God�s written instructions for life. |
Post Reply | Page <12345 40> |
Author | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kish
Guest Group Joined: 07 July 2011 Status: Offline Points: 237 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Je′sus) [Latin form of the Greek I�e�sous′, which corresponds to the Hebrew Ye�shu′a‛ or Yehoh�shu′a‛ and means �יהוה [Jehovah/YHVH] God Is Salvation�]. Now, that we know Salvation is only tied to Jesus' name, you can continue amusing yourself from your misquoting, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the scriptures that the Quran openly acknowledges and indirectly lends support to. Kish |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
honeto
Senior Member Male Islam Joined: 20 March 2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2487 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exactly Kish,
you are a joke, what you write is a joke.
Just look at how you start, and now how you are talking. Read the following, what you wrote first, you prove it was a joke as well.
You come out in the cover of a sheep, at least that's what it looks like here:
"Where can I find God�s written instructions for life?That is my Question. I read, read and read but I know more is needed to please God fully. To be honest it�s quite wearisome at times reading different sacred books. From what I�ve read God does not speak to us directly as he did in the past so how does he communicate with people today? There are good people in every religion but I�m more of a spiritual person then a religious one. It seems that all the prophets did great things but that�s back then, what about now? I�m trying to find out which of the sacred books can stand the test of time (scrutinize). Can a person judge a religion by its followers, I guess, I really don�t know at this point. What I do know is that God is omnipotent and he offers something better and I can�t convince myself that he left it all up to chance. So, I�m concerned with the hard core facts, what his written word has to say and I guess everything else will work themselves out eventually. Where can I find God�s written instructions for life and please provide me with references (texts) so I can research it and compare one with the other and if I have any questions I�ll present them back here on this forum. Thanks in advance, Kish" It amazing, right and then you make funny statements like "Iesous somehow coreresponds to Hebrew Yeshua" keep making up things Kish and only you and those like you can admire such laughable conclusions. But I hope you seek God's guidance may be He will guide you. And I guess you coming to this website in search of truth will bring you some fruit at the end, hopefully.
Hasan Edited by honeto - 27 July 2011 at 7:57pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I�m sorry, what did I miss and what did I say? I didn�t think talking about God was a joke Hasan.
I didn�t know asking questions and researching answers was a joke. But I guess you�re easily amused, I have no problems with that.
Are you saying that I made this up, because the Septuagint, a Greek Bible has the name reading I�e�sous′ for (Jesus). Also, the Hebrew form of �Jesus� is �Jehoshuah,� which is an abbreviated form of �Jehovah-yeshua,� meaning �Jehovah is salvation. And according to the Aramaic language which Christ and his apostles spoke, his name was pronounced �Yeshu′a� The Greek transliteration Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) *jesu-os → [jeˈsus] can stand for both Classical Biblical Hebrew Yehoshua [jəhoˈʃuaʕ] (top two) and Late Biblical Hebrew Yeshua [jeˈʃuaʕ] (bottom). The English name Jesus derives from the Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates the Koine Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēso�s. Anyway, you made your point and I made mines, but you said nothing on the supposed contradiction of �Jesus and Salvation� which as explained means his very name! Kish Edited by Kish - 28 July 2011 at 3:25pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There are no surviving "original' copies because all we have today are accounts written in Greek, instead of in Aramaic, which is the language Jesus (pbuh) spoke. Heck, we don't even have the original Greek manuscripts! As Bart Ehrman puts it, all we have are "copies of copies". The irony is that even those copies show tell-tale signs of corruption. There are numerous additions, deletions and alterations which prove clearly that the Gospels underwent several evolutions before they reached the "final" form which we have today.
The only thing we can do is to compare the surviving manuscripts to see if they are consistent, which they are not. We can also consider if what Jesus is quoted as saying matches his Jewish background. When we do that, we can dismiss, for example, verses where Jesus claims to be divine or to be the "son of God".
You still cannot understand the absurdity of this question. How do you know Jesus did not say this? In order to prove that he did not say this, you would have to prove that the Gospel accounts are accurate. You have not done that. On the other hand, I have provided evidence that the Gospel accounts are not accurate or historically reliable.
He referred to the previous scriptures to confirm the truth that has survived, such as the truth of the Oneness of God. It was in no way an endorsement of the entire collection of writings, some of which clearly contradict the teaching of authentic monotheism.
They were not corrupted all at once or by one person. They "evolved" over the course of several decades and centuries before a "final" product was accepted. Even the early Church fathers knew of this evolution. For example, Origen wrote the following (as quoted by Ehrman): ""The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please" (Misquoting Jesus, p. 52)." This is pretty damning testimony from a prolific Christian writer.
The same surah also accuses the Jews and Christians of forgetting a large portion of the message sent to them. I have already quoted the relevant verses. Furthermore, you are completely misunderstanding verse. Perhaps we should let Ibn Kathir clarify it for us: "(Let the people of the Injil judge by what Allah has revealed therein.) meaning, so that He judges the people of the Injil by it in their time. Or, the Ayah means, so that they believe in all that is in it and adhere to all its commands, including the good news about the coming of Muhammad and the command to believe in and follow him when he is sent." Obviously, the prophecy of Muhammad's coming is not present in the Gospels, unless you believe that "parakletos" was the Greek corruption of the original Aramaic. Either way, it is obvious that the Quran is not referring to the current "Gospels".
I have already shown you one example of a passage which was added
later on, to which you have yet to respond. All you have been doing is
running in circles and resorting to special pleading. There are many
examples which any serious student of New Testament criticism would be
aware of. If you want more examples, I suggest you read Ehrman's
"Misquoting Jesus" as well as Vermes' "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus".
It certainly could, but it hasn't. God promised to protect the final revelation. It says so in the same Quran you have been trying to (mis)quote: "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)." (15:9) In order to cast doubt on this matter, you would actually have to
show clear-cut examples (like I have shown with the Gospels) instead of
playing the "would" or "could" game.
Yes, and most of them are completely ridiculous, as I have shown!
Apparently, someone forgot to show this to Jeremiah: 8 ��How can you say, �We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,� when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah 8:8) How could the word endure "forever" yet also be falsely "handled" by scribes?
Until you provide a reasonable excuse for why someone decided to add
the Pericope de Adultera to the Gospel of John, the only thing I can
assume is that you are ignoring the evidence. Also, the Quran teaches salvation through God only, not through a
man. So of course it disagrees with the Gospels. The Old Testament,
even in its less than pristine form, argues the same thing. Christians
have had to misquote the Old Testament, mangling out of context verses
to try to prove that their half man/half god (sounds like Greek
mythology) was sent to die for their sins.
I don't. That is what you are trying to do. I know better.
This is exactly what I meant when I said that Christians resort to mangling OT verses out of context to line up with their NT beliefs. Are you sure you are not a Christian, because your M.O. resembles theirs very closely? Isaiah 53 is oft-quoted by zealous Christians but it is always out of context. Anyone who reads the entire chapter would realize there is no way this can be referring to the Messiah. For example, read Isaiah 53:10 which states: "Yet it was the LORD�s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes[c] his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand." Since when did Jesus have "offspring"? It is obvious that the chapter is not talking about any one person. Instead, it is a metaphor for the nation of Israel. In fact, if you actually took the time to research this a little more, you would know that the "servant" was clearly identified in Isaiah 49:3 as the nation of Israel: "He said to me, �You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.�"
And neither does the Old Testament. Therefore, the Gospels
introduced a new concept which was never taught before. This is not a
problem for the Muslim or the Jew, but it is for the Christian.
Now you are just resorting to red herrings. How is a miraculous
birth an "extraordinary concept"? God created Adam without a father and
mother! Surely, the virgin birth is not a new concept nor is it
extremely difficult for the Almighty! The point is, which you failed to refute, is that the idea of a human/god hybrid is a new concept which is foreign to monotheism and is more akin to Greek mythology and that for serious monotheists to accept it as the truth would require extraordinary scriptural evidence.
No, it does not. The Quran says he was not crucified and was raised alive to Heaven. Also, he was born a human and remained a human. He was not part human, part God. This blasphemy is rightfully condemned in the Quran.
I always get a kick out of people who ask for examples of corruption and when they are shown examples, they resort to special pleading and straw-man arguments. I showed you a clear example of a passage (the Pericope de Adultera) which scholars believe was not in the original (which of course has not survived). The spurious nature of this passage is proven by the fact that it is found in some late manuscripts but not in the earlier manuscripts. You have yet to respond to this damning proof of the corruption of the Gospels. And this is just one example out of many!
Yet another misquote of the Hebrew Bible. How ironic given that you accused me of "misinterpreting" scripture. What does Genesis 40:8 actually say? Let us look: "8 �We both had dreams,� they answered, �but there is no one to interpret them.� Then Joseph said to them, �Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell me your dreams.�" As you can see, this is not even talking about interpreting scripture
but dreams! And if you keep reading, you will see that Joseph actually
interprets the dreams! The moral of the story, Kish, is to not accuse someone of "misinterpreting" scripture when you are as guilty as anyone else. An old Arab proverb states: "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
As explained before, it was referring to the original Gospel sent via Jesus (pbuh) and not the "Gospel according to so and so".
Oh I see. To prove the Gospel writers' claims of many witnesses, you
refer to the Gospel writers own testimony? Okay. You know yesterday I
saw Bigfoot and so did about a 100 other people. I don't know who they
were so you will just have to take my word for it that there were
witnesses. Therefore, Bigfoot must be real because so many people saw
it. Obviously, you have no actual evidence that there were many witnesses, just as I would have no evidence that many people saw Bigfoot with me. So, all you have done is to commit a circular argument fallacy. So I ask again. What witnesses are you referring to? What were their names? Do we have their personal testimonies?
Your repeated attempts to continue to (mis)quote the Quran will fall on deaf ears since you have been unable to refute anything I have written about the Quran's teachings about the previous revelations. All you have been doing is repeating ad nauseum the same argument while ignoring the facts. Unless you have something new to say with regard to this issue, please don't keep repeating the same argument which has been explained enough times already.
This is of course absurd since you completely failed to respond to
the fact that Isaiah 59:21 clearly says that the covenant was supposed
to last forever. So, either there is a contradiction in Isaiah
or you are misinterpreting Isaiah or the NT contradicts the OT. Either
way, it is a problem for you and not for me. Concerning Isaiah 53, I have proven conclusively that it is not
referring to the Messiah but to the nation of Israel. I will wait for
your response.
Certainly, I am not the only one who refers to them as the
apocrypha. Scholars of NT criticism also refer to them as apocrypha and
so do non-Catholic Christians. The Protestants regard them as
apocrypha and "uninspired". Too much trust in scholars? Who should I trust then? You? A lay
person? A guy who apparently does not even believe in any religion
(although I am starting to doubt that given your stringent defense of
Christian scripture)? Come on. The corruption is due to imperfect men who clearly were making stuff
up to push their own agendas. It is hard to imagine any other reason
for why there were so many "gospels" in circulation and why there are so
many differences even between the "canonized" gospels.
This is interesting given that the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) contains 24
books, not 22 books. Therefore, Josephus' list was not complete and
differs from the modern Tanakh.
You have absolutely no evidence to show that 1st century Christians already accepted all of the Gospels. The evidence for the evolving canon can be seen by the writings of the same Church fathers you refer to. Let us consider the three most famous 2nd century Church fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons: 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 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. 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!
Since 2nd century Christians clearly had different ideas of what the
canon represented, it is absurd to suggest that 1st century Christians
already had accepted all of the Gospels and had a unified canon.
The double standard is clearly on your part and so is the manipulation of the facts. You completely ignore the fact that Pickthall said clearly that "all the surahs...had been recorded in writing before the Prophet's death..." The first collection was done under Abu Bakr (ra), the successor to Muhammad (pbuh) but the Quran was already complete. It just had not been brought together in book form, which was not that important at the time. Furthermore, as Pickthall pointed out, many Muslims had memorized the Quran in its entirety so any attempts to change the Quran would have been instantly recognized and stopped. No such fail-safe existed for the Bible. Unfortunately, this is why we have so many variant manuscripts and canons of the Bible.
How is it an "individual choice"? This is pure special pleading. Would God be happy with those people for following a teaching which originated in a pagan culture?
This is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the trinity was developed to explain the verses which showed Jesus as a divine being who was to be worshiped. This was the only way to harmonize the Gospels which clearly differed from the monotheism of the Jews. This is further elucidated below.
This only goes to prove that the original message of Jesus was corrupted by Christians. Furthermore, of the fathers you mentioned above, Ignatius does indeed mention this heresy in his Epistle to the Magnesians: "Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus
Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to
the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union beth fleshly and
spiritual." (Chapter 13)
Every verse which makes Jesus appear as a god had to be harmonized with the monotheistic teachings of the Jews because otherwise, they would imply the existence of multiple gods. Verses like Titus 2:12-14 clearly show Jesus as a divine being: "12 It teaches us to say �No� to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope�the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good."
Which is why it was not accepted into the canon. But go on...
But then this would be a blasphemy since baptism should only be done
in the name of God alone. Adding the son and Holy Spirit into the mix
would imply equality. It would be like a Muslim like me saying "In the
name of Allah and Muhammad". Such a statement would be anathema to
Muslims as it would imply that Allah and Muhammad are equals,
astagfirAllah! In addition, the Didache is problematic since it fails to mention the two most important doctrines in Christian teaching: the death and resurrection of Jesus and the redeeming nature of his death. How do you explain this?
See above regarding Ignatius.
So now you are a "true Christian"? Since when? If you are a Christian, why didn't you say so in the first place? Regarding your claim about Jesus and the covenant, I will let Geza Vermes answer for me: "For if there is one certain conclusion which
no serious reader...can escape, it is that these hundreds of sayings
have not been produced by one and the same teacher. They patently
represent irreconcilable variations, indeed again and again they display
flat contradictions. Jesus could not declare the proclamation of the
good news to be restricted to Jews alone, yet simultaneously wish it to
be addressed to all the nations of the earth" ("The Authentic Gospel of
Jesus", p. 370). Also, you said to brother Hasan:
This is a patently absurd statement. The fact is that salvation is NOT only "tied to Jesus' name". Among the other Hebrew names which are "tied to salvation" are: 1. Elisha (My God is Salvation) 2. Hoshea (literally meaning Salvation) 3. Isaiah (Yahweh is Salvation) Please do some research before making false statements. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Salam, very detailed and learned reply Islamispeace, may Allah reward you and give you strength to keep spreading the truth. I am just amazed how Kish starts in the first post like really want to learn and then become and acts just like Larry and Jack, self pretending all knowing, and fact denying.
Jakallah,
Hasan Edited by honeto - 28 July 2011 at 5:02pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
So, your response against points #1 - #6 are all based on assumptions and accusations because you have yet showed any texts or documentation to show and prove what teachings or beliefs of Jesus were corrupted or changed in the Gospel. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all taught and believed what Jesus their leader taught them, that he was the Son of God like Adam was a son of God. Jesus himself said he was the son of God and most importantly his father said that Jesus was his son. Who have to prove he taught differently, you do! He spoke in favor of the Torah, Psalms, Gospel and the oneness of God that we do know. So it makes logical since that you would have to prove otherwise, not based on assumptions and accusations based on imperfect scholars, believers . You have yet proved otherwise but it�s never too late to show us documentations that God, Jesus or his followers taught what Muhammad and the Quran teaches, then perhaps I�ll be persuaded to believe. Your argument is that we have no original copies is a very, very, very weak argument as if the Quran has original or copies of originals and the Quran is a much, much younger book, even his closes companions wrote on animal skin and whatever else they could find to write on. So, all this �previous scriptures� that you�re using as your foundation is all based on assumptions with no show and tell to back up what you are saying. It�s really a simple task; just show us some texts or verses that Jesus is not the son of God and what his disciples wrote and taught in the Gospel is incorrect about Jesus, that�s all. And since as Origen says the differences are great it shouldn�t be a problem then. Oh yea��. In the words of a 17th-century writer, Origen�s critics asserted: �His doctrine in general is absurd and pernicious, a Serpentine deadly poison, which he vomited into the world.� About three centuries after his death, in fact, Origen was formally declared a heretic. You really put too much stock in philosophers and scholars who taught contrary to Jesus and his disciples. #7 Speculation,
Double standard I see.
What? apart from what Jesus and his Apostles said and taught about wolves entering into the Christian congregation trying to destroy it from within. These were added also�.. �� writings like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. Since it�s been established that not all people have good intentions, how about showing us that the teachings and beliefs of Jesus and his apostles as recorded in the Gospel are incorrect starting with Jesus being the son of God. Edited by Kish - 28 July 2011 at 11:15pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If you want to keep ignoring the one example I gave you, that is not my problem but yours. As I said, if you want more examples, read the books I recommended. The very fact that we do not have the original teachings in Aramaic but only the Greek translations makes any attempt at comparing the two to be futile. However, we can compare the Greek manuscripts and as I have mentioned, the differences are enormous. To paraphrase Ehrman, there are more differences between the manuscripts than there are words in the entire New Testament! No amount of special pleading can explain why there are so many differences. It is true that most are just due to scribal errors but a significant number are also due to deliberate alterations. Blind faith may keep you from calling a spade a spade, but it does not change the facts.
I already have. The contradictions between the Tanakh and the New Testament are undeniable. This would mean either Jesus strayed from the same message that all the prophets had brought or his teachings were altered by his later followers and/or that the Tanakh has been corrupted. Plenty of evidence has been given already. If you choose to ignore them and run around in circles, that is your problem.
At this point, I don't really care if you believe or not. It is obvious you are a Christian who pretended to be an objective researcher with no religious affiliation. How can reason reach such a person? Whether you accept it or not, the amount of scholarly research that has been done has always reached one conclusion: the teachings of Jesus have been altered and essentially lost and the Gospels are the product of an evolving Christian doctrine.
Yet another red herring and an obvious desperate attempt to divert from the lack of manuscript evidence for the Bible. Unlike the Bible, the Quran was memorized by hundreds of people in the time of the Prophet. Also, the language was the same (Arabic). Further still, we have numerous 1st century AH (after Hijra) manuscripts and inscriptions containing the Quran. You can see examples here: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlyquran.html None of this changes the fact that the NT exists not in the original Aramaic but in the Greek translations, unlike the Quran which was always in the original Arabic. None of this changes the fact that we have no 1st century manuscripts of the NT. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the Christian faithful to prove that their scripture is accurate and trustworthy. Salvation is too important a matter to trust on blind faith alone.
Consider first that the Tanakh never once refers to the Messiah as the literal son of God. This fact is confirmed by the Quran (see, it "confirms" the truth and disregards the falsehood!). Next, consider that historical evidence shows that some NT manuscripts showed an "adoptionist" view of Jesus. Adoptionism was a heresy condemned by the Church. The modern version of Mark 1:11 states that God says that Jesus is His son, implying an anti-adoptionist teaching. However, some manuscripts imply an adoptionist undertone. Ehrman explains: "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 seems the early Christians could not even agree on what "son of God" actually entailed. Was Jesus the begotten son of God, a metaphorical son of God or the literal son of God? If he was the metaphorical son of God, then it is no big deal as you yourself pointed out that Adam was also referred to as a "son of God". In that sense, all the prophets were "sons". It does not imply anything more than that they were honored by God. Also, consider that in Matthew 26:62-64, we are told that the High Priest specifically asks Jesus if he was the son of God. There would be no reason for Jesus to dilly-dally here. What does he say? Let's look and see: "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.�"All Jesus had to do here was simply confirm the "truth" and say unequivocally that he is the son of God. Yet, he says that his accusers think he claimed that title and actually refers to himself as the "son of man". Was he the son of God or the son of Man? The Bible is apparently confused as to the correct answer.
Oh that's rich. First of all, which "17th century writer" said this and why does it even matter? Could you be more specific? Second, if he was a "heretic", why was he not labelled so in his lifetime by his contemporaries? Third, we are not even talking about his "doctrine" but rather his honest observation about the alterations of the NT manuscripts! The guy was just being brutally honest. He was an eyewitness to the corruption of the Bible. If only more Christians were this honest.
And of course that would be your mantra since the facts mean nothing to you. It is quite convenient that you use "philosophers and scholars" who may confirm your claims (although not always) but when faced with undeniable evidence which runs contrary to your beliefs, you deny the importance of these "philosophers and scholars". This is pure special pleading and proves your subjective method of argumentation.
If you say so. Regardless, my point and challenge remain.
Shown above. Amazingly, you provide here more damning evidence of the corruption of God's word by heretics. You admit that people added to the text. Well dear, that is evidence of corruption! Now, since you did not respond to my entire rebuttal, I will assume that you agree with my points. Do you agree that you misinterpreted many OT verses (such as Genesis 40:8 and Isaiah 53). Do you agree that the OT and the NT contradict each other? Do you agree that the Christian canon was not solidified in the 1st century but rather evolved over at least 150 years? Do you agree that there is no evidence of many eyewitnesses to the claims of the Gospels? Do you agree that the covenant was supposed to last forever (Isaiah 59:21)? Do you agree that Josephus' canon was different from the modern canon? Do you agree that the trinity concept was developed to harmonize the blasphemous verses with monotheism? Do you agree that some of the church fathers, like Ignatius, did teach a primitive trinitarian belief? Do you agree that the Didache serves as evidence of evolving Christian dogma? Do you agree that there are other Hebrew names, besides that of Jesus, which can be "tied to salvation"? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
islamispeace
Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Walaikum as-salaam. Thanks for your words of encouragement. Let the truth be exposed to all! Ameen. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 <12345 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 |