God�s written instructions for life.

Kish wrote: He relies not on Jesus words or what his Apostles wrote but what the church fathers after them wrote. Having said that, everything he has posted in relation to what HE feels the church fathers believed is conjectural - inconclusive, guest work, an opinion.

Sure, sure.  No matter how much you try to deny it, the only one who has been "conjecturing" and making "opinions" is you.  Whereas I have supported everything I have written with solid scholarly evidence, you have only utilized plagiarized material from like-minded sources and your own opinions.  Stop whining for your own shortsightedness.

The irony is that you have disowned the church fathers after previously referring to them when it suited your purpose. 

Also, these same church fathers (like Papias) show that there were debates regarding the authenticity of the Gospels.  So, everything you have asked for to prove the corruption of the Bible, I have provided you.  Yet, as was expected, you remain stubborn in the fact of truth, being another victim of church brainwashing.

Kish wrote: In fact he rather credit non-inspired-non-eye-witness people who were not around during the time of the events than in inspired-eye-witness people who were around during the time of the events.

Oh what a crock!  How does one determine if a person is "inspired"?  Who determines if a person is "inspired"?  You?  Don't make me laugh!  The simple fact is that the concept of "inspiration" is simply a Christian invention to justify false doctrines.  Anyone can just claim to have been inspired and...boom...their words are accepted as fact.  Such faulty reasoning can only lead to misguidance.

Kish wrote: Whatever it takes to discredit the Gospel, I guess. I wonder if he uses the same formula when considering the hadith, after all it came 250 years later after Muhammad? You put the hadith before the Quran islamispeace? Do you believe everything you read in the hadith?

Ah, trying to divert again, are we Kish?  That seems to be your forte when you are cornered. 

Let me correct you on some issues regarding the Hadiths, because as with your "knowledge" (ha ha hee hee) about the Quran, your "knowledge" (ha ha hee hee) of the Hadiths is also extremely weak.  The Hadiths did not come 250 years after Muhammad (pbuh).  They were passed through an oral tradition for many years, but were put to paper as early as the 1st century AH.  One of the earliest compilations of Hadiths is the Sahifa of Hammam ibn Munabbih, who was a student of Abu Huraira (one of the Prophet's companions).

Moreover, Muslims judge the authority of the Hadiths by comparing them to the Qur'an as well as by analyzing the chain of transmission.  Christians have no such luxury to compare the many conflicting stories about Jesus (pbuh) which were initially passed along by word of mouth before the Gospels were written.

Kish wrote: Note: Jesus or his 12 Apostles never said anything negative against the Old or New Testament, only Muhammad, why? If it was good for Jesus it should have been good for Muhammad IF he was a true Prophet. Of course if Muhammad  was a false prophet, that explains everything doesn't it. It certainly would explain why he would talk against the Old and New Testament.

 

Note: You haven't proven that the NT contains the unaltered words of "Jesus or his 12 apostles".  Moreover, as I have shown, the sayings that have been attributed to Jesus and his "apostles" tend to contradict the Tanakh.  You pretend as if the NT and Tanakh are in agreement, but by doing so, you are only lying to yourself.  As I have shown in this thread and others, the two more often contradict each other than agree.  It is not surprising that you avoid like the plague the verses I have presented from the Tanakh which contradict the NT.

Kish wrote: As I have mentioned before, you need to believe in God, the author of the Bible in whole not in part in order to have its Holy Spirit and in order to understand its written words.

Yeah, I have heard this circular argument before.  You are essentially saying that in order to understand faith, you have to have faith!  But that's the problem, isn't it?  It should be the other way around.  You should understand first and then have faith.  But alas, Christianity wants it the other way around.  It wants us to shut down our reason and accept its teachings on blind faith.  Thank you, Kish, for admitting it. 

Kish wrote: The fact of the matter is modern Muslims on this forum don�t believe in his written word in its entirety. Why? Because it conflicts with the Quran, well that is Muslims lost not Christians.

The same can be said of you Kish.  Don't pretend to be an impartial observer here.  You already lied about that before! 

The fact is that the rejection of the Bible is justified to Muslims.  The evidence of its alteration and self-contradictions prove conclusively that it is not the unaltered word of God.  Not anymore, at least.  Therefore, Muslims are fully justified in accepting the Quran and not the Bible.

Kish wrote: The Gospel is and was accepted by Christ and his early followers which set the stage for the first Christian congregation that was founded at Pentecost 33 C.E.

 

"The Gospel" refers to Jesus' teachings, not the edited accounts of his life that were written decades after him. 

Kish wrote: Acts chapter 2:1-47 shows the first miracles in a Christian congregation setting not in some cave where no one is present to testify or confirm its trueness, that is the first historical proof, Muhammad is his ONLY witness!

Sure, sure.  These so-called "miracles" and the alleged "eye-witnesses" have no historical evidence to support them.  Remember the Bigfoot analogy, Kish?  Ponder on that for a while! 

Kish wrote: Muhammad is the only one who heard some angel speak, ALL Muslims agree! Therefore, until you can present a more ancient Holy book, a MORE reliable and historical book as the Holy Scriptures, �it is what it is� deal with it! But I�ll make this short and sweet for everyone who may have read your previous post about the church fathers and why one should believe them before believing what Jesus himself taught and preached and his 12 Apostles.

Wow!  What a "brilliant" line of reasoning!  We should accept the so-called "Holy Scriptures" because there is no other "MORE reliable and historical book..."  Leave it to Kish to come up with nonsensical and chilidish arguments!    Based on this reasoning, we should actually accept the Vedas as more authoritative because they are older than the Bible!  Of course, such a claim would b absurd, and so is your attempted defense of the Bible. 

Kish wrote: Question:Who or what are the confirming witnesses that the words of the Gospel which Jesus spoke came from God or an angel? Who or what are the confirming witnesses that the words of the Qur'an which Muhammad spoke came from God or an angel?" Who eye-witnessed Jesus, the Apostle Paul and Muhammad�s miracles and or prophecies?

I will let you provide the list of people who allegedly "witnessed" the miracles mentioned in the NT.  As far as the witnesses to Muhammad's miracles, here is an incomplete list:

Anas ibn Malik
Qatada ibn al-Numan
Jubayr b. Mutim
Hudhayfa
Abdullah ibn Abbas
Abdullah ibn Umar
Abdullah ibn Masud

For more, see the following: http://muslim-responses.com/Miracles_of_prophet_Muhammad/Miracles_of_prophet_Muhammad_

Question:  Who were the eyewitnesses to Paul's alleged encounter with Jesus?  Who were the eyewitnesses to Jesus' alleged "resurrection"? 

Kish wrote: Were the church fathers there ? I�ll be waiting for some names that your Quran provides in behalf of Muhammad and I�ll be glad to give you the names, chapter and verse from the Bible, you give me the chapter and verse from the Quran.

The Quran is not a biography of the Prophet.  His miracles and prophecies are cataloged in the Hadith compilations and there are many.  However, the Quran does refer to a few future events, which did come true.  For example, in Sura al-Rum, it refers to the Byzantine defeat against the Persians but prophesies that the Byzantines would be victorious soon after, which of course, did occur.  Here are the verses:

"The Roman Empire has been defeated-
In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious-
Within a few years. With Allah is the Decision, in the past and in the Future: on that Day shall the Believers rejoice-" (30:2-4)

In fact, the same year that the Byzantines scored their first major victory, the Muslims defeated the pagans at the Battle of Badr.  This is the victory referred to by the phrase "on that Day shall the Believer rejoice". 

Kish wrote: Don't back out now! All eyes are on you.

    

  All eyes have been on you for some time and they are not impressed!  Finally, here are the issues you have avoided:

First, Leviticus does not say that only blood will be accepted for atonement.  Those who cannot afford to sacrifice an animal can use pigeons or even wheat!  Leviticus 5 states:

"As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering[a]; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin.

 ⁷ ��Anyone who cannot afford a lamb is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for their sin�one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. ⁸ They are to bring them to the priest, who shall first offer the one for the sin offering. He is to wring its head from its neck, not dividing it completely, ⁹ and is to splash some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering. ¹⁰ The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

 ¹¹ ��If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah[b] of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. ¹² They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial[c] portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the LORD. It is a sin offering. ¹³ In this way the priest will make atonement for them for any of these sins they have committed, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.��"

2.  The act of atonement could only be done in the Temple.  If Jesus' crucifixion was supposed to serve as atonement for our sins, then it did not count as it was not even within the walls of Jerusalem, let alone on the Temple grounds! 

3.  The atonement ritual was only for the Jews.  It was not required, for example, from the people of Jonah:

"Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. ⁹ Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.�

 ¹⁰ When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened."(Jonah 3:8-10)

4.  Even if blood was the only way to atone, it was the act of shedding blood that did so.  Jesus' death on the cross would have been illegitimate as death from crucifixion usually occurs from asphyxiation and not blood loss. 
 
Don't back out now!  Do you dare to respond to these issues which you have avoided like the plague?   

islamispeace wrote: Also, these same church fathers (like Papias) show that there were debates regarding the authenticity of the Gospels.

So what, that doesn�t mean it�s NOT authentic does it? Two years after the prophet died, the bloody battle at Yarnama had everything to do with the debates over the collection of the Suras of the Quran, causing many qurra of the Quran to lose their lives? Are you then saying the authenticity of the Quran is also in question as well or is this another one of your double standards?

�The case in question was the last two verses of Sura 9 in the present Quran which was added on the authority of Khuzayma b. Thabit al Ansari (or ABu Khuzayma according to some reports). Bukhari, Sahih, vol 3 p 392-93   Tirimidhi, vol 4 p 346-47 Abu Bakr al Marwazi, Musnad Abi Bakr al Siddiq, p 97-99, 102-4 Ibn Abu Dawud, p 6-7, 9, 20 Ibn al Nadim, p 27 al Khatib al Baghdadi, Mudih awham al jam wa l tafrig, vol 1 p 276 Bayhaqi�

 

Also, fearing that the Qur'an would be lost and would disappear from the people, 'Umar and Zayd b. Thabit undertook to collect it from fragments written on palm branches, flat stones, and pieces of wood, and from the breasts of the people [who had memorized it], provided that two witnesses would testify that what they [reported] was part of the Qur' an. All this has been suggested in a number of accounts. Ordinarily, it is expected that some of it would be lost to those who assumed the responsibility for this task, except if they were infallible [and divinely protected from forgetting. This rule is inevitable and arises from habit. The least that we can expect is that alteration has occurred, for it is possible to fail in the effort to find two witnesses on some [revelation] that was heard from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny). Hence, there can be no certainty that omission did not occur.

 

Hmmm! Where did we first come across that rule of thumb in red �two witnesses� when it came for a matter to be firmly established? The Bible! As I�ve been saying since day one and you have been denying its concept and principle since day one. Too bad that Bible principle wasn�t taken into consideration with the Quran and its one writer as it was for the Holy Scriptures and all its writers. Why all of a sudden now with the Quran? That Bible law has been in effect way before the Quran and that�s why it�s not considered inspired, where are the two or three witnesses who would testify what Muhammad heard and reported?

The Collection of the Qur'an by
Al-Sayyid Abu al-Qasim al-Musawi al-Khui

• Traditions about the Collection of the Qur'an
• Inconsistency of the Traditions Regarding the Collection of the Qur'an
• The Contradiction among the Traditions in Their Account of the Collection of the Qur'an
• The Contrariety of the Collection Traditions to the Book of God
• The Contrariety of the Collection Traditions to Rational Judgment
• The Contrariety of the Collection Traditions to the Consensus ( Ijma' ) of the Community
• Collection Traditions and the Ateration (Tahrif) of the Qur'an through Addition
• Summary

In any event the point being, there were bloody debates within Islam because of the collection of the Quran!!!!!! However, your double standard still does not carry weight because 2 Tim. 3:16 reads �All Scripture is inspired of God �� not some scriptures are inspired of God like you keep telling yourself.  

 

islamispeace wrote: So, everything you have asked for to prove the corruption of the Bible, I have provided you.

 

The Bible is corrupt because of the debates, although you have not proved it, got it! Where does that leave the Quran and those who died because of its collection of it and since it is composed mostly from the Bible itself? I know, the Quran a rebel in its own mind!

 

islamispeace wrote: The simple fact is that the concept of "inspiration" is simply a Christian invention to justify false doctrines.  Anyone can just claim to have been inspired and...boom...their words are accepted as fact.  Such faulty reasoning can only lead to misguidance.

Now, I�ve heard everything regarding your assumptions of the Bible and your outright denial of what the Quran says � (S) 5:68 it�s God�s revelation (not man) (S) 3:3, (S) 5:46 It came from Jesus - You are getting careless!  (S) 3:84 Muslims should believe it.

2 Tim. 3:16 reads �All Scripture is inspired of God ��

islamispeace wrote:   "The Gospel" refers to Jesus' teachings, not the edited accounts of his life that were written decades after him.

And still you have not been able to show us the Gospel of Jesus teachings other than what the Holy Scriptures have today which is solid proof, where�s yours? Where is this �other� Gospel my friend? Oh! I know its conjectural - inconclusive, guest work, an opinion of yours.

Originally posted by Kish

Acts chapter 2:1-47 shows the first miracles in a Christian congregation setting not in some cave where no one is present to testify or confirm its trueness, that is the first historical proof, Muhammad is his ONLY witness!

 

islamispeace wrote:   Sure, sure.  These so-called "miracles" and the alleged "eye-witnesses" have no historical evidence to support them.  Remember the Bigfoot analogy, Kish?  Ponder on that for a while!

 

Again, you have not been able to show us the Gospel of Jesus teachings other than what the Holy Scriptures have today which is solid proof like it or not, where�s yours solid proof, a silly analogy? Where is this �other� Gospel my friend? If you don�t posses it, it�s just another assumption of Muslims, the haves and the have not, nothing to show for except assumptions and opinions which doesn�t fly. Oh! I know its conjectural - inconclusive, guest work, an opinion of yours, to bad deal with it.

islamispeace wrote:   As far as the witnesses to Muhammad's miracles, here is an incomplete list: Anas ibn Malik Qatada ibn al-Numan Jubayr b. Mutim Hudhayfa Abdullah ibn Abbas Abdullah ibn Umar Abdullah ibn Masud

Yea, yea, yea, these guys again with no chapters or verses from the Quran with at least two witnesses to testify, now I�m starting to see why it took him so long. These alleged witnesses were also Muslims, how convenient. Besides, none of these people witnessed Muhammad�s encounter with this spirit in the cave which is the foundation of Islam and the Quran recitations. Both Moses and Jesus had supernatural manifestations, many people even hearing the voice of God! This was necessary because of the turn of events for his people; Moses being the mediator for the Nation of Israel and Jesus being the mediator for the nation of Christians.

islamispeace wrote: Question:  Who were the eyewitnesses to Paul's alleged encounter with Jesus?

Just because you don�t believe it doesn�t make it not true. Acts Chapter 9:1-42 An�a�ni′as and others all at the same time eye witnessed this and other miracles. That is why even their enemies knew and no one denied it

islamispeace wrote:   Who were the eyewitnesses to Jesus' alleged "resurrection"?

Matthew 28:1-10, 16-20 John the Baptist, the 12 Apostles and others & John 20:11-18 Mary and others, Luke 24:34 Simon and others

Acts 13:32,33 ³² ï¿½And so we are declaring to YOU the good news about the promise made to the forefathers, ³³ that God has entirely fulfilled it to us their children in that he (God) resurrected Jesus; even as it is written in the second psalm, �You are my son, I have become your Father this day

(O.T.) Psalm 2:7 Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah; He has said to me: �You are my son; I, today, I have become your father. This and hundreds more accounts.

islamispeace wrote:  For example, in Sura al-Rum, it refers to the Byzantine defeat against the Persians but prophesies that the Byzantines would be victorious soon after, which of course, did occur.

If this general statement without a time line makes Muhammad a prophet I don�t know what else to tell you except Nostradamus and Baha�ullah must be prophets as well, no matter how many times they guessed things wrong.

islamispeace wrote:  First, Leviticus does not say that only blood will be accepted for atonement.  Those who cannot afford to sacrifice an animal can use pigeons or even wheat!  Leviticus 5 states:

I was talking about the High priest making atonement for sins in behalf of the nation, try to keep up.

So, let us revisit what your Muslim brothers said:

Fearing that the Qur'an would be lost and would disappear from the people, 'Umar and Zayd b. Thabit undertook to collect it from fragments written on palm branches, flat stones, and pieces of wood, and from the breasts of the people [who had memorized it], provided that two witnesses would testify that what they [reported] was part of the Qur' an. All this has been suggested in a number of accounts. Ordinarily, it is expected that some of it would be lost to those who assumed the responsibility for this task, except if they were infallible [and divinely protected from forgetting. This rule is inevitable and arises from habit. The least that we can expect is that alteration has occurred, for it is possible to fail in the effort to find two witnesses on some [revelation] that was heard from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny). Hence, there can be no certainty that omission did not occur.

This statement streamlines and put into perspective the perfect Law of the Holy Scripture, there must be �two or three eye-witnesses� to testify an established event as truth. This has been the rule of thumb since the history of time. Obviously, some Muslims believed this but didn�t practice it starting with Muhammad. So, I ask �Who or what are the confirming witnesses that the words of the Qur'an which Muhammad spoke came from God or an angel?"

Galatians 1: 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Kish wrote: So what, that doesn�t mean it�s NOT authentic does it?

So, as usual, you find yourself in a corner and attempt to break free by resorting to more special pleading.  Did you not ask for proof that the Gospels were being debated?  Is this not what you got?  How does the saying go?  "Ask and you shall receive"? 

What it proves is that even the 1st-century Christians were arguing among themselves as to the validity of the Gospels.  So, it was not like how you said it was.  It was not all hunky-dory. 

Since even Christians have been debating the validity of the Gospels among themselves, and since modern textual criticism has proven without a doubt that the Gospels have undergone many editorial changes, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Gospels are not the word of God, written by "inspired" men.

Kish wrote: Two years after the prophet died, the bloody battle at Yarnama had everything to do with the debates over the collection of the Suras of the Quran, causing many qurra of the Quran to lose their lives? Are you then saying the authenticity of the Quran is also in question as well or is this another one of your double standards?

What on earth are you talking about?  There were no disagreements.  Get your facts straight.  Here is what Sahih Bukhari reports about the aftermath of the Battle of Yamama (not Yarnama as you put it):

"Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the! Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected"" (Book 61, Number 509).

Where are the reports of "disagreements"?  As usual, your pathetic attempts at research produce nothing more than you making up unfounded claims.  When will you Christians learn?

Kish wrote: �The case in question was the last two verses of Sura 9 in the present Quran which was added on the authority of Khuzayma b. Thabit al Ansari (or ABu Khuzayma according to some reports). Bukhari, Sahih, vol 3 p 392-93   Tirimidhi, vol 4 p 346-47 Abu Bakr al Marwazi, Musnad Abi Bakr al Siddiq, p 97-99, 102-4 Ibn Abu Dawud, p 6-7, 9, 20 Ibn al Nadim, p 27 al Khatib al Baghdadi, Mudih awham al jam wa l tafrig, vol 1 p 276 Bayhaqi�

Right, sure.  Yet again, we find a Christian who blindly copies material from the internet without actually reading the sources he claims to quote! 

The case concerning the last two verses of Surah at-Tauba is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari:

"Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr sent for me and said, "You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle : So you should search for (the Qur'an and collect) it." I started searching for the Qur'an till I found the last two verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari and I could not find these verses with anybody other than him. (They were): 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ...' (9.128-129)" [Book 61, Number 511]. 

This is simply referring to the fact that Zaid ibn Thabit was ordered to only include verses which were already on paper.  The fact that he was searching for the last two verses in the first place implies that he knew the verses himself.  He found only one person who had the written record of the verses.  This was part of the strict protocol he was ordered to follow.  The scholar Ibn Hajar came to the same conclusion, as Dr. M.M Al-Azami observes:

"Ibn Hajar draws special attention to Zaid's statement, "I found the last two verses of Sura at-Bara'a [which is another name for Sura at-Taubah] with Abu Khuzaima al-Ansari," as demonstrating that Zaid's own writings and memorization were not deemed sufficient.  Everything required verification" ["The History of the Qur'anic Text from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments", p. 83].

So as you can see, this does not imply any "disagreements".  Even if there were disagreements, there is no comparison to the disagreements over the Gospels.  We find that early Christian like the "presbyter" who debated with Papias questioned the authority of people like Mark.  I challenge you to provide a comparable example among the early Muslims!  Don't back out now, Kish! 

Kish wrote: Also, fearing that the Qur'an would be lost and would disappear from the people, 'Umar and Zayd b. Thabit undertook to collect it from fragments written on palm branches, flat stones, and pieces of wood, and from the breasts of the people [who had memorized it], provided that two witnesses would testify that what they [reported] was part of the Qur' an. All this has been suggested in a number of accounts. Ordinarily, it is expected that some of it would be lost to those who assumed the responsibility for this task, except if they were infallible [and divinely protected from forgetting. This rule is inevitable and arises from habit. The least that we can expect is that alteration has occurred, for it is possible to fail in the effort to find two witnesses on some [revelation] that was heard from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny). Hence, there can be no certainty that omission did not occur.

Sure, sure.  So you have no actual evidence, only speculation.  You say (or the website you copied says) that "there can be no certainty that omission did not occur" but where is the proof for this statement?  Oh right...there is none!

Kish wrote: Hmmm! Where did we first come across that rule of thumb in red �two witnesses� when it came for a matter to be firmly established? The Bible! As I�ve been saying since day one and you have been denying its concept and principle since day one. Too bad that Bible principle wasn�t taken into consideration with the Quran and its one writer as it was for the Holy Scriptures and all its writers. Why all of a sudden now with the Quran? That Bible law has been in effect way before the Quran and that�s why it�s not considered inspired, where are the two or three witnesses who would testify what Muhammad heard and reported?

Again, you are ranting without providing any rational argument.  You have yet to provide any evidence of any omissions, just speculation.  On the other hand, I have provided indisputable evidence of the unreliable status of the Bible.  Its no wonder that you are trying to divert now to the Qur'an! 

Kish wrote: In any event the point being, there were bloody debates within Islam because of the collection of the Quran!!!!!! However, your double standard still does not carry weight because 2 Tim. 3:16 reads �All Scripture is inspired of God �� not some scriptures are inspired of God like you keep telling yourself.

I am still waiting for the proof that there were "bloody debates within Islam because of the collection of the Quran".  Putting six exclamation points at the end of your sentence does not add any weight to it. (!!!!!!)

Then you appeal to Paul but who cares what Paul thought?  Where were the witnesses to Paul's encounter?  You have been ranting about witnesses but you don't know who witnessed Paul's surprise meeting with Jesus, do you?  Furthermore, what did Jesus say about false teachers coming in his name?  Let's look at what Matthew records Jesus saying-

"Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.  For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many" (Matthew 24:4-5).

Yet, according to Acts, Paul listened to a voice which said something similar:

""Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied." (Acts 9:5).

So not only do we not know who witnessed this momentous event, we find that Paul did exactly what Jesus (pbuh) warned his followers against!  He claims to have met Jesus but he provided no evidence for this encounter.  I recommend you read Dr. Laurence Brown's brilliant book "Misgod'ed: A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance in the Abrahamic Religions" for more on this major inconsistency.  Open your eyes to the truth. 

Kish wrote: The Bible is corrupt because of the debates, although you have not proved it, got it! Where does that leave the Quran and those who died because of its collection of it and since it is composed mostly from the Bible itself? I know, the Quran a rebel in its own mind!

No, Kish.  The Bible is corrupt because it has been changed many times.  Evidence for this is present in the extant manuscripts.  The debates are evidence that there was no agreement among Christians (contrary to your claim), and if even early Christians were arguing among themselves, what reason do we, in modern times, have in placing our salvation on such a book?  Try to answer these questions for once in your sad life, and stop trying to divert to the Quran every time you are cornered. 

Kish wrote: Now, I�ve heard everything regarding your assumptions of the Bible and your outright denial of what the Quran says � (S) 5:68 it�s God�s revelation (not man) (S) 3:3, (S) 5:46 It came from Jesus - You are getting careless!  (S) 3:84 Muslims should believe it. 2 Tim. 3:16 reads �All Scripture is inspired of God ��

Wow!  Once again, Kish attempts to teach Muslims their own scripture...and fails miserably.  The Quran does not refer to "inspiration".  It states that all scripture are the literal words of God, written by God and then brought to mankind through the prophets.  On the other hand, the Christian concept of "inspiration" claims that the writings of certain people were influenced by God.  Hence, the Gospels were "inspired" even though they are not the literal words of God which Jesus the prophet brought to the Jews, but the accounts of people who claimed to have known him.  How is this the same as the Quran's definition of scripture?  Stick to quoting your own Bible.  You can barely quote it correctly, let alone the Quran! 

Kish wrote: And still you have not been able to show us the Gospel of Jesus teachings other than what the Holy Scriptures have today which is solid proof, where�s yours? Where is this �other� Gospel my friend? Oh! I know its conjectural - inconclusive, guest work, an opinion of yours.

 

Well then, that's a problem for you Christians, isn't it? 

You claim to be followers of Jesus, yet you don't even have his original teachings.  As I said before, scholars have come to a consensus that prior to the authorship of the Gospels, the teachings of Jesus were passed along through an oral tradition and perhaps also through a now lost document known as "Q".  These traditions have suffered centuries of corruptions.  Read Geza Vermes' "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus" for more.

Kish wrote: Again, you have not been able to show us the Gospel of Jesus teachings other than what the Holy Scriptures have today which is solid proof like it or not, where�s yours solid proof, a silly analogy? Where is this �other� Gospel my friend? If you don�t posses it, it�s just another assumption of Muslims, the haves and the have not, nothing to show for except assumptions and opinions which doesn�t fly. Oh! I know its conjectural - inconclusive, guest work, an opinion of yours, to bad deal with it.

   

You still have not provided historical evidence for these alleged "witnesses".  Your best argument is that since we don't have any other accounts other than the so-called "holy scriptures", we should just accept these accounts.  What a childish argument!  How does that prove that these accounts are even correct? 

Kish wrote: Yea, yea, yea, these guys again with no chapters or verses from the Quran with at least two witnesses to testify, now I�m starting to see why it took him so long. These alleged witnesses were also Muslims, how convenient. Besides, none of these people witnessed Muhammad�s encounter with this spirit in the cave which is the foundation of Islam and the Quran recitations. Both Moses and Jesus had supernatural manifestations, many people even hearing the voice of God! This was necessary because of the turn of events for his people; Moses being the mediator for the Nation of Israel and Jesus being the mediator for the nation of Christians.

  

Oh, you're hilarious!  You asked for the names of eyewitnesses, and then resort to special pleading when given the evidence.  The eyewitness accounts are documented in the Hadith compilations, as I already mentioned.  They prove conclusively that Muhammad (pbuh) performed miracles and that these miracles were witnessed by many people.  What does it matter if they were Muslims?  How many of the alleged "witnesses" in the Bible were unbelievers?  Ironically, according to Matthew, when Jesus was asked by the unbelievers for a "sign", he refused to give one:

"³⁸ Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, �Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.�

 ³⁹ He answered, �A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. ⁴⁰ For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. ⁴¹ The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. ⁴² The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon�s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here" (Matthew 12:38-42).

In any case, you still have not provided any names of eyewitnesses.  I gave you an incomplete list of names of people who witnessed Muhammad's miracles.  You have yet to give the names of the alleged eyewitnesses to the events mentioned in the NT.  What are you waiting for?!  For Jesus to return?! 

Kish wrote: Just because you don�t believe it doesn�t make it not true. Acts Chapter 9:1-42 An�a�ni′as and others all at the same time eye witnessed this and other miracles. That is why even their enemies knew and no one denied it

Oooh, I can see you are really struggling with this.  I asked you a simple question and you failed to answer.  So I repeat: Who were the eyewitnesses to Paul's alleged encounter with Jesus?

Your appeal to Acts 9 does not answer the question because Ananias was not present when Paul had his encounter.  In fact, there were no witnesses to Ananias' so-called "vision" as well!  So, now you have compounded the problem!    Can you sense the irony?  Two separate men.  Two separate visions.  No identifiable eyewitnesses. 

Kish wrote: Matthew 28:1-10, 16-20 John the Baptist, the 12 Apostles and others & John 20:11-18 Mary and others, Luke 24:34 Simon and others

John the Baptist?  No where is he mentioned in the verses you referred to.  Secondly, none of the 12 apostles were present when the women went to to the tomb.  They were also not present during the crucifixion.  In fact, Luke informs us that those who were present were watching from a "distance":

"⁴⁷ The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, �Surely this was a righteous man.� ⁴⁸ When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. ⁴⁹ But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things" (Luke 23:47-49).

As for the resurrection itself, the Gospels contradict one another on who was actually there to witness the alleged "risen" Jesus.  First of all, none of the 12 disciples were there.  Second, the Gospels differ on the women present.  Matthew states that they were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.  Mark states that they were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome.  Luke states that they were "the women who had come with from Galilee" along with "certain other women".  Finally, John states that only Mary Magdalene was present.  So, the Gospels couldn't even agree on the eyewitnesses present at the tomb. 

So, let's summarize.  None of these "eyewitnesses" were present at the crucifixion and therefore could not have ascertained that Jesus was even dead.  They were also not the ones to bury him.  Furthermore, the actual eyewitnesses who were at the tomb are different in each of the four Gospels.

Kish wrote: (O.T.) Psalm 2:7 Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah; He has said to me: �You are my son; I, today, I have become your father. This and hundreds more accounts.

I have no idea what this has to do with the issue of eyewitnesses, but your appeal to this verse shows how far Christians will go to manipulating the text to serve their purpose.  No where in the Psalm is there any indication that it is talking about the Messiah.  The "me" in the verse is referring to David (pbuh).  In any case, this has nothing to do with the issue of eyewitnesses so I have no idea why even brought it up.   

Kish wrote: If this general statement without a time line makes Muhammad a prophet I don�t know what else to tell you except Nostradamus and Baha�ullah must be prophets as well, no matter how many times they guessed things wrong.

As usual, no actual response, just a lot of hot air.  Those who know history know that the Byzantines were routed by the Persians and lost Jerusalem, Syria and Egypt.  Afterwards, in line with the prophecy, they began a series of victories against Persia, which began with the Battle of Issus in 622 CE and culminated with the Battle of Nineveh in 627 CE.  So, the prophecy did come true. 

Now let's look at your Bible.  The Gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus (pbuh) said:

"³⁰ �Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[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[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).

According to this passage, Jesus was supposed to return within the lifetimes of the disciples.  This, of course, did not happen. Conclusion: false prophecy. 

Kish wrote: I was talking about the High priest making atonement for sins in behalf of the nation, try to keep up.

First, let me commend you for FINALLY daring to answer these questions.  It only took you a few months to work up the courage!

Second, regardless of your attempts to weasel out of this, the fact remains that blood was not required for atonement.  You still have not responded to this fact.  In fact, Hosea 6:6 states:

"⁶ For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."

Furthermore, the High Priest was not being sacrificed for the sins of the nation.  He was the one who would go into the temple and make the offerings.  This is a far cry from the alleged atoning purpose of Jesus' crucifixion.  Furthermore, the Tanakh states that God despises human sacrifices:

^"31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods" (Deuteronomy 12:31).

It just keeps getting worse for you Kish.  You can't run from the truth. 

Kish wrote: Fearing that the Qur'an would be lost and would disappear from the people, 'Umar and Zayd b. Thabit undertook to collect it from fragments written on palm branches, flat stones, and pieces of wood, and from the breasts of the people [who had memorized it], provided that two witnesses would testify that what they [reported] was part of the Qur' an. All this has been suggested in a number of accounts. Ordinarily, it is expected that some of it would be lost to those who assumed the responsibility for this task, except if they were infallible [and divinely protected from forgetting. This rule is inevitable and arises from habit. The least that we can expect is that alteration has occurred, for it is possible to fail in the effort to find two witnesses on some [revelation] that was heard from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny). Hence, there can be no certainty that omission did not occur. This statement streamlines and put into perspective the perfect Law of the Holy Scripture, there must be �two or three eye-witnesses� to testify an established event as truth. This has been the rule of thumb since the history of time. Obviously, some Muslims believed this but didn�t practice it starting with Muhammad. So, I ask �Who or what are the confirming witnesses that the words of the Qur'an which Muhammad spoke came from God or an angel?

 

Oh, that's it?  That was your courage?  You responded with one pathetic sentence to the questions you have been avoiding like the plague and then suddenly went off-topic again!  Planet Kish! Planet Kish!  Come in please! 

So, what can we say?  You cannot work up the courage to respond to the questions I have repeatedly asked.  There is little wonder why.  The reason is that you have no answers.  But instead of acknowledging this, you choose to accept blind faith and continue to believe the lies that you have been told by your church.  In any case, here are the questions you ignored:

First, Leviticus does not say that only blood will be accepted for atonement.  Those who cannot afford to sacrifice an animal can use pigeons or even wheat!  Leviticus 5 states:

"As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering[a]; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin.

 ⁷ ��Anyone who cannot afford a lamb is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for their sin�one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. ⁸ They are to bring them to the priest, who shall first offer the one for the sin offering. He is to wring its head from its neck, not dividing it completely, ⁹ and is to splash some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering. ¹⁰ The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

 ¹¹ ��If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah[b] of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. ¹² They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial[c] portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the LORD. It is a sin offering. ¹³ In this way the priest will make atonement for them for any of these sins they have committed, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.��"

2.  The act of atonement could only be done in the Temple.  If Jesus' crucifixion was supposed to serve as atonement for our sins, then it did not count as it was not even within the walls of Jerusalem, let alone on the Temple grounds! 

3.  The atonement ritual was only for the Jews.  It was not required, for example, from the people of Jonah:

"Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. ⁹ Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.�

 ¹⁰ When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened."(Jonah 3:8-10)

4.  Even if blood was the only way to atone, it was the act of shedding blood that did so.  Jesus' death on the cross would have been illegitimate as death from crucifixion usually occurs from asphyxiation and not blood loss.

Edited by islamispeace - 11 December 2011 at 1:05pm

honeto wrote: Kish, does that mean you are admitting to the fact that Ishmael was the first son of Abraham and if at anytime any of his sons would be addressed as 'only son', it would be Ishmael, before the birth of his second son.

The Bible or I have never denied Ishmael being the oldest.

honeto wrote: That is in contrast to Bible's other quote that mistakenly addresses Isaac as the only son, which as shown with the help of Biblical quotes to be incorrect.

Which is why I have asked you the simple question and y�all failed to answer as of yet, where was Ishmael when God told Abraham your �only son�?

The Biblical quotes are in fact correct as usual; your assumptions are totally incorrect! Why?

1)    1) Isaac, first and foremost was Sarah�s �only son�.

2)    2) Isaac was Abraham�s �only son� with Sarah.

3)    3)The Bible book of Geneses �ONLY� mentions Isaac by name and no one else.

4)    4)The Quran never, ever, ever even mentions Ishmael by name as the one to whom Abraham would sacrifice but play word games by using lad in replace of Ishmael, which is suspect in itself. The first opportunity for Islam to make its appearance in the OT and to prove itself in the Quran it never even mentioned the name Ishmael as the one Abraham would sacrifice, what a low blow. That would have been monumental like in the case of Jesus being mentioned in the Bible AND the Quran!

5)    5) Once you find out where Ishmael was and and when God announce this covenant to Abraham that would be another reason why it would be absolutely impossible for this promise to be directed to Ishmael. It was only directed to Isaac, Abraham and Sarah�s �only son� at the time of its announcement.

Gen 17:19, 21 To this God said: �Sarah your wife is indeed bearing you a son, and you must call his name Isaac. And I will establish my covenant with him for a covenant to time indefinite to his seed after him.

21 However, my covenant I shall establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this appointed time next year.�

You cannot turn back the hand of times but its quit humorous dealing with Muslims on this forum. You keep trying to make the Quran an uninspired book fit the Bible an inspired book of God. Whether it is the Old Testament or the New Testament it is impossible to match Islam, Islam�s god Allah and Islam�s prophet Muhammad with the Nation of Israel, Israel�s Prophets Moses and Abraham and Israel�s God Jehovah and his son Jesus Christ our lord and savior, REGARDLESS of what you have been told in the past, present and future. You will always turn down a Dead End when you try.

 

Kish

Edited by Kish - 12 December 2011 at 12:09pm