IS MOHAMMED A DESCENDENT OF ISHMAEL?

And the train wreck continues!  We see here yet another typical Shibbo-esque response.  Half of the post is spent diverting to the Quran and Shibbo's mistaken belief that the Quran "upholds" the Bible.  This argument has been refuted over and over again.  It is a sure sign of your desperation in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the Bible's corruption.  Your attempts at diverting to another topic will be ignored, so on to the relevant parts of your rebuttal.

Shibbo wrote: Even by giving you the benefit of the doubt using your example below you still showed no corruption, just missing verses that were lost over time.

Wrong!  These are not "just missing verses that were lost over time".  These were verses which were deliberately added or removed or altered by scribes.  Only the blind will deny that this is evidence of corruption.  As Origen himself said:

It should not come as a surprise that Shibbo has completely ignored this damning testimony of an early Church father.  Nothing is said here about "verses lost over time".  Origen says it bluntly: the scribes have corrupted the text either through negligence or deliberate changes! 

Shibbo wrote: Well, let�s deal with the 99.9 % of the Gospel we do have, shell we. The Gospel still shows Jesus to be the �Son of God�, did you find anything otherwise? No, of course not just some missing verses. Did the 12 Apostle�s all agree with Jesus� birth, his life, ministry, death, resurrection and so on. Nothing, I repeat nothing you have yet to show says otherwise, just some missing verses, which counts for 1 % of the Gospel.

 

This is typical Christian attempts at moving the goalpost.  When they realize that the Bible has been corrupted, they change gears and say "well, it still says the Jesus is such and such".  The point is, poor Christian, that your Bible is unreliable and corrupt!  Why would anyone trust their salvation to such a book?  Answer me that!   

Of course, we do have evidence of Jesus' evolution in the minds of Christians.  I have already pointed out the Didache as an example of an early document which fails to mention the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.   

Furthermore, let us consider the earliest Gospel written once again.  The opening chapter of the Gospel of Mark has two phrases where Jesus is described as God's "son", verse 1 and verse 11.  The problem is that both verses are either additions or have been altered!  We already know that the phrase the "son of God" in verse 1 was a later addition.  But what about verse 11, which states:

.  What this means is that to these Christians, Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, as mainstream Christians claim.  This is just another example of the various diverse beliefs which were floating around in the early centuries.  There was no monolithic belief system, but rather many belief systems.  It was in this environment that the Christian Bible developed.   

Shibbo wrote: So the point that you have made thus far is that some verses are missing and dates are 2 -6 years off, big deal!

Ignoring the facts is what you do best!  "Dates are 2-6 years off"?  What? 

Shibbo wrote: �what about the whole 28 Chapters of Matthew to your measly one verse in Matthew 16:2, the whole 24 Chapters of Luke to your pathetic one verse, the whole 16 Chapters of Mark and the whole 21 Chapters of John? Even using your own argument (Codex Vaticanus aka 1209) there are overwhelming evidence that still support the authenticity of the Gospel, even by giving you the benefit of doubt. Although Vatican 1209 is NOT the only evidence I brought to the table, there were almost a dozen more.

It is not just missing verses, but verses which have been altered.  I gave an example for each Gospel, as you asked for!  I think Ehrman puts it quite bluntly:

 

Again I ask: why would anyone trust their salvation to such a book? 

Shibbo wrote: Although over time these verses were lost or damaged because of the material that it was written on (600 yrs. later the Quran had that same problem) I bet you�re hoping somehow, someway that these few lost verses said something about a Muhammad? Well let me assure you, the fact that Muhammad and his Quran does not acknowledge Jesus as the �Son of God� and disagrees with the Gospels most fundamental teaching the crucifixion,  you have nothing to worry about, it says not one word of Ishmael, Mecca, Medina, Islam, Muhammad etc��.

The difference between the Bible and the Quran is that unlike the Bible, the Quran was memorized by hundreds of people.  This was the fail-safe to protect it from being lost.  There was no such fail-safe with the Bible.

I challenged you previously to

You ignored this challenge.  Now you can also answer another challenge.  Provide just one example of a verse which was lost over time!

Shibbo wrote: The fact that Moses� face emitted rays as Jehovah�s glory had just passed by according to Exodus 33:22 is solid proof for all to see. You showed no archeological proof of Muhammad�s so called miracles; even so, Pharaohs magicians turned their rods into snakes, big deal. Moses split the Red Sea and performed 9 more plagues, receives the 10 commandments in stone by God, made water come from a rock are all historical.

Christianity's answer: Dah, well the Bible says that people saw Moses' face.

Where is the "archaeological proof" of this?  You have provided none!  In fact, the only attempt you made to provide archaeological evidence for anything the Bible says was your failed attempt at appealing to the inscription of Shishak which allegedly mentioned the field of Abram.  We all know where that went!   

If the fact that Moses' face "emitted rays" is proof that he in fact encountered God, even though no one else witnessed the event, then the fact that Muhammad's wife witnessed how frightened he was from his encounter, even though she did not actually witness the event, should suffice as evidence for you that he did in fact encounter a powerful entity, namely the angel Gabriel (as), which is who Muhammad (pbuh) identified as the entity.  But, alas, I know that you Christians (or JWs in your case) like to use double standards, so I know this will not suffice.

Shibbo wrote: Also, according to Bible law since the Torah up until now in the NT, in order for ANY matter to be firmly established it HAD to be confirmed out of the mouths of TWO or more witnesses. Jesus himself as well as Moses brother Aaron and Miriam confirmed Moses as a Prophet. Joshua succeeds him, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John confirmed it in the Gospel as well as the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:7and others confirmed it, that has never changed and is still in effect as we speak.

 

OK, so we have Waraqah and Khadijah serving as the witnesses to Muhammad (pbuh).  Oh but I know what you will say.  It is not in the Bible, so it does not count!  Right, how silly of me.

Shibbo wrote: Most importantly, there are historical and archeological evidence to support Moses, Mary and Jesus miracles down to this day why else would your book speak of them but the Bible in no way, shape or form speaks of or support anyone name Muhammad. No wonder your answers are so vague.

Oh, Shibbo, why dost thou make me laugh so much?  You babble on and on about non-existent "historical and archaeological evidence" but have thus far presented no examples. 

Shibbo wrote: What historical and archeological evidence is there to Support Muhammad�s miracles and prophecies?

 

Here is a small sample:

Muhammad (pbuh) predicted that the Muslims would capture Constantinople.  This prophecy is found in the Sahih books.  Constantinople was conquered in 1452 CE.  Prophecy fulfilled! 

Another prophecy he made was that a time would come when the Bedouin Arabs would compete with each other in building tall structures.  Have you seen the Middle East these days?  Even in Saudi Arabia, work has begun on the "Mile-High Tower", which will surpass the Burj Khalifa in Dubai as the tallest building in the world.  Prophecy fulfilled! 

So, I have once again answered your silly questions.  Will you now answer my questions?  Thus far, you have ignored all of my challenges.  You are falling behind, Shibbo!  Here is another challenge:

What historical and archaeological evidence is there to support Paul's alleged "miracles" as well as his claim of being sent by Jesus?

Shibbo wrote: I call this section �names without a faces.� For Muhammad to be greater than Jesus as Muslims love to fantasize about, who, what, and where are your references from, is it from Islam? Why am I not surprised. I gave you plenty of �secular� references outside the Bible of people who did not even follow Jesus, can you do the same with Muhammad? Give us something to work with sssson, and why are you so vague all of a sudden? What did they see and hear? Did they see and hear these things together or separately, just curious? Did it make history? Everyone knows that Jesus� miracles and prophecies are world renowned with historical with archeological backings to support them as I gave you plenty. It is obvious that when you want to bash or attack me you have so much to say but when it come to truth you don�t have a leg to stand on.

.  Are you high or something?  You really should lay off the marijuana son! 

As far as the names I mentioned, these are just a few of the companions of the Prophet.  There are many others.  They are well-known to historians.  The reports of Muhammad's miracles are mentioned in the Sahih books (Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari).  Many of the reports mentioned in Sahih Bukhari are also found in the Sahifah of Hammam ibn Munabbih, which was written around the mid 1st century AH [Saifullah and Damiel, "Are There Any Early Hadiths?"]. 

The ones I mentioned are all known to have reported on the miracle of the splitting of the moon, which is also mentioned in the Quran in Sura al-Qamar [Zaatari, "Miracles of Prophet Muhammad"].  In fact, according to Zaatari:

...That is related from Anas b. Malik, Jubayr b. Mutim, Hudhayfa, Abd Allah b. Abbas, Abd Allah b. Umar, and Abd Allah b. Masud, God be pleased with all.

Regarding the hadith of Anas, Imam Ahmad stated, "Abd al-Raziq related to us that Mamar related to him, from Qatada, from Anas b. Malik, who said, ? The people of Mecca asked the prophet (SAAS) for a sign, And so the moon over Mecca was split twice. And he spoke the words, " The house has drawn near and the moon has split asunder"" (surat al-Qamar, LIV, v-1)

And Muslim related this, from Muhammad b. Rafi from from Abd al-Razzaq.

This is one of the texts known as the mursalat al-sahaba. And it is plain that he received it from a large mass of the Companions, or from the Prophet (SAAS), or from everyone.

Both al-Bukhari and Muslim related this hadith on a path through Shayban. In his line of transmission al-Bukhari added Said b. Abu Urba. Muslim added Shuba to his. All three (sic) of them drew from Qatada, from Anas. The tradition states that the people of Mecca asked the Messenger of God (SAAS) to show them a sign, He showed them the moon in two parts, so that they could see Mt. Hira between them both." [Ibid.]

provide one example of a "secular" source which confirms that Jesus performed miracles.

Shibbo wrote: Islam�s answer: Simply the Quran does not say. This would have lay down at least the foundation of your belief, instead it contradicts totally what Geneses and the Torah and the Psalms and the Gospel had to say about this incident. The Bibles answer: Geneses 17:21 �However, my covenant I shall establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this appointed time next year.� Another very important event like the revelation in the cave but no name is giving in the Quran so you only assume, once again hoping that this somehow, someway fits Muhammad and not Isaac.

Shibbo's answer: I have no response to the contextual evidence so I will just make up my own rules and remain stubborn. 

The fact is that the Quran provides contextual evidence that the son to be sacrificed was Ishmael (pbuh) and not Isaac (pbuh).  You have no response to this.  You can quote the Bible all you want, but it does not prove anything. 

Shibbo wrote: The Bible and the Quran mentions none. Now you see why I asked these questions again, this is where the one who has an ear listens. I asked for what tribe �mentioned� or prophesied about a Muhammad, and what does islamispeace do? Talks about the branches of these 12 tribes and cleverly tries to change the wording to who followed Muhammad, a totally different question from who prophesied about Muhammad.  Ishmael married an Egyptian by whom he had 12 sons (Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, Kedemah) none of these �historical 12 tribes� mentioned anything about Muhammad or any prophet, in fact according to the Psalms it says at Psalms 83:2, 5, 6  �And the very ones intensely hating you have raised [their] head�� Against you they proceeded to conclude even a covenant, 6 The tents of the � Ish′ma�el�ites, So, why in the world would Abrahams God, Jehovah use a nation that hated him and his nation the Nation of Israel? You are really grabbing at the wind now.

Umm, quoting the Bible does not answer the question, you dolt!  Why don't you get that through your head.  You have unable to refute any of the facts I have mentioned, so you go off on tangents about the "12 tribes of Ishmael" which as I showed have branched off into many sub-tribes.  Your only hope to deny the prophethood of Muhammad is by using a circular argument that "well the Bible says such and such".  Earth to Shibbo: the Bible is not the ultimate authority on these matters.  You can lie to yourself all you want, but it does not change the facts.  

Like typical chicken-headed Christians, you appealed to Psalm 83.  Unfortunately, you forgot to mention the last part, which is very important:

" ¹⁷ May they ever be ashamed and dismayed;
   may they perish in disgrace.
¹⁸ Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD�
   that you alone are the Most High over all the earth. "

This is obviously referring to the once pagan religion of the Ishmaelites, which is what Muhammad (pbuh) came to abolish.  As a result, the pagan Arabs did indeed learn that God is the Most High, as it says in the Quran:

"Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory)." (2:255)

Shibbo wrote: Now, he sounds like a politician. He refuses to say outright either or but from his past post islamispeace gives the �allusion� that they were corrupted. This brings us right back to the beginning of this thread which is the Gospels canonicity and what support it received, be it scripturally using the Bible or the Quran and using secular history or archeological findings that have been excavated.

And you sound like a five-year old who needs a lesson on basic vocabulary.  Do you even know "allusion" means?  It is different from "illusion".  Welcome to Vocabulary 101, little Shibbo.  The word "allusion" means "a passing or casual reference" [Dictionary.com].

So, when the Quran mentioned the "Torah" or the "Gospel", it was "alluding" to the original, pristine and uncorrupted form, not the anonymously edited Old and New Testaments.  In this thread, we have a multitude of evidence that the New Testament is the work of multiple hands and has been changed many times.  Poor Shibbo has been unable to refute any of the evidence, so he has tried to change topics, as he always does. 

Shibbo wrote: As I continue to ask, where is the uncorrupted version of the Bible that Muslims claim if the one we have is not it? As shown and proven by secular and biblical facts, it is the one you and I, the one we have all along. It has not been proving otherwise not even by scholars, scholars don�t even say we have a corrupted version of the Gospel or the NT, only Islam.

The "Bible" is not the original.  It may have some truth in it but it also has much falsehood.  This has been proven by the evidence presented, which you have been unable to refute.  Your entire response is dripping with denial and inaccuracies.  Contrary to your baseless claim, scholars do indeed acknowledge the New Testament has been changed.  As Ehrman puts it:

"This is not a dispute between scholars who think the text has been altered and those who think it is not.  Everyone knows that the text has been changed..." (Ibid., p. 94).

Shibbo wrote: Islam�s answer: They have no evidence, the problem they feel is with the dating and missing verses of the Gospel. So since the dating does not match up according to how Islam think it should, the Gospel must be corrupted, how ridicules. Also, Islam has no data outside Islam to prove the Gospel corruption, just assumptions and accusations based on their lack of knowledge and misinterpretations of the Holy Scriptures.

Boy, things have gotten so bad for you that you have to resort to straw-man arguments, completely misconstruing my responses and ignoring the evidence that has been presented.  Poor, poor Shibbo. 

You asked for archaeological that disproves the Gospel(s) account(s).  I asked you first which Gospel are you referring to?  Each Gospel is different.  Then I gave you a specific example.  Let's see how you respond.

Shibbo wrote: Far as the census in the Holy Land that you made mention of, that was mainly for the purposes of taxation and conscription of men for military service, what fact or point is lost or gained here? Going out on the edge are we Isse?

Just as I suspected...more special pleading and irrelevant rambling.  Earth to Shibbo: the question is not what the census was for but why Luke, who is supposed to be a historically reliable source, got the date wrong.  So far, you have not answered that question, but let's continue.

Shibbo wrote: Anyhow, this was the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor�s legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291) Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius� (Res gestae divi Augusti) first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1 B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite. Again, I�ll stake my life on the Bibles chronology than man chronology anytime.

As usual, a cut and paste response with no effort made at corroborating the facts.  But, when you realized that your explanation is not sufficient, you make the typical Christian excuse: "I'll stake my life on the Bibles (sic) chronology than man (sic) chronology anytime".  In other words, when secular evidence flat-out contradicts the Bible, you disregard the evidence and cling to your Bible.  Ironically, throughout your entire post, you have been babbling on about the "archaeological" evidence (which still has not been presented) which "supposedly" confirms the Bible.  Boy, you have got to be one of the most delirious Bible-thumpers I have ever come across!

Shibbo wrote: So historian and Bible writer Luke was correct when he said concerning the registration at the time of Jesus� birth: �This first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria,� distinguishing it from the second, which occurred later under the same Quirinius and to which Gamaliel makes reference as reported by Luke at Acts 5:37.

More cutting and pasting!  That seems to be your only talent.  The fact remains that the Res Gestae speaks of 3 censuses which Augustus ordered.  The dates do not match.  If they did, it would mean that Jesus was born in 8 B.C. (the date of the second census). 

We know from Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 17, Chapter 13) that a census did occur in Syria around 6 CE.  This occurred after the removal of Herod Archelaus and the annexation of Judea to Syria.  Therefore, the census was only of Syria and not the entire Roman world, as Luke claimed.  Luke may have confused Josephus' account as a census of the entire Roman world, when it was actually a census of Judea only.       

Shibboleth wrote: You�re way off the topic here Isse; this post is not a continuation from �J.C.�s� post. I suspect that you really should get some rest before we continue, you are incoherent right now and extremely irritable with your responses! When you are ready and well rested, we can continue as mature adults. Either way it's still a beautiful day. Thank the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. . . Shalom

Dude, you are getting old and boring very fast!  If you need time to respond, just say so.  Don't make excuses and waste time on petty nonsense.  So what if I am bringing a small part of another thread into this discussion?  Especially when the topic is related?  Come on, Shibbo!  Get with the program. 

Furthermore, I had more to say.  After I mentioned the Didache as a passing reference (an "allusion" ), I also provided another example.  This was all in response to your argument that despite all the changes in the Bible, Jesus was still referred to as the "son of God".  Your argument is that this is what is important.  In response, I pointed out the Didache and then another example from the Gospel of Mark, the first Gospel written.  Either make an intelligent response or admit you have been beaten.  Don't waste my time with silly remarks such as the one you just made...because I am getting bored!!