidence do Christians have that the revelation of the Apostle Paul (Saul) while on the road to Damascus really happened?What evidence do Muslims have that the revelation in the cave of Hira really happened to the Prophet Muhammad?


Kish,
my two cents for those who need proof:
For us that did not witness the events (of receiving Revelations by any prophets, Paul a prophet is a new to me) tens of centuries later the only proof left is just that, the Revelation itself, if he left any.
Only through it's study we can determine whether they represent the quality and authenticity of a Revelation by the All Knowing. We have put the Quran to the same test many times, and it never failed against any other.
Hasan

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


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 11:59am
As'alaamu Alaikkum
 
For those of you who do not know, Paul or Saul of Tarsus as was his title, was a Pharisee of the Jewish religion. The Pharisees were in the highr eschalons of the Jewish priestly order. To begin with he persecuted the new Christians, then on the road to Damascus he claims that he saw a vision of the risen Christ Jesus (pbuh). Then he claims that he was told by Jesus (pbuh) to stop persecuting him and to spread the new message of Christianity.
 
He then wrote a few letter so these newl found churches and it's these letters that form the majority of the New Testament Bible. These letters were never meant to be included in any canonical works. These lettes were just encouraging words to the new Christians, but somehow they ended up being the fundamentla teaching of the Christians in the church.
 
So having said all of that, where I come from is this, that Paul never saw any vision at all because Jesus (pbuh) was never crucified nor did he rise from the dead. So then what you are left with is a liar who lead billions of people away from the One True God into the hell fire.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 12:48pm
@Abu Loren

So you do not think Jesus leads the people to God? that people who have belief in Christ Jesus are led to God?  How are the people following the teaching of Jesus that is in the Bible not being led to God?
How does Paul 'lead the people away from the one true God' with these words;
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
For those who claim love of God, but do not do good works, do not love God, and those who have the love of God can not help but do good works.  It is the fruit that shows the spirit.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 4:08pm
Well, somebody is mistaken (I won't say "lying") -- but who, and how do we know?  I think that's the point of the OP.

-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ghazzali
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 4:21pm
I want to add a few more questions Kish:

What evidence do Jews have that Moses (pbuh) is a prophet?

What evidence do Atheists have that there isn't any supernatural being?


-------------
The world is a dangerous place to live in, not because of the bad people, but because of the good people who does not do anything about it.


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 7:31pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren

*****ic people like you need proof whilst true believers have FAITH.


SO, that's how you are starting off I see. I hope you never have to teach anyone about faith becasue even many prophets needed sound
proof or evidence to accept what is truth and that's just for starters. Saying believe me because I say so just doesn't carry much
wieght, it never did. Not to sincere honest hearted truth seekers. Now, what you said about Paul how does that differ from Muhammad
with his life as a Muslim, claimed he seen an angel which no Muslim can or has confirmed because he had no eye-witnesses to testify. Muhammad broke
the Holy Law of Moses when it comes to truth and falsehood! It has ALWAYS been emphasized in the Old and New Testament

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

Why did Moses, Jesus, his 12 disciples and the Apostle Paul keep this principle of LAW but not Muhammad? They ALL agreed with each other, why not Muhammad? Could it be
Muhammad came with his own teachings and that is why not one person can confirm his revelation or his miracles?  


And then he came up with the first book for Muslims to follow the god of his father, Allah and the cresent moon.

Abu who were the eye-witnesses that this happened to Muhammad in the cave of Hira? Who said it was Gabriel much, much later on? Convince your student that it wasn't a hoax!
Why would an angel of Allah violently choke him many, many times over for not listening?  

Originally posted by abuayisha

. . how do you debate a persons "FAITH" and belief?


Very good question that really doesn't need debating. However, the ONLY challenge may be in one providing the proof or evidence itself that
such an event really happened or took place.

In harmony with the Law of Moses and the Prophets 7000 years ago and even today in the 21st century with the law of the land, their MUST ALWAYS
be eye-witnesses who either seen or heard the event. That is the FIRST rule of thumb in the Holy Scriptures.

Originally posted by honeto

. . my two cents for those who need proof:


Hasan, it has nothing to do with who need it. It has everything to do with did the event actually really happened as it was told and if it did then it
should not be an issue to bring forth proof or evidence, right? Remember, Jesus provided miracles and some still did not believe. So it has nothing to do
who need it but no one can deny that Jesus performed miracles as you yourself would agree he did. Do you believe everything a person tells you without sound evidence?

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of
using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were in fact proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by
which one fulfills the burden of proof.
 
Originally posted by Ghazzali

I want to add a few more questions Kish:

What evidence do Jews have that Moses (pbuh) is a prophet?

What evidence do Atheists have that there isn't any supernatural being?


Sorry, please stick with the topic or open one regarding Moses. Moses prophethood is not being question, Jews, Christians and Muslims all agree he was a prophet.
 

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


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 7:34pm
Originally posted by Ghazzali

I want to add a few more questions Kish:

What evidence do Jews have that Moses (pbuh) is a prophet?


That one is easy. Smile  Exodus from Egypt, crossing the Reed sea, surviving in the desert. 
That is if you believe they are not just made up stories.
Presumably though it is the people who lived it who told the stories to their children and it got passed down through the generations.


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 25 October 2012 at 4:46am
Originally posted by Kish

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


This LAW has been the established principle of the Holy Scriptures starting with the prophet Moses and the Torah, Muhammad failed to follow it. Even early Muslims followed that principle but don't believe me do the research. So, any event that Muhammad claimed happened to him according to scriptual LAW, it must be confirmed by people who eye-witnesses the event to prove that what he said happened really, realy happened. I'm curious now, since this was a "historical" event for Muslims did even one person see or hear this event in the cave of Hira that Muhammad claimed happened?

Where in the Quran can I find that answer. It's like saying Ishmael was the child that was about to be sacrificed but the Quran never mentions Ishamel by name, another claim of Muhammad and the list goes on! What you call that is BLIND faith, believe without evidence to back it up! Why not believe in the Baha'i faith?

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


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 29 October 2012 at 3:06pm
Kish,
I do not know your agenda, but your topic suggest that you are trying to find out if the revelations were from the All Knowing God or from man.
I have asked you in a previous post to check the contents of each revelations. This is the only way we can see as a fact which one is from who.
Everything else is one's word against the other you can come up with all kind of stories and they will be meaningless. And since you are the one asking you will need the answers and will need to listen.
There are many issues in the revelations we can take to compare the two.

I say let us take the most important ones first.
I do not know what is most important in your belief. But in mine it is:
God, who is God and who is not God.
Salvation, how it is achieved.
Was Jesus God or did he have a God.
The one (revelation) consistent with those three wins my heart.
So I will let you begin.
Tell me briefly who is God according to Paul, in fact let us take the entire Bible and see if it is consistent with that. We will take one at a time since we want to benefit from this comparison.
I am rally excited, I hope you are really serious.
Hasan

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


Posted By: Cyril
Date Posted: 30 October 2012 at 6:48am
Originally posted by honeto


I have asked you in a previous post to check the contents of each revelations. This is the only way we can see as a fact which one is from who.


It is not very hard to find out where revelations come from when you compare religions.

Most of the components of revelations are borrowings from neighbouring religions.





Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 01 November 2012 at 3:33pm
Originally posted by Cyril


Originally posted by honeto

I have asked you in a previous post to check the contents of each revelations. This is the only way we can see as a fact which one is from who.
It is not very hard to find out where revelations come from when you compare religions.Most of the components of revelations are borrowings from neighbouring religions.


Cyril,
where did these and many like this in the Quran came from.
Like this one:

5:73 (Y. Ali) They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
or may be this one:
3:59 (Y. Ali) The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.
or may be this:
4:157 (Y. Ali) That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

or may be this:

5:116 (Y. Ali) And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

or this:

2:113 (Y. Ali) The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (To stand) upon." Yet they (Profess to) study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.

or may be this:
2:135 (Y. Ali) They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah."

what about his one:
112:1 Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
112:2 Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
112:3 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
112:4 And there is none like unto Him.


Care to share your expertise about where these were borrowed from, which neighboring religion teaches these and many more such beautiful verses.
Love,

Hasan


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


Posted By: Ghazzali
Date Posted: 04 November 2012 at 1:47pm
May peace be on the guided ones.
Originally posted by Kish

Moses prophethood is not being question, Jews, Christians and Muslims all agree he was a prophet.


According to Jews, Christians and Muslims are hypocrites and liars. What weight does their testimony carry? That is why I wanted to know, why does a Jew believe Musa(pbuh) is a prophet?

And it is relevant to the topic because then the same logic could possibly be used to prove that Isa(pbuh) and Muhammad(pbuh) were also prophets.


-------------
The world is a dangerous place to live in, not because of the bad people, but because of the good people who does not do anything about it.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 04 November 2012 at 3:28pm
Originally posted by Ghazzali


  I wanted to know, why does a Jew believe Musa(pbuh) is a prophet?

And it is relevant to the topic because then the same logic could possibly be used to prove that Isa(pbuh) and Muhammad(pbuh) were also prophets.


Greetings ghazzali,

Did you see my reply to you?

CH

Originally posted by Ghazzali

I want to add a few more questions Kish:

What evidence do Jews have that Moses (pbuh) is a prophet?

That one is easy. Smile  Exodus from Egypt, crossing the Reed sea, surviving in the desert. 
That is if you believe they are not just made up stories.
Presumably though it is the people who lived it who told the stories to their children and it got passed down through the generations.


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 18 November 2012 at 1:52pm

Originally posted by Ghazzali

According to Jews, Christians and Muslims are hypocrites and liars….why does a Jew believe Musa(pbuh) is a prophet?

The same reason why Christians and Muslims believe that Moses was a Prophet, no need to reinvent the wheel.

Originally posted by Ghazzali

And it is relevant to the topic because then the same logic could possibly be used to prove that Isa(pbuh) and Muhammad(pbuh) were also prophets.

That is why the burden of proof falls on Muslims to prove that Muhammad was a prophet; a fact which both Jews and Christians disagree with. Moses, Jesus, (the greater Moses) his 12 Apostles and other prophets spoke about each other. They all knew that Moses and Jesus were prophets, even Muhammad. None of them however spoke about Muhammad let alone him being a prophet, not even Ishmael or his 12 sons. In the Quran ONLY Muhammad talks about his “so-called” revelation from God, no one else can even confirm it or even eye-witness it. It’s like saying Ishmael was the son that was about to be sacrificed by Abraham but the Quran never mentions Ishmael by name, which the Quran doesn’t. But, it does mention Isaac.

But, yet Muslims say his revelation is the last one. Why, because he says so with no divine backing to prove it, really?      



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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 November 2012 at 3:51pm
I see that Kish is still up to his old tricks, eh?  Nevertheless, this is a good topic, but I think that Kish is a little confused on the matter. 

Originally posted by Kish

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

Why did Moses, Jesus, his 12 disciples and the Apostle Paul keep this principle of LAW but not Muhammad? They ALL agreed with each other, why not Muhammad? Could it be
Muhammad came with his own teachings and that is why not one person can confirm his revelation or his miracles?
 

Herein lies the problem, Kish!  You have completely misquoted your own Bible!  Let's look at Deuteronomy 19:15 to see the context.  We will discuss what the Bible says about judging a claimant to prophethood later.

Deuteronomy 19:15 states:

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

As can be clearly seen, this verse is concerned with criminal law, not claimants to prophethood.  Commenting on the phrase "any crime or offense", the medieval Jewish scholar Rashi stated:

"...where his testimony would lead to the accused being punished, either with corporal punishment or with or monetary punishment. However, one [witness] may rise up to [compel his fellow to take] an oath, as follows: If one says to his fellow, “Give me the maneh [100 zuzim] that I lent you,” and his fellow replies, “I have nothing of yours,” and one witness testifies for him [the plaintiff] that he [the defendant] owes him [the money], [the defendant] is required to swear [that he did not borrow any money]."" http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9983/showrashi/true - [1]

So, not only did the Torah require at least two witnesses for criminal cases, one witness was also acceptable as long as he took an oath.  I will show later that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also followed this method in some cases. 

So, what does the Bible say about people who claim to be prophets?  That issue is dealt with in Deuteronomy 18:20-22.  It states:

"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." (NIV)

Notice that it says nothing about eye-witnesses.  Rather, the way to judge whether a prophet was a true prophet or a false one was to see if the prophet:

A. Called on the people to worship other gods, and

B. Made prophecies which did not come true.

In fact, the passage clearly states that if people ask how they could know "when a message has not been spoken by the LORD", the answer is that they should wait and see if the prophecies made by the prophet come true.  If not, then he is a false prophet and must be put to death.

Therefore, to judge whether any claimant to prophethood was telling the truth or not, we must analyze their prophecies.  I will do that with regard to Paul and Muhammad (pbuh) in a separate post, inshaAllah.

To summarize, eyewitnesses were required in matters of criminal law and prophets were judged according to their teachings (worshiping God or worshiping "other gods") and whether their prophecies came true.

Now, Kish claims that Muhammad (pbuh) did not follow the Law of Moses (pbuh).  Well, first of all, the Law of Moses was for the Jews only.  The Laws that Muhammad (pbuh) brought supercede all previous Laws, because Islam is a universal religion and Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to all people, whereas Moses (pbuh) was sent only to the Jews.  However, the evidence shows that Islam shares the same priniciple with regard to criminal law and eye witnesses.  For example, in the matter of financial disagreements, the Quran states that two male witnesses or one male and two female witnesses should be brought forth:

"O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her." (2:182)

Sahih Bukhari also mentions the need for witnesses in such matters:

"Narrated Abu Wail: Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) said, "Whoever takes a (false) oath in order to grab some property (unjustly), Allah will be angry with him when he will meet Him. Allah confirmed that through His Divine Revelation: "Verily! Those who purchase a little gain at the cost of Allah's covenant and their oaths . . . they will have a painful punishment." (3.77) Al-Ash'ath bin Qais came to us and asked, 'What is Abu Abdur-Rahman (i.e. 'Abdullah) telling you? 'We told him what he was narrating to us. He said, 'He was telling the truth; this Divine Verse was revealed in connection with me. There was a dispute between me and another man about something and the case was filed before Allah's Apostle who said, 'Produce your two witnesses or else the defendant is to take an oath.' I said, The defendant will surely take a (false) oath caring for nothing.' The Prophet said, 'Whoever takes a false oath in order to grab (other's) property, then Allah will be angry with him when he will meet Him.' Then Allah revealed its confirmation. Al-Ashath then recited the above Divine Verse."" (48:386)

The Quran also affirmed the need to produce four, reliable witnesses in order to prove an accusation of sexual iniquity:

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way." (4:15)

So, we can see that both the Torah and the Quran are in agreement with regard to the need for witnesses in criminal cases or financial disagreements.






-------------
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: 25 November 2012 at 12:02pm
Now that the issue regarding Deuteronomy 19 has hopefully been cleared up, we can investigate which person, Muhammad (pbuh) or Paul, met the Torah's test of a prophet or any person claiming to be the recipient of God's message.  To reiterate, the test the Bible provides for prophets is given in Deuteronomy 18:20-22-

"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."

Let us deal with Paul first.  Before we delve into whether he passed the test of Deuteronomy 18, it is prudent to read the story of his life-changing experience on the road to Damascus.  In fact, there are multiple accounts of this encounter in the New Testament:

"As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything." (Acts 9:3-9)

"“About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’

“‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.

‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

10 “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.

‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me." (Acts 22:6-11)

"On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, "#fen-NIV-27838a" - a ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2026&version=NIV#fen-NIV-27838a - a ] ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’" (Acts 26:12-14)

The differences in these verses are self-evident.  One would think that the "inspired" authors of the New Testament would not have written contradictory accounts of the same story. 

Moving on, does Paul pass the test of Deuteronomy 18?  Did he speak in the name of the One God or in the name of "other gods"?  Did he proclaim anything that did not come to pass?  The answer can be found in the following verses:

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

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

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

Clearly, Paul spoke in the name of Jesus and worshiped him as "God", which is of course nothing new.  It is the central tenet of Christianity that Jesus was God incarnate.  But by speaking in the name of Jesus, Paul fails the test of Deuteronomy 18.

Finally, Paul also spoke about future events, as in the following:

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

Clearly, Paul was stating that Jesus' return was imminent and that it would occur within the lifetime of some of the first generation of Christians.  This prophecy was also made in the First Epistle of John:

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." (1 John 2:18)

Therefore, Paul failed the second part of the test of Deuteronomy 18.  Hence, according to the Bible, Paul was a false prophet.

In my next post, I will discuss whether Muhammad (pbuh) passed or failed the test of Deuteronomy 18, inshaAllah.



-------------
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 November 2012 at 2:59pm
Cyril,
you have disappeared after I asked you a simple question (page 2).
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: 25 November 2012 at 3:52pm
Now, let us discuss whether Muhammad (pbuh) passed the test of Deuteronomy 18. 

Regarding the first test, the question is did Muhammad (pbuh) speak in the name of God or "other gods"?  It is well-known that Muhammad (pbuh) preached in the name of the One God, not multiple gods.  He rejected idolatry and polytheism and preached a strict monotheism.  Moreover, he preached that the God (Allah) who sent him also sent the previous prophets.  The Quran states this clearly:

"Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will)." (2:64)

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

"Say: Will ye dispute with us about Allah, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that We are sincere (in our faith) in Him?" (2:139)

From these verses, it is clear that Muhammad (pbuh) certainly did not "speak in the name of other gods".  Rather, he spoke in the name of the One God, the God of Abraham (pbuh).  Therefore, he passed the first test of Deuteronomy 18, unlike Paul.

Now onto the second part.  Did Muhammad (pbuh) make any false prophecies, like Paul?  The number of prophecies is too long to list, but all have either come true or are yet to be fulfilled.  The following article mentions some of the prophecies made by Muhammad (pbuh) which came true within his lifetime or the lifetime of his companions:

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/379/%20%20 - http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/379/ 

If anyone can mention any "false prophecies", let them come forward.

Until then, it is clear that Muhammad (pbuh) passed the second test of Deuteronomy 18.  Therefore, in the absence of opposing evidence, he was a true prophet and, in the words of Kish, "had a revelation".  And Allah knows best.




-------------
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: 28 November 2012 at 4:21pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Notice that it says nothing about eye-witnesses…

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

To summarize, eyewitnesses were required in matters of criminal law and prophets were judged according to their teachings (worshiping God or worshiping "other gods") and whether their prophecies came true.


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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

Now, Kish claims that Muhammad (pbuh) did not follow the Law of Moses (pbuh)


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

But you conveniently left Q 2:282 out "If the party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, let his guardian dictate faithfully. And get two witnesses out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women."
The Sura of the Table (Al-Ma'ida) 5:109 from 10 A.H. reads,
"O ye who believe! When death approaches any of you, (take) witnesses among yourselves when making bequests---two just men."
Are these criminal offenses?


The Sura of the Light (Al-Nur) 24:4 from 5-6 A.H. requires four witnesses in order to sustain an accusation of marital infidelity. It reads,
"And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors."

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


From this we understand that when Muhammad spoke to the people of Mecca saying that he was a prophet, and the Meccans and the Jews demanded that Muhammad should show them some confirming miracle, it was not just because of hard-hearted unbelief. That may have been true of many of them, but as the Quran itself admits, some of the Jews were honorable and feared God. The Jews and others in Mecca were saying, "One witness is not enough. We need a confirming witness from God." They were doing exactly what God has commanded men to do, because Jehovah (YHWH), the Eternal One, has ruled for our sake that there must be two or more witnesses.

Originally posted by islamispeace

So, we can see that both the Torah and the Quran are in agreement with regard to the need for witnesses in criminal cases or financial disagreements.

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


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


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 28 November 2012 at 7:20pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

Now that the issue regarding Deuteronomy 19 has hopefully been cleared up, we can investigate which person, Muhammad (pbuh) or Paul, met the Torah's test of a prophet or any person claiming to be the recipient of God's message.

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

The differences in these verses are self-evident.  One would think that the "inspired" authors of the New Testament would not have written contradictory accounts of the same story

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

Clearly, Paul spoke in the name of Jesus and worshiped him as "God", which is of course nothing new

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

1 Thessalonians 4:15-18

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

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



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


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 4:40am

Now, here is where truth always prevail over falsehood.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Now, let us discuss whether Muhammad (pbuh) passed the test of Deuteronomy 18. 

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

It is well-known that Muhammad (pbuh) preached in the name of the One God, not multiple gods.

Oh really, when, who and where was the name of Allah first applied, certainly not by Israel, although the God of Israel Jehovah/Yahweh (YHWH) is still being used today, the Dead Sea Scroll confirms that. In fact who was the chief god of the Kaaba and who worshiped him? That’s another question I’m looking for an answer too. You and I know that Allah is really not a name but a descriptor that literally means “the god” like saying “elohim” or “theos” these are not names but titles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

  

 



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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 5:13pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew "#fen-NIV-18952a" - a ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%201&version=NIV#fen-NIV-18952a - a ] you,
    before you were born I set you apart;
    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

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

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

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

Where were the eye-witnesses?

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

I have already dealt with this. 

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

Are these criminal offenses?

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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




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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 6:30pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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


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

"Of the great God - There can be little doubt, if any, that by "the great God" here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus, for it is not a doctrine of the New Testament that God himself as such, or in contradistinction from his incarnate Son, will appear at the last day. It is said, indeed, that the Saviour will come "in the glory of his Father, with his angels" http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/16-27.htm - Matthew 16:27 , but that God as such will appear is not taught in the Bible. The doctrine there is, that God will be manifest in his Son; that the divine approach to our world be through him to judge the race; and that though he will be accompanied with the appropriate symbols of the divinity, yet it will be the Son of God who will be visible. No one, accustomed to Paul's views, can well doubt that when he used this language he had his eye throughout on the Son of God, and that he expected no other manifestation than what would be made through him.In no place in the New Testament is the phrase ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ epiphaneian tou Theou - "the manifestation or appearing of God" - applied to any other one than Christ. It is true that this is spoken of here as the "appearing of the glory - τῆς δόξης tēs doxēs - of the great God," but the idea is that of such a manifestation as became God, or would appropriately display his glory." http://barnes.biblecommenter.com/titus/2.htm - [1]

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Paul expected Jesus to return in his lifetime.  Since that obviously did not happen, he made a false prophecy. 


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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 8:06pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

Now, here is where truth always prevail over falsehood.


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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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


You showed nothing, except your own ignorance. 

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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


It was used by the Arabs, regardless of their religion.  In fact, there is a http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/zebed.html - trilingual pre-Islamic Christian inscription which phonetically spells "Allah" as God.  The inscription states:

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

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

"...the word Allah is used by all Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others. Allah, as a deity, was probably known in pre-Islamic Arabia." http://web.ebscohost.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=14&sid=313c6303-5467-4c27-bc28-74e61455dbf0%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=39043166 - [1]

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

"Christians have used the word Allah from pre-Islamic times." http://strategicnetwork.org/pdf/kb20279.pdf - [ http://strategicnetwork.org/pdf/kb20279.pdf - 2]

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

Originally posted by Kish

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


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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

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

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



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



Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 02 December 2012 at 3:04am
We cannot prove that Paul or Muhammad had a revelation. There isn't a single proof and there never will be. We can only believe that they had a revelation. This is why there is the term 'religious beliefs'.



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


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 03 December 2012 at 11:58am
Originally posted by Matt Browne

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



Matt,
wrong again,
Paul was not a prophet he did not receive any revelations from God, in case if he did his revelations will be inline to what God has revealed before, it did not.
Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was an unlearned man, what was revealed to him as the Quran is in line with divine quality of consistency throughout this great book. If it was not a revelation then it was a miracle and source of both is God, you pick one, I say it's both.
Hasan

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


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 04 December 2012 at 5:47am
Sorry, Hasan, but that's still not a proof. We can't know for sure whether Muhammad experienced a revelation or a miracle and whether the source is God. All humans are fallible. Only God knows the ultimate truth according to the Qur'an. But we can believe that Muhammad experienced a revelation or a miracle. That's fine with me.



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


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 06 December 2012 at 4:18pm

Originally posted by Islamispeace

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

No one, I mean no one:

A.    In the Quran confirmed Muhammad’s revelation

B.    Eye-witnessed Muhammad’s revelation

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

By your own admission you quoted . . .

Originally posted by Islamispeace

"The word of the Lord came to me,

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Next point

Originally posted by Islamispeace

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

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

Originally posted by Kish

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

No one, I mean no one:

A.    In the Quran confirmed Muhammad’s revelation or

B.    Eye-witnessed Muhammad’s revelation

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

Muhammad, had neither A and or B.



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


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 06 December 2012 at 4:32pm

Originally posted by kish

Originally posted by Kish


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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

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

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



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


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 06 December 2012 at 5:07pm

Originally posted by kish

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

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

Talking to the Jews Jesus said . .

Originally posted by Kish

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

You really need to meditate more on your reading because all of this is FACT!

EVERYTHING that I’ve said is solidly backed up and supported!

You also said and I quote "Christians have used the word Allah from pre-Islamic times."

Okay, but that is why the word Allah in English only means "the god," that is not a name, certainly not the name of the God of Israel.          

Originally posted by islamispeace

It was to destroy idolatry and bring the Arabs back to the worship of the One God. 

By using one of the pagan gods of the Kaba, ok.

Originally posted by islamispeace

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

Muhammad would change the words of the Prophet Moses and Christ the Messiah.

(Exodus 6:3) . . .  as respects my name Jehovah  . . . 

(Psalms 113:2, 3) . . .  Jehovah’s name become blessed From now on and to time indefinite. 3 From the rising of the sun until it setting Jehovah’s name is to be praised.

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

(Matthew 4:10) Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.

Jesus and his followers used the name Jehovah, he said it in the Hebrew form not Arabic although he could speak Arabic and many other languages.




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


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 07 December 2012 at 5:46pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

Sorry, Hasan, but that's still not a proof. We can't know for sure whether Muhammad experienced a revelation or a miracle and whether the source is God. All humans are fallible. Only God knows the ultimate truth according to the Qur'an. But we can believe that Muhammad experienced a revelation or a miracle. That's fine with me.



Matt,
did you really read and understand what I wrote, because your reply seem to miss all what I said.
Let me paste again: "Paul was not a prophet he did not receive any revelations from God, in case if he did his revelations will be inline to what God has revealed before, it did not.
Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was an unlearned man, what was revealed to him as the Quran is in line with divine quality of consistency throughout this great book. If it was not a revelation then it was a miracle and source of both is God, you pick one, I say it's both. "
Hasan

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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 December 2012 at 12:00pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

No one, I mean no one:

A.    In the Quran confirmed Muhammad’s revelation

B.    Eye-witnessed Muhammad’s revelation

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

What difference does it make that no one "in the Quran confirmed Muhammad's revelation"?  Even if it did, would you believe it?  So, what's your point?  The Quran is not like the Bible.  It is not a narrative of Muhammad's life and experiences.  The Quran is a guide for believers to live their lives according to God's Laws. 

There were no witnesses to the initial revelation that Muhammad (pbuh) received in the Cave of Hira, just as there were no witnesses to the initial revelation received by Jeremiah or any of the other prophets mentioned in the Tanakh.  Either this is a contradiction of Deuteronomy 19 (which you claim requires witnesses for a prophet's claims) or Deuteronomy 19 has nothing to do with prophets, as I claimed.

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

 

First of all, Deuteronomy 19:15 required two human witnesses, and the one accused could not be one of the witnesses!  Read the verse again:

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

Where does it say that God could be one of the witnesses?  Where does it say that the accused could be the other?  Obviously, the person who wrote the Gospel of John misquoted Deuteronomy 19:15. 

Second, I have already proven that Deuteronomy 19:15 was concerned only with criminal and financial cases, because it says that clearly.  Nothing is mentioned about prophets. 

Third, if the rule Deuteronomy 19:15 also included prophets, then you cannot confirm that any of the Hebrew prophets has actually received a revelation from God.

Originally posted by Kish

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

You have no proof for this from the Tanakh itself.  Quoting ad nauseum from the New Testament is a circular argument.  We know for a fact that the authors of the New Testament books often selectively quoted from the Tanakh when it suited their purpose.

Originally posted by Kish

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

The topic applies just as much to Jeremiah (pbuh) and all the other prophets as it does to Paul or Muhammad (pbuh).  The reason I mentioned Jeremiah (pbuh) was to show how the Tanakh contradicts your claims about Deuteronomy 19:15.  If two witnesses were needed to confirm that a prophet had actually received God's revelation, then Jeremiah (obuh) and all the other Hebrew prophets failed the test. 

Originally posted by Kish

By your own admission you quoted . . .

Originally posted by Islamispeace

"The word of the Lord came to me,

 

What better witness then the Lord as Jesus himself mentions in John 8:11 above? Unlike Muhammad, there was no confusion as to who spoke to Paul and or Jeremiah whatsoever, they knew who it was. In fact it came from the Lord personally, how do we know?


What a circular argument!  So, to prove that a "prophet" was actually a prophet, all he had to do was say that "The Word of the LORD came to me"?  That's it?  He is a witness to his own claim of prophethood and God is the other?  This is pure circular reasoning and special pleading. 

Originally posted by Kish

Because Gabriel does not appoint prophets, he never did, he is a messenger of God. That is why you have never seen him in the roll of appointing or anointing prophets of God, AT ALL!


Who said Gabriel (as) appointed Muhammad (pbuh)?  Gabriel (as) simply brought the revelation to Muhammad (pbuh), straight from God.  Hence, Gabriel (as) was simply the messenger of God, as you said.

Originally posted by Kish

On the other-hand, Muhammad has Gabriel portrayed in the Quran as one who appoints and anoints although much, much, much later he said that it was believed to be Gabriel that spoke to him, but he really was freighted and unsure because this so called “angel” violently chocked him, unlike any of God’s angels in any roll.


Your rants mean nothing because no where is it stated in the Quran or Hadiths that Gabriel "appoints and anoints" prophets.  On the contrary, it is stated that God appoints prophets:

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


By the way, wasn't Paul "blinded" for a few days when he supposedly encountered the so-called "Jesus".  Wasn't Jacob (pbuh) crippled when he supposedly "wrestled" with God or an angel (depending on your interpretation).  Wasn't Zechariah (pbuh) unable to speak when Gabriel (as) came to him to announce the birth of John the Baptist (pbuh)?  Your special pleading is blinding you to the facts.

Originally posted by Kish

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

Wow!  More special pleading!  So, the so-called "eye-witnesses" to Jeremiah's "prophethood" were people who lived after him?!  How convenient! 

In that case, Muhammad (pbuh) also is a prophet because billions of people today believe he was a prophet!  But, of course, you don't accept that argument but apparently Jeremiah was a true prophet because people living hundreds of years after him believed he was. 

You also forgot about poor Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Haggai and all the other Hebrew prophets.  Who were their witnesses?

I think it has become clear that you do not know if there were any witnesses to the claims of any of the Hebrew prophets.  Yet, instead of admitting the truth, you persist in your folly by using circular arguments and special pleading. 

Originally posted by Kish

So, we have more than enough information to address this issue whether, you agree with it or not, the Scriptures show you over and over again so you cannot change the law.

What are you smoking?  The "information" you showed above actually shows that the law was being changed all the time!  You appealed to John 8:17 to show that Jesus had two witnesses to his claim that he received God's revelation (himself and God), yet Deuteronomy 19:15 stated that there had to be two human witnesses, and God was not one of them.  Therefore, the "Jesus" of John 8 changed the law when it suited his purpose!

Originally posted by Kish

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

I never said I did believe in the whole Bible.  The point was to show that your asinine claims are contradicted by the very books you claim to uphold.  So far, you have failed to prove that Jeremiah or any of the Hebrew prophets had two witnesses, as you have been hypocritically demanding from Muhammad (pbuh).  You can dance around that all you want, but you will only tire yourself out! 

Originally posted by Kish

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

Right...people living hundreds of years after Jeremiah were his "witnesses".  But none when he was actually alive.  So tell me.  When poor Jeremiah was alive and he had no witnesses, what was the judgment regarding his claim to prophethood?  Was it "pending further evidence"? 

Originally posted by Kish

No one, I mean no one:

A.    In the Quran confirmed Muhammad’s revelation or

B.    Eye-witnessed Muhammad’s revelation

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

Muhammad, had neither A and or B.

According to your weak evidence above, Jeremiah, Paul and Jesus all failed to bring any witnesses in their lifetimes, except themselves, God and people who lived hundreds of years after the fact.  So actually, neither had A or B.

Also, as I have stated and shown, many people confirmed Muhammad's prophecies after he had died.  The prophecies he had made had come true. 

Originally posted by Kish

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

LOL The burden of proof is on you to prove that Paul really did receive God's revelation.  Asking for evidence that non-Christians questioned Paul's credentials is a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that he truly believed that the end would come in his lifetime. 

Moreover, the fact of the matter is that Paul was not a famous person in Rome.  He was known perhaps only to the Christian congregations, but not to Rome itself.  The Romans regarded Christianity with indifference.  In other words, they did not care about this small group of what they saw as religious fanatics.  The funny thing is that Christians after Paul were apparently embarrassed that Paul was not as well-known as they believed he should have been.  So what did they do?  They forged letters between Paul and the Roman philosopher Seneca!  As Bart Ehrman notes:

"But over the years Christians wondered why, if Paul was such a brilliant and astute thinker, none of the other great thinkers of his day mentions him.  Why does he appear to have been a great unknown in the Roman Empire, outside of the Christian church itself?

Sometime in the fourth century an unknown author sought to address the issue and did so by forging a series of fourteen letters between Paul and the Roman philosopher Seneca.  [...]

They are meant to show that Paul was well placed and well respected by intellectuals of his time." ("Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are", p. 91) 

You see, Kish, Paul was an unknown in his time.  No one in Rome paid much attention to him. 

But this is all irrelevant to our discussion.  The fact is that Paul believed that Jesus (pbuh) would return in his lifetime.  He said so many times throughout his surviving letters.  For the purposes of this topic, we can say with full confidence that he was not the recipient of God's revelation.



-------------
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: 08 December 2012 at 12:35pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

Talking to the Jews Jesus said . .

Originally posted by Kish

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

You really need to meditate more on your reading because all of this is FACT!

EVERYTHING that I’ve said is solidly backed up and supported!

"Solidly backed up and supported"?  LOL  Oh, please.  All you have done to "support" your claim about the Tanakh is to quote not the Tanakh but the New Testament, which was written hundreds of years afterwards.  If you want to prove your claim regarding Deuteronomy 19:15, do so by quoting the Tanakh.  This is my challenge to you.  Provide one iota of evidence from the Tanakh that any claimant to prophethood was asked to provide two witnesses that he had indeed received God's revelation.  They had to be two human witnesses or one human witness (not the accused individual) who was willing to testify under oath to God.  

Originally posted by Kish

You also said and I quote "Christians have used the word Allah from pre-Islamic times."

Okay, but that is why the word Allah in English only means "the god," that is not a name, certainly not the name of the God of Israel.


They used it to refer specifically to God.  They could just as easily have used the name "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" but they did not.  That is because, in the Arabic language, God was known as "Allah". 

Originally posted by Kish

By using one of the pagan gods of the Kaba, ok.


LOL Allah (swt) was not represented by an idol.  And if Allah (swt) was a "pagan god", then Jews and Christians would not have referred to God as "Allah".  Your ridiculous claims are based on your own ignorance.  You belong to a "very sick cult" as the young man in the YouTube video I mentioned said. 

Originally posted by Kish

Muhammad would change the words of the Prophet Moses and Christ the Messiah.

(Exodus 6:3) . . .  as respects my name Jehovah  . . . 

(Psalms 113:2, 3) . . .  Jehovah’s name become blessed From now on and to time indefinite. 3 From the rising of the sun until it setting Jehovah’s name is to be praised.

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

(Matthew 4:10) Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.

Jesus and his followers used the name Jehovah, he said it in the Hebrew form not Arabic although he could speak Arabic and many other languages.


You have no evidence for this.  It is widely accepted that Jesus spoke Aramaic and perhaps Hebrew only.  But Aramaic was his mother tongue. 

God sent prophets to all nations to speak to them in their own languages.  "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" were the names of God in the Hebrew language.  God is still God, no matter what language you speak.  What His "name" is in Hebrew is irrelevant when a prophet is sent to non-Hebrew speaking people.



-------------
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: 12 December 2012 at 12:05pm

It is very obvious then that Muhammad did not follow the Law of Moses pertaining to the “Two or more witness” rule, although the other entire bible Prophets did, ending with Jesus. If it was good enough for all the prophets from Moses to Jesus, what makes Muhammad so special unless he’s suspect?  

 

Islamispeace has also admitted that HE feels it only pertains to criminal cases, missing the main point which is whether or not the testimony of two or more is true.

 

Islamispeace just focuses on the nature of the incident being criminal AND not the testimony of the incident being true or false by the “two or more witness” rule. Most of you would agree that your main concern would be whether the accusation is true or not.

 

Islamispeace I’m glad you’re not the Judge, Jury and or Executioner. 

 

You have totally misconstrued the Law in Deuteronomy.

 

Deuteronomy 19:15 . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the MATTER should stand good

 

Matthew 18:16 . . .  in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses EVERY MATTER may be established.


2 Corithians 13:1 . . .This is the third time I am coming to YOU. “At the mouth of two witnesses or of three EVERY MATTER must be established.

 

Here is my favorite . . .

 

Originally posted by Kish

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

And here you missed the point again . . .

Originally posted by islamispeace

First of all, Deuteronomy 19:15 required two human witnesses, and the one accused could not be one of the witnesses!  Read the verse again:  Where does it say that God could be one of the witnesses?  Where does it say that the accused could be the other?  Obviously, the person who wrote the Gospel of John misquoted Deuteronomy 19:15.

Keeping it simple, the “two or more witness” rule was being applied even in the case of Jesus teachings, How? As I have said Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. agreed with his (Birth, death and resurrection) and followed his teachings and preached that the Kingdom of God is near.

It is out of ONLY Muhammad’s mouth who teaches something entirely different from the Old and New Testament and not out of anyone else’s mouth in the Quran to establish Muhammad’s statement or matter as truth!  

 

Not only did the New Testament keep the rule “Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses” the MATTER should stand good which in this case is Matthew and Paul but all the writers  in the New Testament themselves followed it.   

 

It was a real law to prove or disprove eternal truths and even the Lord Jesus supported it like I’ve shown previously. People are concerned about TRUTHS!

How did the “two or more witness” rule apply to Jeremiah? As I’ve have shown . . .

Originally posted by kish

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

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

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

 

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

 
It’s well documented in the inspired Holy Scriptures that Jeremiah was indeed a prophet and that what he said was an established fact by the “two or more witness” rule, that’s how and that is why it’s part of the Bible canon of Muhammad’s day and the same bible canon today.
 

Originally posted by islamispeace

What difference does it make that no one "in the Quran confirmed Muhammad's revelation"?

A.    He failed to follow the Principle Law of Moses

B.    His revelation was not from the God of Israel

C.    His revelation was never confirmed by anyone other than himself

D.    The account cannot be confirmed in the Quran by “two or more witnesses” as TRUTH!

Originally posted by islamispeace

]Even if it did, would you believe it?

For anyone to truly follow God he FIRST have to SUBMIT to God and that just the beginning, let alone have the blessings of a true messenger.

Originally posted by islamispeace

]What His "name" is in Hebrew is irrelevant when a prophet is sent to non-Hebrew speaking people.

Again, not according to the LAW of the Holy Scriptures, his name is everlasting; you really have been misinformed and even misguided.

Isaiah 42:8 I am Jehovah. That is my name; http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2030 - - +  neither my praise http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2032 - - +

Isaiah 64:6 “For your Grand Maker http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060026/713 - - +  is your husbandly owner, http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060026/714 - - +  Jehovah of armies being his name; http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2788 - - +  The God of the whole earth http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060026/715 - Romans 10:13 http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/dx/r1/lp-e/28317 - -   For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060048/85 - - +

You can keep calling him something other than by his name all you want but don’t say I didn’t tell you.



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


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 11:40am

Originally posted by kish

Islamispeace just focuses on the nature of the incident being criminal AND not the testimony of the incident being true or false by the “two or more witness” rule. Most of you would agree that your main concern would be whether the accusation is true or not.

 

According to “Deuteronomy 19:15 . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the MATTER should stand good

Matthew 18:16 . . .  in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses EVERY MATTER may be established.


2 Corithians 13:1 . . .This is the third time I am coming to YOU. “At the mouth of two witnesses or of three EVERY MATTER must be established.

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

 

My question to any Muslim on this forum according to these scriptures is this; on the basis of what would a person first be brought to justice?  

 

ONLY on the basis of being accused of a wrong doing by who, the “two or more” witnesses.

Until the case was actually establish as TRUE by who islamispeace? the “two or more witnesses, you could NOT move forward.

If you supposedly submit to God and if you are honest with yourself, you would know it would only be on the basis of the “two or more witness” rule whether or not the individual would first stand trial. There would have to be two or more confirmations that the event happened, as in the case of Moses, Jeremiah, Paul, Jesus etc. . .

So it is FIRST and foremost only by the TESTIMONY of the Two or more Witnesses not the ”nature” of the incident, that brings forth a case in the court of LAW, especially the Mosaic LAW.

Unequivocally, Muhammad failed in that respect; no one confirmed anything he said in the Quran, him being a messenger, a prophet or a servant of the most High God.

It is ONLY by the words of Muhammad himself that he had this revelation and was a Prophet and penned his Quran, unlike the confirmation that Jeremiah, Paul and all the others had regarding their writings. As in the case of Jeremiah . . .

Originally posted by kish

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

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

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

 

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



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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 2:36pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

It is very obvious then that Muhammad did not follow the Law of Moses pertaining to the “Two or more witness” rule, although the other entire bible Prophets did, ending with Jesus. If it was good enough for all the prophets from Moses to Jesus, what makes Muhammad so special unless he’s suspect?


Are you getting desperate Kish?  Mindlessly repeating the same refuted argument over and over again?  Do you think that just by repeating ad nauseum your baseless claim, people will start believing it?  LOL

Please provide the names of witnesses who corroborated the biblical prophets in their lifetimes.  Remember.  According to your interpretation of Deut. 19, there have to be at least two human witnesses or one human witness who is willing to take an oath.  I know you will fail in this endeavor, but I don't want you to say later that I didn't give you chance!

Of course, to the rest of us, the facts are already clear.  To those who are still unsure, let me make it clear by providing the evidence straight from the Bible, both the Tanakh and the New Testament:

1.  Isaiah - 0 witnesses

"The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah." (Isaiah 1:1)

2.  Jeremiah - 0 witnesses

"The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. The word of the Lord came to him in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah, and through the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, down to the fifth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah king of Judah, when the people of Jerusalem went into exile." (Jeremiah 1:1-3)

3.  Ezekiel - 0 witnesses

"In my thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God." (Ezekiel 1:1)

4.  Daniel - 0 witnesses

"Then Daniel returned to his house and explained the matter to his friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 18 He urged them to plead for mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that he and his friends might not be executed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. 19 During the night the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision." (Daniel 2:17-19)

5.  Hosea - 0 witnesses

"The word of the Lord that came to Hosea son of Beeri during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash "#fen-NIV-22096a" - a ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hosea%201&version=NIV#fen-NIV-22096a - a ] king of Israel:" (Hosea 1:1)

6.  Joel - 0 witnesses

"The word of the Lord that came to Joel son of Pethuel." (Joel 1:1)

7.  Amos - 0 witnesses

"The words of Amos, one of the shepherds of Tekoa—the vision he saw concerning Israel two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash "#fen-NIV-22366a" - a ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%201&version=NIV#fen-NIV-22366a - a ] was king of Israel." (Amos 1:1)

8.  Zechariah (NT) - 0 witnesses

"Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense." (Luke 1:8-11)

9.  Mary (NT) - 0 witnesses

"
In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”" (Luke 1:26-28)

Whoo!  Let's stop there.  We can keep going with the other prophets such as Obadiah, Jonah etc.  The main point to take away from all this is that all of these prophets were alone when God's word came to them.  I challenge you, Kish, to prove otherwise.   

Originally posted by Kish

Islamispeace has also admitted that HE feels it only pertains to criminal cases, missing the main point which is whether or not the testimony of two or more is true.

 

Islamispeace just focuses on the nature of the incident being criminal AND not the testimony of the incident being true or false by the “two or more witness” rule. Most of you would agree that your main concern would be whether the accusation is true or not.


Me thinks that Kish doth protest too much!  Kish, surely you remember that I backed up my claims about Deut. 19 by quoting the commentary of the Jewish scholar Rashi. 

Originally posted by Kish

You have totally misconstrued the Law in Deuteronomy.

 

Deuteronomy 19:15 . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the MATTER should stand good

 

Matthew 18:16 . . .  in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses EVERY MATTER may be established.


2 Corithians 13:1 . . .This is the third time I am coming to YOU. “At the mouth of two witnesses or of three EVERY MATTER must be established.

 

Here is my favorite . . .

 

Originally posted by Kish

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

And here you missed the point again . . .


How conveniently you ignore my comments on these verses.  All of these were dealt with in my previous response.  Kish really thinks that mindless repetition will drive his point home!  I would keep an eye on the third base coach, Kish, because I don't think he is waiving you home!  LOL

Originally posted by Kish

Keeping it simple, the “two or more witness” rule was being applied even in the case of Jesus teachings, How? As I have said Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. agreed with his (Birth, death and resurrection) and followed his teachings and preached that the Kingdom of God is near.


Oh, so Kish wants to "keep it simple".  That is Christian code for "special pleading".  Kish realizes he is trapped, so he resorts to special pleading to make Deut. 19 appear to be in agreement with Jesus' claims of witnesses. 

To repeat, Deut. 19 requires two HUMAN witnesses.  When Jesus (pbuh) was questioned by the Pharisees, he stated that his "witnesses" were himself and God, a clear violation of Deut. 19.

Originally posted by Kish

It is out of ONLY Muhammad’s mouth who teaches something entirely different from the Old and New Testament and not out of anyone else’s mouth in the Quran to establish Muhammad’s statement or matter as truth!  

 

Not only did the New Testament keep the rule “Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses” the MATTER should stand good which in this case is Matthew and Paul but all the writers  in the New Testament themselves followed it.   

 

It was a real law to prove or disprove eternal truths and even the Lord Jesus supported it like I’ve shown previously. People are concerned about TRUTHS!

How did the “two or more witness” rule apply to Jeremiah? As I’ve have shown . . .


Sure, sure.  I know it hurts Kish.  Childish repetition is the last resort of an biased Christian apologist with no way out of an intellectual dilemma. 

Originally posted by Kish

It’s well documented in the inspired Holy Scriptures that Jeremiah was indeed a prophet and that what he said was an established fact by the “two or more witness” rule, that’s how and that is why it’s part of the Bible canon of Muhammad’s day and the same bible canon today.


Who were the witnesses in Jeremiah's lifetime?  You have yet to answer this question.  Was Deut. 19 referring to "future witnesses" or was it referring to witnesses in the here and now?  C'mon Kish!  Think hard!

Originally posted by Kish

A.    He failed to follow the Principle Law of Moses

B.    His revelation was not from the God of Israel

C.    His revelation was never confirmed by anyone other than himself

D.    The account cannot be confirmed in the Quran by “two or more witnesses” as TRUTH!


Circular reasoning once again! 

A.  "Prinicipal Law of Moses" - What on earth does that mean?  It is well-known that Paul did not follow the Law of Moses.  Kish, of course, knows this, so he deceptively adds the word "principally" to spare placing Paul in an obvious dilemma.

B.  Revelation was not from the God of Israel - Really?  How so?  This is Kish doing what Kish knows best: making circular arguments. 

C.  Revelation was never confirmed by anyone other than himself - Really?  What about Waraqah and Bahira?  Oh, but I know.  Kish will resort to the argument "well, they don't count". 

D.  Two or more witnesses - Still gnawing away at that bone, even though you have been refuted on this nonsense several times already!  Your silence on the issue of whether any of the Biblical prophets had witnesses in their lifetimes to back up their claims of receiving God's word is delightful!  LOL

Originally posted by Kish

For anyone to truly follow God he FIRST have to SUBMIT to God and that just the beginning, let alone have the blessings of a true messenger.


And Muhammad (pbuh) did that, didn't he?

"
So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted My whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, Thy duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah's sight are (all) His servants. " (3:20)

It just keeps getting worse for you, doesn't it? 

Originally posted by Kish

Again, not according to the LAW of the Holy Scriptures, his name is everlasting; you really have been misinformed and even misguided.

Isaiah 42:8 I am Jehovah. That is my name; http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2030 - - +  and to no one else shall I give my own glory, http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2031 - - +  neither my praise http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2032 - - +  to graven images. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2033 - - +

Isaiah 64:6 “For your Grand Maker http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060026/713 - - * http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2786 - - +  is your husbandly owner, http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060026/714 - - * http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2787 - - +  Jehovah of armies being his name; http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2788 - - +  and the Holy One of Israel is your Repurchaser. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2789 - - +  The God of the whole earth http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060026/715 - - *  he will be called.

Romans 10:13 http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/dx/r1/lp-e/28317 - - 13For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060048/85 - - *  will be saved.” http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060048/641 - - +

According to the "Jewish Encyclopedia":

"Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh (), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility ( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8568-jehovah - see Jehovah ). This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai ( = "Lord"), which the Masorites have inserted in the text, indicating thereby that Adonai was to be read (as a "ḳeri perpetuum") instead of Yhwh. When the name Adonai itself precedes, to avoid repetition of this name, Yhwh is written by the Masorites with the vowels of Elohim, in which case Elohim is read instead of Yhwh. In consequence of this Masoretic reading the authorized and revised English versions (though not the American edition of the revised version) render Yhwh by the word "Lord" in the great majority of cases." http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11305-names-of-god - [1]

The same article also points out the usage of variations of different names, such as Elohim and El, in different languages, such as Ethiopic and Hebrew:

"The most common of the originally appellative names of God is Elohim (), plural in form though commonly construed with a singular verb or adjective. [...] In Ethiopic, Amlak ("lords") is the common name for God. The singular, Eloah (), is comparatively rare, occurring only in poetry and late prose (in Job, 41 times). The same divine name is found in Arabic (ilah) and in Aramaic (elah). [...]

The word El () appears in Assyrian (ilu) and Phoenician, as well as in Hebrew, as an ordinary name of God. It is found also in the South-Arabian dialects, and in Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, as also in Hebrew, as an element in proper names. It is used in both the singular and plural, both for other gods and for the God of Israel. [...]

Other titles applied to the God of Israel, but which can scarcely be called names, are the following: Abir ("Strong One" of Jacob or Israel; Gen. xlix. 24; Isa. i. 24; etc.); Ḳedosh Yisrael ("Holy One of Israel"; Isa. i.4, xxxi. 1; etc.); Ẓur ("Rock") and Ẓur Yisrael ("Rock of Israel"; II Sam. xxiii. 3; Isa. xxx. 29; Deut. xxxii. 4, 18, 30); Eben Yisrael ("Stone of Israel";" [Ibid]

Who is really "misinformed" here?  I think it is obvious that you are the one who is misinformed.  Those "Jehovah's Witnesses" sure have got you brainwashed!

Originally posted by Kish

You can keep calling him something other than by his name all you want but don’t say I didn’t tell you.

LOL A fool's warning!  Oooh, I am so scared!



-------------
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: 14 December 2012 at 2:50pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

My question to any Muslim on this forum according to these scriptures is this; on the basis of what would a person first be brought to justice?  

 

ONLY on the basis of being accused of a wrong doing by who, the “two or more” witnesses.

Until the case was actually establish as TRUE by who islamispeace? the “two or more witnesses, you could NOT move forward.


And this had to do with someone who was accused of criminal wrongdoing.  Nothing was mentioned about prophets.  That is why all of the Jewish prophets were alone when the word of God came to them.  Of course, if and when these prophets made their prophecies and they did not come true, then they could be accused of being false prophets (a capital offense), and that is when witnesses would be brought forward (during the trial).  If two or more witnesses corroborated that the prophet's prophecy did not come true, the "prophet" could then be found guilty and executed

Originally posted by Kish

If you supposedly submit to God and if you are honest with yourself, you would know it would only be on the basis of the “two or more witness” rule whether or not the individual would first stand trial. There would have to be two or more confirmations that the event happened, as in the case of Moses, Jeremiah, Paul, Jesus etc. . .

So it is FIRST and foremost only by the TESTIMONY of the Two or more Witnesses not the ”nature” of the incident, that brings forth a case in the court of LAW, especially the Mosaic LAW.

Unequivocally, Muhammad failed in that respect; no one confirmed anything he said in the Quran, him being a messenger, a prophet or a servant of the most High God.

It is ONLY by the words of Muhammad himself that he had this revelation and was a Prophet and penned his Quran, unlike the confirmation that Jeremiah, Paul and all the others had regarding their writings. As in the case of Jeremiah . . .


Oh that's rich! Kish talking about "honesty".  You have yet to name any witnesses for the Biblical prophets.  All you have done is resort to special pleading and circular arguments when you realized you were cornered.  See my list above of the Biblical prophets and how all of them had zero (0) witnesses when they received God's word, just like Muhammad (pbuh). Yet Kish hypocritically points his finger at Muhammad (pbuh) and says "Aha!"  LOL

Originally posted by Kish

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

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

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

 

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


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


Two or three witnesses in the here and now...not in the future...and to give testimony at the trial of an accused individual! 

Moreover, you still forgot about the other poor Biblical prophets, such as Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggadai etc. 

Not only did all of these prophets receive God's word in solitude, but you have failed even in your desperate last resort to appeal to "future" witnesses (as in the case of Jeremiah) in their case!  Why am I not surprised?  Big%20smile

Ignorance truly is bliss for some! 


-------------
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: Caringheart
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 4:05pm
Originally posted by islamispeace


7.  Amos - 0 witnesses


But do not seek Bethel, Nor enter Gilgal, Nor pass over to Beersheba; For Gilgal shall surely go into captivity, And Bethel shall come to nothing.
—Amos 5:5

Bethel
(Luz, Beth-aven): Benin. Bethel "house of God" was a town about 10 miles N of Jerusalem, originally Luz (Gen 28:19). It was here that Abraham encamped (12:8; 13:3) in this beautiful pastureland. It received the name of Bethel, "house of God," because of Jacob's dream (28:10-22). Bethel was assigned to the Benjamites, but they did not possess it, and we find it taken by the children of Joseph (Judg 1:22-26). Apparently the Ark of the Covenant was brought here (Judg 20:26-28). It was one of the three places that Samuel chose in which to settle legal matters (1 Sam 7:16), and Jeroboam chose Bethel as one of the two places in which he set up golden calves (1 Kings 12:28-33). King Josiah removed all traces of idolatry and restored the true worship of Jehovah (2 Kings 23:15-20). Bethel was occupied by Jews returning from Babylon (Ezra 2:28 with Neh 11:31).

Around 1235 BC the city was destroyed in a great fire that left debris five feet thick in places. It is believed to be attributed to the Israelite conquest of Judg 1:22-25. The later Israelite level of occupation has construction strikingly inferior to Canaanite levels, but the period of David and Solomon shows noticeable recovery. No sanctuary dating to the days when Jeroboam I instituted calf worship there has yet been recovered. Although Bethel was only a small village during Nehemiah's day (5th cent BC), it became an important place during the Hellenistic period and grew even larger in Roman and Byzantine days. Remains in the area show that the city continued to exist throughout the Byzantine era but apparently disappeared when the Muslims took over Palestine.
________________________

Prophesy fulfilled.  There is no better witness than that.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 December 2012 at 12:44pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace


7.  Amos - 0 witnesses


But do not seek Bethel, Nor enter Gilgal, Nor pass over to Beersheba; For Gilgal shall surely go into captivity, And Bethel shall come to nothing.
—Amos 5:5

Bethel
(Luz, Beth-aven): Benin. Bethel "house of God" was a town about 10 miles N of Jerusalem, originally Luz (Gen 28:19). It was here that Abraham encamped (12:8; 13:3) in this beautiful pastureland. It received the name of Bethel, "house of God," because of Jacob's dream (28:10-22). Bethel was assigned to the Benjamites, but they did not possess it, and we find it taken by the children of Joseph (Judg 1:22-26). Apparently the Ark of the Covenant was brought here (Judg 20:26-28). It was one of the three places that Samuel chose in which to settle legal matters (1 Sam 7:16), and Jeroboam chose Bethel as one of the two places in which he set up golden calves (1 Kings 12:28-33). King Josiah removed all traces of idolatry and restored the true worship of Jehovah (2 Kings 23:15-20). Bethel was occupied by Jews returning from Babylon (Ezra 2:28 with Neh 11:31).

Around 1235 BC the city was destroyed in a great fire that left debris five feet thick in places. It is believed to be attributed to the Israelite conquest of Judg 1:22-25. The later Israelite level of occupation has construction strikingly inferior to Canaanite levels, but the period of David and Solomon shows noticeable recovery. No sanctuary dating to the days when Jeroboam I instituted calf worship there has yet been recovered. Although Bethel was only a small village during Nehemiah's day (5th cent BC), it became an important place during the Hellenistic period and grew even larger in Roman and Byzantine days. Remains in the area show that the city continued to exist throughout the Byzantine era but apparently disappeared when the Muslims took over Palestine.
________________________

Prophesy fulfilled.  There is no better witness than that.


Ummm, if you had actually read my response to Kish, you would have seen that I was talking about people who witnessed the fist instance when Amos or the other prophets received their revelations.  This has to do with his unique interpretation of Deuteronomy 19:15.  So far, he has provided no evidence that any one witnessed the revelations coming to the prophets, yet he hypocritically asks the same of Muhammad (pbuh). 

By the way, we can discuss the prophecies of Muhammad (pbuh).  Here is just one example:

"Abu Dharr reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You would soon conquer Egypt and that is a land which is known (as the land of al-qirat). So when you conquer it, treat its inhabitants well. For there lies upon you the responsibility because of blood-tie or relationship of marriage (with them). And when you see two persons falling into dispute amongst themselves for the space of a brick, than get out of that. He (Abu Dharr) said: I saw Abd al-Rahman b. Shurahbil b. Hasana and his brother Rabi'a disputing with one another for the space of a brick. So I left that (land)."  (Sahih Muslim, Book http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=031&translator=2&start=0&number=6174 - #031 , Hadith http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=031&translator=2&start=0&number=6174#6174 - #6174 )

Egypt was conquered by the Muslims under Amr ibn al-As in 641 CE, almost 10 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0210200/ancient_egypt/timeline.htm - [1] .  So, there you go!  In your own words:

"Prophesy fulfilled.  There is no better witness than that."
  

In any case, you response does not cite any authoritative source for the information you presented about Bethel.  You simply copied a source without providing a citation for the rest of us.  Of course, I know where you got it from.  A simple internet search yields the following link:

http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/bethel.html - http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/bethel.html

You overlooked a key sentence in the above article:

"Bethel is identified with the modern Benin or Beitin. It stands upon the point of a low rocky ridge, between two shallow wadis which unite, the water then falls into the Wadi Suweinit toward the SE."

Moreover, Amos (pbuh) was warning the people of Bethel, who were worshiping idols, of their impending doom, not the destruction of Bethel thousands of years later.  As the Jewish website "Chabad.org" states:

"Stepping fearlessly into the midst of the celebrating crowds in Bethel, before the temple Jeroboam had built for the worship of the calves, Amos announced the terrible punishment G-d would bring upon the sinful people of Israel." http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/464007/jewish/The-Prophet-Amos.htm - [2]


-------------
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: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 December 2012 at 5:21pm
I actually do not remember the source.  I was researching Bethel to find out where in the world it was located after reading about it in the scriptures.  I was reading in Genesis.  I'm not sure how I came across the verse in Amos.  Anyway, that's how I happened upon the information.  Then I happened to be reading on this thread.

To me, 'ceased to exist' is the definition of
"will come to nothing"
and it was after the Byzantine era that Bethel truly did cease to exist.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 12:27pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

I actually do not remember the source.  I was researching Bethel to find out where in the world it was located after reading about it in the scriptures.  I was reading in Genesis.  I'm not sure how I came across the verse in Amos.  Anyway, that's how I happened upon the information.  Then I happened to be reading on this thread.

To me, 'ceased to exist' is the definition of
"will come to nothing"
and it was after the Byzantine era that Bethel truly did cease to exist.


So again, it is your opinion and not what the text actually says that ultimately wins out in your mind.  What would be the purpose of Amos (pbuh) prophesying the destruction of Bethel thousands of years afterwards if the primary reason he was sent by God in the first place was to warn the Israelites because of their idol worship?  How would that serve as a warning to the Israelites.   

You also conveniently ignored the statement that Bethel is identified with the city of Beitin. 

It is absurd to claim that you can't remember what your source was!  I showed you the source because you cut and pasted directly from it, word for word!  Or was that just a remarkable coincidence?     


-------------
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: Caringheart
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 2:02pm
Greetings islamispeace,

You're the one who keeps saying God gave us a mind to reason with.  Yes, I don't just mindlessly quote others, I process what I study.
So the text says something different to you?
What does 'will come to nothing' mean to you?

Bethel - Beitin... I didn't ignore it.  What difference does it make?  Different name, same place.

No, I'd say you did what I do when I am interested in the source of the things that other people post, or when I need clarification, or further definition, or further study... you copied part of the text I posted, pasted it into Google, and it turned up the source of the information.  So what?
I was simply saying that I did not go seeking the information for the purpose of posting on this thread.

By the way, this shows that you can do your own research when you want to. Wink


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 6:55pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Caringheart

Greetings islamispeace,

You're the one who keeps saying God gave us a mind to reason with.  Yes, I don't just mindlessly quote others, I process what I study.
So the text says something different to you?
What does 'will come to nothing' mean to you?

Bethel - Beitin... I didn't ignore it.  What difference does it make?  Different name, same place.

No, I'd say you did what I do when I am interested in the source of the things that other people post, or when I need clarification, or further definition, or further study... you copied part of the text I posted, pasted it into Google, and it turned up the source of the information.  So what?
I was simply saying that I did not go seeking the information for the purpose of posting on this thread.

By the way, this shows that you can do your own research when you want to. Wink


LOL It's funny how you try to downplay the fact that you were caught deceptively quoting a source and not giving all the information, not to mention that you cut and pasted it like so many plagiarists! 

I immediately recognized that you were cutting and pasting because I have seen it so often!  And when I checked on the source you copied, I found that you did not even give all the information (Bethel being identified with Beitin).  That is why so many people do not provide citations!  They know that if they did, they would caught covering up the full story!

You still have not offered a reasonable explanation as to why Amos (pbuh) would be sent to warn the Israelites of their impending doom only to prophecy the destruction of their city thousands of years after they would all be dead and turned to dust!





-------------
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: Caringheart
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 9:23pm
whatever...


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 12:40pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

Please provide the names of witnesses who corroborated the biblical prophets in their lifetimes.

Now names are not just good enough, you want to rewrite the LAW? Where is this NEW law of yours in the Torah where the “two witnesses” rule HAD to live during their lifetime, although some actually did although it was not a mandatory rule? WHERE?

Now islamispeace wants to add other stipulations to the LAW of Moses, interesting indeed when you’re grasping from the straw mans hat!

Just because “NO ONE” can confirm NONE of Muhammad’s revelation in the Quran, no need to get bent out of shape and disgusted and try to make NEW rules. That was the purpose of the LAW, so that imposters would be dealt with fairly and justly.

Again, by your admission . . .

Originally posted by islamispeace

According to your interpretation of Deut. 19, there have to be at least two human witnesses or one human witness who is willing to take an oath.

AND ALL THOSE NAMES AT LEAST TWO OR MORE WITNESSES CONFIRMED OR TESTIFIED THE MATTER AS TRUTH IN WHICH THESE PEOPLE SPOKE OR WENT THROUGH. YES, FIRMLY ESTABLISHED!

Ironically, even the Quran has established, confirmed and testified the individuals YOU listed that what they said and experience as TRUTH – THANKS!!

Where in the Quran or the Bible is that done for Muhammad.

What is a witness? A witness is someone who has, who claims to have, or is thought, by someone with authority to compel testimony, to have knowledge relevant to an event or other matter of interest. In law a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what he or she knows or claims to know about the matter before some official authorized to take such testimony.

In islamispeace mind he thinks a witness is one who has to SEE an event, NO! Look up the word my friend.

Again, where in the Quran or the Bible did someone testified, heard or even furnished evidence for Muhammad. ZERO! But those names YOU provided there is a testimony to each one of them in the Bible and even in your Quran, how about that! You nor I can say the say about Muhammad.

Originally posted by islamispeace

The main point to take away from all this is that all of these prophets were alone when God's word came to them.

No, the main points are the “two or more witness” rule that makes their statement credible. Other people confirmed or testified the event they experience as TRUTH!

I know this is a blow to you Islam but look up the word witness to get clarity.  

Your attempt to water down the LAW went down the drain. A witness did not always have to be present as YOU continue to insist but “TWO OR MORE” witnesses HAD to testify to the event for it to be credible.

Who! Who! Who! In the Quran established Muhammad’s revelations as credible, a matter of TRUTH, WHO or forever hold your peace?  



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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 December 2012 at 10:48am
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

Now names are not just good enough, you want to rewrite the LAW? Where is this NEW law of yours in the Torah where the “two witnesses” rule HAD to live during their lifetime, although some actually did although it was not a mandatory rule? WHERE?


Kish, you are getting desperate.  You are trying to interpret the Torah to fit your own agenda.  You are so desperate that you are not even making any sense anymore!  Think about it.  Deuteronomy 19:15 states that when when a person is accused of a crime, two witnesses must come forward to testify.  Obviously, if these "witnesses" were anonymous, then their testimony would be meaningless, right?  Imagine if in a court, a defense attorney attempted to give the testimony of an anonymous witness.  Do you think the jury would accept such a testimony?  Also, what would be the point of witnesses coming forward after the accused is already dead?!  Come to your senses, Kish.  LOL

Originally posted by Kish

Now islamispeace wants to add other stipulations to the LAW of Moses, interesting indeed when you’re grasping from the straw mans hat!

Just because “NO ONE” can confirm NONE of Muhammad’s revelation in the Quran, no need to get bent out of shape and disgusted and try to make NEW rules. That was the purpose of the LAW, so that imposters would be dealt with fairly and justly.

Again, by your admission . . .
    

More desperation.  I understand that you are confounded. 

Originally posted by Kish

AND ALL THOSE NAMES AT LEAST TWO OR MORE WITNESSES CONFIRMED OR TESTIFIED THE MATTER AS TRUTH IN WHICH THESE PEOPLE SPOKE OR WENT THROUGH. YES, FIRMLY ESTABLISHED!


Calm down, Kish.  Writing in all caps will not help your argument.  I don't even know what you are trying to say here. 

Originally posted by Kish

Ironically, even the Quran has established, confirmed and testified the individuals YOU listed that what they said and experience as TRUTH – THANKS!!

Where in the Quran or the Bible is that done for Muhammad.

What is a witness? A witness is someone who has, who claims to have, or is thought, by someone with authority to compel testimony, to have knowledge relevant to an event or other matter of interest. In law a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what he or she knows or claims to know about the matter before some official authorized to take such testimony.

In islamispeace mind he thinks a witness is one who has to SEE an event, NO! Look up the word my friend.

Again, where in the Quran or the Bible did someone testified, heard or even furnished evidence for Muhammad. ZERO! But those names YOU provided there is a testimony to each one of them in the Bible and even in your Quran, how about that! You nor I can say the say about Muhammad.


LOL Again, when Kish gets cornered, he changes his argument and asks for something else entirely!  He then provides a selective definition of the word "witness" (without providing a citation, of course).  Unfortunately for him, I know exactly where he got this definition from...Wikipedia.  Here is what the article says that Kish conveniently "forgot" to mention:

"A percipient witness or eyewitness is one who testifies what they perceived through his or her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense - senses (e.g. seeing, hearing, smelling, touching). That perception might be either with the unaided human sense or with the aid of an instrument, e.g., microscope or stethoscope, or by other scientific means, e.g.,a chemical reagent which changes color in the presence of a particular substance.

A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay - hearsay witness is one who testifies what someone else said or wrote. In most court proceedings there are many limitations on when hearsay evidence is admissible. Such limitations do not apply to grand jury investigations, many administrative proceedings, and may not apply to declarations used in support of an arrest or search warrant. Also some types of statements are not deemed to be hearsay and are not subject to such limitations.

An http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness - expert witness is one who allegedly has specialized knowledge relevant to the matter of interest, which knowledge purportedly helps to either make sense of other evidence, including other testimony, documentary evidence or physical evidence (e.g., a fingerprint). An expert witness may or may not also be a percipient witness, as in a doctor or may or may not have treated the victim of an accident or crime. [...]

Eyewitness testimony is generally presumed to be more reliable than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence - circumstantial evidence . Studies have shown, however, that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed, and parts of it can be meaningless." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness - [1]

Of these "classes" of witnesses, the only one which would apply to the Biblical prophets would be the "percipient witness" or "eyewitness".  So far, Kish has failed miserably to provide any evidence of eyewitnesses to the Biblical prophets, even though he has been harping about the important of eyewitnesses according to the Torah!  Awkward...Embarrassed

Originally posted by Kish

No, the main points are the “two or more witness” rule that makes their statement credible. Other people confirmed or testified the event they experience as TRUTH!

I know this is a blow to you Islam but look up the word witness to get clarity.


It's hilarious how you make these passionate statements but provide absolutely no evidence to back them up!  Please do let us know the names of the people who "confirmed or testified the event they experience [sic]".  I have been waiting eagerly for you to answer this question.  Your silence is, of course, an answer in itself!  Thanks! Big%20smile\

Originally posted by Kish

Your attempt to water down the LAW went down the drain. A witness did not always have to be present as YOU continue to insist but “TWO OR MORE” witnesses HAD to testify to the event for it to be credible.

Who! Who! Who! In the Quran established Muhammad’s revelations as credible, a matter of TRUTH, WHO or forever hold your peace?

Still making up your own rules using nonsensical and childish logic?  Kish, my dear, please explain how two "witnesses" could testify to an event if they were not even there to experience it???  Confused 

I think it is safe to say from your gobbledygook that you would not make a good lawyer or judge! 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: Kish
Date Posted: 23 December 2012 at 10:38pm

. . . and as always rather than present ANY witnesses to Muhammad be it a “hearsay witness” an “expert witness” an “eyewitness” or otherwise as defined by the word – Witness, Islam gives us NOTHING

Whereas any giving Prophet in the Old and Testament fits at least one or more of the criteria of what a witness to their testimony is.

So, here is your chance again. Can YOU provide proof of anyone in the Quran that falls under anyone of these witness categories to Muhammad’s revelations, at least ONE?

Originally posted by islamispeace

Kish, my dear, please explain how two "witnesses" could testify to an event if they were not even there to experience it???

Please forgive him he’s stuck on . . . . Islam read your OWN definition of what defines a witness in ANY dictionary.

I think it is safe to say when it comes to the Quran, Islam and it’s beliefs you could not testify in behalf of it or make a good WITNESS of any sort. How can you, according to your definition of it you were not there.



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


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 24 December 2012 at 9:43am

Well, Islam had more than enough chances to present his case to bring forth “two or more witnesses” within the Quran and according to the LAW of Moses to establish Muhammad’s revelation as being an established historical fact and that he was indeed a messenger or a prophet of God.

Based on his own thorough research in what defines a witness, Muhammad failed in ALL respect. UNLIKE, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul and ALL other writers of the Holy Scriptures (Old and New Testament) who had credible witnesses to testify, confirm and acknowledge their “inspired” written message Muhammad had NONE, ZERO, ZILCH!

Which means in his case the “two or more witness” rule was NOT applied and that Muhammad’s message was NOT a true inspired revelation but a false one.

When God said through Moses that no prophet should be accepted until his prophecy comes true, He was saying that there must be two witnesses.

What are the confirming witnesses that the words of the Qur'an which Muhammad spoke came from God? Why does every prophet in the Holy Scriptures have a confirming “witness” and in the Quran Muhammad does not have a confirming “witness”, that is the million dollar question. Why was Muhammad so secretive with his so call revelation?

When Muhammad walked into Mecca, or now walks into the mind of one who reads the Qur'an, and says that God spoke to him and told him about the day of judgment, how will the person hearing or reading know? Muhammad is only one witness.

When I have asked whether anyone other than Muhammad heard the Angel Gabriel, every person has answered that he was the only one.

REMEMBER, it was NOT Gabriel who identified himself, it was Muhammad who made this claim. If Muhammad as Muslims claim was greater than Moses and Jesus and these two Prophets fit every detail defined by the word WITNESS why does Muhammad fail in every aspect in the word, not having even ONE credible witness to confirm his revelation?

From Mt. Sinai God spoke to Moses and ALL the Children of Israel and they SAW his power.

During the life of Jesus there were three times that God spoke openly as a second witness. The first time was when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

Obviously, John and those being baptized at the same time heard this voice. The second time occurred in the presence of his three disciples - Peter, James and John (two or more witnesses to confirm) He took them up on a high mountain where he was transfigured. His clothes became dazzling. Moses and Elijah, who had each been dead for more than 900 years, appeared to Jesus.

Although most prophets are not confirmed by a voice from heaven but many have, or by fire like in the case of Moses and Elijah, BUT no one, I mean NO ONE in the Quran can confirm ANY of Muhammad claims by even the definition of the word witness. If he was greater and if he was a prophet as Muslims like to claim what made him so great compared to the others? Where did he even come from and by whose authority?

Well, wherever he came from it really does not matter because according to the LAW of Moses it was not from God.

But, now we do see why the message of such Prophets as - Moses, Jeremiah, Jesus and Paul (primarily known as an apostle) directly contradicts the message of Muhammad, why I am not surprised.

Since this thread is really about Paul and Muhammad, read this closely and carefully:

Here is what one renowned commentary, Al-Qurtubi, says about Paul:

Ibn Ishaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent (to preach) there were Peter AND PAUL who went to Rome;

al-Qurtubi had no qualms in admitting that Paul was a legitimate follower of Christ!

Then there is this candid admission in reference to Q 3:54 and Q 61:14

The Quran teaches that Jesus was God's best prophet, and that Christians will be placed above non-believers until the Day of Judgment. (Dr. Nader Pourhassan, The Corruption of Moslem Minds [Barbed Wire Publishers, Las Cruces, New Mexico 2002], pp. 61-62)

The first time I read this verse [3:54] in the Quran, I could hardly believe my eyes. Even today, any Muslim I discuss this verse with is shocked. In the Quran, God tells all Muslims that the followers of Jesus will be exalted above the disbelievers until the Day of Resurrection. God's prediction that the Christians will succeed in doing so is even clearer in the following verse [author then cites 61:14] ..."

Most Muslims obtain their understanding of the Quran from the interpretations of their religious leaders. Few ever question what they are told to believe. But the book contains many messages that might shock them from their complacency.

The above verse says very simply that Christians will be above non-believers until the resurrection.



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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 December 2012 at 1:55pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

. . . and as always rather than present ANY witnesses to Muhammad be it a “hearsay witness” an “expert witness” an “eyewitness” or otherwise as defined by the word – Witness, Islam gives us NOTHING


LOL Oh Kish, how quickly you forget.  Don't you remember that I already referred to Bahira and Waraqah?  As Ibn Kathir related:

"When Muhammad was twelve years old, he accompanied his uncle Abu Talib on a mercantile journey to Syria, and they proceeded as far as Busra. The journey lasted for some months. It was at Busra that the Christian monk Bahira met Muhammad. He is related to have said to Abu Talib: 'Return with this boy and guard him against the hatred of the Jews, for a great career awaits your nephew." [...]

Khadijah said: "Rejoice, O dear husband and be cheerful. He is Whose hands stands Khadijah's life bears witness to the truth of this fact, that you will be the prophet to this people." Then she arose and went to her cousin Waraqa Ibn Naufal, who was old and blind and who knew the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians, and is stated to have translated them into Arabic. When she told him of what she had heard, he cried out: "Holy! Holy! Verily, this is the Namus (The Holy Spirit) who came to Moses. He will be the prophet of his people. Tell him this and bid him to be brave at heart." When the two men met subsequently in the street, the blind old student of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures spoke of his faith and trust: "I swear by Him in Who hand Waraqa's life is, Allah has chosen you to be the prophet of this people. They will call you a liar, they will persecute you, they will banish you, and they will fight against you. Oh, that I could live to those days. I would fight for these." And he kissed him on the forehead."
http://www.islamawareness.net/Muhammed/ibn_kathir.html - [1]

I have met your challenge, as misguided as it is, given that the Bible completely disagrees with your interpretation.  Now I know that, in your usual style, you will shift gears and change your argument.  You will make excuses that Bahira and Waraqah do not count as witnesses to Muhammad's prophethood. 

Originally posted by Kish

Whereas any giving Prophet in the Old and Testament fits at least one or more of the criteria of what a witness to their testimony is.


Sure, sure.  You have yet to prove this baseless claim.  Who were the witnesses for Obadiah?  For Amos?  For Joel?  Why are you ignoring these questions?  What are you afraid of? 

Originally posted by Kish

So, here is your chance again. Can YOU provide proof of anyone in the Quran that falls under anyone of these witness categories to Muhammad’s revelations, at least ONE?


In addition to Bahira and Waraqah, we also have the Negus of Ethiopia as an example:

"And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses." (5:83)

It is well-known that his verse was revealed with regard to the Negus. 

See, Kish?  You asked for one example, but I gave you three!

Now if you could kindly provide the witnesses to the Biblical prophets I mentioned above, we can continue.

Originally posted by Kish

Please forgive him he’s stuck on . . . . Islam read your OWN definition of what defines a witness in ANY dictionary.

I think it is safe to say when it comes to the Quran, Islam and it’s beliefs you could not testify in behalf of it or make a good WITNESS of any sort. How can you, according to your definition of it you were not there.

Kish, Kish, Kish.  What are we going to do with you?  Did you not read what your own source stated about the different types of "witnesses"?

"A percipient witness or eyewitness is one who testifies what they perceived through his or her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense - senses (e.g. seeing, hearing, smelling, touching). That perception might be either with the unaided human sense or with the aid of an instrument, e.g., microscope or stethoscope, or by other scientific means, e.g.,a chemical reagent which changes color in the presence of a particular substance.

A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay - hearsay witness is one who testifies what someone else said or wrote. In most court proceedings there are many limitations on when hearsay evidence is admissible. Such limitations do not apply to grand jury investigations, many administrative proceedings, and may not apply to declarations used in support of an arrest or search warrant. Also some types of statements are not deemed to be hearsay and are not subject to such limitations.

An http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness - expert witness is one who allegedly has specialized knowledge relevant to the matter of interest, which knowledge purportedly helps to either make sense of other evidence, including other testimony, documentary evidence or physical evidence (e.g., a fingerprint). An expert witness may or may not also be a percipient witness, as in a doctor or may or may not have treated the victim of an accident or crime. [...]

Eyewitness testimony is generally presumed to be more reliable than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence - circumstantial evidence . Studies have shown, however, that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed, and parts of it can be meaningless."

So far, you have failed to provide "eyewitness testimony" for any of the Biblical prophets.  All you have provided are examples of "hearsay witnesses".  On the other hand, I have given you two examples of "eyewitnesses" to Muhammad's prophethood.  They are Bahira and Waraqah.  You have failed your own challenge and have unwittingly proven that Muhammad (pbuh) is a true prophet!  Thanks! 



-------------
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: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 25 December 2012 at 1:57am
Originally posted by Kish

Well, Islam had more than enough chances to present his case to bring forth “two or more witnesses” within the Quran and according to the LAW of Moses to establish Muhammad’s revelation as being an established historical fact and that he was indeed a messenger or a prophet of God.

Based on his own thorough research in what defines a witness, Muhammad failed in ALL respect. UNLIKE, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul and ALL other writers of the Holy Scriptures (Old and New Testament) who had credible witnesses to testify, confirm and acknowledge their “inspired” written message Muhammad had NONE, ZERO, ZILCH!

Which means in his case the “two or more witness” rule was NOT applied and that Muhammad’s message was NOT a true inspired revelation but a false one.

When God said through Moses that no prophet should be accepted until his prophecy comes true, He was saying that there must be two witnesses.

What are the confirming witnesses that the words of the Qur'an which Muhammad spoke came from God? Why does every prophet in the Holy Scriptures have a confirming “witness” and in the Quran Muhammad does not have a confirming “witness”, that is the million dollar question. Why was Muhammad so secretive with his so call revelation?

When Muhammad walked into Mecca, or now walks into the mind of one who reads the Qur'an, and says that God spoke to him and told him about the day of judgment, how will the person hearing or reading know? Muhammad is only one witness.

When I have asked whether anyone other than Muhammad heard the Angel Gabriel, every person has answered that he was the only one.

REMEMBER, it was NOT Gabriel who identified himself, it was Muhammad who made this claim. If Muhammad as Muslims claim was greater than Moses and Jesus and these two Prophets fit every detail defined by the word WITNESS why does Muhammad fail in every aspect in the word, not having even ONE credible witness to confirm his revelation?

From Mt. Sinai God spoke to Moses and ALL the Children of Israel and they SAW his power.

During the life of Jesus there were three times that God spoke openly as a second witness. The first time was when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

Obviously, John and those being baptized at the same time heard this voice. The second time occurred in the presence of his three disciples - Peter, James and John (two or more witnesses to confirm) He took them up on a high mountain where he was transfigured. His clothes became dazzling. Moses and Elijah, who had each been dead for more than 900 years, appeared to Jesus.

Although most prophets are not confirmed by a voice from heaven but many have, or by fire like in the case of Moses and Elijah, BUT no one, I mean NO ONE in the Quran can confirm ANY of Muhammad claims by even the definition of the word witness. If he was greater and if he was a prophet as Muslims like to claim what made him so great compared to the others? Where did he even come from and by whose authority?

Well, wherever he came from it really does not matter because according to the LAW of Moses it was not from God.

But, now we do see why the message of such Prophets as - Moses, Jeremiah, Jesus and Paul (primarily known as an apostle) directly contradicts the message of Muhammad, why I am not surprised.

Since this thread is really about Paul and Muhammad, read this closely and carefully:

Here is what one renowned commentary, Al-Qurtubi, says about Paul:

Ibn Ishaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent (to preach) there were Peter AND PAUL who went to Rome;

al-Qurtubi had no qualms in admitting that Paul was a legitimate follower of Christ!

Then there is this candid admission in reference to Q 3:54 and Q 61:14

The Quran teaches that Jesus was God's best prophet, and that Christians will be placed above non-believers until the Day of Judgment. (Dr. Nader Pourhassan, The Corruption of Moslem Minds [Barbed Wire Publishers, Las Cruces, New Mexico 2002], pp. 61-62)

The first time I read this verse [3:54] in the Quran, I could hardly believe my eyes. Even today, any Muslim I discuss this verse with is shocked. In the Quran, God tells all Muslims that the followers of Jesus will be exalted above the disbelievers until the Day of Resurrection. God's prediction that the Christians will succeed in doing so is even clearer in the following verse [author then cites 61:14] ..."

Most Muslims obtain their understanding of the Quran from the interpretations of their religious leaders. Few ever question what they are told to believe. But the book contains many messages that might shock them from their complacency.

The above verse says very simply that Christians will be above non-believers until the resurrection.

 
The following is for you Kish....
 
Sahih International
 
Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe.
Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.
And of the people are some who say, "We believe in Allah and the Last Day," but they are not believers.
They [think to] deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not.
In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.
2:6-10


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 25 December 2012 at 2:25pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

Well, Islam had more than enough chances to present his case to bring forth “two or more witnesses” within the Quran and according to the LAW of Moses to establish Muhammad’s revelation as being an established historical fact and that he was indeed a messenger or a prophet of God.


Obviously, Kish's desperation has hit rock-bottom.  Not only has he failed to prove his own theory with regard to the Biblical prophets, he has ignored the fact that I have already provided the evidence he seeks regarding Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  Oh well.  As the Quran says:

"The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of wisdom." (2:171)

Originally posted by Kish

Based on his own thorough research in what defines a witness, Muhammad failed in ALL respect. UNLIKE, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul and ALL other writers of the Holy Scriptures (Old and New Testament) who had credible witnesses to testify, confirm and acknowledge their “inspired” written message Muhammad had NONE, ZERO, ZILCH!


Oh, Kish...You resorted to special pleading with regard to the Biblical prophets when you realized that your own interpretation of Deuteronomy 19:15 left you between a rock and a hard place.  None of the Biblical prophets had two witnesses in their lifetimes, which is what Deuteronomy 19:15 required.  They had to be living witnesses who could testify on behalf of the accused person or against him. 

Originally posted by Kish

When God said through Moses that no prophet should be accepted until his prophecy comes true, He was saying that there must be two witnesses.


Which is why it is obvious that Paul made a false prophecy about Jesus' second coming.  When this didn't happen, the early Christians were confused and began questioning why Jesus (pbuh) had not yet returned.  As a result, other Christians tried to come up with an excuse:

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:8-9)

It is abundantly clear that Paul and the other Christians were eagerly waiting for Jesus' return in their lifetimes.  When this did not happen, even long after Paul was dead, other Christians tried to make excuses.

Originally posted by Kish

What are the confirming witnesses that the words of the Qur'an which Muhammad spoke came from God? Why does every prophet in the Holy Scriptures have a confirming “witness” and in the Quran Muhammad does not have a confirming “witness”, that is the million dollar question. Why was Muhammad so secretive with his so call revelation?


Already answered, Kish, if only you would pay attention and were not so in love with the sound of your voice! LOL

Originally posted by Kish

When Muhammad walked into Mecca, or now walks into the mind of one who reads the Qur'an, and says that God spoke to him and told him about the day of judgment, how will the person hearing or reading know? Muhammad is only one witness.


Here is more evidence, in addition to the testimonies of Bahira, Waraqah and the Negus.  The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophesied that the Muslims would conquer Persia.  This prophecy was related by more than one person:

"Nafi' b. Utba reported: We were with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) in an expedition that there came a people to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) from the direction of the west. [...] I however, went to them and stood between them and him and I remember four of the words (on that occasion) which I repeat (on the fingers of my hand) that he (Allah's Messenger) said: You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to Conquer it. Then you would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack the Dajjal and Allah will enable you to conquer him. Nafi' said: Jabir, we thought that the Dajjal would appear after Rome (Syrian territory) would be conquered.  (Sahih Muslim, Book http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=041&translator=2&start=0&number=6930 - #041 , Hadith http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=041&translator=2&start=0&number=6930#6930 - #6930 )"

"'Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-As reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: How would you be, oh people, when Persia and Rome would be conquered for you? 'Abd at-Rahman b Auf said: We would say as Allah has commanded us and we would express our gratitude to Allah Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Nothing else besides it? You would (in fact) vie with one another, then you would feel jealous. Then your relations would be estranged and then you will bear enmity against one another. or something to the same effect. Then you would go to the poor emigrants and would make some the masters of the others.  (Sahih Muslim, Book http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=042&translator=2&start=0&number=7067 - #042 , Hadith http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=042&translator=2&start=0&number=7067#7067 - #7067 )
"

How much more evidence do you need, Kish?  Why do you keep lying to yourself?  Ponder these words of the Quran, for your own good:

"But as to those who rejected Allah, (to them will be said): "Were not Our Signs rehearsed to you? But ye were arrogant, and were a people given to sin!" (45:31)

Originally posted by Kish

When I have asked whether anyone other than Muhammad heard the Angel Gabriel, every person has answered that he was the only one.


We are back to that again?  How clueless are you?  As I have shown, many prophets in the Bible were alone when they received God's word!  It's no wonder that you ignored my list of Biblical prophets and holy people who received God's word in solitude:

1.  Isaiah - 0 witnesses

"The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah." (Isaiah 1:1)

2.  Jeremiah - 0 witnesses

"The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. The word of the Lord came to him in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah, and through the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, down to the fifth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah king of Judah, when the people of Jerusalem went into exile." (Jeremiah 1:1-3)

3.  Ezekiel - 0 witnesses

"In my thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God." (Ezekiel 1:1)

4.  Daniel - 0 witnesses

"Then Daniel returned to his house and explained the matter to his friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 18 He urged them to plead for mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that he and his friends might not be executed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. 19 During the night the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision." (Daniel 2:17-19)

5.  Hosea - 0 witnesses

"The word of the Lord that came to Hosea son of Beeri during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash http://www.islamicity.com/forum/#fen-NIV-22096a - a ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hosea%201&version=NIV#fen-NIV-22096a - a ] king of Israel:" (Hosea 1:1)

6.  Joel - 0 witnesses

"The word of the Lord that came to Joel son of Pethuel." (Joel 1:1)

7.  Amos - 0 witnesses

"The words of Amos, one of the shepherds of Tekoa—the vision he saw concerning Israel two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash http://www.islamicity.com/forum/#fen-NIV-22366a - a ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos%201&version=NIV#fen-NIV-22366a - a ] was king of Israel." (Amos 1:1)

8.  Zechariah (NT) - 0 witnesses

"Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense." (Luke 1:8-11)

9.  Mary (NT) - 0 witnesses

"
In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”" (Luke 1:26-28)

Zechariah is especially important since the Gospel of Luke states clearly that he was alone in the temple when an angel appeared to him.  Therefore, the fact that Muhammad (pbuh) was alone in the Cave of Hira when Gabriel (as) visited him is not without precedent in the Bible.  It is hilarious that Kish ignores the fact that the Biblical prophets were alone and had no witnesses yet screams like a shrieking harpy that Muhammad (pbuh) was alone. 

Originally posted by Kish

Prophets fit every detail defined by the word WITNESS why does Muhammad fail in every aspect in the word, not having even ONE credible witness to confirm his revelation?


Ignorant man...It is well-known that when Muhammad (pbuh) fled from the cave, he saw the angel again and it identified itself as Gabriel (as):

"Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) repeated the words after the Angel, and then fled in fear down the mountain. When halfway down the mountain, he heard a voice speaking:
"O Mohammad, you are the Messenger of God, and I am Gabriel."
The Prophet stood, looking upward, and he saw the Angel of God everywhere, to the farthest reaches of the horizon." http://mto.org/islam_quran/en/quran.html - [1]


For a visual aid, see the following clip (specifically from 8:50 onwards):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUNRXiVogZI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUNRXiVogZI

Gabriel (as) identified himself clearly to Muhammad (pbuh).  Your ignorance misguides you.

By the way, who was the "angel" that appeared to Mary to announce to her the birth of Jesus (pbuh)?  The Gospel of Luke states that it did not identify clearly itself to Mary, but rather claims that it was Gabriel:

"In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”" (Luke 1:26-28)


Why is it that you keep changing your argument?  Every time you do, you dig yourself into a deeper hole.  When will you open your eyes?

Originally posted by Kish

From Mt. Sinai God spoke to Moses and ALL the Children of Israel and they SAW his power.

During the life of Jesus there were three times that God spoke openly as a second witness. The first time was when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

Obviously, John and those being baptized at the same time heard this voice. The second time occurred in the presence of his three disciples - Peter, James and John (two or more witnesses to confirm) He took them up on a high mountain where he was transfigured. His clothes became dazzling. Moses and Elijah, who had each been dead for more than 900 years, appeared to Jesus.

Yeah, and there were also witnesses to Jesus' alleged prophecy that he would return in the lifetime of the disciples:

"Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth "#fen-NIV-23988c" - c ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23988c - c ] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. "#fen-NIV-23988d" - d ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23988d - d ] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it "#fen-NIV-23991e" - e ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23991e - e ] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." (Matthew 24:30-35)

Therefore, according to your "two witnesses" theory, Jesus (pbuh) made a false prophecy.  It's no wonder that Paul also made the same false prophecy.

Originally posted by Kish

Although most prophets are not confirmed by a voice from heaven but many have, or by fire like in the case of Moses and Elijah, BUT no one, I mean NO ONE in the Quran can confirm ANY of Muhammad claims by even the definition of the word witness. If he was greater and if he was a prophet as Muslims like to claim what made him so great compared to the others? Where did he even come from and by whose authority?

Still denying the truth?  See above.

You still have yet to name the witnesses for the minor prophets like Obadiah (pbuh), Amos (pbuh) etc.  Who were the witnesses for Zechariah (pbuh)?  

Originally posted by Kish

Well, wherever he came from it really does not matter because according to the LAW of Moses it was not from God.

More special pleading?  I have already proven that Muhammad (pbuh) brought the same message as the previous prophets.  I also showed that the Law of Moses was for the Jews only, whereas the Law of Muhammad was for all people of the world.  Even then, both sets of laws shared many similarities. 

On the other hand, the Jesus of the Bible did not uphold the Law of Moses, and neither did Paul.  Of course, Kish conveniently ignores this fact and tries to lessen the damage by saying that they "principally" upheld the Law of Moses.

Originally posted by Kish

But, now we do see why the message of such Prophets as - Moses, Jeremiah, Jesus and Paul (primarily known as an apostle) directly contradicts the message of Muhammad, why I am not surprised.

Mindless repetition...now I see why you keep doing that!  You are trying to convince yourself with your own ignorance  and lies!

Originally posted by Kish

Ibn Ishaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent (to preach) there were Peter AND PAUL who went to Rome;

al-Qurtubi had no qualms in admitting that Paul was a legitimate follower of Christ!

Here is another one of Kish' favorite tactics...shameless copying of "Answering-Islam"!

What Kish fails to realize is that Ibn Ishaq was known to rely heavily on Jewish and Christian traditions and that these traditions have no importance to Muslims, because our sources are the Quran and Sunnah.

Moreover, had Kish actually read the Quran, he would have realized that Jesus (pbuh) was speaking in Surah 61:14 to his disciples and that this was before the attempt on his life.  How then can this verse be referring to Paul, whom your own Bible admits only became a "disciple" on the road to Damascus?!  Use your head, Kish! 

If you need more proof, ponder on what the Tafsir of Ibn Abbas states:

"They were 12 male disciples, the first to believe in him and help him against his enemies. All of these men were believers." http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=61&tAyahNo=14&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 - [2]

The moral of the story, Kish, is: don't cut and paste from "Answering-Islam"! LOL

Originally posted by Kish

Then there is this candid admission in reference to Q 3:54 and Q 61:14

...which, if you had actually read them, would make you realize that they could not have been referring to Paul, who did not become a "disciple" until much later!  Do you not believe your own Bible? Confused

Originally posted by Kish

The Quran teaches that Jesus was God's best prophet, and that Christians will be placed above non-believers until the Day of Judgment. (Dr. Nader Pourhassan, The Corruption of Moslem Minds [Barbed Wire Publishers, Las Cruces, New Mexico 2002], pp. 61-62)

The first time I read this verse [3:54] in the Quran, I could hardly believe my eyes. Even today, any Muslim I discuss this verse with is shocked. In the Quran, God tells all Muslims that the followers of Jesus will be exalted above the disbelievers until the Day of Resurrection. God's prediction that the Christians will succeed in doing so is even clearer in the following verse [author then cites 61:14] ..."


LOL Another pathetic appeal to pseudo-experts who have no knowledge about the Quran.  Let me educate you and "Dr. Pourhassan".  First, one wonders what verse "Dr. Pourhassan" was reading because if we look at 3:54, here is what we find:

"And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah." (3:54)

Has "Dr. Pourhassan" even read the Quran? LOL He probably meant 3:55, which states:

"Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute." (3:55)

All this verse says is that Allah (swt) will hold in high esteem those who follow Jesus (pbuh) over those who disbelieved.  If the Quran was saying that Christians (does that include Jehovah's Witnesses??) were the true followers of Jesus (pbuh), then it would not say that Christians have "forgotten" a large part of Jesus' message:

"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." (5:14)

Second, no, dear "doctor", the Quran does not place one prophet above another:

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

It also states that Jesus (pbuh) is one of God's creations, just like Adam (pbuh):

"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)

Also, it states that Muslims, not Christians, are the "best of people" and actually criticizes the Jews and Christians for not doing the same:

"Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors." (2:110)

Originally posted by Kish

Most Muslims obtain their understanding of the Quran from the interpretations of their religious leaders. Few ever question what they are told to believe. But the book contains many messages that might shock them from their complacency.

The above verse says very simply that Christians will be above non-believers until the resurrection.

How rich!  An ignorant Christian who has never read the Quran himself and gets all of his information from pseudo-scholarly sources like "Answering-Islam" criticizes Muslims for "obtaining their understanding...from the interpretation of their religious leaders"!  Clap  Oh the irony!



-------------
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: 31 December 2012 at 2:31pm
So, again my only question still remains unanswered by Islam although he is beginning to understand the term “WITNESS” but continues to dance around the correct answer. . .
Originally posted by kish

What are the confirming witnesses that the words of the Qur'an which Muhammad spoke came from God? Why does every prophet in the Holy Scriptures have a confirming “witness” and in the Quran Muhammad does not have a confirming “witness”, that is the million dollar question. Why was Muhammad so secretive with his so call revelation?

His answer . . .
Originally posted by islamispeace

. . . testimonies of Bahira, Waraqah and the Negus. . . " . . . (Sahih Muslim, Book #041, Hadith #6930) But as to those who rejected Allah, (to them will be said): "Were not Our Signs rehearsed to you? But ye were arrogant, and were a people given to sin!" (45:31)

A real easy question for someone who has an sincere answer; Why it is that Islam cannot provide a “Witness” testimony from within the Quran but has to resort to the Hadith? I will tell you why, the Quran is incomplete without it. Imagine that, someone Holy Book incomplete. How much confidence can you have in an incomplete book? If you need outside sources to complete your book, you’re way in danger, that is something that your Mahdi on the white horse carrying black flags cannot help you with.
But the problem with this is that Muhammad is expressly told to follow and judge only by the inspiration which HE received, and what he received was the Quran NOT the hadith:
And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee… So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee… S. 5:48-49
. . . Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it of my accord. I only follow that which is inspired in me. Lo! if I disobey my Lord I fear the retribution of an awful Day. S. 10:15
You follow your desires; even Shia Muslims dismiss some of its contents as fabrications or untrustworthy due to the questionable reliability of some narrators, conflicts with the Qur'an or character of the Prophet of Islam.
So, not even all Muslims believe in the hadiths, and Muslims have been divided since the existence of these books. http://www.rim.org/muslim/hadith.htm
Unlike the Bible, the Quran cannot provide a single “witness” to Muhammad’s revelations in which the religion of Islam stands on, a serious blow!
Originally posted by islamispeace

How much more evidence do you need, Kish?

Just your Quran, can you do that?
Then I asked. . .
Originally posted by kish

. . . anyone other than Muhammad heard the Angel Gabriel, every person has answered that he was the only one.

You answered . . .
Originally posted by islamispeace

As I have shown, many prophets in the Bible were alone when they received God's word!

Which means not one person heard what the LAST prophet supposedly heard the last of the last prophets, right, and not any witnesses like what Jesus or Paul experience, the very Prophets you and I are discussing?
Also, the list that you have from Isaiah – Mary, as I said before . . .
Originally posted by kish

. . . any giving Prophet in the Old and Testament fits at least one or more of the criteria of what a witness to their testimony is.

Why you continue to put - 0 witnesses is beyond me unless you are still stuck on the fact that no one eye-witnessed it, if so go to Webster’s dictionary again and read what the definition of a witness is out aloud. They all were confirmed an acknowledged by two or more witnesses in the Bible.
In the Quran where are Muhammad’s witness testimonies? He did not have any, which means that he is a self-proclaimed messenger of God which carries no credentials at all.
Originally posted by islamispeace

It is hilarious that Kish ignores the fact that the Biblical prophets were alone and had no witnesses yet screams like a shrieking harpy that Muhammad (pbuh) was alone.

Wow! It is true, you still have no idea what the word witness means so here it is again . . .you really believe the person(s) has to be right in front of your eyes to witness an event or testimony, like in the case of Moses, Jesus, Paul etc. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/witness
Originally posted by islamispeace

By the way, who was the "angel" that appeared to Mary to announce to her the birth of Jesus (pbuh)? The Gospel of Luke states that it did not identify clearly itself to Mary, but rather claims that it was Gabriel:

. . .and yet by definition of the word “WITNESS” Muhammad confirms the Gospel account in his book the Quran that it was Gabriel that spoke to Mary and Elizabeth all though he was not present with them.
A hearsay witness is one who testifies what someone else said or wrote.
This gets easier by the day. Now that Muhammad confirms/witnesses the Gospel account of Mary and Elizabeth, who conforms the account of Muhammad in the Quran?
Here is the quote of the day!
Originally posted by islamispeace

. . . you dig yourself into a deeper hole. When will you open your eyes?

Now, that hurts.
Does Islam get it?
Originally posted by islamispeace

You still have yet to name the witnesses for the minor prophets like Obadiah (pbuh), Amos (pbuh) etc. Who were the witnesses for Zechariah (pbuh)?

Nope he does not get it yet! Islam, go get Webster’s dictionary from upstairs, now! Because you and your Quran confirm the testimony to these “minor” prophets just by giving them the credit as prophets, obviously the Quran agrees that they are.
Originally posted by islamispeace

So far, you have failed to provide "eyewitness testimony" for any of the Biblical prophets.

Selected amnesia I see. Show me where the Torah specifically said eyewitnesses, since you feel it is necessary to change it from where it says witnesses. On the other-hand Moses, Jesus, Paul and many others had several eyewitnesses at a time.
Originally posted by islamispeace

On the other hand, I have given you two examples of "eyewitnesses" to Muhammad's prophethood. They are Bahira and Waraqah.

If only you can do the same with Muhammad using the sura’s in the Quran and not the books of the hadith (Sahih) which is based on the alleged traditions of men, an outside source that have divided the Muslim world. Because that in itself makes the Quran incomplete!
As far as the legendary, fanciful stories of Bahira, Waraqah and Negus which are of totally separate events in his life, well these are nice bedtime stories I guess you can tell your children before they go to sleep on how Muhammad in his early life talked with Christians and their paradise gardens in heaven and how Muhammad had spots and moles on him which was proof of him being a prophet.
Bottom line, they all point to the hadith not the Quran as it source and overwhelmingly failed the “two or more witness” rule to his revelations, back to square one.


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


Posted By: Webber
Date Posted: 01 January 2013 at 10:42am

Hi Islamispeace,

Sorry but I fail to see how you have convinced Kish of anything. I know you believe it to the fullest extent yourself so proof is as easy as an Arabic word, (most of which have many meanings). This looks like a case of proving it to yourself over and over and getting frustrated when your twos and two don’t make fours in the eyes of others. There are reasons for that. In the same way you cannot convince me by your arguments that Paul was not a Prophet.

If you want to convince me you will have to go deeper into his ministry and show me where he contradicted Jesus, but this much for now…

Originally posted by islamispeace

Let us deal with Paul first.  Before we delve into whether he passed the test of Deuteronomy 18, it is prudent to read the story of his life-changing experience on the road to Damascus.  In fact, there are multiple accounts of this encounter in the New Testament:

"As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”  

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything." (Acts 9:3-9)

"“About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ 8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. 10 “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me." (Acts 22:6-11)

"“On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,a]">[a] ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’" (Acts 26:12-14)

The differences in these verses are self-evident.  One would think that the "inspired" authors of the New Testament would not have written contradictory accounts of the same story. 

Contradictory? One account mentions the companions heard but did not see anything. (How’s your spiritual vision doing?) Another says  couldn’t  see anything, (possibly because of a bright light?) Another says they fell to the ground. Do the first two accounts say they did not fall to the ground? K, noticed the variations, missed the contradictions. People like to mix them up lots.

This is an old Muslim criticism. All NT accounts must be exact yet the 7 variations of the Quranic account  of Sodom and Gomorrah should not be questioned. It’s a double standard.

 

Moving on, does Paul pass the test of Deuteronomy 18?  Did he speak in the name of the One God or in the name of "other gods"?  Did he proclaim anything that did not come to pass?  The answer can be found in the following verses:

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

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

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

Clearly, Paul spoke in the name of Jesus and worshiped him as "God", which is of course nothing new.  It is the central tenet of Christianity that Jesus was God incarnate.  But by speaking in the name of Jesus, Paul fails the test of Deuteronomy 18.

Clearly you are into the NIV and its updated opinions. Read the KJV and you will note how Paul always separates God from Jesus. I suppose nobody ever said Praise Allah and Muhammad in the same sentence before?

Finally, Paul also spoke about future events, as in the following:

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

Clearly, Paul was stating that Jesus' return was imminent and that it would occur within the lifetime of some of the first generation of Christians. 

Jesus said “Behold I come quickly” Jesus meant when He comes it will be quick; Paul’s prophesy was not about “Cool, we’ll see ya tomorrow” but about on the day it would happen. Where does Paul tell them they will all live until that day? Wishful thinking I’d say and same for every generation since that has sculpted the verses to believe it meant in their lifetime.

[quote] This prophecy was also made in the First Epistle of John:

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." (1 John 2:18)

I find it odd you would use the words of another author, (John) as an argument against Paul. On the surface they seem to agree, not contradict, but it’s irrelevant to your argument. How did you miss that?  

John’s talk was a warning based on the appearance of anti-christs cast to the earth, which is what happened and remains even until this “hour”.  Not something Muslims want to get into, they’d rather say it’s all about the Jinn.

So what happens to a prophet that prophesies about the end time that isn’t going to happen until the end time? Would you not want to put them to death cuz it didn’t happen in your lifetime? John died of old age.

[quote]Therefore, Paul failed the second part of the test of Deuteronomy 18.  Hence, according to the Bible, Paul was a false prophet.

These arguments are not your own. They are age old and refuted many times. I would even venture to guess your training on this has been more Google than from sitting and listening to your Imam.  

On the other side of the coin…Using the NIV in your arguments will mess up a lot of “Christians” who do not know their own scripture. ;)



-------------
I'm a Gentile.
Numb. 6:24-26


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 January 2013 at 8:04pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

We can see Kish getting more and more desperate.  Every time he is cornered, he makes up a new argument!  Case in point:

Originally posted by Kish

A real easy question for someone who has an sincere answer; Why it is that Islam cannot provide a “Witness” testimony from within the Quran but has to resort to the Hadith? I will tell you why, the Quran is incomplete without it. Imagine that, someone Holy Book incomplete. How much confidence can you have in an incomplete book? If you need outside sources to complete your book, you’re way in danger, that is something that your Mahdi on the white horse carrying black flags cannot help you with.


Realizing that his pathetic "challenge" has once again been answered, he shifts gears and tries to deny the importance of the hadiths as well as launch an attack on the Quran's "completeness". 

Regardless of your personal opinions, the simple fact is that you asked for witnesses and you got them!  No amount of special pleading can help you weasel your way out.

Originally posted by Kish

But the problem with this is that Muhammad is expressly told to follow and judge only by the inspiration which HE received, and what he received was the Quran NOT the hadith:
And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee… So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee… S. 5:48-49
. . . Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it of my accord. I only follow that which is inspired in me. Lo! if I disobey my Lord I fear the retribution of an awful Day. S. 10:15
You follow your desires; even Shia Muslims dismiss some of its contents as fabrications or untrustworthy due to the questionable reliability of some narrators, conflicts with the Qur'an or character of the Prophet of Islam.
So, not even all Muslims believe in the hadiths, and Muslims have been divided since the existence of these books. http://www.rim.org/muslim/hadith.htm
Unlike the Bible, the Quran cannot provide a single “witness” to Muhammad’s revelations in which the religion of Islam stands on, a serious blow!
 

Amazing!  Another Christian wannabe scholar of Islam wants to tell Muslims what sources they can and cannot use!  We can really see the desperation.  Kish knows that he has no where to go, since he asked for witnesses and he got them.  So what does he do?  Instead of admitting like a good boy that his question was answered, he instead tries to do a little weaseling and attacks the hadiths instead!

Earth to Kish: the vast majority of Muslims rely on both the Quran and Hadiths.  The Quran is a holy book, not a narrative on the life of Muhammad (pbuh).  It is not like your Bible which goes on and on about things like who begat who.  The Quran is instead concerned with teaching Muslims the importance of believing in Allah (swt) and His messengers.  Other information is then filled in by the Hadiths, such as details about Muhammad's everyday life.  In that is an example for Muslims to follow.

Originally posted by Kish

Just your Quran, can you do that?


Muslims follow both the Quran and Sunnah, Sheik Kish.  You don't get to tell us what we can and cannot follow.  There are far too many Kishes in the world who pretend they know enough to tell Muslims what to believe!  You people are a dime a dozen!  LOL

So, back to the central topic.  You asked for witnesses, and you got them.  Now what?  Your "witnesses" theory has already been shattered on numerous occasions.  Now where will you go?  Back to the drawing board? Big%20smile

Originally posted by Kish

Which means not one person heard what the LAST prophet supposedly heard the last of the last prophets, right, and not any witnesses like what Jesus or Paul experience, the very Prophets you and I are discussing?
   

Eh, what?  Is that English?  Please rephrase because I have no idea what you are saying. 

I am still waiting for you to present the "witnesses' that Jesus and Paul had.  You have yet to name them.  With Jesus, the best you could do was to refer to the verse where he named himself and God as witnesses.

Originally posted by Kish

Why you continue to put - 0 witnesses is beyond me unless you are still stuck on the fact that no one eye-witnessed it, if so go to Webster’s dictionary again and read what the definition of a witness is out aloud. They all were confirmed an acknowledged by two or more witnesses in the Bible.


Who were they?  Name them!  Why are you afraid of answering this question?  Who were these "witnesses"?  Who were the witnesses for Obadiah?  Joel?  Amos?  Come on Kish...show a little backbone and answer the question!  Are you a vertebrate or a squishy invertebrate? LOL

Originally posted by Kish

n the Quran where are Muhammad’s witness testimonies? He did not have any, which means that he is a self-proclaimed messenger of God which carries no credentials at all.


Still clinging to your last desperate argument...tsk tsk tsk.  I have already provided the witnesses.  You best response was to try to determine for Muslims what they can and cannot use.  Unfortunately for you, Muslims use both the Quran and Sunnah.  Get over it!  You wanted witnesses and you got them!  Here they are again:

1.  Bahira

2.  Waraqah

3.  Negus

On the other hand, I am still waiting after all this time for you to provide the names of witnesses for Paul as well as for the Biblical prophets.

Originally posted by Kish

Wow! It is true, you still have no idea what the word witness means so here it is again . . .you really believe the person(s) has to be right in front of your eyes to witness an event or testimony, like in the case of Moses, Jesus, Paul etc. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/witness


LOL Oh Kish, where are thou?  Either you can't read or you are ignoring your own evidence.  I have already pointed this out, but why not do it again?  The Wikipedia article states plainly:

"Eyewitness testimony is generally presumed to be more reliable than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence - circumstantial evidence ."

The dictionary source also shows that a witness is someone who has perceived the event in question:

"a. One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced: a witness to the accident.
b. One who furnishes evidence.
2. Something that serves as evidence; a sign.
3. Law
a. One who is called on to testify before a court.
b. One who is called on to be present at a transaction in order to attest to what takes place.
c. One who signs one's name to a document for the purpose of attesting to its authenticity.
4. An attestation to a fact, statement, or event; testimony."

A witness is someone who can testify to the event in question.  The only way that can be done is to give a "firsthand account of something seen, heard or experienced". 

Now, that can mean a witness is someone who knows that something a prophet said came true or didn't come true.  There lies Kish's problem because not only did the Biblical prophets not have any witnesses to back up their initial encounters with the divine, many of them also did not have witnesses for anything afterwards.  Examples include Obadiah, Amos, Joel etc.  It's no wonder that you have been trying to avoid answering my question about these prophets and who were their witnesses.

Originally posted by Kish

. . .and yet by definition of the word “WITNESS” Muhammad confirms the Gospel account in his book the Quran that it was Gabriel that spoke to Mary and Elizabeth all though he was not present with them.
A hearsay witness is one who testifies what someone else said or wrote.
This gets easier by the day. Now that Muhammad confirms/witnesses the Gospel account of Mary and Elizabeth, who conforms the account of Muhammad in the Quran?
Here is the quote of the day!
  

LOL This is typical Kishian response!  I am using your own theory to test whether the Bible's claims of individuals receiving divine revelation is true or not.  You are the one who has been harping about witnesses!  You were the one who claimed that all of the Bible's prophets have witnesses!  When I showed that this is not true, you resort to the desperate argument that the Quran is their witness!  Wow!  So you believe in the Quran Kish?  Are you a Muslim?  SubhanAllah!  LOL

So, here is the question again:

Who was the "angel" that appeared to Mary to announce to her the birth of Jesus (pbuh)?  The Gospel of Luke states that it did not identify clearly itself to Mary, but rather claims that it was Gabriel:

"In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”" (Luke 1:26-28)


Use your own Bible to answer this question.  This is your theory on the line.  Be a man and back up your own theory!

Originally posted by Kish

Nope he does not get it yet! Islam, go get Webster’s dictionary from upstairs, now! Because you and your Quran confirm the testimony to these “minor” prophets just by giving them the credit as prophets, obviously the Quran agrees that they are.
   

Still running?  Come back Kish!  Don't run from the truth! 

You mean to tell me that your own Bible cannot live up to its own laws?  What is the purpose of Deuteronomy 19:15 (as you interpret it) when it cannot provide witnesses to all these Biblical prophets.  Poor Obadiah...Poor Amos...Poor Joel...All of these prophets have been left hanging by your own Bible!  You know it's really bad when a Christian becomes so desperate to confirm the truth of his own holy book by using another holy book, which he doesn't even believe in!  Ouch! Ouch

Originally posted by Kish

Selected amnesia I see. Show me where the Torah specifically said eyewitnesses, since you feel it is necessary to change it from where it says witnesses. On the other-hand Moses, Jesus, Paul and many others had several eyewitnesses at a time.


Kish, use your brain.  When the Torah speaks of witnesses in a criminal proceeding to testify that the accused person actually committed the crime, would they not be "eyewitnesses"? 

Here is an example.  The sin of apostasy was a capital offense.  How would it have been proven if an Israelite had become an apostate?  Would it not be through the testimony of at least two people that they witnessed with their own eyes this person worshiping an idol or heard with their own ears this person blaspheming God's name?  How else would it be proven? 

Originally posted by Kish

If only you can do the same with Muhammad using the sura’s in the Quran and not the books of the hadith (Sahih) which is based on the alleged traditions of men, an outside source that have divided the Muslim world. Because that in itself makes the Quran incomplete!


Again, we see Kish's special pleading.  Muslims use both the Quran and Sunnah.  Get over it.  I have given you the witnesses you seek.  Where will you go from here? 

But I have a surprise for you!  The Quran does mention certain individuals who foretold the coming of Muhammad (pbuh)!  And guess what?  One of them is Jesus (pbuh)!

1.  Abraham and Ishmael:

"And remember Abraham and Isma'il raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing. 128"Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a people Muslim, bowing to Thy (will); and show us our place for the celebration of (due) rites; and turn unto us (in Mercy); for Thou art the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. 129"Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise."" (2:127-129)

So, here we see that Abraham and Ishmael (pbut) had prayed to God to send a prophet to the Arabs.  This prophet was Muhammad (pbuh).  Therefore, Abraham and Ishmael were witnesses to the coming of Muhammad (pbut).

2.  Jesus:

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"" (61:6)   

And here we see that Jesus (pbuh) foretold the coming of Muhammad (pbuh), making him another witness.  Alhamdulillah!

So, dear Kish, once again your question has been answered.  Will you accept the truth now or will you close your eyes and deny it again?  Remember...this is for your own good.  You are not doing me any favors by accepting the truth.  If you choose to accept it, it is for your own good.  If you choose to reject it, it is to your own loss.  If I was betting man though, I would wager that you will resort to your special pleading.  Case in point:

Originally posted by Kish

As far as the legendary, fanciful stories of Bahira, Waraqah and Negus which are of totally separate events in his life, well these are nice bedtime stories I guess you can tell your children before they go to sleep on how Muhammad in his early life talked with Christians and their paradise gardens in heaven and how Muhammad had spots and moles on him which was proof of him being a prophet.


LOL That's our Kish!  A walking pile of bias and special pleading!  He wanted witnesses.  He got them.  And then, he denied them using his own authority. 

Speaking of bedtime stories:

"As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything." (Acts 9:3-9)

Did Paul really encounter Jesus?  Or perhaps it was the blue fairy from Pinocchio promising Paul that he was going to be a real boy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_M95CWviH4 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_M95CWviH4

Wake up 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: 02 January 2013 at 10:33am

Originally posted by abu loren

Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe. Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil.

How about that, another scripture from the Quran stolen from the Bible, plagiarism at its best! 2 Cor. 4:3-5 . . .

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/2-corinthians/4#v-3 - 3 If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/2-corinthians/4#v-4 - 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/2-corinthians/4#v-5 - 5 For we are preaching, not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as YOUR slaves for Jesus’ sake.

This is exactly what Islam does by saying things like . . .

Originally posted by islamispeace

. . .  the Jesus of the Bible did not uphold the Law of Moses, and neither did Paul.

How hilarious is your reasoning and belief when Jesus came to fulfill the law, is without sin and himself personally appointed Paul, which might I add are ALL part of the canon and authenticity of the Bible Scriptures. Muhammad on the other hand plagiarized that account of Paul to himself but not one person can confirm it, only legendary stories from the hadith, now that is circular reasoning at its BEST! Whereas writers of the New Testament all confirm each other with non-Christian Secular History backing it up.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Every time he is cornered, he makes up a new argument! . . . he shifts gears and tries to deny the importance of the hadiths  . . .Regardless of your personal opinions, the simple fact is that you asked for witnesses and you got them!

From the beginning you were asked to provide “witnesses” from the Quran, what does Islam do, grabs support from the hadith and say I’m shifting gears, “Hold The Phone!” And then goes on to say this . . .

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

. . .launch an attack on the Quran's "completeness". 

My friend, if your book is “complete” as U say, you do not need the hadith, it’s that simple. WithOUT, the hadith the Quran is INcomplete!

Originally posted by kish

Muhammad is expressly told to follow and judge only by the inspiration which HE received, and what he received was the Quran NOT the hadith:

And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them (Not the hadith) by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee… So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee… S. 5:48-49

And you say Islam = Submit to Allah. What is stopping you now, or do U follow your Quran when it is convenient? Everything points to the scriptures as truth NOT the hadiths or even the Quran for that matter. Allah is here saying that he is a watcher over the scriptures. Did he watch over the scriptures like he said he would or did he allow them to be corrupted? Either-way there is a BIG problem here and you see it, I know U do.  But, then again if they are corrupted how can U judge between them as U are told, please read it again. See the dilemma; I’m not your enemy.  

Sometimes truth is hard to accept.


Originally posted by kish

. . . Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it of my accord. I only follow that which is inspired in me. Lo! if I disobey my Lord I fear the retribution of an awful Day. S. 10:15

Hmmm, out of his own mouth, long story short nothing Muhammad said the self-appointing messenger of Allah of the Kaaba and not Jehovah the God of Israel is validated. No wonder Islam is so confused when it comes to the Gospel and Torah and blame Jesus and Paul of the Bible. They are only following what Muhammad and Ibn Khazem said. Where did Muhammad get his information from, not the Lord Jehovah but from some spirit that violently choked him until he gave in and then from some so called Christian monks, perhaps anyone would have gave in and done the same under those distressing circumstances.

Originally posted by islamispeace

The Quran is instead concerned with teaching Muslims the importance of believing in Allah (swt) and His messengers.

And not its message, that is the sad part. Muslims say they submit but they are more concern with proving who the messenger was by using the hadiths but failed terribly about hearing and believing the MESSAGE of the previous “books” of the Bible the Holy Scriptures!

Originally posted by islamispeace

You don't get to tell us what we can and cannot follow. 

The Quran tells you to follow the previous scriptures and that you do not follow either, what else can I tell you.

Originally posted by islamispeace

You best response was to try to determine for Muslims what they can and cannot use.  Unfortunately for you, Muslims use both the Quran and Sunnah. 

You can use the Veda and hadith if you like I’m not Muslim and both are not part of the Bibles canon. Either way the Quran is incomplete without it!

Originally posted by islamispeace

It's no wonder that you have been trying to avoid answering my question about these prophets and who were their witnesses.

Read page five of this thread and read Acts 9: 3-12 & 17-22 again. Luke, Theophilus who later became a Christian, Ananias and others accepted the account as factual! No wonder NO ONE disputed the account that Saul/Paul experienced as well as Jesus death. Peter, Barnabas and Jesus Apostles accepted the account and his commission as an Apostle to the nations, which Muhammad again plagiarized to himself.

Paul resurrects Eutychus in Troas in front of eyewitnesses (Acts 20:12), heals a man lame from birth and performed other miracles in front of eyewitnesses (Acts 14:8-18), another proof of him being an Apostle and Prophet of God. Paul prayed and laid his hands on the man, and he was healed. Deeply impressed by this miracle, the local people brought other sick ones to be healed, and they brought gifts to fill the needs of Paul and his companions (Acts 28:7-10)

Ordinary men like Muhammad cannot do these things but instead have to think up stories from the hadith which came after Muhammad's death to convince his followers that they really happened.

As you can see Paul had many witnesses even eye-witnesses to confirm his account and teachings during and after his death and that Jesus and God were backing him up!  

Luke 1: 3,4 3 I (Luke) resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The·oph′i·lus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally

Acts 1:1, 3 The first account, O The·oph′i·lus, I composed about all the things Jesus started both to do and to teach . . . 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

Like it or not, no one can prove these events did not take place because many eyewitnesses saw it and wrote about it and accepted it. The accuracy of the book of Acts has been verified over the years by a number of archaeological discoveries

Acts of Apostles was accepted without question as inspired Scripture and canonical by Scripture catalogers from the second through the fourth centuries C.E. Portions of the book, along with fragments of the four Gospels, are found in the Chester Beatty No. 1 papyrus manuscript (P45) of the third century C.E. The Michigan No. 1571 manuscript (P38) of the third or fourth century contains portions of chapters 18 and 19, and a fourth-century manuscript, Aegyptus No. 8683 (P8), contains parts of chapters 4 through 6. The book of Acts was quoted from by Polycarp of Smyrna about 115 C.E., by Ignatius of Antioch about 110 C.E., and by Clement of Rome perhaps as early as 95 C.E. Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine of the fourth century all confirm the earlier listings that included Acts.

More outside sources for your benefit not mines. - Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul’s letters. Clement says he will answer his opponents by “the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority,” that is, “by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 409, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies.”

As Paul’s associate, Luke recorded their travels. He also spoke to eyewitnesses. These factors and thorough research make his writings a masterpiece as far as historical accuracy is concerned.

Scholar William Ramsay could therefore say: “Luke is a historian of the first rank: not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

I don’t expect you to know, understand or accept any of this since you was told not to and you blindly followed without doing your own research but it was part of the bible canon long before Muhammad came on the scene.

All this was completed under great persecution from the Romans and Jews and the Christians were very small in number but nothing is impossible for Jehovah, the God of the heavens!

Originally posted by islamispeace

Who was the "angel" that appeared to Mary to announce to her the birth of Jesus (pbuh)?

Are we going to go through all of the characters of the Bible, it still would not convince you.

SO, before Muhammad can even past the test of a prophet he first has to be a servant of the God of Abraham, Isaac AND of Jacob which he is not, how do we know?

What have we found regarding Muhammad and his spurious teachings thus far? The basic components are missing from the Quran that the Torah and Injil have to confirm each others written.

Six Major Points in Islam the Quran fails to Mention

 

1)    The Quran does not mention that Ishmael was the child to be sacrificed by Abraham

 

2)    The Quran does not mention that Muhammad was the promised seed of Abraham

 

3)    The Quran does not mention that a covenant was made with Ishmael by God

 

4)    The Quran does not mention ONE person who witnessed, confirmed or testified that Muhammad’s Revelation in the cave of Hi’ra was a TRUE event, according to the Law of Moses.

 

5)    The Quran does not mention the God of Muhammad (Allah) as a father and having a son (Sura 4:171) as does the God of Jesus (YHWH/JHVH = Yahweh/Jehovah) (Matt. 3:17)

 

6) The Quran does not mention God’s name as Yahweh or Jehovah as did ALL the other books of the prophets in the Bible

 

If the God of Muhammad and of the Quran Allah, is not the same God of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah and of Moses how can Muhammad even begin to past the test of a true Prophet.



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


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 02 January 2013 at 11:33am
"Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise." (2:127-129)
 
What does "rehearse Thy signs" mean to you?
 
Thanks and salaam,
CH


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 02 January 2013 at 2:01pm
Kish,
your argument is going nowhere and it seems, with your long and meaningless posts, that your intentions are to just drag on until others get fed up and leave you alone with your absurdities which you claim as winning a point. That is plain stu---.
You are asking for a witness. There is no way that you can bring in a witness who can testify on the prophethood of Moses' Jesus' or any of God's true prophets of the OT. A witness mean someone who is alive and can testify. Similarly, it is not possible to bring in a living person from the time of the Prophet (pbuh). So your argument is plainly silly, and your efforts to put others down on this basis is insane.
So first come to your senses before asking anything. Because like this you only look like a looser.
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: 03 January 2013 at 12:59pm

Originally posted by honeto

There is no way that you can bring in a witness who can testify on the prophethood of Moses' Jesus' or any of God's true prophets of the OT. A witness mean someone who is alive and can testify.

Unless you can prove otherwise, that is your opinion but the Torah states that you need ‘two or more witnesses’ for any matter to be establish as truth, be they an eye-witness or not. This has been the rule of thumb throughout the Old AND New Testament, but not in your book. Testimony was giving to Jesus and Paul’s message, it was acknowledged and confirmed by others in the scriptures. But, no one can confirm Muhammad’s revelation in the Quran only the hadith which by that time he was already dead to agree on anything that was said about him. That being said, Islam, Muhammad and his Quran are the first book for Muslims, fine. However, they have no connection with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of the Old Testament just because Muhammad says so. There is no connection with the Quran and the Gospel of Jesus because Muhammad acknowledges it, it was already known history.  

The way you worship Allah is entirely up to you. But, don’t tell Jews and Christians that the God of the Old and New Testament is not a heavenly father just because Allah of the Quran is not. That is NOT a Biblical teaching! Most of the Quran is inconsistent if you are to compare it to the Bible, that’s okay; the Bible is a book for Christians, the Quran for Muslims. It is going to disagree on mostly everything essential to salvation.

I’m glad that the ‘two or more witness’ rule was put into effect because many have tried to add legends and fanciful stories to the Bible to contaminate it. But, the Bible canon was closed, completed and finished after the end of the Apostle John’s writings, which was before 1 C.E. and accepted as authentic by the Jews and Christians until many, many years later after even Muhammad's death. 

Jehovah God said he would preserve and protect it and he did.

If you disagree try and answer the  "Six Major Points in Islam the Quran fails to Mention" above


There you will have your answer



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


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 03 January 2013 at 2:58pm
Go back one page and read what Webber wrote.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 05 January 2013 at 11:59am
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Webber

Sorry but I fail to see how you have convinced Kish of anything. I know you believe it to the fullest extent yourself so proof is as easy as an Arabic word, (most of which have many meanings). This looks like a case of proving it to yourself over and over and getting frustrated when your twos and two don’t make fours in the eyes of others. There are reasons for that. In the same way you cannot convince me by your arguments that Paul was not a Prophet.


LOL Well, what a shock that a Christian feels that my arguments are not very "convincing"!  I think that you are actually just projecting your own insecurities onto me.

Originally posted by Webber

Contradictory? One account mentions the companions heard but did not see anything. (How’s your spiritual vision doing?) Another says  couldn’t  see anything, (possibly because of a bright light?) Another says they fell to the ground. Do the first two accounts say they did not fall to the ground? K, noticed the variations, missed the contradictions. People like to mix them up lots.


This is a typical Christian apologetic argument, aimed at reconciling the differing detail in the three accounts. 

The first account states that the companions did not see anyone and makes no mention of a bright light.  The second account states that the companions saw a bright light.  This certainly looks like a contradiction to me!  Moreover, since you like to use the KJV, the contradictions are even more obvious:

"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink." (Acts 9:7-9)

This account says that the men heard a voice but no one.

"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus." (Acts 22:9-11)

This account states that they saw a light but did not hear the voice!

Originally posted by Webber

This is an old Muslim criticism. All NT accounts must be exact yet the 7 variations of the Quranic account  of Sodom and Gomorrah should not be questioned. It’s a double standard.

And this is an old Christian tactic: when in doubt, divert attention to an unrelated issue.

Originally posted by Webber

Clearly you are into the NIV and its updated opinions. Read the KJV and you will note how Paul always separates God from Jesus. I suppose nobody ever said Praise Allah and Muhammad in the same sentence before?
  

Using the same KJV, we see the contradictions in Acts regarding Paul's encounter. 

Here is how the KJV translates 1 Corinthians 1:2-3:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ."

There is little difference between the KJV and the NIV here.  Both tell Christians to call upon the name of Jesus "their lord and ours".  

Originally posted by Webber

Jesus said “Behold I come quickly” Jesus meant when He comes it will be quick; Paul’s prophesy was not about “Cool, we’ll see ya tomorrow” but about on the day it would happen. Where does Paul tell them they will all live until that day? Wishful thinking I’d say and same for every generation since that has sculpted the verses to believe it meant in their lifetime

Another typical response.  Let's see the verses again:

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

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (KJV)

There can be little doubt what Paul is saying here.  Christians can try to dance around it all they want, but it is clear that Paul was expecting Jesus' return within a short amount of time.

Originally posted by Webber

I find it odd you would use the words of another author, (John) as an argument against Paul. On the surface they seem to agree, not contradict, but it’s irrelevant to your argument. How did you miss that?

What's so "odd" about it?  I referred to 1 John to prove further that the early Christians were expecting the return of Jesus in their lifetimes, just like Paul.  Whoever wrote 1 John shared Paul's belief that Jesus was returning soon. 

Originally posted by Webber

John’s talk was a warning based on the appearance of anti-christs cast to the earth, which is what happened and remains even until this “hour”.  Not something Muslims want to get into, they’d rather say it’s all about the Jinn.

John's "warning" was meant to tell Christians that the end was near.  That is why he said "it is the last hour". 

Originally posted by Webber

So what happens to a prophet that prophesies about the end time that isn’t going to happen until the end time? Would you not want to put them to death cuz it didn’t happen in your lifetime? John died of old age.

First of all, scholars generally agree that the author of 1 John was not "John".  As Ehrman notes:

"The letters 1, 2, and 3 John sound in many ways like the Gospel of John, but they are strikingly different as well, especially in the historical context they presuppose.  They were probably not written by the same author, who was not John the son of Zebedee in any event, but by a later Christian living in the same community." [Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 229]

Second, the reason "John" was not killed for being a false prophet was because the letter was written anonymously.  Also, this author was simply repeating the belief of the Christian community at large.

Anonymity was a common phenomenon in early Christianity.  The number of anonymous writings in the New Testament is remarkable.  As Ehrman notes:

"None of the Gospels tells us the names of its author. [...] Also anonymous are the book of Acts and the letters known as 1, 2, and 3 John.  Technically speaking, the same is true of the book of Hebrews; the author never mentions his name, even if he wants you to assume he's Paul." [Ibid., p. 23]

Originally posted by Webber

These arguments are not your own. They are age old and refuted many times. I would even venture to guess your training on this has been more Google than from sitting and listening to your Imam. 

LOL Oh that's rich.  "Googling" actually seems to be the main tactic of Christians such as yourself.  I tend to rely on journals and books written by actual experts.

Originally posted by Webber

On the other side of the coin…Using the NIV in your arguments will mess up a lot of “Christians” who do not know their own scripture. ;)
  

You don't seem to know your scripture that well either, let alone whether it is the NIV or KJV, as I showed above. 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: Rational
Date Posted: 05 January 2013 at 4:35pm
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته... وبعد

Kish the Kid,

"And when it is said to them, "Believe as the people have believed," they say, "Should we believe as the foolish have believed?" Unquestionably, it is they who are the foolish, but they know [it] not."( http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/2:13 - 13 )

Grow up and stop being foolish.

Remember this, no matter how hard you try, you will never be capable of changing the believes of a true Muslim. You can try and shake our foundation all you want, but in the end you'll only harm yourself. We are not the ones that have been deceived.

Debating the likes of you is futile والله اعلم

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته





Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 05 January 2013 at 8:52pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Kish

How hilarious is your reasoning and belief when Jesus came to fulfill the law, is without sin and himself personally appointed Paul, which might I add are ALL part of the canon and authenticity of the Bible Scriptures. Muhammad on the other hand plagiarized that account of Paul to himself but not one person can confirm it, only legendary stories from the hadith, now that is circular reasoning at its BEST! Whereas writers of the New Testament all confirm each other with non-Christian Secular History backing it up.


Here we see Kish just repeating ad nauseum his own personal beliefs without providing any supporting evidence!  Go figure...

Originally posted by Kish

From the beginning you were asked to provide “witnesses” from the Quran, what does Islam do, grabs support from the hadith and say I’m shifting gears, “Hold The Phone!” And then goes on to say this . . .


Earth to Kish: you don't get to tell Muslims from where they can provide evidence.  Muslims use both the Quran and Hadiths. 

What I find hilarious is that Kish does not even believe in either the Quran or the Hadiths, yet he wants Muslims to provide evidence from the Quran and not the Hadiths, even though he rejects both! 

Originally posted by Kish

My friend, if your book is “complete” as U say, you do not need the hadith, it’s that simple. WithOUT, the hadith the Quran is INcomplete!


Again, you don't get to tell us what we need and what we don't need.  As I said, the Quran is not a biography of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  It's purpose is to teach Muslims how to worship God and live according to His Laws.  With this in mind, it is complete.  All other details, such as the proper interpretation of the Quran or issues regarding the Prophet's life are left for the Hadiths. 

The important point to take away from all this, which you are desperately trying to avoid, is that you asked for witnesses and you got them! 

Not only that, but I surprised you by providing witnesses from both the Quran and Hadiths!  Let's see how you respond.

Originally posted by Kish

And you say Islam = Submit to Allah. What is stopping you now, or do U follow your Quran when it is convenient? Everything points to the scriptures as truth NOT the hadiths or even the Quran for that matter. Allah is here saying that he is a watcher over the scriptures. Did he watch over the scriptures like he said he would or did he allow them to be corrupted? Either-way there is a BIG problem here and you see it, I know U do.  But, then again if they are corrupted how can U judge between them as U are told, please read it again. See the dilemma; I’m not your enemy.  

Sometimes truth is hard to accept.

The verse is saying that Allah (swt) is a watcher over the Quran.  He was not referring to the previous scriptures.  Sheik Kish thinks too much of himself to think that he can tell Muslims what their own scripture says!

Originally posted by Kish

Hmmm, out of his own mouth, long story short nothing Muhammad said the self-appointing messenger of Allah of the Kaaba and not Jehovah the God of Israel is validated. No wonder Islam is so confused when it comes to the Gospel and Torah and blame Jesus and Paul of the Bible. They are only following what Muhammad and Ibn Khazem said. Where did Muhammad get his information from, not the Lord Jehovah but from some spirit that violently choked him until he gave in and then from some so called Christian monks, perhaps anyone would have gave in and done the same under those distressing circumstances.
  

Poor, poor Kish...confounded by his own theory, he now resorts to childish rants.  It seems like Kish is trying hard to convince himself of the "truth" as he sees it. 

Any one can notice how he has desperately tried to divert attention away from the Jesus of the Bible as well as Paul.  Why?  Because he knows that his own theory (about 2 witnesses) puts not only Jesus and Paul, but indeed all of the Biblical prophets in a very bad light!  I guess its proof that Kish puts the cart before the horse (or talks before he thinks)! LOL

Originally posted by Kish

And not its message, that is the sad part. Muslims say they submit but they are more concern with proving who the messenger was by using the hadiths but failed terribly about hearing and believing the MESSAGE of the previous “books” of the Bible the Holy Scriptures!

More Kishian rants aimed at convincing himself!  The real sad part is that Kish masquerades himself as someone who knows what the Quran says, but like most self-appointed pretend-scholars, he has never read it or absorbed its message.  He simply repeats what he has been told since childhood, like an automaton. 

Originally posted by Kish

The Quran tells you to follow the previous scriptures and that you do not follow either, what else can I tell you.

Here goes Sheik Kish again telling us what the Quran says.  No Kish, the Quran does not tell us to "follow the previous scriptures".  Its just another absurd Christian myth.  Maybe you should actually read the Quran before opening your mouth.

Originally posted by Kish

You can use the Veda and hadith if you like I’m not Muslim and both are not part of the Bibles canon. Either way the Quran is incomplete without it!

Regardless of your pathetic arguments, the fact remains that the central question of this thread has been answered.  But as one would expect, your arrogance and blind reasoning have kept you from admitting the truth. 

And here is the funny part.  You said that you don't believe in the Quran (duh!) but here you are asking for "witnesses" from the Quran!  What would be the point if you were provided with these "witnesses"?  Would you say "Alhamdulillah!" and become a Muslim?  It seems like this whole thread was just a pathetic attempt at objectivity.  Unfortunately, there can be no objectivity from one so biased from the beginning!

It is no surprise then that when you were surprised by the witnesses in the Quran, your response was...silence! 

Originally posted by Kish

Read page five of this thread and read Acts 9: 3-12 & 17-22 again. Luke, Theophilus who later became a Christian, Ananias and others accepted the account as factual! No wonder NO ONE disputed the account that Saul/Paul experienced as well as Jesus death. Peter, Barnabas and Jesus Apostles accepted the account and his commission as an Apostle to the nations, which Muhammad again plagiarized to himself.

LOL So, Kish thinks that Luke (a lackey of Paul) and some guy named "Theophilus", who we know nothing about, are the "witnesses" for Paul.  Ooookay! 

Then he mentions Ananias, the other obscure figure who, as claimed by Acts, had an encounter with "the Lord".  Poor Kish does not realize that he now has the little problem of identifying the witnesses for Ananias!  Who were these witnesses I wonder?  Oh right, Paul and Luke!  How nice and convenient that our little circle is complete!

Originally posted by Kish

Paul resurrects Eutychus in Troas in front of eyewitnesses (Acts 20:12), heals a man lame from birth and performed other miracles in front of eyewitnesses (Acts 14:8-18), another proof of him being an Apostle and Prophet of God. Paul prayed and laid his hands on the man, and he was healed. Deeply impressed by this miracle, the local people brought other sick ones to be healed, and they brought gifts to fill the needs of Paul and his companions (Acts 28:7-10)

So, Kish believes these legendary stories and then on his authority says the following:

Originally posted by Kish

Ordinary men like Muhammad cannot do these things but instead have to think up stories from the hadith which came after Muhammad's death to convince his followers that they really happened.

Wow!  Biased much, Kish?  Isn't it amazing that you believe one set of alleged miracles and reject another?  I guess it should not be surprising since we are dealing with a Christian apologist who has already made up his mind and will not answer to reason. 

Kish also conveniently forgets the little problem of contradictions in the account of Paul's first encounter as well as his false prophecy about Jesus' second coming and teaching of a doctrine different from that of all the previous prophets.  Obviously, even if Paul had performed thousands of miracles, these all go down the drain if he made just one false prophecy or taught a different doctrine than that of Jesus (pbuh).  If that is the case, which the evidence shows, then his so-called "miracles" (if they even occurred) could just have been the work of a false prophet, as Jesus himself allegedly warned:

"For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time." (Matthew 24:24-25)

Originally posted by Kish

As you can see Paul had many witnesses even eye-witnesses to confirm his account and teachings during and after his death and that Jesus and God were backing him up!  

Luke 1: 3,4 3 I (Luke) resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The·oph′i·lus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally

Acts 1:1, 3 The first account, O The·oph′i·lus, I composed about all the things Jesus started both to do and to teach . . . 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

Like it or not, no one can prove these events did not take place because many eyewitnesses saw it and wrote about it and accepted it. The accuracy of the book of Acts has been verified over the years by a number of archaeological discoveries

Acts of Apostles was accepted without question as inspired Scripture and canonical by Scripture catalogers from the second through the fourth centuries C.E. Portions of the book, along with fragments of the four Gospels, are found in the Chester Beatty No. 1 papyrus manuscript (P45) of the third century C.E. The Michigan No. 1571 manuscript (P38) of the third or fourth century contains portions of chapters 18 and 19, and a fourth-century manuscript, Aegyptus No. 8683 (P8), contains parts of chapters 4 through 6. The book of Acts was quoted from by Polycarp of Smyrna about 115 C.E., by Ignatius of Antioch about 110 C.E., and by Clement of Rome perhaps as early as 95 C.E. Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine of the fourth century all confirm the earlier listings that included Acts.

More outside sources for your benefit not mines. - Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul’s letters. Clement says he will answer his opponents by “the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority,” that is, “by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 409, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies.”

As Paul’s associate, Luke recorded their travels. He also spoke to eyewitnesses. These factors and thorough research make his writings a masterpiece as far as historical accuracy is concerned.

Scholar William Ramsay could therefore say: “Luke is a historian of the first rank: not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

I don’t expect you to know, understand or accept any of this since you was told not to and you blindly followed without doing your own research but it was part of the bible canon long before Muhammad came on the scene.

All this was completed under great persecution from the Romans and Jews and the Christians were very small in number but nothing is impossible for Jehovah, the God of the heavens!

  

More copying by the lazy Kish who does not do his own research and yet criticizes others for not doing "your own research". Clap

By the way, isn't it strange that a man who never even met Jesus (except for the couple of minutes in Damascus) went on to become the single most important figure in Christianity, so much so that most of the Christian canon is made up of books that were either written by him or his followers (and some that were forged in his name)?! Shocked 

Originally posted by Kish

Are we going to go through all of the characters of the Bible, it still would not convince you.

SO, before Muhammad can even past the test of a prophet he first has to be a servant of the God of Abraham, Isaac AND of Jacob which he is not, how do we know?

What have we found regarding Muhammad and his spurious teachings thus far? The basic components are missing from the Quran that the Torah and Injil have to confirm each others written.


Kish is confounded!  He still will not answer the question and instead goes off on tangents.  So to repeat:

Who was the "angel" that appeared to Mary to announce to her the birth of Jesus (pbuh)?

This angel did not identify itself.  Only Luke identified it as Gabriel (as).  Hoe delightful that Kish has been ensnared by his own handiwork! Big%20smile

Remember...this is your own theory being used against you!  Poor Kish...hoisted by his own petard!

Originally posted by Kish

If the God of Muhammad and of the Quran Allah, is not the same God of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah and of Moses how can Muhammad even begin to past the test of a true Prophet.


LOL We are back to that again?  This has already been explained.  If you are too dense and blinded by your own arrogance to understand, that is your problem.  As the gentleman in the Youtube video mentioned, people like Kish belong to a "sick cult".  How horrified they will be when they stand in front of the Lord of the Worlds on the Day of Judgment and are reminded of their blasphemy! Shocked That will surely be a day of much groaning! 


-------------
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: Webber
Date Posted: 05 January 2013 at 9:32pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Webber

Sorry but I fail to see how you have convinced Kish of anything. I know you believe it to the fullest extent yourself so proof is as easy as an Arabic word, (most of which have many meanings). This looks like a case of proving it to yourself over and over and getting frustrated when your twos and two don’t make fours in the eyes of others. There are reasons for that. In the same way you cannot convince me by your arguments that Paul was not a Prophet.


LOL Well, what a shock that a Christian feels that my arguments are not very "convincing"!  I think that you are actually just projecting your own insecurities onto me.

Originally posted by Webber

Contradictory? One account mentions the companions heard but did not see anything. (How’s your spiritual vision doing?) Another says  couldn’t  see anything, (possibly because of a bright light?) Another says they fell to the ground. Do the first two accounts say they did not fall to the ground? K, noticed the variations, missed the contradictions. People like to mix them up lots.


This is a typical Christian apologetic argument, aimed at reconciling the differing detail in the three accounts. 

The first account states that the companions did not see anyone and makes no mention of a bright light.  The second account states that the companions saw a bright light.  This certainly looks like a contradiction to me!  Moreover, since you like to use the KJV, the contradictions are even more obvious:

"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink." (Acts 9:7-9)

This account says that the men heard a voice but no one.

"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus." (Acts 22:9-11)

This account states that they saw a light but did not hear the voice!

Originally posted by Webber

This is an old Muslim criticism. All NT accounts must be exact yet the 7 variations of the Quranic account  of Sodom and Gomorrah should not be questioned. It’s a double standard.

And this is an old Christian tactic: when in doubt, divert attention to an unrelated issue.

Originally posted by Webber

Clearly you are into the NIV and its updated opinions. Read the KJV and you will note how Paul always separates God from Jesus. I suppose nobody ever said Praise Allah and Muhammad in the same sentence before?
  

Using the same KJV, we see the contradictions in Acts regarding Paul's encounter. 

Here is how the KJV translates 1 Corinthians 1:2-3:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ."

There is little difference between the KJV and the NIV here.  Both tell Christians to call upon the name of Jesus "their lord and ours".  

Originally posted by Webber

Jesus said “Behold I come quickly” Jesus meant when He comes it will be quick; Paul’s prophesy was not about “Cool, we’ll see ya tomorrow” but about on the day it would happen. Where does Paul tell them they will all live until that day? Wishful thinking I’d say and same for every generation since that has sculpted the verses to believe it meant in their lifetime

Another typical response.  Let's see the verses again:

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

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (KJV)

There can be little doubt what Paul is saying here.  Christians can try to dance around it all they want, but it is clear that Paul was expecting Jesus' return within a short amount of time.

Originally posted by Webber

I find it odd you would use the words of another author, (John) as an argument against Paul. On the surface they seem to agree, not contradict, but it’s irrelevant to your argument. How did you miss that?

What's so "odd" about it?  I referred to 1 John to prove further that the early Christians were expecting the return of Jesus in their lifetimes, just like Paul.  Whoever wrote 1 John shared Paul's belief that Jesus was returning soon. 

Originally posted by Webber

John’s talk was a warning based on the appearance of anti-christs cast to the earth, which is what happened and remains even until this “hour”.  Not something Muslims want to get into, they’d rather say it’s all about the Jinn.

John's "warning" was meant to tell Christians that the end was near.  That is why he said "it is the last hour". 

Originally posted by Webber

So what happens to a prophet that prophesies about the end time that isn’t going to happen until the end time? Would you not want to put them to death cuz it didn’t happen in your lifetime? John died of old age.

First of all, scholars generally agree that the author of 1 John was not "John".  As Ehrman notes:

"The letters 1, 2, and 3 John sound in many ways like the Gospel of John, but they are strikingly different as well, especially in the historical context they presuppose.  They were probably not written by the same author, who was not John the son of Zebedee in any event, but by a later Christian living in the same community." [Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 229]

Second, the reason "John" was not killed for being a false prophet was because the letter was written anonymously.  Also, this author was simply repeating the belief of the Christian community at large.

Anonymity was a common phenomenon in early Christianity.  The number of anonymous writings in the New Testament is remarkable.  As Ehrman notes:

"None of the Gospels tells us the names of its author. [...] Also anonymous are the book of Acts and the letters known as 1, 2, and 3 John.  Technically speaking, the same is true of the book of Hebrews; the author never mentions his name, even if he wants you to assume he's Paul." [Ibid., p. 23]

Originally posted by Webber

These arguments are not your own. They are age old and refuted many times. I would even venture to guess your training on this has been more Google than from sitting and listening to your Imam. 

LOL Oh that's rich.  "Googling" actually seems to be the main tactic of Christians such as yourself.  I tend to rely on journals and books written by actual experts.

Originally posted by Webber

On the other side of the coin…Using the NIV in your arguments will mess up a lot of “Christians” who do not know their own scripture. ;)  

You don't seem to know your scripture that well either, let alone whether it is the NIV or KJV, as I showed above. Big%20smile

You have got to be kidding. He said typical Muslim so I get to say typical Christian. It's that narcissistic idocy that makes me think the only Paul you studied was Paul Reubens. "I know you are but what am I?"

Your aggressive and sarcastic style tends to speak against islam being that peaceful.
Mind if I debate a while with the real Muslims?

 






-------------
I'm a Gentile.
Numb. 6:24-26


Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 06 January 2013 at 3:38am
PAUL : On his own admittance being cunning, used deceit:
"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I
CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE." 2 CORINTHIANS 12:16


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 06 January 2013 at 11:48am
Originally posted by Webber

You have got to be kidding. He said typical Muslim so I get to say typical Christian. It's that narcissistic idocy that makes me think the only Paul you studied was Paul Reubens. "I know you are but what am I?"
Your aggressive and sarcastic style tends to speak against islam being that peaceful.
Mind if I debate a while with the real Muslims?


And yet again, you fail to offer a substantive rebuttal and instead resort to ad hominem attacks and melodrama.  Do you have anything to say about the contradictions in Acts about Paul's encounter?  The KJV is pretty clear.  It was your idea to rely on the KJV, was it not?

I guess referring to my response as "narcissistic idiocy" serves as a valid response in your mind.  Oh well...

Also, one has to wonder what my rebuttal has to do with Islam and peace? Confused


-------------
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: 06 January 2013 at 10:14pm

Originally posted by rational

You can try and shake our foundation all you want . . .

Hey Newbie, what foundation does Islam has? Everything in the Q was barrowed; starting with some spirit who angrily chocked Muhammad who he later thought was Gabriel which is your belief and I don’t knock it. But, it’s not part of the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures and goes against the role of the angel Gabriel. Also, the Q’s teachings contradict ALL the prophets, starting with Moses (the story of Pharaoh and the Red sea, Abraham and who in Noah’s family survived the flood) and ending with Revelation.

Originally posted by Kish

Six Major Points in Islam the Quran fails to Mention

 

1)    The Quran does not mention that Ishmael was the child to be sacrificed by Abraham

 

2)    The Quran does not mention that Muhammad was the promised seed of Abraham

 

3)    The Quran does not mention that a covenant was made with Ishmael by God

 

4)    The Quran does not mention ONE person who witnessed, confirmed or testified that Muhammad’s Revelation in the cave of Hi’ra was a TRUE event, according to the Law of Moses.

 

5)    The Quran does not mention the God of Muhammad (Allah) as a father and having a son (Sura 4:171) as does the God of Jesus (YHWH/JHVH = Yahweh/Jehovah) (Matt. 3:17)

 

6) The Quran does not mention God’s name as Yahweh or Jehovah as did ALL the other books of the prophets in the Bible

 

If the God of Muhammad and of the Quran Allah, is not the same God of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah and of Moses how can Muhammad even begin to past the test of a true Prophet.

Whatever foundation Islam think it has is certainly not based on the Torah and the Injil although ISLAM’S book inaccurately makes mention of them.

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


Posted By: Webber
Date Posted: 07 January 2013 at 12:15pm
Hi Islamispeace.
First let me apologize for getting cranked. That's the person I was, not the person I want to be. It was a jerk reaction to some of your responses but in no way do I think you are an *****. The fact that we can read the same thing and come away with different meanings is what's caused so much division to begin with. Unless we decide to post Did not, did so back and forth we may have to agree we've hit an impasse. Just for your reading pleasure let me add a couple things.

There are a few scenarios that could be reason as to why the stories are different, none of which would I imagine you would believe. Your NIV expands on the second account to say they didn’t understand the voice as opposed to not hearing it. Let’s not forget these witnesses were not, nor did they become Christians. Once they dropped off Paul they were out of the picture. They were no doubt more of a goon squad which travelled with Paul for the express purpose of getting in on some of the action. Once back home I doubt they would admit to more than they had to for the simple reason they’d be persecuted as well.  In that case there wouldn’t be much use in Paul continuing to insist they saw and heard everything.  

I didn’t bring up the Quranic accounts of Sodom and Gomorrah to discredit the Quran but to show that variations happen.  I’m sure you prefer the version that says Paul lied about everything but that isn’t consistent with his ministry.

In response to your comment, "Here is how the KJV translates 1 Corinthians 1:2-3: Both tell Christians to call upon the name of Jesus "their lord and ours".  "

I know, some Christians pray to Jesus, which is because of their belief He was God so it doesn’t matter but that isn’t what Paul meant so yeah, I’m not seeing a lot wrong with what he wrote. 

Because of our differences in other stuff we believe I’m not sure I could explain it to you in a way you would understand let alone believe, but here’s a quick shot at it.

There is much power in the very name of Jesus. It can be pivotal in the outcome of many events that happen daily in some cases dependant on the evil you have around you… (me).  The devil doesn’t bother those that don’t bother him but I’m a constant annoyance to him. When I say “devil” I’m not actually meaning the one and only, and I wouldn’t give him any credit for being omni-anything, nor is he in control of all evil.

Like Paul said in his letter to the Ephesians, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

Paul then goes on to explain how the full armour of God is essential, and that he is sending Tychicus to explain the rest. Unfortunate Tychicus didn’t write an epistle, letter, even a note on the subject. Maybe we’ll find it in a cave someday.

John knew about this as well. He also knew this new evil in the world had influenced some of those who were preachers, maybe even apostles, causing them to become false prophets already. Obviously he didn’t think there was only one hour left to life, the command that went with it was for the chruch to remain steadfast in the truth.  “The last hour” is an expression John also used at the crucifixion.

Whether Paul’s “we” meant himself and the Thessalonians only, or note to all Christians in general is a matter of interpretation. Either way I don’t believe neither Paul nor John would have imagined that 2000 years would go by. Many since have also believed the last day will be within their lifetime, but here we still are.

I'm going to have to leave it here for now. Duty calls and somebody has to pay my mortgage.



-------------
I'm a Gentile.
Numb. 6:24-26


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 07 January 2013 at 3:04pm
Kish,
Islamic teachings are from God Almighty.
I am sure previous scriptures and teachings have their base in God Almighty as well. The thing is that in their present form NT and OT are greatly in disagreement with each other, and that is a bigger problem in fact.
God, Jesus, and Salvation: The NT and OT are like day and night they contradict on those and other issues between each other.
So, logically it is funny that how you combine them two to present your case against Islam yet they disagree with each other, BIG TIME!
:)
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: 07 January 2013 at 8:37pm

Originally posted by honeto

Islamic teachings are from God Almighty.

If you are referring to the God of Abraham, that’s incorrect “Based on the six points of Islam that the Quran fails to mention and or agree with.”

Originally posted by honeto

The thing is that in their present form NT and OT are greatly in disagreement with each other,

The NT agrees with the OT and supports and affirms every word of the Prophets.  In fact to establish the identity of the Messiah Scripturally, the apostles and Jesus himself quoted more frequently from the prophecy of Isaiah than from any other Bible book. Still, the book of Isaiah was not the only one to foretell the future. Many other Hebrew Scripture prophecies also find fulfillment in Jesus birth, death and resurrection.

Not so with the Quran, it disagrees with everything about Jesus



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


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 08 January 2013 at 12:38pm
Kish,
how it is that the words from your mouth, or from keyboard don't match with the reality of OT and NT.
Let us take for example you, a follower of NT, believes God to be a Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Tell me what a follower of OT think of God? You bring me one follower of the OT (that will be what we call these days a Jew) who can agree with you on the very first, the most basic teaching, that is about God and I will leave you alone with your argument because OT does not preach the same (Trinity)as we have seen.

The second most important thing is Jesus, the Messiah. Yall (those now known as Christians) who follow the NT, and claim to also follow the OT say that Jesus is God and equal to God. Find me a follower of the OT who can testify what you claim is true. And that the Messiah they are waiting is going to be God. Again the OT and NT do not agree with that.

I have many things to, but you cannot bear them now. First straighten the ones above and I will come back with more.
You have choice, let us see what you choose.
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: 10 January 2013 at 1:12pm

 

Originally posted by honeto

Let us take for example you, a follower of NT, believes God to be a Trinity….You bring me one follower of the OT (that will be what we call these days a Jew) who can agree with you on the very first, the most basic teaching, that is about God and I will leave you alone with your argument because OT does not preach the same (Trinity)as we have seen.

Hasan, there are millions of Christians like me here and abroad who do not believe God to be part of a trinity and Jesus being the Supreme God. I like you believe he is one. But if I did not, that has nothing to do with whether or not the scriptures are correct. I’m sure as a Muslim (Sunni/Shite) you could understand that.  

However, the Law of Moses was nailed to the stake along with Christ which the prophet Isaiah himself prophesied about many centuries in advance; also, many Jews and Romans eye-witnessed the event.

Originally posted by honeto

Find me a follower of the OT who can testify what you claim is true.

Starting with the Gospel of Matthew, first written in Hebrew for the Jews and Jesus 12 Disciples, the New Testament is full of Jewish individuals who at one time believed in the Old covenant/testament but understood Jesus to be the long promised Messiah of the New covenant/testament, all the writers of the New Covenant believed and preached it. Jesus said that God would reject the Jews (Matt. 21:43) God said Jesus is his “SON” (Matt 3:16, 17)

Prophet Jeremiah (25: 5, 6) and others even depicted the coming One, the Messiah, as the “sprout” for David. Prophet Micah (5:2) said he would be born in Bethlehem before he was ever born.

The Jews were looking for Jesus around a certain time of year; they were in expectation of him. (John 1:41 - “We have found the Mes·si′ah” (which means, when translated, Christ).

If a Muslim disagrees with all this proof from the Old and New Testament it, you’re making a BIG, terrible mistake.

But it still does not change the truth of the matter, be you a Jew, Christian, Muslim or Trinitarian.

Kish



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


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 18 January 2013 at 8:52pm
Originally posted by kish

The Jews were looking for Jesus around a certain time of year; they were in expectation of him. (John 1:41 - “We have found the Mes·si′ah” (which means, when translated, Christ).


This is evidence that the Jews in the OT and the prophets were aware and in expectation of the "Christ"  Messiah in the NT. 


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


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 21 January 2013 at 3:41pm
"..expectation of the Messiah", ..and not God. And that's all I am saying too!
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: 23 January 2013 at 12:23pm
Originally posted by kish

Hasan, there are millions of Christians like me here and abroad who do not believe God to be part of a trinity and Jesus being the Supreme God. I like you believe he is one.


Originally posted by honeto

"..expectation of the Messiah", ..and not God. And that's all I am saying too!
Hasan


Well then, you and I agree when the Gospel said the Jews were in "expectation of the Messiah" or "anointed one". In Greek, 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.

The Apostle Paul accepted Jesus as the Messiah but not Muhammad. The Apostle Paul accepted Jesus crucifixion, death and resurrection but not Muhammad.

Which means Muhammad falls under this category according to Galatians 1:8
 . . .  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 Apostles Paul's writing is part of the Holy Scriptures (NT) but not Muhammad's Quran. The New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ is totally opposed to in the Quran, which is why the Quran does not have God's backing and is NOT part of the inspired canon of the Holy Scriptures.

Where in the Quran does Muhammad accepts Jesus life, death and Ministry?

Answer that question because the Apostle Paul accepted everything about Jesus. No wonder Jesus himself picked Saul/Paul and Jesus Apostles accepted Paul's message and the Romans hated him for it.
 


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


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 28 January 2013 at 3:20pm
Kish,
good we agree on one thing, but there are many that we don't.
You are wrong, Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) declared to us that Jesus was the Messiah. And that, when they tried to humiliate him and kill him, God saved and raised his beloved Essa (Jesus pbuh)to Himself.
And Jesus was the Messiah, the prophet the one who was given Gospel which he preached when he was alive, not Paul, not Matthew, not Luke, not John, not Judas, not Peter and so on. None of these men were given prophetic office nor a book by God.
The Quran which happens to be the most authentic and realiable, unchanged source on the life, prophethood and purpose of Jesus (pbuh)for fourteen hundered years in numerous places speaks the truth of the matter without any contradiction, unlike the Bible.
Hasan


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


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 28 January 2013 at 3:28pm
Greetings Hasan,

How do muslims know what Jesus taught?
Do muslims know what Jesus taught?
To where do muslims go to know what Jesus taught?

If they don't know what Jesus taught, how do they know that Muhammad doesn't teach something different?

and if muslims don't know what Jesus taught, then doesn't Muhammad negate Jesus? 
Yet Muhammad said not to ignore the earlier prophets, so I am very confused.  To where did he expect his followers to go to know what Jesus and the earlier prophets taught?

Salaam,
Caringheart


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 28 January 2013 at 8:05pm
Originally posted by honeto

And Jesus was the Messiah, the prophet the one who was given Gospel which he preached when he was alive, not Paul, not Matthew, not Luke, not John, not Judas, not Peter and so on.


. . . and it is for this reason the Islamic perspective of the Gospel is not part of the inspired canon of the Holy (Bible) Writings of the ancient Prophets but of the Quran which is why it's the first book for Muslims.

Galatians 1:8
 . . .  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.


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



Print Page | Close Window