|
God�s written instructions for life. |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 23456 40> |
| Author | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Kish 
Guest Group 
Joined: 07 July 2011 Status: Offline Points: 237 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 03 August 2011 at 8:13pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Oh, because we don�t have the original teachings in Aramaic? That sounds like an excuse not a problem. If Muhammad and early Muslims accepted it why can�t you? BTW Matthew, Luke, Paul and others spoke Hebrew. Eusebius (of the third and fourth centuries C.E.) said that �the evangelist Matthew delivered his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue.� (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XXII, col. 941) Ac 22:2 When a great silence fell, he (Paul) addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying: 22 �Men, brothers and fathers, hear my defense to YOU now.� 2 (Well, when they heard he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent, and he said:) 3 �I am a Jew, Also Acts 26:14.
You also blindly said that the �Diatessaron was an edited version although it plainly answers your question � So again I ask the same question as I�ve been asking throughout this thread how about showing us that the teachings and beliefs of Jesus and his apostles as recorded in the Gospel are incorrect starting with Jesus being the son of God. You have failed to show that. If the differences are so enormous it shouldn�t be a problem, yes you admit to most being scribal errors but still the proof that is in the pudding is from the eating not from the smelling. You repeatedly base your accusations and assumptions that the Gospel is corrupt because of what the scholars edited or deliberately altered. But you still cannot show and prove what Teachings of Jesus according to the Gospel has been altered or changed, starting with him being the son of God, his birth, death and resurrection. The Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all agree with what took place in and around Jerusalem pertaining to Jesus and his life. What conclusive evidence do you have regarding what Muhammad did and saw when he had his private revelation? Remember, the Law of Israel �At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.� (Deuteronomy 19:15) The law of Prophet Moses was broken, therefore it is Muslims that must prove the Quran as authentic and not Christians regarding the Gospel or the NT. This indeed is a double standard of the truth being spoken but not confirmed! But, yet you do not question the event when Muhammad had his revelation, how do you know if it ever happened, because he said so? This is weak reasoning on ones part. And please spare me the account of Moses being in the mountains because Jews, Christians and Muslims accept the event that took place but most can�t say the same with Muhammad, there is no historical AND archeological evidence that it ever took place. That is solely based on a Quranic belief and that is a fact! No witnesses at all!
Again, double standard but you�re correct. At least the Gospel and the book of Acts speak of eye-witnesses and no one disputed it until centuries later but all you can speak of as your argument are scribal errors and alterations from non-inspired scholars who were not there but wrote about it. That is more than what can be said about the Quran Now, I said �
You have not shown anything except.
Where? What documentations have you shown that the God of the Bible, Jesus and his followers taught (Gospel) what Muhammad and the Quran teaches? Muhammad and the Quran teach a doctrine contrary to Jesus and the Gospel, until you can prove otherwise what Muhammad teaches as good news is beyond the scriptures as clearly indicated. Galatians 1:8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed.
Again, what message was altered? Jesus and his disciples taught the oneness of God. And the Jews were all looking for the messiah to come as prophesied. �First [Andrew] found his own brother, Simon, and said to him: �We have found the Messiah� (which means, when translated, Christ).��JOHN 1:41 �You are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God.� (Matthew 16:16) On two other occasions, Jehovah spoke directly to Jesus from heaven, thereby indicating His approval: once, before three of Jesus� apostles, and another time, before a crowd of onlookers. (Matthew 17:1-5; John 12:28, 29) Furthermore, angels were sent from above to confirm Jesus� status as Christ, or Messiah.�Luke 2:10, 11.
These facts are in the Gospel and the Tanakh but escape the Quran�s notice. But, like most of the Jews in Jesus� day you to ignore them. John 1:45, 49 Philip found Na�than′a�el and said to him: �We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Naz′a�reth.� Na�than′a�el answered him: �Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel. Deuteronomy 18:18 A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you; and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him. Micah 5:2 �And you, O Beth′le�hem Eph′ra�thah (Jesus birth) the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite. But, yet you insist it was Jesus who went astray, regardless of what scholars may or may not say? And Muslims continue to think 18:18 applies to Muhammad who had no eye-witnesses where as on the other hand many of the Jews were anticipating the coming of the messiah as I have just shown. So, my friend it is not my problem because I believe, neither is it a Christian problem but a problem that you must figure out, quickly.
Why, the whole foundation of Islam is based on blind faith, remember, Muhammad in the cave that is where it all started. He received a revelation and no eyewitnesses to testify the truthfulness of it or that it was something other than an angel of God. Hint, the Garden of Eve, Muhammad wasn�t the first or the last to have been deceived. Food for thought: The angel (Gabriel) said to her: �Have no fear, Mary, for you have found favor with God; 31 and, look! you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you are to call his name Jesus. 32 This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and YHVH will give him the throne of David his father. Now, the Quran does acknowledge this although it doesn�t matter because here Gabriel appeared to Zechariah, Mary and Joseph on separate occasions regarding the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus according to the Gospel. Do you believe Gabriel lied when he said Mary would have a son? Who son was it? Gabriel said he will be called son of the most high because it was through the power of God�s Holy Spirit. You disagree? If so tell us who the father was if Mary was the Mother. Put all the scholarly and manuscripts down and use logic based on reasoning. If you can believe what Muhammad teaches without solid proof that he spoke with an Angel (No eyewitnesses) why can�t you believe what Gabriel tells you with solid proof (eyewitnesses)? I guess you�re really stuck between a rock and a hard place. Kish |
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
honeto
Senior Member 
Male Islam Joined: 20 March 2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2487 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 August 2011 at 10:13pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kish,
I would like to say that your meaningless rants which start as what appears to be someone wanting to learn about Islam but who turn out to be a wolf in sheep skin, as aparent in your posts.
Here is the bottom line for soemone like you. The Bible as we know it now contains bits and pieces of what Quran tells were books sent to previous prophets. And thus we believe that those books and prophets were from God. We are also told that a Final prophet, Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was sent with the Final Testament, The Quran, which is pure word of God to guide us into the right way. If we follow it, and seek God's pleasure, forgiveness and Mercy, we will achieve salvation, eternal life in Paradise.
Quran clearly states that:
5:15 O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book,-
So, there you have it.
One more important thing, and I suggest you write it down, The Quran is the only book, and let me repeat the only book to not contradict who God is, nor does it contradict how salvation is achieved, a clear sign that it is pure and it is from the All Knowing, God Almighty.
Show me another one, if you can that can do just that, and we can talk.
Hasan Edited by honeto - 04 August 2011 at 10:20pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 August 2011 at 1:56pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||
More circular
reasoning. Also, I have pointed out that even the Greek manuscripts do
not agree with each other. You have not responded to this fact. How
can you? There is nothing you can say that can explain the numerous
differences between the Greek manuscripts and the alterations made to them by scribes. Regarding the
original Aramaic,
my point is that we do not have the original transcript of Jesus'
teachings in his native language. Translating between languages is a
tedious task and often leads to the loss of context. Why has not a
single Aramaic text survived? Why hasn't the Hebrew text survived? Why
only Greek? You have no answers to these questions, so all you can do
is to resort to mindless repetition, much like many of your other
brethren on this forum. In fact, you remind me of another person on
this forum. I think both of you are Jehovah's Witnesses and both of you
have the same methodology, using misinterpretations and inaccurate
opinions to push your agenda.
Which it is. What's your point? It proves nothing since it is a mid-2nd century document.
It proves nothing regarding the historical accuracy of the Gospels
which were supposedly written in the late 1st century nor does it prove
that they have not been altered. I have provided plenty of evidence
that they have been altered.
"62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, �Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?� 63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, �I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.� 64 �You have said so,� Jesus replied. �But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.�"These types of internal contradictions show that the Gospels could not even decide whether he was the son of God or not. I also showed an example of a verse which was altered to remove any adoptionist undertones. Like typical blind Christians, you ignored these proofs and comically try to assert that I "have failed to show that". Right... Consider also that since Jesus was a Jewish prophet, he could not contradict the previous prophets. None of the previous prophets asserted that the Messiah was the son of God. This was a new concept and one which was probably borrowed from pagan mythology, much like the trinity concept. Prove me wrong if you can.
I already
provided an example of a difference between the manuscripts involving
Mark 1:11. Thus far, all you have done is run around in circles and ask
the same ridiculous questions over and over. Tell me Kish, was Jesus
adopted as the son of God, as some Latin manuscripts and one Greek
manuscript, suggest or not? By the way, I will take the words of educated scholars over lay people such as your any day. Don't take it personally. The proof of the evolving Christian dogma can be seen in the examples of the Diatessaron, the Didache, the numerous differences between the Greek manuscripts and the absence of any 1st-century manuscripts of either the Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek texts. Prove me wrong if you can. Regarding your
attempted diversion to Muhammad's encounter in the cave of Hira, the
fact of the matter is that the angel Gabriel visited the prophet
numerous times during his prophethood, sometimes when he was in the
company of his followers. So, there were indeed witnesses!
"21 �As for me, this is my covenant with them,� says the LORD. �My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants�from this time on and forever,� says the LORD." No, no Kish. It is YOU who must prove that the Gospels are authentic. How can they be authentic when they contradict the Old Testament, which you also claim to uphold?
Wrong again, as I mentioned above.
I will refer
to once again to my Bigfoot analogy. Just because the Gospels claim
there were witnesses does not make it so. The authors of the Gospels
had an agenda. They could have easily made up the claim of multiple
witnesses. Who were these witnesses? So far, you have failed to answer
this question. No one
disputed the Gospel accounts? Really? Is that why there were so many
"gospels" in circulation? Is that why Ignatius only mentions passages
from two Gospels in his writings? Come on Kish, wake up and smell the
coffee.
Jesus also
said that the Jews killed some of the prophets, a fact which was
confirmed by the Quran. No where in the Torah or the other books of the
OT are the Jews accused of killing their own prophets. As Geza Vermes
points out: "This echoes the popular tradition, without scriptural foundation, that many of the prophets suffered violent death as a result of their criticism of their contemporaries' behaviour. According to the apocryphal Lives of the Prophets (of the late first century AD), six of them, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, Amos and Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, were killed." ("The Authentic Gospel of Jesus", pp. 68-69) Consider also that Jesus said he was the servant of God, which the Quran confirms: "O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor
say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more
than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a
spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not
"Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be
to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in
the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." (4:171) Yet Paul referred to Jesus as the "great god and saviour"! What blasphemy is this? 12 It teaches us to say �No� to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope�the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. You have asked for proof. As always, I have given it to you. Now after this, if you remain stubborn, that is your problem, not mine. As I said, if you don't believe, I could care less. God guides whom He pleases and it is not up to me to make you believe: "As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe." (2:6)
The only text that teaches "a doctrine contrary to" Jesus (and the other prophets) are the Gospels themselves. The Gospels contradict the OT in numerous places. They contradict themselves in numerous places. You have been left tongue-tied by these facts which is why you have not responded to it. Never did the prophets teach such concepts as: 1. Original sin 2. Redemption through blood sacrifice 3. Messiah as the son of God, and others... Do not think
that I don't notice your avoidance of these topics. I know you avoid
them for one reason, which is that you know that they destroy your faith. So, you choose to cling to your faith through nothing more than self-deluding fantasies and blind acceptance.
Are you even paying attention anymore? I have given many examples already. Among these are that the Jews were never looking for the Messiah who is the "son of God" or that he would die for our sins. They also never, as far we know, believed that the Messiah would return a second time. The OT never teaches these concepts. Why?
 Right...so why do the Gospels contradict the Tanakh in some many places?  For once in your life, why don't answer the questions posed to you?
Once again, you resort to selective use of the Tanakh. Of course it speaks of the Messiah, but what you have failed to answer or are avoiding answering is where in the Tanakh does it say that the Messiah would be: 1. The Son of God 2. That he would be crucified and die for our sins 3. That he would be resurrected 4. That he would return a second time?
I never said it was Jesus who went
astray. I was simply stating the possibilities. The rest of your
statement is just empty words, nothing more. The facts speak for
themselves. Your convoluted opinions mean nothing. Concerning Deut. 18:18, you claim it was referring to Jesus (pbuh). Really? Let us look at what the Gospels themselves say regarding this prophet to come: "19 Now this was John�s testimony when the Jewish leaders[c] in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, �I am not the Messiah.� 21 They asked him, �Then who are you? Are you Elijah?� He said, �I am not.� �Are you the Prophet?� He answered, �No.� 22 Finally they said, �Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?� 23 John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, �I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, �Make straight the way for the Lord.��[d] 24 Now the Pharisees who had been sent 25 questioned him, �Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?�" (John 1:19-25) Now, just in case you don't get it, let
me explain. This passage from the Gospel of John shows clearly that
the prophet mentioned in Deut. 18:18 is not the Messiah, who is a
different person altogether. If the two were one and the same, John the
Baptist would have corrected the Pharisees for thinking that they were
two different individuals, yet he did not.
This is typical pathetic Christian
attempts to divert to other issues when faced with difficult questions
about their faith. If you want to talk about Muhammad (pbuh), we can do
so separately. Don't try to change the topic when you can't answer the
difficulties in your religion. Even so, I have already refuted your
claim regarding Muhammad's encounter in the cave above. Ain't I a nice
guy?
I would remove Muhammad from this
statement and put in Paul. Other than that, I agree with you. You can
join Paul as another deceived one.
As the Quran says: "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He
created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was." (3:59) Ponder on this truth with a clear mind, free of any bias and fantasies. You can be saved, but it will take a major effort on your part.
Given the numerous times you have been
proven wrong in this thread, I think you need to look at yourself first
before worrying about me. I am free of false dogmas! I am a Muslim and
I submit to the Lord of all the worlds! Again before I close, let me reiterate that you have avoided responding to the points I have raised which have proven you wrong. I said in my last post:
You can't run from the truth forever, Kish. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 August 2011 at 1:59pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Salaam brother. You are right and there is nothing Kish can do to refute you. As with other Christians, he will attempt to divert to other issues and will avoid those he cannot answer. It is really sad but comical at the same time. Doesn't he remind you of Shibbo? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
honeto
Senior Member
Male Islam Joined: 20 March 2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2487 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 August 2011 at 5:23pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
salam brother,
you know that is exactly what I was thinking, remember 'believer', Shibbo, Jack, Kish all seem to be reincarnations of the same, those who has been resisting the truth. May the Almighty guide them, and make us all better Muslims, Ameen.
Hasan Edited by honeto - 10 August 2011 at 5:24pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kish
Guest Group
Joined: 07 July 2011 Status: Offline Points: 237 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 September 2011 at 5:53pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just like Eve was told, she would be like God knowing good and bad right, and she fell for it. But, at least there is solid proof that historical event took place in the Garden of Eden. Not so with Muhammad and what he experienced in the cave. Right from the very start, you just have to take his word for it, Muhammad�s first and major mistake.
Okay, but the spirit of God [YHWH] inspired four faithful men to write independent accounts, thus providing a fourfold witness that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised Seed and King, and giving the details of his life, his ministry, his death, his resurrection and salvation. Interestingly enough the Quran contradicts all the above, why, all because as one person said, we don�t have the original transcript in Jesus native language, as if Jesus only spoke Aramaic, spare me. John 19:19, 20 It was written: �Jesus the Naz�a�rene′ the King of the Jews.� 20 Therefore many of the Jews read this title, because the place where Jesus was impaled was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek. Acts 6:1 Now in these days, when the disciples were increasing, a murmuring arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the Hebrew-speaking Jews� Acts 22:2 (Well, when they heard he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, �) Acts 26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground I heard a voice say to me in the Hebrew language, �Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? In fact, Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew as I already mentioned to you. So the masses of the people spoke and read Hebrew and at times spoke Galilean Aramaic. During his ministry Jesus also spoke the highly Aramaized popular Hebrew.��Biblical Archaeology, 1962, page 243 Furthermore, the teaching and language that Jesus spoke was well accepted, even in Egypt well before Muhammad, the Quran or his teachings.
A very weak argument as I explained already. Furthermore, the Holy Scriptures (Hebrew and Greek) do not revolve around Islam, its language, its culture or its religion, understand? The circulation of the Gospels�either as individual books or as part of the Bible�is greater by far than that of any other writings in history. No wonder that Jesus is better known than any man who has ever lived!
You�re quite comical islamispeace; Jesus himself said that he was the Son of God and of man throughout the whole Gospel, you�re only examples are the ones you consistently take out of context. John 3:18 He that exercises faith in him is not to be judged. He that does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. But I guess in your mind he was supposed to convince all those there who didn�t believe, please! And again, Jesus used the expression �The Son of man� more than any other to refer to himself; Matthew 8:20�But Jesus said to him: �Foxes have dens and birds of heaven have roosts, but the Son of man�� I think you�re reaching for straws now, give it up.
Of course he did if that is what you have been told. But, according to the Law of the Prophet Moses that supposedly you respect and honor, how was this account firmly established and by whom? Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one dying should be put to death. He will not be put to death at the mouth of one witness. Deuteronomy 19:15 No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good This is where Islam seriously falls short since its inception!
Come on, everyone knows this was contingent on Israel keeping the convent which they did not, next.
This is not proof or a teaching but a statement that Jesus made, again are we reaching for straws? Try another one of your �big foot analogy� this time be careful where you walk and where you put it. Again, you have yet proved otherwise but it�s never too late to show us documentations that God, Jesus or his followers taught what Muhammad and the Quran teaches�. Galatians 1:8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed Such as Jesus not being the �Son of God� that Jesus died on a �stake� and that �salvation� is ONLY through Jesus. Muhammad himself denies these doctrinal teachings of Jesus. Muhammad doesn�t know who Jesus was, how he died and tries to take salvation away from Jesus and bestow it upon himself, now that is BLASPHEMY to the highest power!
You should not only read BUT understand the Holy Scripture. Jesus fulfilled the Law as I mentioned on several occasions (Sin, Blood, Messiah) all wrap up in one, very good. Do you even know the purpose of the LAW, its objective? Once Islam understands WHY the LAW was provided in the first place perhaps you will grasp Jesus� role in all this. Once you understand WHY Jesus was so unique in being born of a virgin women and resurrected to heavenly life as the Quran acknowledges but doesn�t understand you will come closer to salvation.
Wow, you really don�t know the purpose of Law Covenant and how Jesus fulfilled it! I suspect you wouldn�t because the Quran speaks of Jesus birth and resurrection to heaven but don�t give any other explanation as to why it mentions Jesus specifically and not Muhammad.
Wrong again. Messiah (ma�shi′ach) means �anointed� or �anointed one.� The Greek equivalent is Khri�stos′, or Christ Daniel 9:25 The angel Gabriel later told God�s prophet Daniel: �You should know and have the insight that from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks.� Those were 69 weeks of years�7 years each�that totaled 483 years. They ran from 455 B.C.E. to 29 C.E. Did the Messiah, the prophet like Moses and long-awaited �seed,� really come in 29 C.E.? Do the math! John 1:41, 45, 49 First this one found his own brother, Simon, and said to him: �We have found the Mes�si′ah��We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus They must have been looking don�t you think? John 11:27 Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God, the One coming into the world. Jesus did not say they were incorrect, and on occasion he admitted being the Christ. John 4:25, 26 The woman said to him: �I know that Mes�si′ah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly.� 26 Jesus said to her: �I who am speaking to you am he Persons in the first century, who were in position to question the witnesses and examine the evidence, accepted the historical information as authentic. Matthew 2:4 and on gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people he began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born.
I agree!
Wow again, Jesus had no father but Adam did. No comment�..except where is your logic on this point? Surely then, God is his father. But then again, logic is not a universal key.
Then you should read this post over and over again and listen to yourself.
Acts 4:12 �There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.� John 4:42 �and they began to say to the woman: �We do not believe any longer on account of your talk; for we have heard for ourselves and we know that this man is for a certainty the savior of the world.� Sounds to me like another false teaching that Islam is promoting. Greetings everyone�. Edited by Kish - 11 September 2011 at 6:01pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 September 2011 at 3:05pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kish, you had more than a month to respond and still managed to produce a
disappointing rebuttal. It is painful to have to read your weak
arguments, but I will do my best.
The only weak argument is your claim that my argument is "weak". How is it weak? Your best response to the problem of the missing Aramaic was resort to your erroneous assumption that "Muhammad and early Muslims" accepted the Greek writings. Not that it matters, but how you do you know this?
Oh I am comical, am I? You completely ignored the example I gave of
the contradiction in the Gospels regarding his claim to be the son of
God, citing what you believe to be me taking the verse "out of
context". I gave the context! The context was Jesus' trial in front of
the Sanhedrin. He was asked a simple question and the answer he gave
contradicts the other verses you have provided. Your argument that he
did not give a straight forward answer because he was dealing with
unbelievers belies your blind faith. He was asked if he was the son of
God. He replied "you have said so" which implies that they think he
said this. And then he specifically refers to himself as "son of man",
which is not a blasphemous phrase at all, since we are all "sons of
man". The only one "reaching for straws" is you, unfortunately and
"comically". For convenience, here are the verses again: "62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, �Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?� 63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, �I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.� 64 �You have said so,� Jesus replied. �But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.�"
I have
already refuted your appeals to the "Law of Moses" since the verses you
mentioned are about determining if a person has violated the Law, by
worshiping other gods (Deut. 17:3) or breaking other laws (Deut. 19).
It has to do with criminal proceedings only. Second, it is quite
hilarious that you refer to the Law of Moses when it suits your purpose,
but it other places, you deny its importance since Jesus supposedly
"fulfilled" it. This is the typical Christian use of double standards
and it is why your religion stands on thin ice. Third, why do you not
apply these verses to Paul's claim of meeting Jesus on the road to
Damascus? Who were the people who witnessed this momentous event? Do not ignore this question, like you ignore most questions which jeopardize your faith.
Another typical answer. If this was true, then Isaiah 59:21 was a false prophecy since it clearly states that the covenant would last "forever" and says nothing of any secondary conditions that had to be fulfilled: "21 �As for me, this is my covenant with them,� says the LORD. �My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants�from this time on and forever,� says the LORD." Are you saying this is a false prophecy? Also, verse 20 specifically states that repentance was all that was needed if the Jews ever strayed from the covenant. Nothing is mentioned of the covenant being taken away for their repeated transgressions: "20 �The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,� declares the LORD."
What? What difference does it make that it is "statement" and not a "teaching"?
I gave you two examples, sweetheart. You tried to weasel your way out by making a pathetic excuse for one of the examples (Jesus saying that the Jews killed some of the prophets) and completely ignoring the other. Here is what I wrote about the second example: Consider also that Jesus said he was the servant of God, which the Quran confirms: "O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor
say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more
than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a
spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not
"Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be
to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in
the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." (4:171) Yet Paul referred to Jesus as the "great god and saviour"! What blasphemy is this? 12 It teaches us to say �No� to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope�the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. You have asked
for proof. As always, I have given it to you. Now after this, if you
remain stubborn, that is your problem, not mine. As I said, if you
don't believe, I could care less. God guides whom He pleases and it is
not up to me to make you believe: "As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether
thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe." (2:6) Come on Kish. Defend your hero Paul. Apply the same standards you try to apply to Islam and Muhammad (pbuh) to Paul, the real founder of Christianity.
I have given you two perfectly legitimate examples. I have also provided an example of the contradictory nature of the Gospels when it came to Jesus being the "son of God". You have failed to offer an adequate response. More and more, your religion fails to defend itself against the internal inconsistencies. No wonder that you are getting more defensive and passionate. Oh how you have evolved from the sincere truth-seeker with no apparent religious background to the Bible-thumping Christian apologist we all see here!
Another non-answer using the "you don't understand" scripture argument which is the hallmark of standard Christian propaganda. I repeat once again: Never did the prophets teach such concepts as: 1. Original sin 2. Redemption through blood sacrifice 3. Messiah as the son of God, and others�..The OT never teaches these concepts. Why? Answer the question. Don't respond to the question with another question. I don't care about what you believe the purpose of the Law was. That point of view is based on what the NT says. I am more interested in what the OT says because you accept both. Obviously, since the OT preceded the NT, more weight should be given to the former. For you to appeal to what the NT says here is a circular argument.
Still no answer, just vague explanations and ridiculous high-talk about not understanding the "purpose of the law covenant". You have repeatedly claimed that the NT and OT are in "agreement", which is strange since I have pointed out the many contradictions between the two. So, I ask again:
Why do the Gospels contradict the Tanakh is so many places, if they are supposed to be in agreement? Even if the covenant was supposed to be replaced with a new one, how does that explain the contradictions? What does the covenant being replaced have to do with the contradictions?
Are you so desperate in the face of all this evidence proving the absurdity of your claims that you have to resort to deliberately misquoting me? Here is what I wrote: Are you even paying attention anymore? I have given many examples already. Among these are that the Jews were never looking for the Messiah who is the "son of God" or that he would die for our sins. They also never, as far we know, believed that the Messiah would return a second time. The OT never teaches these concepts. Why? You have yet to prove that the Jewish concept of the Messiah
meant that he would be the "son of God". Everyone already knows what
Messiah means in Hebrew. That proves nothing about your claim.
This does not answer my question
regarding your claim that the Messiah was the son of God. By the way,
did anyone witness Daniel's meeting with Gabriel? How many witnesses
were there?
Another circular argument. The only
way you can justify your claim that the Messiah was supposed to be the
son of God is to quote the NT ad nauseum, when I have stipulated that I
am looking for proof that the Jews understood that the Messiah was
supposed to be the son of God. In order to prove this, you have to
provide direct evidence from Jewish sources, such as the Tanakh or the
Talmud etc. Quoting the NT to prove what the NT says is nothing more
than a childish circular argument.
And it applies quite aptly to the likes of you, unfortunately.
You are sounding more and more
incoherent. As I said, neither Jesus nor Adam had a father. That is
what makes their creation a miracle. To make the supposition that since
they had no human father, therefore God must be the father is absolute
nonsense and sounds more like pagan mythology...sort of like saying Zeus
was the father of Hercules because he impregnated his human mother. Is
that what you are saying Kish? Are you saying that God impregnated
Mary??? I seek refuge in Allah (swt) from such disturbing and
blasphemous thoughts. Again, I say that you are the last person on
earth to be talking about logic.
Wow. After repeatedly avoiding this
issue, you finally grow a spine and try to offer an intelligent
response. Alas, you failed. The simple fact of the matter is that you
made a claim to brother Hasan regarding the specifics of Jesus' name,
which I showed was inaccurate. Instead of admitting your mistake, you
shamelessly try to attack Islam by making more irrelevant references to
the NT. How this serves as an intelligent rebuttal to the issue of
Jesus' name being uniquely tied to salvation is beyond me.
Yes, greetings from Planet Kish, where none of us on Earth have ever been. By the way, as usual, you ignored
certain difficult parts of my response. I responded to your appeal to
Deut. 18:18 and how even the NT fails to identify Jesus (pbuh) as the
prophet mentioned therein. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kish
Guest Group
Joined: 07 July 2011 Status: Offline Points: 237 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 September 2011 at 6:11pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Didn�t mean to keep you waiting but I do have other obligations. Nonetheless, you believe my argument is weak but you are giving me your best shot, go ahead and try.
Not at all, that is way tooooo easy. Before Muhammad and even amongst Christ�s enemies in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Century the written Gospel was accepted; no serious debates about it whatsoever, hands-down. What took so long to say, hey! Where is my Aramaic copy of it? So, as you can see, a fundamental question requires a very fundamental answer. The thought was regarding the language of the Gospel. Jesus and his Apostles spoke Hebrew and Greek and at times Galilean Aramaic. Luke, Paul and others spoke Hebrew. Eusebius (of the third and fourth centuries C.E.) said that �the evangelist Matthew delivered his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue.� (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XXII, col. 941) Ac 22:2 When a great silence fell, he (Paul) addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying: 22 �Men, brothers and fathers, hear my defense to YOU now.� 2 (Well, when they heard he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent, and he said:) 3 �I am a Jew, Also Acts 26:14. So indeed that makes it a very strong argument!
Can you imagine Jesus giving him the time of day with this mock trial? What did Jesus tell him, the authority he did have was from his father in the heaven. It�s obvious that Jesus is the Son of God since it is God who said so, right in the presence of eye-witnesses to firmly establish it for the world. Jesus could not have cared less for this puny mortal when it came to doing the will of God.
This example in Deuteronomy just happen to be dealing with criminal cases my friend, there are many more incidences in the Bible. But this is your flimsy excuse, I see. Now you�re saying you cannot make a false statement against a man in the eyes of two or three witnesses but you can make a false statement against Almighty God, without any witnesses, gotcha! That would apply even more so toward God, right? Even in some countries you need at least one witness for a testimony to be true but I guess not in the Islamic community. Now, I can see why Muhammad would think that he can get away with making such a statement that the angel Gabriel spoke with him in a cave with no first, second or third testament to firmly established the truthfulness of his statement. Here are other scriptural references� Hebrews 10:28,29 Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three. 29 Of how much more severe a punishment, do YOU think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God� 2 Corinthians 13:1,2 This is the third time I am coming to YOU. �At the mouth of two witnesses or of three every matter must be established. Genesis 41:32 And the fact that the dream was repeated to Phar′aoh twice means that the thing is firmly established on the part of the [true] God, and the [true] God is speeding to do it. Matthew 18:16, 20 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst. 1 Corintians 14:27-29 And if someone speaks in a tongue, let it be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns; and let someone translate. 28 But if there be no translator, let him keep silent in the congregation and speak to himself and to God. 29 Further, let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern the meaning. 1 Timothy 5:19 Do not admit an accusation�except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses I guess the Prophet forgot the universal law/principle of the Holy Scriptures when it came to a fact being firmly established by eye-witnesses in order to confirm its trueness, a fact in which he conveniently left out of the Quran to push his own agenda. Knowingly or unknowingly this is a very, very serious matter.
Special pleading will get you know where. I suggest, if Jesus our Prophet and Savior said it believe it! If the Quran denies that Jesus did not fulfill the Law, like Israel wow on Islam for trampling upon the Son of God.
As always, Paul had more people eye-witness his conversing on the road and the miracles he performed then Muhammad ever had! If you disagree, open up a thread and list Muhammad�s eye-witnesses using your Quran compared to the Apostle Paul and I�ll use the Bible, you started it let�s see who can finish it. Example: Muhammad�s Revelation in the cave, his miracles and who eye witnessed them by name. Paul�s conversion on the road to Damascus, his miracles and who eye witnessed them by name. But, I already know you are unable to provide eye-witnesses let alone names. Nonetheless, open a thread I�m always willing to learn, please!
Oh, God�s purpose is always fulfilled but in this case not with natural or fleshly Israel but the Israel of God. (Matthew 21:43) This is why I say to YOU, The kingdom of God will be taken from YOU and be given to a nation producing its fruits Why? (Matthew 23:37, 38) �Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her,�how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But YOU people did not want it.. Look! YOUR house is abandoned to YOU (Acts 3:13-15) The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom YOU, for YOUR part, delivered up and disowned before Pilate�s face, when he had decided to release him. Yes, YOU disowned that holy and righteous one, and YOU asked for a man, a murderer, to be freely granted to YOU, 15 whereas YOU killed the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses. Since the old covenant was taken away from Israel, Jesus death provided a NEW covenant. Luke 22:20 Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: �This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf. (Galatians 6:15-16) For neither is circumcision anything nor is uncircumcision, but a new creation [is something]. 16 And all those who will walk orderly by this rule of conduct, upon them be peace and mercy, even upon the Israel of God.
But the Quran denies Jesus being the Son of God which the Holy Scriptures, Jesus, his heavenly father and his earlier followers accepted. I bet my life on these two witnesses (God [YHWH] and Jesus) not ONE �so called� witness (Muhammad) You will never, ever get around this scriptural fact, there must always be two or more witnesses to a testament, IT�S BIBLE LAW!
Wrong again! First of all Titus wrote these words not Paul. Secondly, Jesus AND God is our savior, what is your point? Luke wrote�. 46 And Mary said: �My soul magnifies Jehovah [YHWH], 47 and my spirit cannot keep from being overjoyed at God my Savior; Jude also wrote; to [the] only God our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, might and authority for all past eternity and now and into all eternity. Amen. Like the rest of Jesus followers, Mary, Titus who you quoted above not Paul although he too knew Jesus AND God to be the savior understood this teaching and preached and taught it not Muhammad, why? Also, how do you know Titus is not talking about two distinct persons here, Jesus AND his heavenly father as it reads since throughout his writings he believed Jesus to be God�s son and not God the son. It seems to me because of your lack of understanding you miss-quote the Holy Scriptures and ignore its teachings and consistencies of Jesus being the son of God. But of course you will over look these facts I presented and dig for other �so called� discrepancies. No problem, I can do this all day! Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible to identify YHWH and Jesus as being the same individual.
Wrong aaagain, Paul, seriously? No way, remember Paul was converted from being a very prominent Jew to a follower of Christ! 1 Cor. 10:4 �and that rock-mass meant the Christ. John 7:37 Now on the last day, the great day of the festival, Jesus was standing up and he cried out, saying: �If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. (Symbolic) So, of all people, according to the scriptures Paul knew Jesus to be, not according to what someone may think, believe or teach. Nice try but true Christians follow Jesus not Paul, Peter or anyone else, another accusation with no grounds to support it scripturally.
Really, what I have just responded to was not adequate? Mary, Jesus, Jesus� own mother, Jesus early followers such as Titus, Peter and Paul believed Jesus to be the son of God? You have not showed me one verse where they did not believe and teach that Jesus is NOT the son of God. What you have shown again was versus taken out of context that Jesus and God are the same, which you or I do not believe, so your argument is pointless and has no foundation whatsoever. You quoted
And? He was the son of man and the son of God which he did say and his true followers recognize and preached. You still have not established that he was not otherwise, just because you hate the term means nothing.
Absolutely! I truly hope you follow your own advice.
Never did the prophets teach such concepts as: 1.2.3. First, it was the Law of God to Israel, then the Law of Moses. God himself taught the Nation of Israel the Law, using Moses as its mediator not the Prophets, Exodus 10:16-19. The covenant was then validated by the [blood] of bulls and goats. Why blood? Leviticus 17: 11 God said: �The soul [or, life] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: �No soul of you must eat blood.�� Hebrews 9:15-22 So that is why he is a mediator of a new covenant, in order that, because a death has occurred for [their] release by ransom from the transgressions under the former covenant, the ones who have been called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance. 16 For where there is a covenant, the death of the [human] covenanter needs to be furnished. 17 For a covenant is valid over dead [victims], since it is not in force at any time while the [human] covenanter is living. 18 Consequently neither was the former [covenant] inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment according to the Law had been spoken by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of the young bulls and of the goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled the book itself and all the people, 20 saying: �This is the blood of the covenant that God has laid as a charge upon YOU.� 21 And he sprinkled the tent and all the vessels of the public service likewise with the blood. 22 Yes, nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and unless [blood] is poured out no forgiveness [of sin] takes place. That is why it was necessary for Jesus to die a sacrificial death, to shed his pure innocent Holy blood; no other man could have done that because of inherited sin. That is also why Jesus was born from a virgin woman with the power of Holy Spirit, making him sinless. But I am not going to go down the list of all the things you perhaps are not clear on in regards to the Law covenant. But, hopefully you can see why Israel had to offer up sacrifices. The Law of Moses has everything to do with 1. 2. 3. Anyhow, this topic is on Jesus and the Gospel not Moses and the Law covenant, besides �Christ is the end of the Law.��Romans 10:4; if you wish to open up a thread on it, be my guest, I can go into further details there.
God�s word does not contradict; man�s word does because of lack of study or understanding.
Incorrect, most of the Jews unfortunately failed to see a lot of things like most people today. But, indeed they were looking for that one you speak of, however, it is not mines to claim.
John
11:27 Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God,
the One coming into the world. Jesus
did not say they were incorrect, and on occasion he admitted being the Christ. John
4:25, 26 The woman said to him: �I know that Mes�si′ah is coming, who is called
Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly.� 26 Jesus
said to her: �I who am speaking to you am he. That is good enough AND accepted among Jews and Christians today!
Off topic but this was a vision/trance/dream. Geneses 46:2 Then God talked to Israel in visions of the night and said: �Jacob, Jacob!� to which he said: �Here I am!�
As if what you want really matters, who left you in charge? What truly matters is, Jews and Christians in the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th Century before Muhammad, accepted its undeniable truth that is why no one seriously challenged it, only the Johnny come lately. And now in the 21st century many of us still accept it as truth.
Well, stop thinking in human philosophical terms. Besides, women today can become impregnated without intercourse, right? He [Jesus] was born of God�s spirit,
without a human father.�Al-Anbiyā� [21]:91. It does not say without
a father, it says without a human father, silly. Logically God was his heavenly
father. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 23456 40> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
islamispeace wrote:
Again you ignore Isaiah 59:21: