What is the definition of a prophet?

I will debate the book of Daniel with you, as long as you adhere to common rules of this forum and debate.

1) I am not here to debate your favorite websites. Do not send me long winded copy and pastes as replies to my points and discussion.

2) Do not allow long winded copy and pastes to represent your views. You must be able to debate the material on your own, of course you can use sources, but the bulk of your reply should be your own words.

3) Do not presuppose what I may or may not think (as you have done below) and then dump various links to sites and simply assert that they prove your views correct. In other words, do not "dump" long winded posts with links trying to "cover all your bases" before I have even stated anything. I refuse to go through each of your links, I am having a discussion with you, not your links.

4) if you assert something, then back it up ("backing something up" or "arguing" does not include the act of copying and pasting and leaving various links with your "word" that they are proof of what you are saying).

5) The book of Daniel is probably the most difficult book in the bible to understand. If I debate this book (Daniel) with you, and take the time to gather my notes and info from my previous studies (some going back before I converted to Islam), then I will demand that you take the time to reply directly to my points. If I take the time to show you what I have learned and know, then I demand you take the time to reply. For the next few weeks, I will have to limit my replies to a thread on Daniel to about once a week, maybe twice a week. I do not want to come back to the thread a week later and find tons of copy and paste dumping. I will edit it (by deleting).

If you agree to these rules, then why don't you start and argue for your interpretation of the book of Daniel. This means you begin by stating the prophecy (in general terms) and its fulfillment and then arguing that the book of Daniel indeed is as you say it is.

(do not dump tons of bible verses with about 10 words by you that simply "assert" their meaning)

The reason I will not make a casual or cursory discussion with you is because, in case you are unaware, the book of Daniel is extremely complicated and your claim will have to have a discussion on exegesis of the chapter (especially the key words missionaries point to for their claim that Jesus fulfiulled the prophecy), and the use of other books in the bible to provide context and history.

If you are unaware of the depth I am talking about, then I say that you truly do not understand the book of Daniel and you are only mimmicking or regurgitating what has been fed to you. Truthfully, I have never met a Christian yet who can fully explain and show how Daniel and their prophecy claim works (in detail). They have always appealed to some pastor they know, some book they read, or some website.

The ball is in your court!

buddyman wrote: I will, insha'Allah, comment on your view of Daniel. Looking forward to it. Below are links of history of how my interpretation proves it true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon [edit] Identification of the four kingdoms Scholars have proposed two alternative views regarding the identification of the four kingdoms in Daniel 2. One view has traditionally been more prevalent among Christian scholars, at least as far back as Hippolytus (including Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther); it has also been supported by some Jewish expositors (including Japet Ibn Ali, Saadia, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra).[4] It is supported by modern scholars such as E. J. Young and Gerhard Pfandl.[5][6] The sequence is as follows: Babylon Medo-Persia Greece Rome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar%27s_statue_visio n_in_Daniel_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_I_of_Persia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerxes_the_Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_dynasty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonid_dynasty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire In essence, the "fall" of the Roman Empire to a contemporary of that age depended a great deal on where they were and their status in the world. On the great villas of the Italian Campagna, the seasons rolled on without a hitch. The local overseer may have been representing an Ostrogoth, then a Lombard duke, then a Christian bishop, but the rhythm of life and the horizons of the imagined world remained the same. Even in the decayed cities of Italy consuls were still elected. In Auvergne, at Clermont, the Gallo-Roman poet and diplomat Sidonius Apollinaris, bishop of Clermont, realized that the local "fall of Rome" came in 475, with the fall of the city to the Visigoth Euric. In the north of Gaul, a Roman kingdom existed for some years and the Franks had their links to the Roman administration and military as well. In Hispania the last Arian Visigothic king Liuvigild considered himself the heir of Rome. Hispania Baetica was still essentially Roman when the Moors came in 711, but in the northwest, the invasion of the Suevi broke the last frail links with Roman culture in 409. In Aquitania and Provence, cities like Arles were not abandoned, but Roman culture in Britain collapsed in waves of violence after the last legions evacuated: the final legionary probably left Britain in 409.   I'm not going to post everything but you get the gist

buddyman wrote: Hi Andalus, I will debate with you also, I don't care if you cut and paste. I'm at work, I can't type everything out.

You should care if I do a lot of cutting and pasting. Do you want to discuss this topic with me or websites that disagree with you? If you do not have time to debate the material, then perhaps you do not have the time right now. If we both cut and paste material from other authers then what good will come of the exchange? If two people spout off links and websites and copy and paste material at each other, then it would not be a discussion.

Furthermore, I am not asking you to debate while you are at work, I was simply stating that I would be happy to debate Daniel with you (you initiated the topic) as long as it is a real discussion and not me discussing and you throwing websites and links at me.

(do not dump tons of bible verses with about 10 words by you that simply "assert" their meaning) Don't dump Bible verses??? I only have the Bible, and I don't care about the Quran..

I did not state anything about the Quran...duh! In fact, I never asked you to quote the Quran.

I asked you to not "dump", which pertains to producing a huge pasted contribution with tons of biblical verses, and then about 10 words from you stating something along the lines (just an example), "as you can see, Jesus is god and this was fulfilled...", or something along the lines of "this is clearly.......". If biblical verses were so clear, then everyone would be Christians, even Jews who use your same scriptures and have completely opposing views.

Furthermore, when you dump large quantities of biblical verses and about 10 words of your own that assert your own opinion about them, I am forced to have to go through all of your verses or agree with you (not likely) or ignore it and go on, leaving your post "unrefuted". I am not accusing you of doing something intentionally wrong, but dumping is a rhetorical trick used by many people to bog threads down and bog down the ability of anyone to make reasonable reply. And the "dumper" has it easy, they just keep spamming the thread and assert and assert and kick back and let everyone else do all the work.

The reason I will not make a casual or cursory discussion with you is because, in case you are unaware, the book of Daniel is extremely complicated and your claim will have to have a discussion on exegesis of the chapter (especially the key words missionaries point to for their claim that Jesus fulfiulled the prophecy), and the use of other books in the bible to provide context and history. The Reason you WILL NOT? Sounds like a cop out to me. If you have proof of your interpretation of Daniel, you should send it. If I don't know, I will research. Very simple.

The reason will "not" what?

Cop out?  I am not the one dragging my feet to begin this discussion. It sounds like you rely waaay to much on other people's work and you have no real clue as to why you believe what you believe. Your response tells me that you desire a very "cursory", "superficial", and slightly "juvenile" discussion which will not allow anyone to learn the truth or come to a rational conclusion because

1) the topic requires more than exchaging links, and websites, and copy and pastes; and

2) I am beginning to think that you are unable to debate the material, keep in mind that a debate does not include "copy and pasting", "dumping volumes of biblical verses with about 10 words to assert some unproven meaning", throwing links at each other, etc, etc. I am beyond this, and I know enough about Daniel to understand that no real discussion will take place if we substitute such a juvenile approach to such a complicated book.

If you are unaware of the depth I am talking about, then I say that you truly do not understand the book of Daniel and you are only mimmicking or regurgitating what has been fed to you. Truthfully, I have never met a Christian yet who can fully explain and show how Daniel and their prophecy claim works (in detail). They have always appealed to some pastor they know, some book they read, or some website. When someone explains Daniel to you, and has History to proove it, then they obviously have a valid interpretation. It is a bit arogant of you to assume otherwise. Looking forward to your post.

I have not assumed otherwise, in fact, I am puzzled as to how you took such an inference from what I stated. I simply commented on the complexity of the book and that I have yet to meet a Christian who has been able to show me, in their own understanding, how the prophecy works and was fulfilled with the use of weeks of years and times. Thats all I said.

Cop out?  I am not the one dragging my feet to begin this discussion. It sounds like you rely waaay to much on other people's work and you have no real clue as to why you believe what you believe. Your response tells me that you desire a very "cursory", "superficial", and slightly "juvenile" discussion which will not allow anyone to learn the truth or come to a rational conclusion because

1) the topic requires more than exchaging links, and websites, and copy and pastes; and

2) I am beginning to think that you are unable to debate the material, keep in mind that a debate does not include "copy and pasting", "dumping volumes of biblical verses with about 10 words to assert some unproven meaning", throwing links at each other, etc, etc. I am beyond this, and I know enough about Daniel to understand that no real discussion will take place if we substitute such a juvenile approach to such a complicated book.

 Andalus,

Are you telling me that everything you learned was all on your own? You didn't get help from anyone?

 I would ask Buddyman whether Daniel is a prophet of God or not. That will be an important knowledge concerning this discussion.