Prove that Paul or Muhammad had a Revelation.

kish wrote: Muhammad and others comes along decades later and wants to change the whole dynamics of things, not hardly. Even Moses and Jesus testimonies required two or more witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) to establish a matter as being true.

islamispeace wrote: So far, you have failed to prove any of this.  It is just your own opinion, which unfortunately for you, is not supported by your "Holy Scriptures"!

Talking to the Jews Jesus said . .

Kish wrote: John 8:17, 18 �In your own Law it is written, �The witness of two men is TRUE.� I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.�

You really need to meditate more on your reading because all of this is FACT!

EVERYTHING that I�ve said is solidly backed up and supported!

You also said and I quote "Christians have used the word Allah from pre-Islamic times."

Okay, but that is why the word Allah in English only means "the god," that is not a name, certainly not the name of the God of Israel.          

islamispeace wrote: It was to destroy idolatry and bring the Arabs back to the worship of the One God.

By using one of the pagan gods of the Kaba, ok.

islamispeace wrote: "Call Him God; call Him Allah or Call Him Rahman or Call Him by any other name because He is One (Al-Wahid) and there is no other (Al-Ahad)."

Muhammad would change the words of the Prophet Moses and Christ the Messiah.

(Exodus 6:3) . . .  as respects my name Jehovah  . . . 

(Psalms 113:2, 3) . . .  Jehovah�s name become blessed From now on and to time indefinite. ³ From the rising of the sun until it setting Jehovah�s name is to be praised.

(Psalm 83:18) That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

(Matthew 4:10) Then Jesus said to him: �Go away, Satan! For it is written, �It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.

Jesus and his followers used the name Jehovah, he said it in the Hebrew form not Arabic although he could speak Arabic and many other languages.

Kish wrote: No one, I mean no one: A.    In the Quran confirmed Muhammad�s revelation B.    Eye-witnessed Muhammad�s revelation The Scriptural Law in the OT and NT was and still is . . .

What difference does it make that no one "in the Quran confirmed Muhammad's revelation"?  Even if it did, would you believe it?  So, what's your point?  The Quran is not like the Bible.  It is not a narrative of Muhammad's life and experiences.  The Quran is a guide for believers to live their lives according to God's Laws. 

There were no witnesses to the initial revelation that Muhammad (pbuh) received in the Cave of Hira, just as there were no witnesses to the initial revelation received by Jeremiah or any of the other prophets mentioned in the Tanakh.  Either this is a contradiction of Deuteronomy 19 (which you claim requires witnesses for a prophet's claims) or Deuteronomy 19 has nothing to do with prophets, as I claimed.

Kish wrote: I also present the words of Jesus himself in the �Two or more Witness� principle John 8:17, 18 Jesus said: �In your own Law it is written, �The witness of two men is TRUE.� I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.� Are you saying that the Prophet Jesus was guilty of a criminal offense, of course not but was establishing his sayings and teachings as TRUE

First of all, Deuteronomy 19:15 required two human witnesses, and the one accused could not be one of the witnesses!  Read the verse again:

"One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

Where does it say that God could be one of the witnesses?  Where does it say that the accused could be the other?  Obviously, the person who wrote the Gospel of John misquoted Deuteronomy 19:15. 

Second, I have already proven that Deuteronomy 19:15 was concerned only with criminal and financial cases, because it says that clearly.  Nothing is mentioned about prophets. 

Third, if the rule Deuteronomy 19:15 also included prophets, then you cannot confirm that any of the Hebrew prophets has actually received a revelation from God.

Kish wrote: Again, if this just was applied to human matters and it�s not but if it was how much more so when concerning to spiritual matters.

You have no proof for this from the Tanakh itself.  Quoting ad nauseum from the New Testament is a circular argument.  We know for a fact that the authors of the New Testament books often selectively quoted from the Tanakh when it suited their purpose.

Kish wrote: The topic here is �Prove that Paul or Muhammad had a Revelation� not Jeremiah, so for the forums benefit I�ll get straight to the point on this one.

The topic applies just as much to Jeremiah (pbuh) and all the other prophets as it does to Paul or Muhammad (pbuh).  The reason I mentioned Jeremiah (pbuh) was to show how the Tanakh contradicts your claims about Deuteronomy 19:15.  If two witnesses were needed to confirm that a prophet had actually received God's revelation, then Jeremiah (obuh) and all the other Hebrew prophets failed the test. 

Kish wrote: By your own admission you quoted . . . Originally posted by Islamispeace "The word of the Lord came to me,   What better witness then the Lord as Jesus himself mentions in John 8:11 above? Unlike Muhammad, there was no confusion as to who spoke to Paul and or Jeremiah whatsoever, they knew who it was. In fact it came from the Lord personally, how do we know?

Kish wrote: Because Gabriel does not appoint prophets, he never did, he is a messenger of God. That is why you have never seen him in the roll of appointing or anointing prophets of God, AT ALL!

Kish wrote: On the other-hand, Muhammad has Gabriel portrayed in the Quran as one who appoints and anoints although much, much, much later he said that it was believed to be Gabriel that spoke to him, but he really was freighted and unsure because this so called �angel� violently chocked him, unlike any of God�s angels in any roll.

Kish wrote: Now; who besides �the Lord� confirmed Jeremiah�s Prophet Hood to make it authentic and to follow the �Two or More� principle of the Law? I�ll be brief . . .     Daniel 9:2 . . . Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years . . . Ezra 1:1 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah�s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm, and also in writing, saying Matthew 2:17 Then that was fulfilled which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying:   Matthew 16:14 They said: �Some say John the Baptist, others E�li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.   As you can see, there was no question that Jeremiah was a true prophet of God and Paul was an Apostle to the Nations as confirmed by the prophets and the Apostles of Jesus; again only Islam disagrees, but we know why.

Wow!  More special pleading!  So, the so-called "eye-witnesses" to Jeremiah's "prophethood" were people who lived after him?!  How convenient! 

In that case, Muhammad (pbuh) also is a prophet because billions of people today believe he was a prophet!  But, of course, you don't accept that argument but apparently Jeremiah was a true prophet because people living hundreds of years after him believed he was. 

You also forgot about poor Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Haggai and all the other Hebrew prophets.  Who were their witnesses?

I think it has become clear that you do not know if there were any witnesses to the claims of any of the Hebrew prophets.  Yet, instead of admitting the truth, you persist in your folly by using circular arguments and special pleading. 

Kish wrote: So, we have more than enough information to address this issue whether, you agree with it or not, the Scriptures show you over and over again so you cannot change the law.

What are you smoking?  The "information" you showed above actually shows that the law was being changed all the time!  You appealed to John 8:17 to show that Jesus had two witnesses to his claim that he received God's revelation (himself and God), yet Deuteronomy 19:15 stated that there had to be two human witnesses, and God was not one of them.  Therefore, the "Jesus" of John 8 changed the law when it suited his purpose!

Kish wrote: Furthermore you don't even believe in 100% of the Bible. The only parts in the Bible that you do believe in are the ones that you assume supports Mohammed and his belief so what is that, maybe 5% of the Bible? Also, you cannot believe in the Old Testament and not believe in the New Testament and vice versa.  In fact more than 90% of the earth's population owns a Bible in their own language; you can't say that for the Quran.  So whether you agree with the two or more witness principle that is stated in the Bible it is neither here or there it is very well-documented as I�ve just shown. So you can keep dancing around this �Two or more Witness� principle all you want you have nothing to support or confirm Muhammad�s revelation.

I never said I did believe in the whole Bible.  The point was to show that your asinine claims are contradicted by the very books you claim to uphold.  So far, you have failed to prove that Jeremiah or any of the Hebrew prophets had two witnesses, as you have been hypocritically demanding from Muhammad (pbuh).  You can dance around that all you want, but you will only tire yourself out! 

Kish wrote: And as shown, plenty of the prophets confirmed as true the prophethood of Jeremiah by using the �Two or more Witness� principle. I�ll repeat what I said  . .

Right...people living hundreds of years after Jeremiah were his "witnesses".  But none when he was actually alive.  So tell me.  When poor Jeremiah was alive and he had no witnesses, what was the judgment regarding his claim to prophethood?  Was it "pending further evidence"? 

Kish wrote: No one, I mean no one: A.    In the Quran confirmed Muhammad�s revelation or B.    Eye-witnessed Muhammad�s revelation Long story short, Jeremiah, Paul and even Jesus himself had both A and B according to the principle of the LAW. Muhammad, had neither A and or B.

According to your weak evidence above, Jeremiah, Paul and Jesus all failed to bring any witnesses in their lifetimes, except themselves, God and people who lived hundreds of years after the fact.  So actually, neither had A or B.

Also, as I have stated and shown, many people confirmed Muhammad's prophecies after he had died.  The prophecies he had made had come true. 

Kish wrote: Of course he glosses over it, nothing to show who contested Paul�s miracles and encounter with Jesus, not even the Jews, Romans and Greeks who were the persecutors and enemies of Christianity. Only modern day maybe 19th Century Jonny come lately scholars who say otherwise base on pure assumptions at best.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Paul really did receive God's revelation.  Asking for evidence that non-Christians questioned Paul's credentials is a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that he truly believed that the end would come in his lifetime. 

Moreover, the fact of the matter is that Paul was not a famous person in Rome.  He was known perhaps only to the Christian congregations, but not to Rome itself.  The Romans regarded Christianity with indifference.  In other words, they did not care about this small group of what they saw as religious fanatics.  The funny thing is that Christians after Paul were apparently embarrassed that Paul was not as well-known as they believed he should have been.  So what did they do?  They forged letters between Paul and the Roman philosopher Seneca!  As Bart Ehrman notes:

"But over the years Christians wondered why, if Paul was such a brilliant and astute thinker, none of the other great thinkers of his day mentions him.  Why does he appear to have been a great unknown in the Roman Empire, outside of the Christian church itself?

Sometime in the fourth century an unknown author sought to address the issue and did so by forging a series of fourteen letters between Paul and the Roman philosopher Seneca.  [...]

They are meant to show that Paul was well placed and well respected by intellectuals of his time." ("Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are", p. 91) 

You see, Kish, Paul was an unknown in his time.  No one in Rome paid much attention to him. 

But this is all irrelevant to our discussion.  The fact is that Paul believed that Jesus (pbuh) would return in his lifetime.  He said so many times throughout his surviving letters.  For the purposes of this topic, we can say with full confidence that he was not the recipient of God's revelation.

It is very obvious then that Muhammad did not follow the Law of Moses pertaining to the �Two or more witness� rule, although the other entire bible Prophets did, ending with Jesus. If it was good enough for all the prophets from Moses to Jesus, what makes Muhammad so special unless he�s suspect?  

Islamispeace has also admitted that HE feels it only pertains to criminal cases, missing the main point which is whether or not the testimony of two or more is true.

Islamispeace just focuses on the nature of the incident being criminal AND not the testimony of the incident being true or false by the �two or more witness� rule. Most of you would agree that your main concern would be whether the accusation is true or not.

Islamispeace I�m glad you�re not the Judge, Jury and or Executioner. 

You have totally misconstrued the Law in Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 19:15 . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the MATTER should stand good

Matthew 18:16 . . .  in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses EVERY MATTER may be established.

2 Corithians 13:1 . . .This is the third time I am coming to YOU. �At the mouth of two witnesses or of three EVERY MATTER must be established.

Here is my favorite . . .

Originally posted by Kish

John 8:17, 18 �In your own Law it is written, �The witness of two men is TRUE.� I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.�

And here you missed the point again . . .

islamispeace wrote: First of all, Deuteronomy 19:15 required two human witnesses, and the one accused could not be one of the witnesses!  Read the verse again:  Where does it say that God could be one of the witnesses?  Where does it say that the accused could be the other?  Obviously, the person who wrote the Gospel of John misquoted Deuteronomy 19:15.

Keeping it simple, the �two or more witness� rule was being applied even in the case of Jesus teachings, How? As I have said Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. agreed with his (Birth, death and resurrection) and followed his teachings and preached that the Kingdom of God is near.

It is out of ONLY Muhammad�s mouth who teaches something entirely different from the Old and New Testament and not out of anyone else�s mouth in the Quran to establish Muhammad�s statement or matter as truth!  

Not only did the New Testament keep the rule �Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses� the MATTER should stand good which in this case is Matthew and Paul but all the writers  in the New Testament themselves followed it.   

It was a real law to prove or disprove eternal truths and even the Lord Jesus supported it like I�ve shown previously. People are concerned about TRUTHS!

How did the �two or more witness� rule apply to Jeremiah? As I�ve have shown . . .

kish wrote: Daniel 9:2 . . . Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years . . . Ezra 1:1 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah�s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm, and also in writing, saying Matthew 2:17 Then that was fulfilled which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying:   Matthew 16:14 They said: �Some say John the Baptist, others E�li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

islamispeace wrote: What difference does it make that no one "in the Quran confirmed Muhammad's revelation"?

A.    He failed to follow the Principle Law of Moses

B.    His revelation was not from the God of Israel

C.    His revelation was never confirmed by anyone other than himself

D.    The account cannot be confirmed in the Quran by �two or more witnesses� as TRUTH!

islamispeace wrote: ]Even if it did, would you believe it?

For anyone to truly follow God he FIRST have to SUBMIT to God and that just the beginning, let alone have the blessings of a true messenger.

islamispeace wrote: ]What His "name" is in Hebrew is irrelevant when a prophet is sent to non-Hebrew speaking people.

Again, not according to the LAW of the Holy Scriptures, his name is everlasting; you really have been misinformed and even misguided.

Isaiah 42:8 I am Jehovah. That is my name;+ and to no one else shall I give my own glory,+ neither my praise+ to graven images.+

Isaiah 64:6 �For your Grand Maker*+ is your husbandly owner,*+ Jehovah of armies being his name;+ and the Holy One of Israel is your Repurchaser.+ The God of the whole earth* he will be called.

Romans 10:13 ¹³ For �everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah* will be saved.�+

You can keep calling him something other than by his name all you want but don�t say I didn�t tell you.

Kish wrote: It is very obvious then that Muhammad did not follow the Law of Moses pertaining to the �Two or more witness� rule, although the other entire bible Prophets did, ending with Jesus. If it was good enough for all the prophets from Moses to Jesus, what makes Muhammad so special unless he�s suspect?

¹¹ Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense." (Luke 1:8-11)

In the sixth month of Elizabeth�s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, ²⁷ to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin�s name was Mary. ²⁸ The angel went to her and said, �Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.�" (Luke 1:26-28)

Whoo!  Let's stop there.  We can keep going with the other prophets such as Obadiah, Jonah etc.  The main point to take away from all this is that all of these prophets were alone when God's word came to them.  I challenge you, Kish, to prove otherwise.   

Kish wrote: Islamispeace has also admitted that HE feels it only pertains to criminal cases, missing the main point which is whether or not the testimony of two or more is true.   Islamispeace just focuses on the nature of the incident being criminal AND not the testimony of the incident being true or false by the �two or more witness� rule. Most of you would agree that your main concern would be whether the accusation is true or not.

Me thinks that Kish doth protest too much!  Kish, surely you remember that I backed up my claims about Deut. 19 by quoting the commentary of the Jewish scholar Rashi. 

Kish wrote: You have totally misconstrued the Law in Deuteronomy.   Deuteronomy 19:15 . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the MATTER should stand good   Matthew 18:16 . . .  in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses EVERY MATTER may be established. 2 Corithians 13:1 . . .This is the third time I am coming to YOU. �At the mouth of two witnesses or of three EVERY MATTER must be established.   Here is my favorite . . .   Originally posted by Kish John 8:17, 18 �In your own Law it is written, �The witness of two men is TRUE.� I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.� And here you missed the point again . . .

How conveniently you ignore my comments on these verses.  All of these were dealt with in my previous response.  Kish really thinks that mindless repetition will drive his point home!  I would keep an eye on the third base coach, Kish, because I don't think he is waiving you home! 

Kish wrote: Keeping it simple, the �two or more witness� rule was being applied even in the case of Jesus teachings, How? As I have said Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. agreed with his (Birth, death and resurrection) and followed his teachings and preached that the Kingdom of God is near.

Oh, so Kish wants to "keep it simple".  That is Christian code for "special pleading".  Kish realizes he is trapped, so he resorts to special pleading to make Deut. 19 appear to be in agreement with Jesus' claims of witnesses. 

To repeat, Deut. 19 requires two HUMAN witnesses.  When Jesus (pbuh) was questioned by the Pharisees, he stated that his "witnesses" were himself and God, a clear violation of Deut. 19.

Kish wrote: It is out of ONLY Muhammad�s mouth who teaches something entirely different from the Old and New Testament and not out of anyone else�s mouth in the Quran to establish Muhammad�s statement or matter as truth!     Not only did the New Testament keep the rule �Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses� the MATTER should stand good which in this case is Matthew and Paul but all the writers  in the New Testament themselves followed it.      It was a real law to prove or disprove eternal truths and even the Lord Jesus supported it like I�ve shown previously. People are concerned about TRUTHS! How did the �two or more witness� rule apply to Jeremiah? As I�ve have shown . . .

Sure, sure.  I know it hurts Kish.  Childish repetition is the last resort of an biased Christian apologist with no way out of an intellectual dilemma. 

Kish wrote: It�s well documented in the inspired Holy Scriptures that Jeremiah was indeed a prophet and that what he said was an established fact by the �two or more witness� rule, that�s how and that is why it�s part of the Bible canon of Muhammad�s day and the same bible canon today.

Who were the witnesses in Jeremiah's lifetime?  You have yet to answer this question.  Was Deut. 19 referring to "future witnesses" or was it referring to witnesses in the here and now?  C'mon Kish!  Think hard!

Kish wrote: A.    He failed to follow the Principle Law of Moses B.    His revelation was not from the God of Israel C.    His revelation was never confirmed by anyone other than himself D.    The account cannot be confirmed in the Quran by �two or more witnesses� as TRUTH!

Circular reasoning once again! 

A.  "Prinicipal Law of Moses" - What on earth does that mean?  It is well-known that Paul did not follow the Law of Moses.  Kish, of course, knows this, so he deceptively adds the word "principally" to spare placing Paul in an obvious dilemma.

B.  Revelation was not from the God of Israel - Really?  How so?  This is Kish doing what Kish knows best: making circular arguments. 

C.  Revelation was never confirmed by anyone other than himself - Really?  What about Waraqah and Bahira?  Oh, but I know.  Kish will resort to the argument "well, they don't count". 

D.  Two or more witnesses - Still gnawing away at that bone, even though you have been refuted on this nonsense several times already!  Your silence on the issue of whether any of the Biblical prophets had witnesses in their lifetimes to back up their claims of receiving God's word is delightful! 

Kish wrote: For anyone to truly follow God he FIRST have to SUBMIT to God and that just the beginning, let alone have the blessings of a true messenger.

And Muhammad (pbuh) did that, didn't he?

"

So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted My whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, Thy duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah's sight are (all) His servants. " (3:20)

It just keeps getting worse for you, doesn't it? 

Kish wrote: Again, not according to the LAW of the Holy Scriptures, his name is everlasting; you really have been misinformed and even misguided. Isaiah 42:8 I am Jehovah. That is my name;+ and to no one else shall I give my own glory,+ neither my praise+ to graven images.+ Isaiah 64:6 �For your Grand Maker*+ is your husbandly owner,*+ Jehovah of armies being his name;+ and the Holy One of Israel is your Repurchaser.+ The God of the whole earth* he will be called. Romans 10:13 13 For �everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah* will be saved.�+

According to the "Jewish Encyclopedia":

"Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh (), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility (see Jehovah). This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai ( = "Lord"), which the Masorites have inserted in the text, indicating thereby that Adonai was to be read (as a "ḳeri perpetuum") instead of Yhwh. When the name Adonai itself precedes, to avoid repetition of this name, Yhwh is written by the Masorites with the vowels of Elohim, in which case Elohim is read instead of Yhwh. In consequence of this Masoretic reading the authorized and revised English versions (though not the American edition of the revised version) render Yhwh by the word "Lord" in the great majority of cases." [1]

The same article also points out the usage of variations of different names, such as Elohim and El, in different languages, such as Ethiopic and Hebrew:

"The most common of the originally appellative names of God is Elohim (), plural in form though commonly construed with a singular verb or adjective. [...] In Ethiopic, Amlak ("lords") is the common name for God. The singular, Eloah (), is comparatively rare, occurring only in poetry and late prose (in Job, 41 times). The same divine name is found in Arabic (ilah) and in Aramaic (elah). [...]

The word El () appears in Assyrian (ilu) and Phoenician, as well as in Hebrew, as an ordinary name of God. It is found also in the South-Arabian dialects, and in Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, as also in Hebrew, as an element in proper names. It is used in both the singular and plural, both for other gods and for the God of Israel. [...]

Other titles applied to the God of Israel, but which can scarcely be called names, are the following: Abir ("Strong One" of Jacob or Israel; Gen. xlix. 24; Isa. i. 24; etc.); Ḳedosh Yisrael ("Holy One of Israel"; Isa. i.4, xxxi. 1; etc.); Ẓur ("Rock") and Ẓur Yisrael ("Rock of Israel"; II Sam. xxiii. 3; Isa. xxx. 29; Deut. xxxii. 4, 18, 30); Eben Yisrael ("Stone of Israel";" [Ibid]

Who is really "misinformed" here?  I think it is obvious that you are the one who is misinformed.  Those "Jehovah's Witnesses" sure have got you brainwashed!

Kish wrote: You can keep calling him something other than by his name all you want but don�t say I didn�t tell you.

A fool's warning!  Oooh, I am so scared!