|
God�s written instructions for life. |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 34567 40> |
| Author | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
islamispeace 
Senior Member 
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 02 October 2011 at 2:08pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Uh-huh. What evidence do you have that Jesus spoke Greek? A "fundamental answer" is meaningless if it is without any evidence. Furthermore, you try to paint a very rosy picture of the Gospels' authority, which is expected given your heavy Christian bias. But if the Gospels carried so much authority, why were there so many other "Gospels" circulating around? And why did the Gospels' authority evolve over the 2nd century? Why did Ignatius only refer to two of them? Why was Irenaeus (late 2nd century) the absolute first Church father to explicitly say that there are 4 authoritative Gospels?
Again, you deliberately ignore what Matthew 26 states: "62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, �Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?� 63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, �I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.� 64 �You have said so,� Jesus replied. �But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.�Jesus refused to call himself the "Son of God" but instead referred to himself as the "Son of Man". Your feeble attempts at special pleading and excuse making cannot refute what your own Bible states. The contradictions are obvious.
Obvious, is it? Riiight...Which "eye-witnesses" are you referring to? What did these "eye-witness" say they "witnessed"? Oh and by the way, compared to God, Jesus (pbuh) is also a "puny mortal".
No,
what I am illustrating is your selective use of the Tanakh when it
suits your purpose. This is typical of Christian apologetics. The fact
is that just because no one witnessed the first encounter is no
different from the fact that no one witnessed Daniel's encounter with
Gabriel, Moses' encounter with God on Mt. Sinai or even Jesus' alleged
encounter with Satan. Also, the Tanakh showed how to test a claimant to prophethood. It stated: "17 The LORD said to me: �What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.� 21 You may say to yourselves, �How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?� 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed." (Deut. 18:17-22) So
there you go. Nothing is mentioned here about witnesses. Your other
"scriptural" references are again a case of circular reasoning. You
quote the NT ad nauseum, as if that proves your point about the Law of
Moses.
Yes, it is a "serious" matter for those who practice double standards about what is "trueness" (sic).
Why
do we need to open another thread? This issue is related to the topic
we are discussing. It does not go unnoticed that you completely avoided
answering the question I asked and instead pathetically tried to divert
again to the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). I asked you about Paul and why
you do not apply the OT verses you mentioned to his encounter in
Damascus? Who witnessed the event? What were their names? Do we have
their personal testimonies or do we have Paul's own claims? Keep the
Bigfoot analogy I mentioned in mind when you answer these questions (or
when you dare to answer these questions!).
Again, more special pleading and circular arguments. WOW! You're doing great Kish!  To repeat, the Tanakh contradicts the "New Testament" on the issue of the covenant. Isaiah 59:21 says very clearly that the covenant was to last forever. Nothing was said about the covenant being taken away and given to some other people. This contradiction and your inability to reconcile it shows that the Christian acceptance of the Tanakh as "scripture" is conditional and is nothing more than an act of lip service. That one verse from Isaiah proves conclusively either one of two scenarios, both of which are problematic for blind Christians: 1. The Tanakh is false since Isaiah 59:21 is a false prophecy, 2. The NT is false since it contradicts Isaiah 59:21. To hammer home the point, let us read the verse again: 21 �As for me, this is my covenant with them,� says the LORD. �My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants�from this time on and forever,� says the LORD.
Your dang right that the Qur'an denies the pagan idea of "son of God"! But, your NT contradicts you and itself on this issue as well. It could not make up its mind. Jesus had the perfect opportunity to say who he was, yet the author of the Gospel of Matthew decided to be vague and instead Jesus purposefully denies the title of "son of God" and settles for the lesser title "son of Man". So you see, even Jesus denies your blasphemy...and so does Almighty God! Therefore, the Qur'an is correct when it denies the pagan concept of "son of God": "O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah '�sa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh ) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (god), glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs." (4:171) All praise is due to Allah (swt)!
Oh my goodness! You don't even know your own scripture, do you? Your
pathetic attempts at denial will shrivel in the face of the truth!
First of all, even if they were Titus' words, they would still be
part of the canonized NT and therefore would remain blasphemous verses
which contradict the previous prophets as well as common sense. Second,
the fact is that they are indeed the words of Paul! Paul wrote those
words to Titus, as he states:"1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God�s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness� 2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, 3 and which now at his appointed season he has brought to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior, 4 To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior." (Titus 1:1-4) So, these were straight from Paul's mouth! So, I ask again. What blasphemy is this?
Your denial will be your doom. How can Jesus AND God both be our savior(s)? Here again, you contradict the Tanakh which states over and over again that God is the savior, something the Qur'an agrees with: "And
hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah (i.e. this
Qur'an), and be not divided among yourselves , and remember Allah's
Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your
hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islamic
Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you
from it. Thus Allah makes His Ayat (proofs, evidence, verses, lessons,
signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided."
(3:103) "�The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be my God, the Rock, my Savior!" (2 Samuel 22:47) Secondly, Paul said explicitly that Jesus is his "god and savior"! "...while we wait for the blessed hope�the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ..." When
will you open your eyes? You only doom yourself by being stubborn. By
accepting the truth, you are not doing me any favors. It's for your
own good!
Again,
Paul said those words, not Titus. Even if it was Titus, the verse is
part of your Bible. What is it doing there? Muhammad (pbuh) taught the
same teaching as the previous prophets which was the Oneness of God and
the subservience of man to Him. Second, the verse does not say Jesus AND God, it says "great God and savior Jesus". Paul is referring to Jesus as both God and savior.
Wrong again. Your "scriptures" are hopelessly contradictory. It is true that in many places, it is impossible to consider Jesus and God being the same individual, but in other places, the writers of the NT do make that claim. The letter to Titus is one example. Another example is Hebrews 1. Just look at the horrid blasphemies Paul writes: "6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, �Let all God�s angels worship him.� [...] But about the Son he says, �Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. Consider also Romans 9:5- "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised!" He wrote all these blasphemies and yet you still consider him a follower of Jesus? How blind can you be? Do you think Jesus would have accepted these verses as authentic and true? Do you think Isaiah would agree with these blasphemies when he wrote the following: "And Hezekiah prayed to the LORD: 16
�LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you
alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven
and earth." (Isaiah 37:16) I certainly don't think so! Given these proofs and the fact that the Qur'an agrees with the
previous prophets that God alone is worthy of worship, what makes you
reject Muhammad (pbuh) yet accept Paul?
Yes, this is according to Paul. So what? We don't know if anyone actually witnessed this momentous occasion,
although Paul claims (rather inconsistently) that there were
witnesses. This brings us back to the Bigfoot analogy I mentioned. Anyway, how does this change the fact that Paul is by far the most important figure in Christian history, second only to Jesus? This is despite the fact that he never heard Jesus speak during his ministry and never met him in person (besides the one incident in Damascus for which there is no corroborating evidence).
Wrong. Christians like to believe that they follow Jesus, but in reality, they ignore much of what Jesus taught, as I showed above from Paul's own words.
What you have demonstrated "adequately" is that the New Testament is hopelessly self-contradictory. Jesus rejected the title of "son of God" when confronted by the Sanhedrin, according to Matthew. Therefore, any other places in the New Testament where it is claimed that Jesus is the son of God must be rejected as contradictions which were added later. And as far as Paul and Titus are concerned, they did not regard Jesus as "son of God" but as God Himself. And actually, according to your Bible, even Peter believed as such (although I have a hard time believing that): "To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: 2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord." (2 Peter 1-2) Now before you say "well verse 2 clearly distinguishes between the
two", that still leaves the problem of verse 1 where there is clearly no
distinction made. Peter (or whoever wrote this blasphemous verse)
clearly refers to Jesus as "our God and Savior".
More special pleading. You just assume he was both but Matthew says
that Jesus denied the title "son of God" when confronted by the
Sanhedrin. Why did he do that if he was both? And by the way, I definitely hate the term "son of God" as used by Christians because of its blasphemous and pagan nature.
This term in never used in the OT the way Christians use it, except
when referring to the "Nephilim" or to the nation of Israel.
In his letter to Titus and other places, as I showed above.
I have followed my own advice, which is why I am a Muslim! I
wholeheartedly reject the confused and contradictory beliefs of
Christianity. You are free to believe what you want but by being
stubborn in the fact of the truth, you doom only yourself.
There are several problems with your selective use of the OT: 1. First, Leviticus does not say that only blood will be accepted for atonement. Those who cannot afford to sacrifice an animal can use pigeons or even wheat! Leviticus 5 states: "As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering[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.
Not only did you not prove anything about blood atonement, you also ignored the rest of my points. We don't need to open a new thread. Everything we have discussed is related. It seems to me that you are stalling. Let me repeat: Never did the prophets teach such concepts as: 1. Original sin 2. Redemption through blood sacrifice 3. Messiah as the son of God, and others�..The OT never teaches these concepts. Why?
That's pretty convenient. When there is an obvious contradiction, the excuse is that it is due to "lack of study or understanding". How so? Since you seem to believe that you "understand", explain why there are so many obvious contradictions between the Tanakh and the NT? And what do these contradictions have to do with the Covenant?
Your statements mean nothing without evidence. There is no evidence from the Jewish sources that the Jews were looking for the Messiah who is the son of God. This was a Christian invention. And don't go quoting the NT again, because you know that is a circular argument...
...Oh well. You quoted the NT again! The fact is that the Tanakh never said that the Messiah was the son
of God. So how can you insist that the Jews were looking for the "son
of God"? Obviously, what the authors of the NT claimed does not align
with the historical facts. To the Jews, the Messiah was a powerful
human king chosen by God, nothing more.
How is it off topic? You were the one who brought up issue of "witnesses"! Furthermore, it was not just a "vision". Gabriel (as) came to Daniel (pbuh) a second time after the first vision, and this time, it was in person: "20 While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill� 21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He instructed me and said to me, �Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23 As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision:" (Daniel 9:20-23) Even if it was just a vision, how can it be verified? Also, since we are on this topic, who witnessed Mary's encounter with Gabriel? What about Jacob's wrestling match with the mysterious being?
What a typical response. When cornered, the missionary shows his teeth! This is not about what I want or who left me in charge. I am simply using my common sense. Do you think that I am just going to believe anything you tell me? Heck no! I would want corroboration for your claims. Salvation is too important to place on a stranger's wild claims! So when you insist that the Jews were waiting for the "son of God" I want proof from Jewish sources, not from Christian sources written for a Christian agenda.
You have yet to prove that Jews believed such. You are only spreading your own propaganda. No one "seriously challenged it"? Really? Then why were there so many ecumenical councils, book burnings and persecutions of "heretics"? Your deceit knows no bounds, Kish.
Well, how should I think? I am a human, right? How would I think? And women can be impregnated by artificial insemination. How is the same as your weird idea of Mary being impregnated? Artificial insemination still involves fusing a sperm cell with an egg.
Don't quote the Holy Qur'an. You can barely quote your own scripture correctly. Here is what Surah al-Anbiya states: "And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples." It says nothing here that God was Jesus' father. This is your own pagan-influenced nonsense. Notice that the verse specifically refers to Jesus only as Mary's son. Second, the act of breathing of God's Spirit is what led to the Creation of man. For example, when God created Adam, He breathed into him: "When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him." (15:29) "He Who has made everything which He has created most good: He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay, And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised: But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!" (32:7-9) "Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do (good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behavior and he starts doing (evil) deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire. And similarly a man amongst you may do (evil) deeds till there is only a cubit between him and the (Hell) Fire, and then what has been written for him decides his behavior, and he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise."" (Sahih Bukhari, Book #54, Hadith #430) You are lying to yourself, Kish. Open your eyes. It is for your own good. You do not do me or anyone else any favors. Edited by islamispeace - 02 October 2011 at 2:38pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: 03 October 2011 at 1:48pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kish, Let me correct you on the account of Eve and Adam (pbut). See what you take as fact that it was Eve who caused the fall of Adam, as stated in the Bible, where Adam's response was "she made me do it". It is not true at all like many other accounts in it. The Bible went through so much transformation and alteration that even who is God is not without contradiction. Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was a prophet of God, therefore what God revealed through him, does not contradict and is consistent whether be about who God is or how salvation is achieved. Bible in its present state fails that simple basic test. It seems you knowledge and understanding of the Quran is very limited. Let me explain why I say that. You wrote: "...that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised Seed and King, and giving the details of his life, his ministry, his death, his resurrection and salvation. Interestingly enough the Quran contradicts all the above," First, like I have said above the Bible does not even agrees with who God is, so don't hold it equal to the Quran, nor compare with it. Second, Quran states Jesus (pbuh) to be the Messiah, whom God sent. About Jesus' life, the purpose he was sent for Quran is the only source that does not contradict what it says of him. One the other hand the Bible only states of him which is in contradiction to itself. Truth stands our clear in front of falsehood. It is up to each one of us to make our choice based on logic and truth or deny it to defend falsehood. And at the end be ready for accountability. Hasan Edited by honeto - 03 October 2011 at 1:58pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: 12 October 2011 at 9:05am |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Of course like always you conveniently ignored the fact that the Gospel was not even seriously debated in the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th Century by its truest enemies, especially by the Jews first, then by the Romans and much, much later Islam, why? Why did it take many, many centuries later then argue that it�s not written in Aramaic as if it needs to be in order for it to be authentic. Of course religious groups held other beliefs (Gnostics) which have been the case since the beginning of time, but where are those groups now and their historical evidence that supports that the Gospel of Jesus was false or inaccurate? Again, you have not provided any historical evidence to prove that Jesus and his modern day follower taught anything different from each other within the Gospel and that the Gospel was not accepted. Their teachings were harmoniously in agreement and accepted hands down! No wonder no serious debates existed back then, too many eyewitnesses to confirm every detail of the Messiahs birth, life, death and resurrection! Here is the fundamental answer however, what was said in the Gospel then and what is said now is still the same inspired truths of God. No Muslim scholar has yet to show any historical evidence of another Gospel according to Muhammad or another Gospel other than what we have today (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John � FOUR Eyewitnesses) or another Gospel other than what Muhammad himself had available during his time, why is that? Until you or any Muslim can provide such a text or documentation disproving the Gospel we have today as corrupt you are fighting a lost battle. Show us were Jesus followers did not believe he was the son of God; that he did not die on a stake and was not resurrected; you have yet to disprove this with any historical proof of evidence. That fact that it has been long accepted before Muhammad and long accepted after Muhammad puts the ball in your court!
At least you finally agree although it was accepted by the main stream and locals� way before then but what is hilarious about the statement is as if the Quran was completed and accepted much, much sooner during its time. If that was the case they wouldn�t have had to burn the original copies of some, which again is suspect! SO, whether it�s accepted in its entirety or not in the Islamic world is your choice. The Quran is a book only for Muslims which came 600 years later after the Holy Bible and Christianity and therefore contradicts and misconstrue most accounts in the Bible let alone the main doctrine of the Gospel, so that in itself makes the Quran suspect, again. The fact that Allah is not the God of Israel or of Abram for that matter but the god of Mecca confirms my argument so don�t expect the Bible to agree with the Quran on hardly anything. It is for this reason the Quran is the Bible rival. As the Old Testament states and many of you obviously failed to understand the New Testament was a prelude to the OT. The OT had the Messiah�s name written all over it, that will be a new topic �if� the moderators will post it. Nonetheless, whoever said Isaiah 59:21 was a false prophecy, certainly not I? Its covenant is still in operation. But you need to read it again, this time understand what the word covenant means and what would happen to the Nation of Israel if they failed to keep its side of the agreement which they did, you have much to learn about the Mosaic Law covenant and its purpose.
Why do you continually insist on telling yourself that if what was said or not said in the OT in �your� exact words it therefore cannot be true? The agreement was they had to keep the Law in order to remain his people; they failed to keep the Law and therefore lost that privilege of being his people! Why? (Matthew 23:37, 38) �Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her,�how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But YOU people did not want it.. Look! YOUR house is abandoned to YOU (Acts 3:13-15) The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom YOU, for YOUR part, delivered up and disowned before Pilate�s face, when he had decided to release him. Yes, YOU disowned that holy and righteous one, and YOU asked for a man, a murderer, to be freely granted to YOU, 15 whereas YOU killed the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses. Since the old covenant was taken away from Israel due to their errors, Jesus death provided a NEW and BETTER covenant. Luke 22:20 Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: �This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf. (Galatians 6:15-16) For neither is circumcision anything nor is uncircumcision, but a new creation [is something]. 16 And all those who will walk orderly by this rule of conduct, upon them be peace and mercy, even upon the Israel of God. ** Quran itself mentions the Gospel over 24 times Love it or hate it. I love it!** If I may use your quote �21 �As for me, this is my covenant with them,� says the LORD. �My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants�from this time on and forever,�
That�s on your heads not mine but there were eyewitnesses to confirm its authenticity. Besides, God has many sons starting with Jesus ending with the angels. You have so much to learn and understand about the Old and New Testament and spirituality. Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Luke 9: 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, �This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.� Again, can you disprove these eyewitness accounts and that this never, ever happened? What historical doc�s or text can you present to this forum? None as of yet, only accusations, assumptions, and what Jesus could have said to ease your conscious, that is your proof. No wonder the Quran mentions Jesus 25 times more often by name, then Muhammad that should tell you something! He was indeed the Son of God, disagreeing doesn�t make it go away. But logic is not a universal key, is it? ** Quran itself mentions the Gospel over 24 times Love it or hate it. I love it!**
So to everyone reading, as per Islam Jesus is not the Son of God because he chose not to reveal his identity during this mock trial, Wow! What scholarly work! Let�s stubbornly forget about the voice from heaven saying this is my son, Jesus agreeing to the fact, his 12 Apostles preaching and teaching it. And thousands at that known time believing and staking their lives on it. But because he didn�t reveal it at this moment it can�t be true. Got it! If that�s what helps you sleep at night, fine with me.
I never said �only� blood, focus now. I was talking about the Law Covenant not atonements. The covenant was only validated by the High Priest use of blood; you�re getting atonements and offerings mixed up.
Way off, his death (blood) was a sacrifice which the prophets prophesied about, starting with Moses.
1. Original sin 2. Redemption through blood sacrifice 3. Messiah as the son of God, and others�..The OT never teaches these concepts. Why? Again, the Law was for them to FOLLOW not to teach, to follow, I�m losing you again. Maybe this will help, any country who has laws, it�s citizens must FOLLOW it not teach it. Leave the teachings to the law maker (God{YHWH} through the High Priest in the case of Israel � The government through congress in the case of its citizens) When Islam understands WHY the LAW was provided in the first place perhaps then you will grasp Jesus� role in all this. Once you understand WHY Jesus was so unique in being born of a virgin women and resurrected to heavenly life as the Quran acknowledges and mentions by name more often than Muhammad perhaps you will come closer to salvation, without that proper understanding of the Law (Sin, Blood and the Messiah) salvation is LOST for any religious nation who fails to honor it.
You are wrong again, Islam through circular reasoning using the Quran invented that the Jews were not looking for the Messiah who is the son of God! But, why do you think Mary and Joseph was selected in the first place, because they were Jewish obviously, the same Jews who practice the Law covenant. Or does your Quran offers another account? There is plenty of evidence in the Law of the Prophets (OT) and the Gospel, but not surprisingly you are not aware of them.
What�s ironic is that the Quran itself mentions the Gospel over 24 times but when I mention the Gospel its circular argument, how hypercritical does that make Islam! The ultimate double standard if I ever heard one! And don�t go talking about the Gospels that are not authentic and are uninspired, you�re better then that right, I guess. Therefore here is what Muhammad believed about the Gospel he knew of. John 1:41, 45, 49 First this one found his own brother, Simon, and said to him: �We have found the Mes�si′ah��We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus. *They must have been looking. John 11:27 Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God, the One coming into the world. Jesus did not say they were incorrect, and on occasion he admitted being the Christ. John 4:25, 26 The woman said to him: �I know that Mes�si′ah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly.� 26 Jesus said to her: �I who am speaking to you am he. But according to Islam not the Quran or the Gospel, the Jews were not looking for the Messiah, now that�s laughable! And now you fall on the Tanakh (Which you can care less about) to help bail you out, what an all time LOW! ** Quran itself mentions the Gospel over 24 times Love it or hate it. I love it!**
Here we go again, no historical facts about who challenged the Gospel, no dates, names etc., just accusations and assumptions. You would make a poor journalist! Only many centuries later it began to be seriously challenged, you never explained to me why so long for the challenged?
Where did I say it was Eve who caused the fall of Adam?
Of course, I would not expect anything less. The Quran is the first book for only Muslims although using Jesus and the Gospel as its foundation. That is why the Quran is the Bibles rival, even though the Quran is a new revelation which came 600 years later out of nowhere with no eyewitnesses to confirm its authenticity and with much bloodshed to go along with it. ** Quran itself mentions Jesus more often than Muhammad and mentions the Gospel over 24 times. Love it or hate it, I love it, so why not use it! **
Edited by Kish - 12 October 2011 at 9:18am |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
honeto
Senior Member
Male Islam Joined: 20 March 2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2487 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 October 2011 at 2:28pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kish,
if you missed I was saying that you are wrong when you said: "...that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised Seed and King, and giving the details of his life, his ministry, his death, his resurrection and salvation.Interestingly enough the Quran contradicts all the above," That is incorrect, Quran confirms all of what you wrote except the king part, he was never a king. The Quran also firmly adds that he was not God, nor son of God, but a man and a prophet. Hasan Edited by honeto - 13 October 2011 at 2:32pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: 16 October 2011 at 2:37pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are of course repeating standard Church propaganda. Here are the facts which refute your claims: A. The Gospels themselves (specifically the Gospel of Luke) admit to the existence of many gospels. Luke 1 states: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us [this implies multiple �gospels� were in circulation]�" B. The authority and use of the Gospels among the early Christians evolved over the course of the 2nd century. The following is what I wrote on the thread "The Holy Gospel did not Evolve!" on May 7: 1. Ignatius of Antioch can be shown to have referred to only two of the Gospels, and those also only via fragmented verses. He refers in three instances to the Gospel of Matthew and in one instance to the Gospel of Luke [1]. He also quotes from the letters of Paul and the Book of Acts. There are no references to the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. The fact that the latter [Gospel of John] is conspicuously absent is very telling. The Gospel of John, as Christian tradition states, should have already been completed by the time Ignatius was writing. 2. Justin Martyr references three of the Gospels, again only via fragments. He also perhaps refers to the Book of Revelation, but none of the letters of Paul or the Book of Acts [2]. Whether he actually referenced the Gospel of John is a matter of debate. It has been claimed that 1 Apology 66 is a reference to John 3:3-5, but Justin Martyr does not refer to this quote as he does to other quotations from the other Gospels using the phrase "recorded in the memoirs of the apostles..." Therefore, in the absence of clear quotations from the Gospel of John, we can only be certain that Justin Martyr was familiar with only three of them: Mark, Matthew and Luke. 3. Irenaeus of Lyons does indeed say that there are only four Gospels and as such, he is the absolute earliest Church father to say this. He also quotes heavily from the letters of Paul and also some of the other epistles. But, he also quotes from the apocryphal book, the Shepherd of Hermas! From the above, we see a clear evolution. Even if we accept that Justin Martyr may have referred to the Gospel of John, it is clear that in the early 2nd century, Ignatius was familiar with only Matthew and Luke. Therefore, the popularity and usage of the Gospels clearly changed over the course of the 2nd century. Therefore, the Christian canon evolved! C. There was even criticism from non-Christians. For example, the Roman philosopher Celsus observed the changes Christians made to their own scriptures whenever they faced criticism. Celsus' claims are lost but they were partially preserved in the writings of Origen. This is what Celsus wrote: "Certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Christians make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of Christ�s life; hoping to spare individuals, and to expound the prophecies themselves, I admit the plausibility of the Christian interpretation of them. Nevertheless the use which they make of them may be overturned. One ought not hastily to assume so important a position on small grounds. The prophecies may be applied to countless other things with greater probability than to Jesus." (Contra Celsus) As you can see Kish, your claim that no one questioned the authority of the Gospels is pure nonsense and not supported by the historical evidence. As for the Gnostics and other Christian sects, they have disappeared because of the persecution of the Church after the Council of Nicea. That is why their writings were hidden away only to be discovered some 60 years ago. They did not want their books to be burned by the Church.
I provided an example of the contradictory nature of your Gospels and how Jesus refused the title "son of God" in front of the Sanhedrin. Since not even your Gospels can agree on the exact nature of Jesus, I find your request for "historical evidence" to be comical. But more so, I find your propaganda about "too many eyewitnesses" and other nonsense to be hilarious! Never mind that you have presented no historical evidence for any of your claims, only circular arguments and meaningless quotes from the NT itself.
Its amazing how you brainwashed people go into rants making unsubstantiated claims. Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself? I think you are trying to convince yourself. You are trying desperately to ignore all the evidence and are simply repeating Church propaganda to keep yourself in a state of blind faith. The fact is that there were many "gospels" in circulation. However, they were all false. The Gospel that the Qur'an refers to is the teachings Jesus brought to the Jews, not the "Gospel according to so and so". Here is an example of one of the many accounts ("gospels", if you will) which contradict your "canonized" books: "When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?" The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."" (Apocalypse of Peter) This Gnostic book claimed Jesus was not crucified. It is an example of the varying beliefs among the early Christians. There was no unified Christianity. It was a potpourri of many sects and theologies. Here is another example: "Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance." (The Second Treatise of the Great Seth) When
will you wise up Kish? Open your eyes! You have been lied to!
Christianity evolved constantly over the course of 200 years. It was
always in a state of flux and it was not until the Council of Nicea that
one of the many false beliefs which had sprung up was accepted. By
that time, the truth had been muddled and lost. But it was rediscovered
with the coming of Islam.
You have no evidence that "it was accepted
by the main stream and locals..." That is nonsense, as I showed
above. The rest of your statement is a diversion which is typical of
Christian apologists. When they get cornered with the regard to the
Bible, they bail out and divert to the Qur'an! The Qur'an is not the
topic here Kish!
Isaiah 59 contradicts the NT. Your special pleading will get you no where. Let's put Isaiah 59 together with what the NT says and let us see if there is a contradiction or not: "21 �As for me, this is my covenant with them,� says the LORD. �My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants�from this time on and forever,� says the LORD." (Isaiah 59:21) "43 �Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.�" (Matthew 21: 43-44) One
says the covenant will last forever (no preconditions). The other says
the "kingdom of God" will be taken away. Even a child will see that
there is a contradiction here.
Where is your proof for this? As I showed before, Isaiah 59:20 clearly stated that repentance was all that was needed for the covenant to be renewed: "�The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,� declares the LORD." You can't ignore these facts forever. You may turn a blind eye now, but you will regret it later.
It's not my quote. It's from your Bible which contradicts your so-called "New" Testament.
You have no evidence of any
"eyewitnesses". You have been ranting about "eyewitnesses" this whole
time and have not presented one iota of evidence except to quote the NT
ad nauseum. Show me the historical evidence that Jesus was the "son of
God". Show me the historical evidence that he "rose from the dead".
The fact is that there is no such evidence, only Christian propaganda.
More circular reasoning, as expected! This is all you can do which is why no one takes Christian polemics seriously. You guys are pathetic. Go look up the meaning of "circular reasoning" and while you are at it, take a class in critical thinking. The burden of proof is on you to prove your extraordinary claims of a Jewish man dying and then resurrecting. By the way, the verses from Matthew and Luke were taken from Mark 1:11, the first Gospel supposedly written. As I already mentioned before, the verse from Mark, as it turns out, originally had adoptionist undertones. Adoptionism was an early Christian heresy which stated that Jesus was "adopted" as God's son and was not His son from the beginning of time. According to Ehrman: "In one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones...the voice says something strikingly different: 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'" (Misquoting Jesus, p. 159) So, it appears that the first Gospel written may have had a different theological undertone. This problem was obviously then edited to remove the adoptionist element and to harmonize Mark with the other Gospels. This is more evidence of the many disagreements among Christians.
You can't make this stuff up, folks! This is the best Christianity has! Apparently to people like Kish, contradictions and editorial changes within the Gospels do not serve as "evidence" that Jesus' status was a matter of debate among the early Christians. Oh by the way, what "helps me sleep at night" is knowing that I follow reason and not blind faith, that people like you and your deceit and lies are slowly
being exposed and more and more people are leaving one of the the
biggest lies ever told. I am sorry if it hurts but it is the truth.
Don't backtrack now. This is what you wrote: The covenant was then validated by the [blood] of bulls and goats. Why blood? Leviticus 17: 11 God said: �The soul [or, life] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: �No soul of you must eat blood.�� You were the one who mentioned the covenant and atonement together,
not me. And I proved that blood was not required at all times.
But you still failed to respond to the fact that even if his "death (blood)" was a sacrifice, it is was still illegitimate since the act of blood atonement could only be done within the Temple grounds. What's worse is that the Romans did not perform crucifixions with Jerusalem itself! You also failed to respond to the fact that the atonement ritual was only required for the Jews. The Bible itself states that non-Jews, such as the people of Jonah (pbuh), were not required to perform the atonement ritual. For them, seeking repentance was enough. Of course, according to Isaiah, repentance was also enough for Jews as well: "7 Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. You also did not respond to the fact that crucifixion could not be an acceptable form of death since it was not through the shedding of blood that the condemned person died, but usually due to asphyxiation. You can ignore these facts, but you will never escape them and you can be assured that I will continue to point them out over and over again.
Oh please. Even your NT states that certain things "the prophets" stated were fulfilled in Jesus: "But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.� Then all the disciples deserted him and fled." (Matthew 26:56) Your backtracking and scriptural deceit will not work with me. Your losing yourself, not me! So I repeat: Never did the prophets teach such concepts as: 1. Original sin 2. Redemption through blood sacrifice 3. Messiah as the son of God, and others�..The OT never teaches these concepts. Why? Even if their job was to "follow", and it was God who did the teaching, the problem still remains. Perhaps we can word the above differently: Never did 1. Original sin 2. Redemption through blood sacrifice 3. Messiah as the son of God, and others�..The OT never teaches these concepts. Why? Is that better? Can you now try to prove me wrong, instead of going off on irrelevant tangents?
Such as? You have yet to present evidence! I am still waiting, dear! This is not a matter of what the Qur'an states because we are talking about the Bible. Your repeated attempts at diverting only shows your lack of answers. Thus I repeat: There is no evidence from the Jewish sources that the Jews were looking
for the Messiah who is the son of God. This was a Christian invention.
And don't go quoting the NT again, because you know that is a circular
argument. This is the evidence we do have: Exhibit A: ""Mashiaḥ" (anointed one of God) in Ps. ii. 2, which was formerly thought to have Messianic reference, is now taken as referring either to a Hasmonean king or to Israel. The latter interpretation is that prevailing in the Midrash (comp. Midr. Rabbah and Tanḥuma, Emor; Yalḳuṭ, Toledot, near end; Midr. Shoḥer Ṭob, ad loc.), though the Messianic interpretation occurs in the eschatological description (Pesiḳ. Zuṭarta, Balaḳ)." (Jewish Encyclopedia, "Messiah") No mention of him being the "son of God". Exhibit B: The criteria for the Messiah are listed throughout the Tanakh and none of them ever mentions that he will be the "son of God". In fact, many of the criteria actually contradict the NT description of Jesus as the Messiah. For example: "He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24) The Torah is the Jewish guide to life, and its commandments are the ones referred to here. Do all Jews observe all the commandments? Christianity, in fact, often discourages observance of the commandments in Torah, in complete opposition to this prophecy." (Jews For Judaism, "Messiah: The Criteria") Again, nothing mentioned even closely resembling the Christian claim that Messiah = "son of God".
Again, a laughable and pathetic attempt to divert from your
failures. As I said before, the Qur'an refers to the true Gospel given
to Jesus, not the false and contradictory writings such as the letter of
Paul or the "Gospel according to so and so". The Qur'an does not
recognize your false so-called "New" Testament. It never refers to the
"Gospels" (plural) but to the "Gospel" (singular) which specifically was
referring to the teachings of Jesus, which may or may not have been
written down in his lifetime. Now, since this matter has been explained
ad nauseum, I ask again for proof that the Jews were looking for the
"Messiah, the son of God". Quoting the NT again will only expose your
desperation and buffoonery.
Are you living in the real world, Kish? When did I say the Jews were
not looking for the Messiah? I said they were not looking for the
Messiah who is the "son of God"! I asked you to prove me
wrong using Jewish sources, but instead, like the simple-minded fool you
are, you resorted to quoting your NT which you are trying to prove is
the truth in the first place! That is called a circular argument,
child! Here is the gist in a nutshell: Both Judaism and Islam state that the Messiah is a human king, a
servant of God. Christianity, on the other hand, states that the
Messiah is more than that. Depending on the sect, the Messiah is either
God Himself in human form (mainstream Christianity) or he is the "son
of God". Obviously, Christianity is mistaken.
So what? To you simple-minded Christians, that may be significant, but
to the rest of us, who are not blinded by childish logic, it simply
means that the Qur'an was setting the record straight. It was not
concerned with the Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) life, since he was the one
delivering it to the Muslims. It was concerned with refuting the lies
of the past, lies attributed to the prophets like Jesus and David. Here
are some interesting facts:1. Moses is mentioned by name more than 200 times in the Qur'an. 2. David is mentioned by name 20 times. 3. Noah in mentioned 60 times. 4. Salih (an Arab prophet) is mentioned 17 times. 5. Adam is mentioned around 50 times. 6. Ibrahim (Abraham) is mentioned around 90 times. 7. Isaac is mentioned around 15 times. 8. Ishmael is mentioned around 10 times. 9. Mary is mentioned some 40 times. Given these facts, it is not surprising at all that Jesus (pbuh) is mentioned many times in the Qur'an. To the people who use their brains and reason, this does not imply that Jesus is more important or less important than the other prophets, including Muhammad (pbuh). However, to the simple-minded Christians such as Kish, it implies something else entirely. Oh well, what can we say except "poor deluded Christians"? And to put the nail in the coffin of these simpletons, let's see what the Qur'an actually states: "Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)."" (3:84) Let the truth be told! Edited by islamispeace - 16 October 2011 at 2:39pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jack Catholic
Senior Member 
Male Joined: 24 March 2010 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 369 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 October 2011 at 11:45am |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dear Kish, Hasan, and IslamisPeace,
IslamisPeace posted this, "The answer is that the Gospel was sent to confirm the truth and to eliminate the falsehood (of the Torah)."
This may have been what the Qur'an says is the purpose of the Qur'an. But the Holy Bible does not make this claim about itself. Rather, the Holy Bible is simply an account of the life of Jesus who was sent to complete the Law and the Prophets. The letters of the New Testament were sent to give guidance and direction to those who came to faith in Allah through Jesus and his ministry. There was no contradiction by the NT with the OT because nothing in the OT was found to be "false" by Jesus or the Apostles. This very fact is why the Holy Bible is soooo much more believable than the Holy Qur'an when it comes to legitimacy as the word of Allah. The Holy New Testament and the Tanach fit together like a solid block of revelation, whereas the Holy Qur'an is so different in so many ways, and affects culture and society in such different ways that it is not surprising that i have heard many people say that the Holy Qur'an is distorted revelation and they don't believe that it is truly from Allah. What can I say?...
Allah bless you all,
Jack Catholic Edited by Jack Catholic - 17 October 2011 at 11:47am |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kish
Guest Group
Joined: 07 July 2011 Status: Offline Points: 237 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 October 2011 at 7:24pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I figured, these are only assumptions and accusations
Telling to you maybe, Ignatius however, wove in quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, showing his acquaintance with such canonical writings, this in itself is proof!
Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in reference to the death of Jesus: �That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.�14 In addition, according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned Jesus� miracles, regarding which he says: �That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.�15 True, these �Acts,� or official records, no longer exist. But they evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth of what he said. You are confirming and agreeing with what I'm saying regarding the Gospel, even showing proof. Thanks!
Wrong thread, inany event by the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed, and we find such ones as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures, you yourself have shown that to be the case. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul�s letters. Do you also accept this? Second Peter is also quoted by Irenaeus as bearing the same evidence of canonicity as the rest of the Greek Scriptures. The same is true of Second John. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 551, 557, 341, 443, �Irenaeus Against Heresies�) Revelation, also rejected by some, was attested to by many early commentators, including Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenaeus.
You�re beating a dead horse; your so-called references (Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) only confirmed that they accepted the Gospel canon. So, Muhammad was not the only who quoted from the Gospel but at least they accepted Jesus death and resurrection. As you and I have shown the Gospel was accepted way before and after Muhammad authentic.
You are referring to �Celsus of the [2nd century C.E.]? the first writer against Christianity, he makes it a matter of mockery, that labourers, shoemakers, farmers, etc� should be zealous preachers of the Gospel.� Get it? He said the Gospel! Yes, it was accepted by that time hands down regardles wheather one disagreed with its teachings.
Here is what I said my dear friend�
Debated, not questioned islam, people back then even questioned the existence of God, doesn�t mean it was debated, just to many facts to prove otherwise. Is that all the proof you have, to show that the Gospel was indeed accepted as the way of life?
Special pleading will get you know where. But you really believe that a small group of Christians were able to do all that, you must be kidding. In any event 'the council of Nicea' started in 325 A.D. many, many years later. But, what is sad is that in the same breath islamispeace refers to the writings of the Tanakh to disprove the Gospel, make up your mind, which is it? But with all that being said why didn�t Jesus say the Tanakh was corrupted? I would hate to think that Muhammad is going against what Jesus said or maybe it is just Islam�s members who are unaware. In any event your so-called historical references NOT debates were all shut down. Next time I'll be looking for the Gospel being seriously debated from the 1st - 4th century, which you failed to do as always, especially with "the Council of Nicea". Every single reference you quoted spoke in favor of the Gospel being part of the Bible canon, that is way before Muhammad.Thanks islamispeace,
Kish Edited by Kish - 21 October 2011 at 9:05am |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 October 2011 at 11:03am |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jack continues to try to convince himself and like-minded Christians with yet another rant filled with unproven assertions. What can I say?...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 34567 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
Kish wrote:
