Prove that Paul or Muhammad had a Revelation.

Abu Loren wrote: *****ic people like you need proof whilst true believers have FAITH.

SO, that's how you are starting off I see. I hope you never have to teach anyone about faith becasue even many prophets needed sound
proof or evidence to accept what is truth and that's just for starters. Saying believe me because I say so just doesn't carry much
wieght, it never did. Not to sincere honest hearted truth seekers. Now, what you said about Paul how does that differ from Muhammad
with his life as a Muslim, claimed he seen an angel which no Muslim can or has confirmed because he had no eye-witnesses to testify. Muhammad broke
the Holy Law of Moses when it comes to truth and falsehood! It has ALWAYS been emphasized in the Old and New Testament

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.

Why did Moses, Jesus, his 12 disciples and the Apostle Paul keep this principle of LAW but not Muhammad? They ALL agreed with each other, why not Muhammad? Could it be
Muhammad came with his own teachings and that is why not one person can confirm his revelation or his miracles?  


And then he came up with the first book for Muslims to follow the god of his father, Allah and the cresent moon.

Abu who were the eye-witnesses that this happened to Muhammad in the cave of Hira? Who said it was Gabriel much, much later on? Convince your student that it wasn't a hoax!
Why would an angel of Allah violently choke him many, many times over for not listening?  

abuayisha wrote: . . how do you debate a persons "FAITH" and belief?

Very good question that really doesn't need debating. However, the ONLY challenge may be in one providing the proof or evidence itself that
such an event really happened or took place.

In harmony with the Law of Moses and the Prophets 7000 years ago and even today in the 21st century with the law of the land, their MUST ALWAYS
be eye-witnesses who either seen or heard the event. That is the FIRST rule of thumb in the Holy Scriptures.

honeto wrote: . . my two cents for those who need proof:

Hasan, it has nothing to do with who need it. It has everything to do with did the event actually really happened as it was told and if it did then it
should not be an issue to bring forth proof or evidence, right? Remember, Jesus provided miracles and some still did not believe. So it has nothing to do
who need it but no one can deny that Jesus performed miracles as you yourself would agree he did. Do you believe everything a person tells you without sound evidence?

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of
using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were in fact proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by
which one fulfills the burden of proof.
 

Ghazzali wrote: I want to add a few more questions Kish: What evidence do Jews have that Moses (pbuh) is a prophet? What evidence do Atheists have that there isn't any supernatural being?

Sorry, please stick with the topic or open one regarding Moses. Moses prophethood is not being question, Jews, Christians and Muslims all agree he was a prophet.
 

Kish wrote: 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.

This LAW has been the established principle of the Holy Scriptures starting with the prophet Moses and the Torah, Muhammad failed to follow it. Even early Muslims followed that principle but don't believe me do the research. So, any event that Muhammad claimed happened to him according to scriptual LAW, it must be confirmed by people who eye-witnesses the event to prove that what he said happened really, realy happened. I'm curious now, since this was a "historical" event for Muslims did even one person see or hear this event in the cave of Hira that Muhammad claimed happened?

Where in the Quran can I find that answer. It's like saying Ishmael was the child that was about to be sacrificed but the Quran never mentions Ishamel by name, another claim of Muhammad and the list goes on! What you call that is BLIND faith, believe without evidence to back it up! Why not believe in the Baha'i faith?

Edited by Kish - 25 October 2012 at 4:47am

honeto wrote: I have asked you in a previous post to check the contents of each revelations. This is the only way we can see as a fact which one is from who.

It is not very hard to find out where revelations come from when you compare religions.

Most of the components of revelations are borrowings from neighbouring religions.

May peace be on the guided ones.

Kish wrote: Moses prophethood is not being question, Jews, Christians and Muslims all agree he was a prophet.

According to Jews, Christians and Muslims are hypocrites and liars. What weight does their testimony carry? That is why I wanted to know, why does a Jew believe Musa(pbuh) is a prophet?

And it is relevant to the topic because then the same logic could possibly be used to prove that Isa(pbuh) and Muhammad(pbuh) were also prophets.