God�s written instructions for life.

Kish wrote: He relies not on Jesus words or what his Apostles wrote but what the church fathers after them wrote. Having said that, everything he has posted in relation to what HE feels the church fathers believed is conjectural - inconclusive, guest work, an opinion.

Sure, sure.  No matter how much you try to deny it, the only one who has been "conjecturing" and making "opinions" is you.  Whereas I have supported everything I have written with solid scholarly evidence, you have only utilized plagiarized material from like-minded sources and your own opinions.  Stop whining for your own shortsightedness.

The irony is that you have disowned the church fathers after previously referring to them when it suited your purpose. 

Also, these same church fathers (like Papias) show that there were debates regarding the authenticity of the Gospels.  So, everything you have asked for to prove the corruption of the Bible, I have provided you.  Yet, as was expected, you remain stubborn in the fact of truth, being another victim of church brainwashing.

Kish wrote: In fact he rather credit non-inspired-non-eye-witness people who were not around during the time of the events than in inspired-eye-witness people who were around during the time of the events.

Oh what a crock!  How does one determine if a person is "inspired"?  Who determines if a person is "inspired"?  You?  Don't make me laugh!  The simple fact is that the concept of "inspiration" is simply a Christian invention to justify false doctrines.  Anyone can just claim to have been inspired and...boom...their words are accepted as fact.  Such faulty reasoning can only lead to misguidance.

Kish wrote: Whatever it takes to discredit the Gospel, I guess. I wonder if he uses the same formula when considering the hadith, after all it came 250 years later after Muhammad? You put the hadith before the Quran islamispeace? Do you believe everything you read in the hadith?

Ah, trying to divert again, are we Kish?  That seems to be your forte when you are cornered. 

Let me correct you on some issues regarding the Hadiths, because as with your "knowledge" (ha ha hee hee) about the Quran, your "knowledge" (ha ha hee hee) of the Hadiths is also extremely weak.  The Hadiths did not come 250 years after Muhammad (pbuh).  They were passed through an oral tradition for many years, but were put to paper as early as the 1st century AH.  One of the earliest compilations of Hadiths is the Sahifa of Hammam ibn Munabbih, who was a student of Abu Huraira (one of the Prophet's companions).

Moreover, Muslims judge the authority of the Hadiths by comparing them to the Qur'an as well as by analyzing the chain of transmission.  Christians have no such luxury to compare the many conflicting stories about Jesus (pbuh) which were initially passed along by word of mouth before the Gospels were written.

Kish wrote: Note: Jesus or his 12 Apostles never said anything negative against the Old or New Testament, only Muhammad, why? If it was good for Jesus it should have been good for Muhammad IF he was a true Prophet. Of course if Muhammad  was a false prophet, that explains everything doesn't it. It certainly would explain why he would talk against the Old and New Testament.

 

Note: You haven't proven that the NT contains the unaltered words of "Jesus or his 12 apostles".  Moreover, as I have shown, the sayings that have been attributed to Jesus and his "apostles" tend to contradict the Tanakh.  You pretend as if the NT and Tanakh are in agreement, but by doing so, you are only lying to yourself.  As I have shown in this thread and others, the two more often contradict each other than agree.  It is not surprising that you avoid like the plague the verses I have presented from the Tanakh which contradict the NT.

Kish wrote: As I have mentioned before, you need to believe in God, the author of the Bible in whole not in part in order to have its Holy Spirit and in order to understand its written words.

Yeah, I have heard this circular argument before.  You are essentially saying that in order to understand faith, you have to have faith!  But that's the problem, isn't it?  It should be the other way around.  You should understand first and then have faith.  But alas, Christianity wants it the other way around.  It wants us to shut down our reason and accept its teachings on blind faith.  Thank you, Kish, for admitting it. 

Kish wrote: The fact of the matter is modern Muslims on this forum don�t believe in his written word in its entirety. Why? Because it conflicts with the Quran, well that is Muslims lost not Christians.

The same can be said of you Kish.  Don't pretend to be an impartial observer here.  You already lied about that before! 

The fact is that the rejection of the Bible is justified to Muslims.  The evidence of its alteration and self-contradictions prove conclusively that it is not the unaltered word of God.  Not anymore, at least.  Therefore, Muslims are fully justified in accepting the Quran and not the Bible.

Kish wrote: The Gospel is and was accepted by Christ and his early followers which set the stage for the first Christian congregation that was founded at Pentecost 33 C.E.

 

"The Gospel" refers to Jesus' teachings, not the edited accounts of his life that were written decades after him. 

Kish wrote: Acts chapter 2:1-47 shows the first miracles in a Christian congregation setting not in some cave where no one is present to testify or confirm its trueness, that is the first historical proof, Muhammad is his ONLY witness!

Sure, sure.  These so-called "miracles" and the alleged "eye-witnesses" have no historical evidence to support them.  Remember the Bigfoot analogy, Kish?  Ponder on that for a while! 

Kish wrote: Muhammad is the only one who heard some angel speak, ALL Muslims agree! Therefore, until you can present a more ancient Holy book, a MORE reliable and historical book as the Holy Scriptures, �it is what it is� deal with it! But I�ll make this short and sweet for everyone who may have read your previous post about the church fathers and why one should believe them before believing what Jesus himself taught and preached and his 12 Apostles.

Wow!  What a "brilliant" line of reasoning!  We should accept the so-called "Holy Scriptures" because there is no other "MORE reliable and historical book..."  Leave it to Kish to come up with nonsensical and chilidish arguments!    Based on this reasoning, we should actually accept the Vedas as more authoritative because they are older than the Bible!  Of course, such a claim would b absurd, and so is your attempted defense of the Bible. 

Kish wrote: Question:Who or what are the confirming witnesses that the words of the Gospel which Jesus spoke came from God or an angel? Who or what are the confirming witnesses that the words of the Qur'an which Muhammad spoke came from God or an angel?" Who eye-witnessed Jesus, the Apostle Paul and Muhammad�s miracles and or prophecies?

I will let you provide the list of people who allegedly "witnessed" the miracles mentioned in the NT.  As far as the witnesses to Muhammad's miracles, here is an incomplete list:

Anas ibn Malik
Qatada ibn al-Numan
Jubayr b. Mutim
Hudhayfa
Abdullah ibn Abbas
Abdullah ibn Umar
Abdullah ibn Masud

For more, see the following: http://muslim-responses.com/Miracles_of_prophet_Muhammad/Miracles_of_prophet_Muhammad_

Question:  Who were the eyewitnesses to Paul's alleged encounter with Jesus?  Who were the eyewitnesses to Jesus' alleged "resurrection"? 

Kish wrote: Were the church fathers there ? I�ll be waiting for some names that your Quran provides in behalf of Muhammad and I�ll be glad to give you the names, chapter and verse from the Bible, you give me the chapter and verse from the Quran.

The Quran is not a biography of the Prophet.  His miracles and prophecies are cataloged in the Hadith compilations and there are many.  However, the Quran does refer to a few future events, which did come true.  For example, in Sura al-Rum, it refers to the Byzantine defeat against the Persians but prophesies that the Byzantines would be victorious soon after, which of course, did occur.  Here are the verses:

"The Roman Empire has been defeated-
In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious-
Within a few years. With Allah is the Decision, in the past and in the Future: on that Day shall the Believers rejoice-" (30:2-4)

In fact, the same year that the Byzantines scored their first major victory, the Muslims defeated the pagans at the Battle of Badr.  This is the victory referred to by the phrase "on that Day shall the Believer rejoice". 

Kish wrote: Don't back out now! All eyes are on you.

    

  All eyes have been on you for some time and they are not impressed!  Finally, here are the issues you have avoided:

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. 
 
Don't back out now!  Do you dare to respond to these issues which you have avoided like the plague?   

Kish,
you are not very good my friend at dodging things. Either be brave and admit what I showed you to be true. Yet I all get it from you is a sharp turn and put a new question instead of accepting or rejecting the answer given to you from your trusted source, the Bible.
Let us look again:
Genesis 16:16 Abraham was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abraham.
Genesis 21:5 Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born.
Give this simple math question to a fourth grader in the family, you should have no problem accepting the outcome.
Hasan

honeto wrote: . . . Read this carefully, open your own "Bible" and confirm each and every quote and its material support to my point and if you disagree or think I have a mistake let me know and if you have facts disproving my point, I will respectfully accept your point on this matter. So here it is:

Honeto, if you would like to discuss this topic in detail please post a new one I would appreciate it. I agree that we should take it verse by verse.

Kish wrote: Okay, but who cares whether it was unanimously accepted by others, keyword others? It was accepted by Christ and his early followers which set the stage with the first Christian congregation that was founded at Pentecost 33 C.E. Acts chapter 2:1-47 shows the first miracles in a Christian congregation setting not in some cave where no one is present to testify or confirm its trueness.

This is an assumption which you cannot prove nor does it make any sense.  How could the Gospels have been accepted by Christ if they were written until several decades after him?

Kish wrote: Also as a point of reference Professor of Church History Oskar Skarsaune states: �Which writings that were to be included in the New Testament, and which were not, was never decided upon by any church council or by any single person . . . (I said this all along) The criteria were quite open and very sensible: Writings from the first century C.E. that were regarded as written by apostles or by their fellow workers were regarded as reliable. Other writings, letters, or �gospels� that were written later were not included . . . This process was essentially completed a long time before Constantine and a long time before his church of power had been established. It was the church of martyrs, not the church of power, that gave us the New Testament.� Also noted is, Ken Berding, an associate professor whose field of study is the Christian Greek Scriptures, gives this comment about how the canon emerged: �The church did not establish a canon of its choosing; it is more proper to speak of the church recognizing the books that Christians had always considered to be an authoritative Word from God.�

Amazing!  You attacked me for relying on modern scholars (who by the way disagree with Prof. Skarsaune) and here you do the same thing!  In any case, there is no evidence for the Professor's claims.  I have shown previously that the early Church fathers referred to the Gospels in different ways.  Ignatius never referred to all four Gospels.  The first one to do so was Irenaeus.   Also, I showed in my last post that there were disagreements about the reliability of the Gospels (as shown in
Papias' argument against the presbyter).  As James Still wrote:

"Papias defends Mark against a presbyter who argued that Mark had misinterpreted certain events in his gospel...Apparently, some contemporaries of Papias took exception with Mark's accuracy since Papias feels the need to come to Mark's defense, suggesting that Mark "made no mistake" in his recollection of Peter's teachings even though he did not write them down in order" [Ibid.].

Kish wrote: So, again, it was the 1st century Christian�s congregation who selected the canon as confirmed by the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 12:4, 10� to yet another operations of powerful works, to another prophesying, to another discernment of inspired utterances) The apostle Paul performed miracles, even a resurrection, giving powerful evidence that God�s spirit was backing him and his writings. What backings did Muhammad have? Zero! What did he do more powerful than even the Apostle Paul? Zilch!

Once again, you show your proclivity towards making nonsense arguments based on zero evidence and circular arguments.  None of what you just stated is established history.  There simply is no evidence to support it.  In fact, the evidence we do have proves the exact opposite! 

Kish wrote: The writers that you refer to in your post did not establish the canon; they merely testified to what God had already accepted through his representatives, who were guided by his spirit, so you are beating a dead horse although it shows historically that it was in fact true. .

I know that you would love to prove this but can't.  The evidence suggests the exact opposite. 

Kish wrote: You have a strong tendency to put the cart before the horse as you put the pupils or students of Christ before the teacher or Christ! Some of these later writers admitted to even being students of Christ Apostles.

And you have a strong tendency to make nonsense arguments, get refuted and then change to another nonsensical argument.

Kish wrote: Why, because you say so, what was being questioned was whether or not the Gospel contradicts one another, a big difference from the Gospel not being authentic. Another one of my references . . .

I showed that both were true.  Not only do the Gospels contradict each other (see Matthew 26) but they also were being debated, which means that they were not considered authentic by all.  This is not what I say.  It is what nearly every NT scholar says.

Your appeal to the Diatesseron has been refuted several times already.  Not only does it not match the modern Gospels, it shows that the four Gospels were not accepted together until the mid-2nd century.  How then any you or your "professors" claim that they were accepted by the early Christians?

Kish wrote: Like always, no proof, the fact that you put church fathers ahead of Jesus, his 12 Apostles and the first Christian congregation shows a lack of logic, proof and support to your so-called conclusive evidence.

You only decided to disown these Church fathers when I showed you that they believed that Jesus was God in addition to believing that he was also God's son.  They based this on their interpretations of the Gospels, which were altered to fit this view.  How else could they have come to that conclusion? 

Kish wrote: The scribes of the Quran and the hadiths that came 250-300 years later and the different recitations, are they look upon the same way, you those writings ahead of the Quran? Do you put them before Muhammad? If not, why then would Christians put the Church fathers ahead of Jesus Christ, his 12 Apostles and the first Christian congregation? Where is the logic? The Church fathers came later as did the writings of the Quran and the hadiths. Do you believe and accept all the hadiths? No, you don�t. But Christians according to you must accept every uninspired writings, how foolish does that sound?

The difference is that the Quran has been preserved, as the evidence in the other thread has shown, alhamdulillah.  The Gospels, on the other hand, are not.  Also, the writings of the people that came after the Prophet and his Companions are actually used to garner an understanding of the early years of Islam.  That is because these writers did not contradict each other and based their information on earlier sources, many of which have survived to the present day. 

Kish wrote: Again, according to whom? Not all Muslims believe there were 114 Sura�s in the Quran and in the hadiths, and Muslims have been divided since the existence of these books. Shiites and Sunnis have different collections of hadiths. Some believe them only when it suits them. For example, they would accept passages in them that would glorify Muhammad and his teachings but reject those that discredit him.

      

Don't try to divert to off-topic issues again.  You do this every time you are cornered.  Your "knowledge" of the Qur'an and its history are woefully weak. 

Concerning the canon of the Bible, I have already provided enough evidence.  Go back to the previous responses.  For example, one of the sources you copied said clearly that Revelation was accepted by some and rejected by others. 

Kish wrote: Muslim scholars admit that many of the hadiths were fabricated. For example, Goldhizer cites the Muslim scholars Al-Ya'qubi, II, p. 311, Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadani, p. 95, 3, Ibn Maja, p. 102 concerning Abd al-Malik (716-794 A.D.), one of the four great jurists of Islam, who was himself a major collector of hadith: So is this another one of your double standards? Your sources shows differences in the Quran and hadiths and many of them are not accepted. Does the hadiths set the standard for the Quran? If not, neither does the church fathers for the NT or the Gospel.

Again, off-topic.  But, let me just explain quickly one little thing for your benefit.  The Hadiths are secondary to the Qur'an.  There are indeed many forged hadiths.  Muslims use two ways to authenticate hadiths.  One is to compare them to the Qur'an and the other is to study their chains of transmissions (isnads).  Christianity does not have either.  Christians have nothing to compare their fluid canon and edited Gospels to.  And they don't have unbroken chains of transmissions going back to Jesus (pbuh).  As such, nothing in the Bible can be authenticated with certainty as a teaching of Jesus. 

Kish wrote: Because of free thinking, how absurd, and yet these pseudo gospels where not accepted into the Bible canon in early Christianity, of course you already knew that. Why, because they were not considered inspired writings until hundreds of years later.

No, what is absurd is that you ask for evidence of the fluidity of early Christianity and then resort to special pleading when such evidence is given.  You asked for "manuscripts" to "counter the argument that the Gospel was accepted everywhere."  I showed that in early Christianity, there were such movements as the Montanists and such popular books as the so-called "Gospel of Truth".  As usual, you try to downplay these.  Regardless of your special pleading, they serve as evidence of many, competing factions of Christians.

Kish wrote: No, what you have proven again is that Papias made references to these sacred and authentic HEBREW writings of the Gospel of Matthew and of Luke and John which everyone else doubted, great work for supporting my case! And this was in 140 C.E. But let me give you the correct reference . . . �Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.���The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 12-16.

How blind can you be?  Here I give you direct evidence of disagreements and debates concerning the Gospels.  What do you do?  You argue that since Papias was defending the Gospel of Mark, that somehow proves it was authentic!  The simple fact is that someone was debating with Papias (we don't know who as he is only identified as a presbyter), which serves as evidence that not everyone accepted the Gospel of Mark.  Isn't that what we have been discussing?  

Kish wrote: Nope, way off track. Jesus� birth fulfills the promise of God that a child would be born to rule on David�s throne. (Isaiah 9:6-7) For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7 To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.

Irrelevant as you completely fail to account for why some NT manuscripts had Adoptionist undertones.  Instead, you try to appeal to alleged "prophecies" in the Tanakh.  First of all, you as a Jehovah's Witness who denies that Jesus is God refer to Isaiah 9 which other Christians argue applies to Jesus and "proves" that Jesus was God.  Second, you fail to prove that Jesus was ever called "everlasting Father".  In the Gospels, Jesus never refers to himself as "everlasting Father".  In fact, he always refers to the "Father who is greater than him".  Third, besides not reading the verse in its context, you also resort to typical Christian mistranslations of the verse.  Compare you translation to a Jewish one:

"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace"" [1]. 

Notice the major difference in translation!  The verse is not referring to this "child" as "the mighty God" or "the everlasting Father" but to God Himself.  Instead, it refers to the child as "prince of peace".  Fourth, the context of the verse shows that it is not referring to the Messiah who is to come.  If you read the chapter from the beginning, you will see that it is referring to the Israelites' situation under Ahaz, whose son Hezekiah is the child referred to in verse 5. 

Regardless, you have completely failed to explain the changes that were made to Mark 1:11 to remove the Adoptionist undertones. 

Kish wrote: It wouldn�t be present; it was not part of the original early inspired writings of the Gospel of John. As you yourself pointed out God will preserves his word alive. That is why the Gospel most people have today is the same Gospel as the one from the 2nd century, you keep making my point. Thanks again!

  

Yet it is present in the modern Bible!  Even the Jehovah's Witness Bible retains the story but contains a disclaimer explaining that the story is not present in some manuscripts [2]!This is an example of deliberate additions to the NT!  Isn't that what we have been discussing?   

Also, you have shot yourself in the foot again since Papias stated that a similar story was found in the Gospel to the Hebrews:

"[This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]" [3].  

Yet no such story is found in the Gospel of Matthew (the one which was allegedly written in Hebrew)!  Where did it go?  Why is it not present in the Gospel of Matthew?  

Kish wrote: Exactly! Earlier copies did not have the additional verses! Why? Because they are NOT regarded as authentic, they are missing in most of the ancient manuscripts, such as the Sinaitic and the Vatican No. 1209. What the Gospel writers wrote were authentic not what others decided to write afterwards. That is why most Bible translation that do have them say that those verses are not authoritative or have them in (parentheses long/short version) or say [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9�20.] That�s God keeping his word preserved!

They are regarded as authentic because EVERY Bible today retains the story!  They do usually contain a disclaimer which explains that the verses are not present in the earliest manuscripts but the point is that they still retain the verses, thereby suggesting that the verses are indeed authentic.  And Christians who read the verses have no reason to doubt them and are thereby deceived into believing that Jesus actually resurrected.

But the truth of the matter is that the resurrection story was not present in the earliest Gospel!    That means that the earliest Gospel written contained no resurrection story and yet the resurrection is one of the most important tenets of Christianity!  This echoes another early Christian document, the Didache, which also never mentioned the resurrection (as well as the crucifixion).    

Kish wrote: Wrong again, most Bibles have the earlier version. However, your examples islamispeace actually does shows how the earliest copies of the Gospel were kept intact despite repeated efforts to change. We are right back to point A, the original copies of the Gospel from the 2nd century is the same Gospel that most people have today two thousand years later.

Then you are delusional.  The fact that these additional verses are still retained in modern Bibles shows that Christians do not want to discard them and instead choose to retain them and believe the false story of the resurrection.  Also, you don't realize that even though the Gospel of Mark did not have a resurrection story, the other Gospels do.  What does this mean?  Why did the other Gospels add this story when the earliest one written did not have it?  Why did Matthew and Luke, who used Mark as a template, add the story?  Does it not suggest that the resurrection story was not part of early Christian theology?  It sure does to me!

Kish wrote: That was his evidence everyone, smashed to smithereens. .

If you say so, Kish!  The fact that you try to make pathetic responses and then say things like "smashed to smithereens" shows that you are an expert at declaring victory and patting yourself on the back instead of actually offering a substantive rebuttal.  Other people reading this thread may come to a different conclusion, just so you know!  

Kish wrote: Looks that way to me . . . http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17330&PN=2

Again, if you say!  I answeres Shibbo's questions in that thread.  Afterwards, other people took over and...how did you put it?  Oh yeah...smashed him to smithereens!  Join Shibbo's club, Kish!  The club of blind Christians who cannot use reason and evidence to prove their claims but instead resort to bad research and plagiarism!

Kish wrote: think you need some rest or you should read what you just wrote over and over and over again. It is what I keep saying dude, where are you? 98% of the Gospel we have today is what was written in the Gospel in the 2nd century. The flimsy examples you provided with Jesus not being God�s son, Mark 16, the adultery and everything else came afterwards, that is why 98% of Christians or Bibles today do not accept that but accept Jesus as God's son, the crucifixion and the resurrection.

Where am I?  I am here on earth, which is very far from Planet Kish, where you are! 

Of all the examples I gave, you agreed that all (except for Mark 1:11) were false stories which were added later.  Yet, you fail to explain why they are still retained in modern Bibles and believed by Christians as scripture.  You also failed to explain why the earliest Gospel written contained no resurrection story!  

Also, regarding Mark 1:11, you ignored the argument and instead diverted to the alleged "prophecy" in Isaiah 9, which I showed was not a prophecy about the Messiah, but of Hezekiah.  You still have not explained why some early manuscripts had a different reading of Mark 1:11 which suggested that God had "adopted" Jesus as His son at the baptism. 

Kish wrote: Unless, of course you can present to us the �ORIGINAL� Gospel apart from what is in the Museum and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Can you actually do that, now that would be impressive!

Actually, that is where your position is weakened!  There simply is no early account of Jesus' life.  The Gospels were written decades after and are believed by scholars to have been based on an earlier document called "Q".  Unfortunately, "Q" no longer exists, which basically makes proving the authenticity of the Gospels impossible.  What an unfortunate set of circumstances for you Christians! 

And finally, here are the parts you have yet to answer:

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.