God�s written instructions for life.

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   So now Kish is so desperate that he is pulling stuff from posts I made weeks and months ago and responding to them now, instead of responding to the issues were are currently discussing!  How sad and pathetic!  If this the best Christianity has in terms of intellectuals, then the battle for souls is already half won, inshaAllah!  

So Kish, I will only respond to the issues dealt with in my last post to which you responded.  The rest of your response will go in the garbage dump (metaphorically that is).

 Kish wrote:

Matt.
26:63, 64 ⁶³ But Jesus
kept silent. So the high priest said to him: �By the living God I put you under
oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!� ⁶⁴ Jesus
said to him: �You yourself said [it]. Yet I say to YOU men, From
henceforth YOU will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and
coming on the clouds of heaven.�

No
rejection here, �you yourself said it� was a common Jewish idiom affirming that
a statement was true, do your studies, that was 1 century vernacular. Jesus
himself said he was the �son of God� as well as his father saying Jesus was his
son in front of eyewitnesses on many occasions. But Islam is telling us to reject
it because Jesus did not answer in this one instance, during a MOCK trial!
Islam why didn�t Jesus himself tell us to reject himself being called the �son
of God�? Why do you rather take the opposing side? Why are you taken it upon
yourself to believe this portion but to ignore all the other references he and
his father made to Jesus being the �son of God� what is your real motive?

Kish thinks he is pretty slick using a particular English translation to "prove "his point.  Actually Kish, by using this translation, you have proven that you are a Jehovah's Witness!  You have trying to hide it, but now it is clear!  You took this translation directly from a Jehovah's Witness website.  Here is the link:

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm

Now, is this translation accurate?  Let us see other translations:

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.� (NIV)

"⁶⁴Jesus saith unto him, 
Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the 
Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds 
of heaven." (KJV)

"⁶⁴ Jesus said unto him, 
Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the
 Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds
 of heaven." (ASV)

"⁶⁴Jesus said to him,  "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."" (ESV)

"⁶⁴ Jesus said to him, Thou
 hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see man's Son 
sitting at the right half of the virtue of God [nevertheless, I say to 
you, from henceforth, ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half 
of God's virtue], and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Wycliffe Bible)

"⁶⁴Jesus saith to him, 
`Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to  you, hereafter ye shall see the 
Son of Man sitting on the right  hand of the power, and coming upon the 
clouds, of the heaven.'" (Young's Literal Translation)

We see a pattern here.  Most English translations say 'Thou hast said" or "You have said so" which implies that Jesus is denying the title of "son of God".  But what is even more amazing is that mistranslations like the WatchTower Bible retain the "son of Man" phrase which makes the translation utterly absurd.  Why would Jesus say he is the son of God and then say "I tell you that you will see the son of Man..."  Wouldn't it have made more sense to say "I tell you that will see the son of God..."?  

But there is more to consider.  According to Strong's Concordance Dictionary, the Greek word used after the phrase "Thou hast said" is "πλὴν" (plēn) which means "however, nevertheless, but, except that, yet." [1].  Obviously, if Jesus was saying "Thou hast said.  Nevertheless..." or "Thou hast said.  However..." it would imply that he is denying the title.  To give more support to this fact, let us see what Biblical scholar Geza Vermes states:

"The phrase implies a negative answer according to rabbinic literature (see The Changing Faces of Jesus, 181-3).  It should be observed that in conformity with mainstream tradition some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel read 'You say that I am'" (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. 26). 

The reference to Mark's Gospel is due to the fact that it states that Jesus replied in the affirmative while both Matthew and Luke state that Jesus replied in the negative.  Yet Vermes states that some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel have been changed to conform to Matthew and Luke.  

In light of these facts, it is obvious Kish that you are grasping at straws.  Of course, I don't expect you to admit your error.  You will invariably respond to the evidence I have presented in the way typical of many blind Christians, which is to close your eyes and cover your ears and yell "la la la la la la..." 

 Kish wrote:

Here
are islamispeace references in this post to prove the authenticity of the Gospel.
Let us deal we facts not personal belief 

I agree but unfortunately, all you have been doing is expressing your personal opinions/beliefs with no supporting evidence.  

 Kish wrote:

That you are aware of, but even giving you the benefit of doubt which
I don�t mind, you still cannot discredit the Gospel that he does make mention
of along with the other writings in the NT, but we are talking about the
canonicity of the Gospel as God�s written word for life, not it evolving, that�s
neither here or there.

"Canonicity"?  Is that a word?  Anyway, the point is that the authority of all four Gospels was obviously not set in stone even in the early 2nd century.  Mark's Gospel was supposedly the first one written, yet Ignatius never even refers to it once!  And guess what?  Mark's Gospel is believed by scholars to be the template for which Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels!  So if Ignatius did not refer to Mark, his references to Matthew and Luke would also be called into question since they were based on Mark!    Also, his failure to refer to John's Gospel is significant because it was supposedly written near the end of the 1st century.  It would have been circulated by the early 2nd century so there is no reason why Ignatius would not have referred to it.  And of course, the earliest definitive references to John comes much later in the late 2nd century or mid-2nd century (if we assume Justin Martyr did refer to it).  

 Kish wrote:

Like it or not, Ignatius who is only one person uses quotations
and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Gospel
included as you just attested to) showing his acquaintance with such canonical
writings who also believed that Jesus was God son.

Yet he did not use all of the canonical books, including two Gospels.  That represents a problem with the authority of all four Gospels.  

 Kish wrote:

Are you again accepting some
of his writings that disagree with Islam�s beliefs that Jesus is not God son?

 Not at all!  That is the not the point.  The point is to refute your claim that the Gospels were all accepted without question from the very start.  This claim is indubitably false.  The fact that there was an evolution of the Christian canon shows that Christians were not sure which books to believe and which to reject.  That in itself calls all of the standard Church tradition regarding Jesus into question.  

 Ignatius believed Jesus to be God�s
son and that he was tortured on a stake a teaching of Christ himself, now what?
Where do you go from here?

Ignatius also believed in a primitive form of the trinity.  I have already proven this.  Where was he getting this belief from if not from the books he was aware of?  How does that prove the authority of those books as authentic sources on the life of Jesus?  The answer is it does not prove anything.

 Kish wrote:

But,
yet you used these philosophers as a point of reference to disprove Jesus�
death on a torture stake. As everyone can see, Justin Martyr wrote in reference
to Jesus death AND resurrection, he believed it, unlike Islam today! �That
these things did happen. But, yet Islam stubbornly disagrees with these early historians
and hard proof of evidence.

As usual, you have completely missed the point.  When I referred to these people, it was to prove that the Gospels were not accepted by everyone, as you claimed.  I was not even referring to the beliefs espoused in those documents.  However, the fact that the Gospels were not as authoritative  as you suggest shows that the stories regarding Jesus (which include his alleged crucifixion and resurrection) were also not as authoritative.  They actually contradict some other early sources such as the Didache which never mentions Jesus' death and crucifixion.  

 Kish wrote:

So
far we have Ignatius lending support and Justin Martyr lending support to the
Gospel of Jesus. Remember Gospel mean �Good News� Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
all preached and teached the SAME one Gospel or Good News of Jesus.

Clearly false as there are numerous differences between each of the four Gospels.  I gave one example above regarding Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin and his reply to the High Priest.  What you also fail to realize is that Ignatius and Justin Martyr were both writing in the 2nd century, so their historical reliability is in question since they were separated from Jesus by ~80 years and ~120 years, respectively.  

 Kish wrote:

Also, The extent of prejudice against professed
Christians at that time is indicated by Justin�s statement: �I too, therefore,
expect to be plotted against and fixed to the stake, by some of those I have
named, or perhaps by Crescens, that lover of bravado and boasting; for the man
is not worthy of the name of philosopher who publicly bears witness against us
in matters which he does not understand, saying that the Christians are
atheists and impious, and doing so to win favour with the deluded mob, and to
please them. For if he assails us without having read the teachings of Christ,
he is thoroughly depraved, and far worse than the illiterate, who often refrain
from discussing or bearing false witness about matters they do not understand.�

In about 165 C.E., he was beheaded in Rome and
became a �martyr� (meaning �witness�). Hence, he is called Justin Martyr.

Your point being?  This is all irrelevant.  Just because people are willing to die for their beliefs does not mean their beliefs must be correct.  People of all religions are willing to die for their beliefs.  

 Kish wrote:

Irenaeus (c. 130-200 C.E.): �We may learn
through Him [Christ] that the Father is above all things. For �the Father,�
says He, �is greater than I.� The Father, therefore, has been declared by our
Lord to excel with respect to knowledge.��Against Heresies, Book II,
chapter 28.8.

Again, you missed the point!  Irenaeus was the absolute first Church father to claim that there are 4 canonical Gospels.  His reasoning was also childish at best.  Here is why he believed there were "four" Gospels:

"But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in 
number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in 
which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been 
scattered throughout the world, and since the 'pillar and ground' of the
 Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she 
should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and 
vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, 
the fashioner demiourgos
 of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, 
when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms 
but bound together by one spirit" (Against Heresies 3.11.8).

How childish!  Irenaeus did not consider the historical evidence or whether these "four Gospels" were even reliable witnesses.  Rather, he based his faith in these Gospels on the completely unrelated fact that there are "four zones in the world"!  WOW!  

Also, Irenaeus clearly believed that Jesus was God.  That wouldn't sit well with you now would it?  Here is what he wrote:

"For this reason [it is ,said], "Who shall declare His
generation?"(1) since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him?"(2)
But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him,(3)
knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by
the will of the flesh, or by the will of man,"(4) is the Son of man,
this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the
Scriptures,(5) that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything,
and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in
His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King
Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the
apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have
attained to even a small portion of the truth" (Against Heresies, 3:19:2).

These people were blasphemers and not historically reliable.  

 Kish wrote:

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 C.E.): �To
know the eternal God, the giver of what is eternal, and by knowledge and
comprehension to possess God, who is first, and highest, and one, and good. . . .
He then who would live the true life is enjoined first to know Him �whom no one
knows, except the Son reveal (Him).� (Matt. 11:27) Next is to be learned the
greatness of the Saviour after Him.��Who Is the Rich
Man That Shall Be Saved? VII,
VIII. 

MUST I CONTINUE TO BLOW YOUR REFERENCES AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of the people you have referred to believed, in some form, that Jesus was God!  Your "REFERENCES" shoot you in the foot.  

 Kish wrote:

In this connection it may be observed that Second
Peter is 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.

I guess you wished you have never brought these
individuals up!

 You are so hilarious!  Do you forget that I mentioned before that Irenaeus also accepted the authority of the "Shepherd of Hermas", which was rejected by the Church?  Also, you admitted that the Book of Revelation was "rejected by some"!  Therefore, the Christians could not agree on what books to accept.  That is what I have been saying all this time, dude!  Thank you for proving it with your own words! 

 Kish wrote:

From here we see that the GOSPEL WAS INDEED ACCEPETED as
per islamispeace, finally you admit it.
1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^thregardless
they were accepted way before a Muhammad AS PART OF THE BIBLE�S CANON, inspired.

 Yeah, I have been saying that the Gospels were not accepted until the LATE 2ND CENTURY all this time!  Are you paying attention Kish?  Do you know what this means?  It means that the by the time the Gospels were accepted, it had already been more than 150 years since the time of Jesus (pbuh).  Not exactly historically viable!   As such, your fallacious argument that since the Gospels were accepted before Muhammad (pbuh) was born is indicative of your childish logic since it still does not prove that they were historically reliable accounts of Jesus' life.  

 Kish wrote:

Discovery of the Diatessaron and commentaries on it in
Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Latin led Bible scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon to
write: �These discoveries finally disposed of any doubt as to what the Diatessaron
was, and proved that by about A.D. 170 the four canonical Gospels held an
undisputed pre-eminence over all other narratives of our Saviour�s life.�

Yes AD 170, which would be roughly 140 years AFTER Jesus!  How does this prove their historical reliability?  Why did it take so long for them to be accepted and canonized?  You delirious Christians have no answers, only assumptions based on leaps of faith.  Referring to the Diatessaron, James Still writes:

"...Tatian will later create the Diatessaron, a harmony that omitted 
and redacted material from the four gospels and which was very popular, 
circulating widely in the West as well as in Syria. This demonstrates 
that even at this late date the gospels were still not afforded the same
 inerrant status as the Hebrew scriptures. The fact is the various 
communities were free to develop the material about Jesus depending upon
 their needs. The Gospel of John, for instance, thrived in Alexandria 
among the Mandaean Gnostics for many decades before it came to be 
circulated outside of that city and eventually canonized. The fact that 
we have many different extant gospels, both canonical and noncanonical, 
emphasizing different aspects of Jesus' teaching, demonstrates that no 
clear ideology had yet emerged from the various primitive communities. 
To suggest that one gospel is more authoritative than another, simply 
because it represents the teachings of the church today, is nothing more
 than an arbitrary decision based on a normative prejudice. The external
 evidence is very clear: the written gospels were profitable for 
teaching but not considered more authoritative than the thriving oral 
tradition circulating among the ancient communities during the first two
 hundred years" (The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller).  

 Kish wrote:

Wow,
questioning and debating is the same thing. Then is shouldn�t be hard for you
to present the debates, right! Still waiting������������������.. 

Well, if you close your eyes and ears, refusing to look at the evidence already presented, then I am afraid you will keep waiting.................................and waiting..........................................and waiting.................................until it's too late to realize that you are in denial!  

 Kish wrote:

Not only were the �Gospel� and the �Apostle� placed
on the same footing as collected Scripture by Clement of Alexandria, but they
were equated with the Hebrew Scriptures. (Miscellanies, Book 4) Justin tells us
that at the meetings of the early Christians �the memoirs of the apostles or the
writing of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.� (1 Apology 67)
Ignatius, Theophilus and Tertullian also spoke of the Prophets, the Law and the
Gospel as equally authoritative.�Ignatius� Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 5.1;
Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 3, chap. 12; On Prescriptions Against Heretics,
chap. 36.

As mentioned already, all or most of these people also believed that Jesus was God.  Also, none of them were in full agreement as to the correct canon of the Bible.  Who are you trying to convince?  Me or yourself?  Snap out of it, Kish.  Come back Earth!  

 Kish wrote:

Stick a fork in it, you are done!

 If you say so.  I say let the evidence do the talking.  

 Kish wrote:

All
praise to Jehovah God, the Creator of this incomparable Book the Holy
Scriptures! It can equip us completely and put us on the way to life.

What passion!  Unfortunately, your prayer is misplaced as has been shown.  Your passionate failure can be represented by the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5atPYaxX0lM&feature=related

And once again, before I close, here are the parts about Jesus' crucifixion you failed to respond to:

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. 

You can't run.  Until you respond, I will keep pushing these points in your face.  The longer you avoid these points, the more you damage your own position.  