Interfaith Dialogue - God�s written instructions for life.

islamispeace wrote:

A. The Gospels themselves (specifically the Gospel of Luke) admit to the existence of many gospels. Luke 1 states:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled^{[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24895a -

B. The authority and use of the Gospels among the early Christians evolved over the course of the 2nd century. The following is what I wrote on the thread http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19811&PID=155589#155589 - on May 7:}

As I figured, these are only assumptions and accusations

islamispeace wrote:

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 http://ntcanon.org/Ignatius.shtml - Telling to you maybe, Ignatius however, wove in quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, showing his acquaintance with such canonical writings, this in itself is proof!

islamispeace wrote:

2. Justin Martyr references three of the Gospels, again only via fragments. He also perhaps refers to the Book of Revelation, but none of the letters of Paul or the Book of Acts http://ntcanon.org/Justin_Martyr.shtml -

Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in reference to the death of Jesus: �That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.�¹⁴ In addition, according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned Jesus� miracles, regarding which he says: �That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.�¹⁵ True, these �Acts,� or official records, no longer exist. But they evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth of what he said.

You are confirming and agreeing with what I'm saying regarding the Gospel, even showing proof. Thanks!

islamispeace wrote:

3. Irenaeus of Lyons does indeed say that there are only four Gospels and as such, he is the absolute earliest Church father to say this. He also quotes heavily from the letters of Paul and also some of the other epistles. But, he also quotes from the apocryphal book, the Shepherd of Hermas!

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!

Wrong thread, inany event by the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed, and we find such ones as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures, you yourself have shown that to be the case. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul�s letters. Do you also accept this?

Second Peter is also quoted by Irenaeus as bearing the same evidence of canonicity as the rest of the Greek Scriptures. The same is true of Second John. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 551, 557, 341, 443, �Irenaeus Against Heresies�) Revelation, also rejected by some, was attested to by many early commentators, including Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenaeus.

islamispeace wrote:

Therefore, the popularity and usage of the Gospels clearly changed over the course of the 2nd century. Therefore, the Christian canon evolved!

You�re beating a dead horse; your so-called references (Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) only confirmed that they accepted the Gospel canon. So, Muhammad was not the only who quoted from the Gospel but at least they accepted Jesus death and resurrection. As you and I have shown the Gospel was accepted way before and after Muhammad authentic.

islamispeace wrote:

C. There was even criticism from non-Christians. For example, the Roman philosopher Celsus observed the changes Christians made to their own scriptures whenever they faced criticism. Celsus' claims are lost but they were partially preserved in the writings of Origen. This is what Celsus wrote:

"Certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Christians make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of Christ�s life; hoping to spare individuals, and to expound the prophecies themselves, I admit the plausibility of the Christian interpretation of them. Nevertheless the use which they make of them may be overturned. One ought not hastily to assume so important a position on small grounds. The prophecies may be applied to countless other things with greater probability than to Jesus." (Contra Celsus)

As you can see Kish, your claim that no one questioned the authority of the Gospels is pure nonsense and not supported by the historical evidence.

As for the Gnostics and other Christian sects, they have disappeared because of the persecution of the Church after the Council of Nicea. That is why their writings were hidden away only to be discovered some 60 years ago. They did not want their books to be burned by the Church.

You are referring to �Celsus of the [2nd century C.E.]? the first writer against Christianity, he makes it a matter of mockery, that labourers, shoemakers, farmers, etc� should be zealous preachers of the Gospel.� Get it? He said the Gospel! Yes, it was accepted by that time hands down regardles wheather one disagreed with its teachings.

islamispeace wrote:

As you can see Kish, your claim that no one questioned the authority of the Gospels is pure nonsense and not supported by the historical evidence.

Here is what I said my dear friend�

kish wrote:

Of course like always you conveniently ignored the fact that the Gospel was not even seriously debated in the 1^st 2^nd 3^rd and 4^thCentury by its truest enemies,

Debated, not questioned islam, people back then even questioned the existence of God, doesn�t mean it was debated, just to many facts to prove otherwise. Is that all the proof you have, to show that the Gospel was indeed accepted as the way of life?

islamispeace wrote:

As for the Gnostics and other Christian sects, they have disappeared because of the persecution of the Church after the Council of Nicea. That is why their writings were hidden away only to be discovered some 60 years ago. They did not want their books to be burned by the Church.

Special pleading will get you know where. But you really believe that a small group of Christians were able to do all that, you must be kidding. In any event 'the council of Nicea' started in 325 A.D. many, many years later. But, what is sad is that in the same breath islamispeace refers to the writings of the Tanakh to disprove the Gospel, make up your mind, which is it?

But with all that being said why didn�t Jesus say the Tanakh was corrupted? I would hate to think that Muhammad is going against what Jesus said or maybe it is just Islam�s members who are unaware.

In any event your so-called historical references NOT debates were all shut down. Next time I'll be looking for the Gospel being seriously debated from the 1st - 4th century, which you failed to do as always, especially with "the Council of Nicea". Every single reference you quoted spoke in favor of the Gospel being part of the Bible canon, that is way before Muhammad.

Thanks islamispeace,

Kish

Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 October 2011 at 11:03am

Jack continues to try to convince himself and like-minded Christians with yet another rant filled with unproven assertions. What can I say?...

-------------
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)

Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 19 October 2011 at 12:04pm

Dear Kish,

IslamisPeace wrote:

Jack continues to try to convince himself and like-minded Christians with yet another rant filled with unproven assertions. What can I say?...

His two sentences are truly a rant with unproven assertions, lacking thought, intelligence, and logic.

In case you haven't gathered, IslamisPeace comes across initially to new postors as intelligent, thoughtful, and quiet, but as soon as he gathers that you might have a solid belief of some sort other than his, he begins to criticize the postor, degenerating into ridicule, name calling, and insults. He will interpret your questions into something not exactly like what you orriginally asked, then he will answer his version of your question intending to make you angry. His plan is to make you so angry that you either quit the forum, give up your convictions about the truth, or slide into poor behavior yourself. The best thing to do is to refuse to respond to his posts. I have done so, and actually enjoyed posting on this forum. Now I just enjoy chasing the cad (that is, IslamisPeace) from string to string exposing his behavior for what it is and making fun of him. When he is on the receiving end of his own behavior, he falls apart into the kind of useless posts which I quoted at the outset of this post.

Don't waste your time with him, Kish. There are other Muslim posters on this forum who are actually intelligent, thoughtful, considerate, and more conversational in their posts. You will learn a lot about Islam from them, as I have. You may also discover a great deal more depth in your own faith as well by seeking out answers to the questions they pose and comments they make. This is by far the greater good than getting in the rediculous entanglements with IslamisPeace. Don't bother with him. He is a distraction.

Allah/Yahweh bless you, my friend,

Jack Catholic

Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 19 October 2011 at 12:44pm

Dear Honeto (Hasan),

I am responding to your post from 4 August at 10:13pm

You made some assertions in your post:

The Bible as we know it now contains bits and pieces of what Quran tells were books sent to previous prophets.

The Quran is the only book, and let me repeat the only book to not contradict who God is, nor does it contradict how salvation is achieved,

You have made claims implied by these two points before in another string of posts called, "The Holy Gospel Did Not Evolve." My refutation of your post on this string is based on reference to the other string just mentioned.

"The (Holy) Bible as we now know it..." implies that what we have now is not the same as was penned by the orriginal authors. But you have not been able to proove this. In fact the opposite has been shown solidly with multiple sources that this is not the case.

"The Qur'an is the only book...to not contradict..." implying that the Holy Bible is full of contradiction. Yet all examples of contradiction given on that other string have been refuted repeatedly and solidly using multiple and varying sources.

"The Qur'an...not contradict who God is..." implies that the New Testament and the Jewish Tanakh (Old Testament) both contradict who God is. It has been shown on that string that the Tanakh and the NT are exactly in line with one another on who Allah/Yahweh is in that they do not contradict.

"...contradict how salvation is achieved." implies that neither the Jews nor the Christians knew correctly how salvation was achieved. In fact, the other string does clearly show both OT and NT explanation of how salvation is achieved, and they are exactly in line with no contradiction.

In the case of all of the above implications, only the Holy Qur'an is in contradiction with the Jewish Holy Book and the Christian Holy Book and therefore the Holy Qur'an is the only Holy Book to be in question.

Allah bless you, my friend,

Jack Catholic

Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 October 2011 at 7:28pm

Jack Catholic wrote:

Dear Kish,

IslamisPeace wrote:

Jack continues to try to convince himself and like-minded Christians with yet another rant filled with unproven assertions. What can I say?...

His two sentences are truly a rant with unproven assertions, lacking thought, intelligence, and logic.

Allah/Yahweh bless you, my friend,

Jack Catholic

Ah, Jack intervenes to try to save another one of his buddies from embarrassing himself. Too late!

By the way Jack, I treat people the way they deserve to be treated. People like you and Kish pretend to come here to "learn" and "discuss" but it is obvious that you are here for neither. Look at Kish. When he first came here, he pretended as if he was truly here to learn. He didn't even say outright that he was a Christian. Instead, he pretended as if he was actually still "searching". As it became clear that he was actually a Christian all along, and this his little act was just a smoke-screen, I have no reason not to let him have it. A lying twerp like that does not deserve any respect, and neither do you. Sorry!

-------------
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)

Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 October 2011 at 3:04pm

Kish wrote:

Telling to you maybe, Ignatius however, wove in quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, showing his acquaintance with such canonical writings, this in itself is proof!

To repeat, Ignatius never made any reference to the Gospels of Mark or John. That is proof of the evolving authority of the various Gospels. He was clearly not acquainted with each of the 4 Gospels.

Also, Paul himself testifies that there were disagreements in his time:

"⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel� ⁷ which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God�s curse! ⁹ As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God�s curse!" (Galatians 6:6-9)

Kish wrote:

Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in reference to the death of Jesus: �That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.�¹⁴ In addition, according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned Jesus� miracles, regarding which he says: �That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.�¹⁵ True, these �Acts,� or official records, no longer exist. But they evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth of what he said.

Yet the so-called "Acts of Pilate" were never considered to be canonical. Moreover, Justin Martyr's clear reference to only 3 Gospels is yet more evidence of the evolving authority of the Gospels. From Ignatius to Justin Martyr, the authority and notoriety of the Gospels had clearly evolved. So far, you have not refuted anything.

Kish wrote:

You are confirming and agreeing with what I'm saying regarding the Gospel, even showing proof. Thanks!

Well, if you refuse to see the evidence for what it is and instead only see what you want to see, then your statement comes as no surprise. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the evidence is clear. How you choose to interpret it is your problem.

Jack wrote:

Wrong thread, inany event by the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed, and we find such ones as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures, you yourself have shown that to be the case. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul�s letters. Do you also accept this?

You are now simply repeating what I have already said! I do agree that the by the end of the 2nd century, more than 150 years after Jesus (pbuh), the Christian canon was beginning to take shape. However, it was not yet complete. There were many attempts at finalizing the canon and there were many "canons". These include the Muratorian Canon, the Canon of Origen, the Canon of Eusebius and others. There were differences within these canons as well. And as I pointed out before, even though Irenaeus was the absolute first Church father to identify 4 authoritative Gospels, he also considered the apocryphal "Shepherd of Hermas" to be scripture as well.

Kish wrote:

Second Peter is also quoted by Irenaeus as bearing the same evidence of canonicity as the rest of the Greek Scriptures. The same is true of Second John. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 551, 557, 341, 443, �Irenaeus Against Heresies�) Revelation, also rejected by some, was attested to by many early commentators, including Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenaeus.

And this serves as further proof that your claim that there were no disagreements is a complete crock. Thank you!

Kish wrote:

You�re beating a dead horse; your so-called references (Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) only confirmed that they accepted the Gospel canon. So, Muhammad was not the only who quoted from the Gospel but at least they accepted Jesus death and resurrection. As you and I have shown the Gospel was accepted way before and after Muhammad authentic.

You are choosing to blind yourself to the facts. I can't help you there. The evidence I have provided shows that there were disagreements even into the third and fourth centuries. Even the "Gospels" were not fully accepted until the late 2nd century.

Kish wrote:

You are referring to �Celsus of the [2nd century C.E.]? the first writer against Christianity, he makes it a matter of mockery, that labourers, shoemakers, farmers, etc� should be zealous preachers of the Gospel.� Get it? He said the Gospel! Yes, it was accepted by that time hands down regardles wheather one disagreed with its teachings.

More special pleading. You claimed that not even the Romans questioned the Gospel accounts. I refuted this as false by providing a direct Roman source which accused Christians of changing the scripture when faced with criticism. Your argument that he actually wrote the word "Gospel" is laughable and childish at best. So what? He also questioned the authority and truthfulness of the "Gospel". That is the important point here.

Kish wrote:

Debated, not questioned islam, people back then even questioned the existence of God, doesn�t mean it was debated, just to many facts to prove otherwise. Is that all the proof you have, to show that the Gospel was indeed accepted as the way of life?

Oh please. Whether it was "debated" or "questioned" is actually the same thing. Why would they be "questioning" it if not for the purpose of "debating"? The fact is that the Gospel accounts were questioned and debated. Some only became accepted over time. That implies that there were debates.

Kish wrote:

Special pleading will get you know where. But you really believe that a small group of Christians were able to do all that, you must be kidding. In any event 'the council of Nicea' started in 325 A.D. many, many years later.

Um dude, the Gnostics were persecuted by Christians after the Council of Nicea. For example, the Gnostic Priscillian was executed for heresy in 385. After mainstream Christianity became dominant in Europe, it suppressed all other religious groups, including paganism and "Christian heresies".

Kish wrote:

But, what is sad is that in the same breath islamispeace refers to the writings of the Tanakh to disprove the Gospel, make up your mind, which is it?

Are you talking about the thread I opened about the contradictions between the Tanakh and NT? So what? I opened that thread to show the holes in Christian theology. The point is to show that the Gospels' claims of complete agreement with the Tanakh is false. Are you going to actually try to refute my claim or are you going to ask silly questions? The other Christians have been silent on the issue as well. Care to give it a shot?

Kish wrote:

But with all that being said why didn�t Jesus say the Tanakh was corrupted? I would hate to think that Muhammad is going against what Jesus said or maybe it is just Islam�s members who are unaware.

Who says he didn't? The problem is with the Gospels themselves! Since the Gospels are not Jesus' own words, but the words of anonymous writers and editors, we can't say what Jesus actually said.

Kish wrote:

n any event your so-called historical references NOT debates were all shut down. Next time I'll be looking for the Gospel being seriously debated from the 1st - 4th century, which you failed to do as always, especially with "the Council of Nicea". Every single reference you quoted spoke in favor of the Gospel being part of the Bible canon, that is way before Muhammad.

Again, you are choosing to disregard the evidence and manipulate to fit your own ridiculous view. For those with reason, the evidence is clear. You did not offer any substantive response. The fact is that there were debates and disagreements. The proof is in the different canons that we know about.

Kish wrote:

Thanks islamispeace,

You're welcome! If you need more evidence of the falsehood of Christianity, don't hesitate to ask! Wink

-------------
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)

Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 22 October 2011 at 6:18am

As I have mentioned before the first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of �James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.� (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.

Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: �Christus [Latin for �Christ�], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.��The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), �The Annals,� Book 15, par. 44.

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclop�dia Britannica states: �These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.��(1976), Macrop�dia, Vol. 10, p. 145.

With so much historical evidence regarding Jesus birth, life and DEATH, the real question is why don�t Muslims who say they believe in Jesus support this crucial argument? It is because Moses and Jesus spoke about false prophets that would come in Jesus name; Muhammad fits that prophecy like a glove on hand.

The individuals who islamispeace even mentions where around during and after the first few centuries of the Gospel, where Islam�s support was? Nowhere to be found because there was no Allah, Muslims or Quran until that event in the cave that only Muhammad can say happened because there is no proof or eyewitnesses that it ever happened just Muhammad�s word.

Obviously, the spirit that approached Muhammad was the same one that approached Eve in the garden, a wicked evil spirit, no wonder it choked and drove Muhammad out of his mind (like Judas) to want to commit suicide.

Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 23 October 2011 at 12:46pm

Kish wrote:

As I have mentioned before the first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of �James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.� (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.

Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: �Christus [Latin for �Christ�], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.��The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), �The Annals,� Book 15, par. 44.

What does this have to with what we are discussing? Are you feeling alright Kish?

Kish wrote:

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclop�dia Britannica states: �These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.��(1976), Macrop�dia, Vol. 10, p. 145.

Who's doubting the historicity of Jesus? You have completely changed the topic and have not responded to anything I wrote in my last post.

Kish wrote:

With so much historical evidence regarding Jesus birth, life and DEATH, the real question is why don�t Muslims who say they believe in Jesus support this crucial argument? It is because Moses and Jesus spoke about false prophets that would come in Jesus name; Muhammad fits that prophecy like a glove on hand.

Again, you are going off on tangents. Secondly, no rational person would consider a few passages from Josephus and Tacitus as "so much historical evidence" about Jesus. Neither Josephus nor Tacitus say anything about Jesus' resurrection (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum is a Christian forgery) and it is NOT considered indisputable historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead. There simply is no historical evidence of his so-called resurrection. And since we are on the topic of non-Christian references to Jesus, let's look at another example:

"AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_33 - ³³ [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_34 - ^{Any one who can say anything in his favour,
let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since
nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_35 - ^{Was he
not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou
spare, neither shalt thou conceal}} him? http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_36 - ³⁶ With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'

Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God? http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_37 - ³⁷ Thereupon they retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_38 - ³⁸ When Nakai was brought in he said to them; Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not? http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_39 - ³⁹ Yes, was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, in secret places does Naki http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_40 - ⁴⁰ [the innocent] slay. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_41 - ⁴¹ When Nezer was brought in, he said; Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, And Nezer [a twig] shall grow forth out of his roots. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_42 - ⁴² Yes, they said, Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth away from thy grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot]. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_43 - ⁴³ When Buni was brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my son], my first born? http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_44 - ⁴⁴ Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_45 - ⁴⁵ And when Todah was brought in, he said to them; Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]? http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_46 - ⁴⁶ Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed, since it is written, Whoso offereth the sacrifice of Todah [thanksgiving] honoured me. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_47 - ⁴⁷ " [Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a]

Obviously, there were disagreements and debates about Jesus (pbuh). So, we see your new argument is also false. Where will you go from here? Will you try to change the subject again.

Kish wrote:

The individuals who islamispeace even mentions where around during and after the first few centuries of the Gospel, where Islam�s support was? Nowhere to be found because there was no Allah, Muslims or Quran until that event in the cave that only Muhammad can say happened because there is no proof or eyewitnesses that it ever happened just Muhammad�s word.

What the heck are you talking about? Why do you keep diverting to Muhammad (pbuh) when we are talking about the authenticity of the Gospels? As I have stated before, Muhammad (pbuh) had many witnesses to his miracles. We can discuss this in another thread. He was also known as "Al-Amin". Even the pagans knew him as an honest man. As such, they often accused him of being a sorcerer or even possessed, in the same way the Talmud accused Jesus of being a sorcerer!

Also, I have asked in the past for the names of the witnesses who were with Paul when he allegedly met Jesus on the road to Damascus. You have yet to answer.

Kish wrote:

Yeah, you would love to prove that wouldn't you? And when did this spirit "choke" the Prophet? Care to give any proof? And when did Muhammad (pbuh) go "out of his mind"? Care to give any proof? When did he try to commit suicide because he was going mad? Care to give any proof?

By the way, what spirit did Jacob encounter in his "wrestling match" which caused him to develop a problem with his hip:

"So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. ²⁵ When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob�s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. ²⁶ Then the man said, �Let me go, for it is daybreak.�

But Jacob replied, �I will not let you go unless you bless me.� ²⁷ The man asked him, �What is your name?� �Jacob,� he answered. ²⁸ Then the man said, �Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, "#fen-NIV-957f" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2032&version=NIV#fen-NIV-957f - f ] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.�

²⁹ Jacob said, �Please tell me your name.� But he replied, �Why do you ask my name?� Then he blessed him there. ³⁰ So Jacob called the place Peniel, "#fen-NIV-959g" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2032&version=NIV#fen-NIV-959g - g ] saying, �It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.�

³¹ The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, "#fen-NIV-960h" - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2032&version=NIV#fen-NIV-960h - h ] and he was limping because of his hip. ³² Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob�s hip was touched near the tendon." (Genesis 32:24-32)

What makes you think this being Jacob "wrestled" with was not a demon? Oh you Christians and your double standards! LOL

Now, can you actually respond to my last post instead of going off on tangents? You have not provided any reasonable response to the evolving authority of the Gospels in the 2nd century. You have not responded to the many Christian canons that existed. You have not responded to the historical evidence of Christian persecution of the Gnostics. Oh and you have not responded to the facts I presented before about the illegitimacy of Jesus' crucifixion as expiation for the sins of humanity. For convenience, here are the points I raised:

1. 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2837a - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2837a - 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2842b - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2842b - 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 forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PN=2#fen-NIV-2843c - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%205&version=NIV#fen-NIV-2843c - 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.

Earth to Planet Kish! Earth to Planet Kish!

-------------
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)

Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 23 October 2011 at 5:22pm

So then, what is islamispeace and one or two others basing their argument on, about the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not being part of the Bible�s canon? Apart from the things he and other Muslims cannot understand and answer and because of their lack of Holy Spirit and guidance from God�s word it is this;

Basically because it does not agree with a book (Quran) that was written 600 years after the Bible was written. How insane!

islamispeace wrote:

The verse is referring to the Quran which was to revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) and the previous pristine scriptures like the Torah and the Gospel which were revealed to Moses and Jesus (pbut), respectively.

Of course Islam cannot present any other �previous pristine scriptures� apart from what we already have in the Torah and the Gospel, why, because there is none.

Word to the wise though, Jesus did not say that the Torah or the Gospel was corrupt, only Muhammad and his followers. They also deny Jesus birth was with the help of Holy Spirit from his heavenly father and therefore Jesus is God�s son. They deny Jesus death on the torture stake and his resurrection.

islamispeace wrote:

No one said the entire Torah or Gospel has been corrupted. There is some truth and some falsehood.

Now you are saying that God failed to preserve his Holy Word like he promised. Or is it because his Holy Word does not agree with a book that was written 600 years later denying Jesus birth, death and resurrection it therefore is corrupted?

islamispeace wrote:

How do you know? Are you basing this on the Gospel accounts, which were written decades after Jesus?

Sure am, I rather believe in the actual accounts of eyewitnesses who were around during that time of history to confirm its truth then to believe what was written centuries not decades, centuries later, 600 years later by a man who was choked three or four times to recite something he himself could not read or understand. No thank you, I�ll stick within a person lifetime.

But, I guess no matter how you look at it, if God failed to keep his word regarding the Torah, Psalms and Gospel how can he be trusted? Is there truth and falsehood in the Quran or did God now gain more power to protect this book? How silly! God is incapable of making an error so how could you even believe what you are saying being a God fearing man.

islamispeace wrote:

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.

Then you should walk away from this because neither does the Quran, they were all burned for a reason. But, we do have historical references of the Gospel as presented above from opponents of Christianity and throughout this thread. Where is yours to disprove the canonicity of the Gospel? You have none, once again you have assumptions and allegations. This is why you said . . .

islamispeace wrote:

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".

Consistent with what, the Quran? Remember, you said the Torah has been corrupted so you cannot compare the Quran to that.

islamispeace wrote:

Jesus rejected the title of "son of God" when confronted by the Sanhedrin, according to Matthew. Therefore, any other places in the New Testament where it is claimed that Jesus is the son of God must be rejected as contradictions which were added later.

Another bold face lies as to your desperation to prove the Gospel as uninspired shot down.

Matt. 26:63, 64 ⁶³ But Jesus kept silent. So the high priest said to him: �By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!� ⁶⁴ Jesus said to him: �You yourself said [it]. Yet I say to YOU men, From henceforth YOU will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.�

No rejection here, �you yourself said it� was a common Jewish idiom affirming that a statement was true, do your studies, that was 1 century vernacular. Jesus himself said he was the �son of God� as well as his father saying Jesus was his son in front of eyewitnesses on many occasions. But Islam is telling us to reject it because Jesus did not answer in this one instance, during a MOCK trial! Islam why didn�t Jesus himself tell us to reject himself being called the �son of God�? Why do you rather take the opposing side? Why are you taken it upon yourself to believe this portion but to ignore all the other references he and his father made to Jesus being the �son of God� what is your real motive?

Here are islamispeace references in this post to prove the authenticity of the Gospel. Let us deal we facts not personal belief

Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons, Diatessaron,

islamispeace wrote:

Ignatius never made any reference to the Gospels of Mark or John. That is proof of the evolving authority of the various Gospels. He was clearly not acquainted with each of the 4 Gospels.

That you are aware of, but even giving you the benefit of doubt which I don�t mind, you still cannot discredit the Gospel that he does make mention of along with the other writings in the NT, but we are talking about the canonicity of the Gospel as God�s written word for life, not it evolving, that�s neither here or there. Like it or not, Ignatius who is only one person uses quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Gospel included as you just attested to) showing his acquaintance with such canonical writings who also believed that Jesus was God son. Are you again accepting some of his writings that disagree with Islam�s beliefs that Jesus is not God son? Ignatius believed Jesus to be God�s son and that he was tortured on a stake a teaching of Christ himself, now what? Where do you go from here?

Now to another one of YOUR references, Justin Martyr.

kish wrote:

Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in reference to the death of Jesus: �That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.�¹⁴ In addition, according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned Jesus� miracles, regarding which he says: �That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.�¹⁵ True, these �Acts,� or official records, no longer exist. But they evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth of what he said.

You then said. ..

islamispeace wrote:

Yet the so-called "Acts of Pilate" were never considered to be canonical. Moreover, Justin Martyr's clear reference to only 3 Gospels is yet more evidence of the evolving authority of the Gospels.

But, yet you used these philosophers as a point of reference to disprove Jesus� death on a torture stake. As everyone can see, Justin Martyr wrote in reference to Jesus death AND resurrection, he believed it, unlike Islam today! �That these things did happen. But, yet Islam stubbornly disagrees with these early historians and hard proof of evidence.

So far we have Ignatius lending support and Justin Martyr lending support to the Gospel of Jesus. Remember Gospel mean �Good News� Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all preached and teached the SAME one Gospel or Good News of Jesus.

Also, The extent of prejudice against professed Christians at that time is indicated by Justin�s statement: �I too, therefore, expect to be plotted against and fixed to the stake, by some of those I have named, or perhaps by Crescens, that lover of bravado and boasting; for the man is not worthy of the name of philosopher who publicly bears witness against us in matters which he does not understand, saying that the Christians are atheists and impious, and doing so to win favour with the deluded mob, and to please them. For if he assails us without having read the teachings of Christ, he is thoroughly depraved, and far worse than the illiterate, who often refrain from discussing or bearing false witness about matters they do not understand.�

In about 165 C.E., he was beheaded in Rome and became a �martyr� (meaning �witness�). Hence, he is called Justin Martyr.

Another one of your references, Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria, they too knew Jesus to be God�s son.

Irenaeus (c. 130-200 C.E.): �We may learn through Him [Christ] that the Father is above all things. For �the Father,� says He, �is greater than I.� The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge.��Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 28.8.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 C.E.): �To know the eternal God, the giver of what is eternal, and by knowledge and comprehension to possess God, who is first, and highest, and one, and good. . . . He then who would live the true life is enjoined first to know Him �whom no one knows, except the Son reveal (Him).� (Matt. 11:27) Next is to be learned the greatness of the Saviour after Him.��Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? VII, VIII.

MUST I CONTINUE TO BLOW YOUR REFERENCES AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES!

In this connection it may be observed that Second Peter is quoted by Irenaeus as bearing the same evidence of canonicity as the rest of the Greek Scriptures. The same is true of Second John. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 551, 557, 341, 443, �Irenaeus Against Heresies�) Revelation, also rejected by some, was attested to by many early commentators, including Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenaeus.

I guess you wished you have never brought these individuals up!

kish wrote:

You�re beating a dead horse; your so-called references (Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) only confirmed that they accepted the Gospel canon. So, Muhammad was not the only who quoted from the Gospel but at least they accepted Jesus death and resurrection. As you and I have shown the Gospel was accepted way before and after Muhammad authentic.

Then you tried to change gears again by saying there were disagreements. . .

islamispeace wrote:

You are choosing to blind yourself to the facts. I can't help you there. The evidence I have provided shows that there were disagreements even into the third and fourth centuries. Even the "Gospels" were not fully accepted until the late 2nd century.

From here we see that the GOSPEL WAS INDEED ACCEPETED as per islamispeace, finally you admit it. 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^thregardless they were accepted way before a Muhammad AS PART OF THE BIBLE�S CANON, inspired.

Discovery of the Diatessaron and commentaries on it in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Latin led Bible scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon to write: �These discoveries finally disposed of any doubt as to what the Diatessaron was, and proved that by about A.D. 170 the four canonical Gospels held an undisputed pre-eminence over all other narratives of our Saviour�s life.�

islamispeace wrote:

Oh please. Whether it was "debated" or "questioned" is actually the same thing. Why would they be "questioning" it if not for the purpose of "debating"? The fact is that the Gospel accounts were questioned and debated. Some only became accepted over time. That implies that there were debates.

Wow, questioning and debating is the same thing. Then is shouldn�t be hard for you to present the debates, right! Still waiting��..

Not only were the �Gospel� and the �Apostle� placed on the same footing as collected Scripture by Clement of Alexandria, but they were equated with the Hebrew Scriptures. (Miscellanies, Book 4) Justin tells us that at the meetings of the early Christians �the memoirs of the apostles or the writing of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.� (1 Apology 67) Ignatius, Theophilus and Tertullian also spoke of the Prophets, the Law and the Gospel as equally authoritative.�Ignatius� Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 5.1; Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 3, chap. 12; On Prescriptions Against Heretics, chap. 36.

Stick a fork in it, you are done!

All praise to Jehovah God, the Creator of this incomparable Book the Holy Scriptures! It can equip us completely and put us on the way to life.

Peace,

Kish

Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 24 October 2011 at 1:12am

Kish wrote:

With so much historical evidence regarding Jesus birth, life and DEATH, the real question is why don�t Muslims who say they believe in Jesus support this crucial argument?

Where are historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?Josepphus,Thallus,Pliny the Younger,Lucian of Samosata,Tacitus never mention any resurrection of Jesus Christ.You can click http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/abuse_and_misuse_of_evidence_by_a_greenhorn_1__the_earliest_non_christian_references_to_jesus__peace_be_upon_him_ - here to read a full article about this topic.

Kish wrote:

It is because Moses and Jesus spoke about false prophets that would come in Jesus name; Muhammad fits that prophecy like a glove on hand.

Another mistake.Muhammad doesnot fit the description of a false prophet.Muhammad never came in Jesus name.Muhammad came for Allah's cause,not Jesus.There is not a single Quranic verse or authentic Haidth which says that Muhammad came in Jesus name.

Kish wrote:

Proof or eyewitnesses?First of all,Muhammad was indeed foretold in the Bible but these prediction are vague when looked at along with the other verses that are corrupted.For example,when Jesus referred to the comforter to come he is actually referring to Muhammad.However,it is not clear because of the false verses surrounding it.

Now about eyewitnesses.

1- Did Moses have any witnesses?

2- Did King David have any witnesses?

3- Did Solomon, Ezra, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Job and the rest of the Prophets foretold each others?

4- Were the Disciples of Jesus foretold in the Bible?

5- Was the Disciple Paul foretold in the Bible, since he never even met Jesus in person?

The answer to the all of the above is NO! Non of the Bible's Prophets except for Jesus and Muhammad was ever foretold. They just happened without any prior warnings.

Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 October 2011 at 5:17pm

So now Kish is so desperate that he is pulling stuff from posts I made weeks and months ago and responding to them now, instead of responding to the issues were are currently discussing! How sad and pathetic! If this the best Christianity has in terms of intellectuals, then the battle for souls is already half won, inshaAllah!

So Kish, I will only respond to the issues dealt with in my last post to which you responded. The rest of your response will go in the garbage dump (metaphorically that is).

Kish wrote:

Matt. 26:63, 64 ⁶³ But Jesus kept silent. So the high priest said to him: �By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!� ⁶⁴ Jesus said to him: �You yourself said [it]. Yet I say to YOU men, From henceforth YOU will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.�

Kish thinks he is pretty slick using a particular English translation to "prove "his point. Actually Kish, by using this translation, you have proven that you are a Jehovah's Witness! You have trying to hide it, but now it is clear! You took this translation directly from a Jehovah's Witness website. Here is the link:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm -
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm

Now, is this translation accurate? Let us see other translations:

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.� (NIV)

"⁶⁴Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (KJV)

"⁶⁴ Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (ASV)

"⁶⁴Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."" (ESV)

"⁶⁴ Jesus said to him, Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half of the virtue of God [nevertheless, I say to you, from henceforth, ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half of God's virtue], and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Wycliffe Bible)

"⁶⁴Jesus saith to him, `Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming upon the clouds, of the heaven.'" (Young's Literal Translation)

We see a pattern here. Most English translations say 'Thou hast said" or "You have said so" which implies that Jesus is denying the title of "son of God". But what is even more amazing is that mistranslations like the WatchTower Bible retain the "son of Man" phrase which makes the translation utterly absurd. Why would Jesus say he is the son of God and then say "I tell you that you will see the son of Man..." Wouldn't it have made more sense to say "I tell you that will see the son of God..."?

But there is more to consider. According to Strong's Concordance Dictionary, the Greek word used after the phrase "Thou hast said" is "πλὴν" (plēn) which means "however, nevertheless, but, except that, yet." http://concordances.org/greek/4133.htm - [1] . Obviously, if Jesus was saying "Thou hast said. Nevertheless..." or "Thou hast said. However..." it would imply that he is denying the title. To give more support to this fact, let us see what Biblical scholar Geza Vermes states:

"The phrase implies a negative answer according to rabbinic literature (see The Changing Faces of Jesus, 181-3). It should be observed that in conformity with mainstream tradition some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel read 'You say that I am'" (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. 26).

The reference to Mark's Gospel is due to the fact that it states that Jesus replied in the affirmative while both Matthew and Luke state that Jesus replied in the negative. Yet Vermes states that some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel have been changed to conform to Matthew and Luke.

In light of these facts, it is obvious Kish that you are grasping at straws. Of course, I don't expect you to admit your error. You will invariably respond to the evidence I have presented in the way typical of many blind Christians, which is to close your eyes and cover your ears and yell "la la la la la la..." LOL

Kish wrote:

Here are islamispeace references in this post to prove the authenticity of the Gospel. Let us deal we facts not personal belief

I agree but unfortunately, all you have been doing is expressing your personal opinions/beliefs with no supporting evidence.

Kish wrote:

That you are aware of, but even giving you the benefit of doubt which I don�t mind, you still cannot discredit the Gospel that he does make mention of along with the other writings in the NT, but we are talking about the canonicity of the Gospel as God�s written word for life, not it evolving, that�s neither here or there.

"Canonicity"? Is that a word? Anyway, the point is that the authority of all four Gospels was obviously not set in stone even in the early 2nd century. Mark's Gospel was supposedly the first one written, yet Ignatius never even refers to it once! And guess what? Mark's Gospel is believed by scholars to be the template for which Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels! So if Ignatius did not refer to Mark, his references to Matthew and Luke would also be called into question since they were based on Mark! Shocked

Also, his failure to refer to John's Gospel is significant because it was supposedly written near the end of the 1st century. It would have been circulated by the early 2nd century so there is no reason why Ignatius would not have referred to it. And of course, the earliest definitive references to John comes much later in the late 2nd century or mid-2nd century (if we assume Justin Martyr did refer to it).

Kish wrote:

Like it or not, Ignatius who is only one person uses quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Gospel included as you just attested to) showing his acquaintance with such canonical writings who also believed that Jesus was God son.

Yet he did not use all of the canonical books, including two Gospels. That represents a problem with the authority of all four Gospels.

Kish wrote:

Are you again accepting some of his writings that disagree with Islam�s beliefs that Jesus is not God son?

Not at all! That is the not the point. The point is to refute your claim that the Gospels were all accepted without question from the very start. This claim is indubitably false. The fact that there was an evolution of the Christian canon shows that Christians were not sure which books to believe and which to reject. That in itself calls all of the standard Church tradition regarding Jesus into question.

Ignatius believed Jesus to be God�s son and that he was tortured on a stake a teaching of Christ himself, now what? Where do you go from here?

Ignatius also believed in a primitive form of the trinity. I have already proven this. Where was he getting this belief from if not from the books he was aware of? How does that prove the authority of those books as authentic sources on the life of Jesus? The answer is it does not prove anything.

Kish wrote:

But, yet you used these philosophers as a point of reference to disprove Jesus� death on a torture stake. As everyone can see, Justin Martyr wrote in reference to Jesus death AND resurrection, he believed it, unlike Islam today! �That these things did happen. But, yet Islam stubbornly disagrees with these early historians and hard proof of evidence.

As usual, you have completely missed the point. When I referred to these people, it was to prove that the Gospels were not accepted by everyone, as you claimed. I was not even referring to the beliefs espoused in those documents. However, the fact that the Gospels were not as authoritative as you suggest shows that the stories regarding Jesus (which include his alleged crucifixion and resurrection) were also not as authoritative. They actually contradict some other early sources such as the Didache which never mentions Jesus' death and crucifixion.

Kish wrote:

So far we have Ignatius lending support and Justin Martyr lending support to the Gospel of Jesus. Remember Gospel mean �Good News� Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all preached and teached the SAME one Gospel or Good News of Jesus.

Clearly false as there are numerous differences between each of the four Gospels. I gave one example above regarding Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin and his reply to the High Priest. What you also fail to realize is that Ignatius and Justin Martyr were both writing in the 2nd century, so their historical reliability is in question since they were separated from Jesus by ~80 years and ~120 years, respectively.

Kish wrote:

Also, The extent of prejudice against professed Christians at that time is indicated by Justin�s statement: �I too, therefore, expect to be plotted against and fixed to the stake, by some of those I have named, or perhaps by Crescens, that lover of bravado and boasting; for the man is not worthy of the name of philosopher who publicly bears witness against us in matters which he does not understand, saying that the Christians are atheists and impious, and doing so to win favour with the deluded mob, and to please them. For if he assails us without having read the teachings of Christ, he is thoroughly depraved, and far worse than the illiterate, who often refrain from discussing or bearing false witness about matters they do not understand.�

In about 165 C.E., he was beheaded in Rome and became a �martyr� (meaning �witness�). Hence, he is called Justin Martyr.

Your point being? This is all irrelevant. Just because people are willing to die for their beliefs does not mean their beliefs must be correct. People of all religions are willing to die for their beliefs.

Kish wrote:

Irenaeus (c. 130-200 C.E.): �We may learn through Him [Christ] that the Father is above all things. For �the Father,� says He, �is greater than I.� The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge.��Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 28.8.

Again, you missed the point! Irenaeus was the absolute first Church father to claim that there are 4 canonical Gospels. His reasoning was also childish at best. Here is why he believed there were "four" Gospels:

"But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the 'pillar and ground' of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge - demiourgos of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit" (Against Heresies 3.11.8).

How childish! Irenaeus did not consider the historical evidence or whether these "four Gospels" were even reliable witnesses. Rather, he based his faith in these Gospels on the completely unrelated fact that there are "four zones in the world"! WOW!

Also, Irenaeus clearly believed that Jesus was God. That wouldn't sit well with you now would it? Here is what he wrote:

"For this reason [it is ,said], "Who shall declare His generation?"(1) since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him?"(2) But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him,(3) knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man,"(4) is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures,(5) that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (Against Heresies, 3:19:2).

These people were blasphemers and not historically reliable.

Kish wrote:

MUST I CONTINUE TO BLOW YOUR REFERENCES AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of the people you have referred to believed, in some form, that Jesus was God! Your "REFERENCES" shoot you in the foot.

Kish wrote:

I guess you wished you have never brought these individuals up!

You are so hilarious! Do you forget that I mentioned before that Irenaeus also accepted the authority of the "Shepherd of Hermas", which was rejected by the Church? Also, you admitted that the Book of Revelation was "rejected by some"! Therefore, the Christians could not agree on what books to accept. That is what I have been saying all this time, dude! Thank you for proving it with your own words! Clap

Kish wrote:

From here we see that the GOSPEL WAS INDEED ACCEPETED as per islamispeace, finally you admit it. 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^thregardless they were accepted way before a Muhammad AS PART OF THE BIBLE�S CANON, inspired.

Yeah, I have been saying that the Gospels were not accepted until the LATE 2ND CENTURY all this time! Are you paying attention Kish? Do you know what this means? It means that the by the time the Gospels were accepted, it had already been more than 150 years since the time of Jesus (pbuh). Not exactly historically viable! LOL

As such, your fallacious argument that since the Gospels were accepted before Muhammad (pbuh) was born is indicative of your childish logic since it still does not prove that they were historically reliable accounts of Jesus' life.

Kish wrote:

Discovery of the Diatessaron and commentaries on it in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Latin led Bible scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon to write: �These discoveries finally disposed of any doubt as to what the Diatessaron was, and proved that by about A.D. 170 the four canonical Gospels held an undisputed pre-eminence over all other narratives of our Saviour�s life.�

Yes AD 170, which would be roughly 140 years AFTER Jesus! How does this prove their historical reliability? Why did it take so long for them to be accepted and canonized? You delirious Christians have no answers, only assumptions based on leaps of faith. Referring to the Diatessaron, James Still writes:

"...Tatian will later create the Diatessaron, a harmony that omitted and redacted material from the four gospels and which was very popular, circulating widely in the West as well as in Syria. This demonstrates that even at this late date the gospels were still not afforded the same inerrant status as the Hebrew scriptures. The fact is the various communities were free to develop the material about Jesus depending upon their needs. The Gospel of John, for instance, thrived in Alexandria among the Mandaean Gnostics for many decades before it came to be circulated outside of that city and eventually canonized. The fact that we have many different extant gospels, both canonical and noncanonical, emphasizing different aspects of Jesus' teaching, demonstrates that no clear ideology had yet emerged from the various primitive communities. To suggest that one gospel is more authoritative than another, simply because it represents the teachings of the church today, is nothing more than an arbitrary decision based on a normative prejudice. The external evidence is very clear: the written gospels were profitable for teaching but not considered more authoritative than the thriving oral tradition circulating among the ancient communities during the first two hundred years" ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/bias2.html - The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller ).

Kish wrote:

Wow, questioning and debating is the same thing. Then is shouldn�t be hard for you to present the debates, right! Still waiting��..

Well, if you close your eyes and ears, refusing to look at the evidence already presented, then I am afraid you will keep waiting.................................and waiting..........................................and waiting.................................until it's too late to realize that you are in denial! Big%20smile

Kish wrote:

Not only were the �Gospel� and the �Apostle� placed on the same footing as collected Scripture by Clement of Alexandria, but they were equated with the Hebrew Scriptures. (Miscellanies, Book 4) Justin tells us that at the meetings of the early Christians �the memoirs of the apostles or the writing of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.� (1 Apology 67) Ignatius, Theophilus and Tertullian also spoke of the Prophets, the Law and the Gospel as equally authoritative.�Ignatius� Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 5.1; Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 3, chap. 12; On Prescriptions Against Heretics, chap. 36.

As mentioned already, all or most of these people also believed that Jesus was God. Also, none of them were in full agreement as to the correct canon of the Bible. Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself? Snap out of it, Kish. Come back Earth!

Kish wrote:

Stick a fork in it, you are done!

If you say so. I say let the evidence do the talking.

Kish wrote:

All praise to Jehovah God, the Creator of this incomparable Book the Holy Scriptures! It can equip us completely and put us on the way to life.

What passion! Unfortunately, your prayer is misplaced as has been shown. Your passionate failure can be represented by the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5atPYaxX0lM&feature=related -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5atPYaxX0lM&feature=related

And once again, before I close, here are the parts about Jesus' crucifixion you failed to respond to:

1. 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:

3. The atonement ritual was only for the Jews. It was not required, for example, from the people of Jonah:

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.

You can't run. Until you respond, I will keep pushing these points in your face. The longer you avoid these points, the more you damage your own position.

-------------
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)

Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 24 October 2011 at 5:35pm

kish wrote:

With so much historical evidence regarding Jesus birth, life and DEATH, the real question is why don�t Muslims who say they believe in Jesus support this crucial argument?

Since this was proven beyond the shadow of doubt just by using Islamispeace references, now another question, then another question, then another, right?

mansoor ali wrote:

Where are historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?Josepphus,Thallus,Pliny the Younger,Lucian of Samosata,Tacitus never mention any resurrection of Jesus Christ.You can click here to read a full article about this topic.

Does not the Quran say that Jesus was resurrected?

God caused Christ to die, raised him to life, and then lifted him up to Him.�Āl �Imrān [3]:55, NJD; Maryam [19]:33, NJD

Quran only acknowledges what the Bible wrote 600 years prior. And since you rather believe Josepphus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata,Tacitus rather than the Holy Bible or even your Quran I don�t know what else to tell you but to pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who is none other than [YHWH] Jehovah God for guidance.

mansoor ali wrote:

Now about eyewitnesses. 1- Did Moses have any witnesses? 2- Did King David have any witnesses? 3- Did Solomon, Ezra, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Job and the rest of the Prophets foretold each others? 4- Were the Disciples of Jesus foretold in the Bible? 5- Was the Disciple Paul foretold in the Bible, since he never even met Jesus in person?

Let�s cut through the chase because this very weak, weak argument has already been CRUSHED many, many times! So I�m going to make this short and simple for you.

Jesus was greater than all the Prophets; did he have any eye-witnesses of his anointing? YES! Prophet-hood? YES! MIRACLES? YES!

As per your belief Muhammad was a greater prophet, did he have any eye-witnesses of his prophet-hood in the cave? NO! Anointing if any? NO! Miracles if any? NO! At the most show me even two witnesses in order for every matter to be established according to Mosaic Law.

In fact answer this question no dynamic duo Mansoor ali and islamispeace, Why in the Holy Scriptures did Jesus mention Moses and these other Prophets by NAME but did NOT mention Muhammad by name, why?

I can�t wait to hear �yawls� answer, this should really be good��..

mansoor ali wrote:

The answer to the all of the above is NO! Non of the Bible's Prophets except for Jesus and Muhammad was ever foretold. They just happened without any prior warnings.

That statement is so far from the truth I�m surprise your mouth could even get those words out. I guess that is what your Quran teaches you, since the Quran is the first book for Muslims. As far as Muhammad is concern, there was not even a Mecca or a kaaba let alone a prophet named Muhammad or anyone with that name.

Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 25 October 2011 at 12:49pm

Now you are being juvenile and picky about translations, you have yet been able to answer any of my questions with references on any debates that took place beginning in the 1^st Century down through the 10^th Century to disprove the canonicity of the Gospel. Everyone knows that Jesus and his heavenly father mentions and acknowledge one another as father and son. What is ironic so does your Quran.

islamispeace wrote:

So now Kish is so desperate that he is pulling stuff from posts I made weeks and months ago and responding to them now, instead of responding to the issues were are currently discussing! How sad and pathetic!

Grow up, be a man or (woman) face the facts, stop crying and answer the questions

islamispeace wrote:

So if Ignatius did not refer to Mark, his references to Matthew and Luke would also be called into question since they were based on Mark!

An assumption you came up with.

islamispeace wrote:

That in itself calls all of the standard Church tradition regarding Jesus into question.

Another assumption you came up with.

islamispeace wrote:

When I referred to these people, it was to prove that the Gospels were not accepted by everyone, as you claimed.

As I clamed, now, you are back-peddling again.

islamispeace wrote:

What you also fail to realize is that Ignatius and Justin Martyr were both writing in the 2nd century, so their historical reliability is in question since they were separated from Jesus..

Yet, another assumption you came up with, Wow! All these men wrote, quoted and used the Gospel but yet the reliability of the Gospel is in question, I�ve heard everything now.

islamispeace wrote:

Moreover, Justin Martyr's clear reference to only 3 Gospels is yet more evidence of the evolving authority of the Gospels.

Don�t care if it was one or two Gospels it was accepted as part of the Bible�s canon

islamispeace wrote:

Your point being? This is all irrelevant. Just because people are willing to die for their beliefs does not mean their beliefs must be correct. People of all religions are willing to die for their beliefs.

Yet, you tried to use Justin�s writings to disprove the authenticity of the Gospel which he himself LIVED and DIED for its beliefs! Yea, that would certainly make it relevant, that�s my point!

islamispeace wrote:

All of the people you have referred to believed, in some form, that Jesus was God! Your "REFERENCES" shoot you in the foot.

First correction, YOUR flimsy apologist references, not mine. Secondly, I didn�t even need to bring my references into the picture; how�s your foot?

islamispeace wrote:

Also, you admitted that the Book of Revelation was "rejected by some"! Therefore, the Christians could not agree on what books to accept. That is what I have been saying all this time, dude! Thank you for proving it with your own words!

Prove I said that, which like everything else you cannot. Do what you do best, cut and paste where I said that. Of course you will also ignore this chance to prove me wrong. We will wait for the date when it was posted.

islamispeace wrote:

Also, none of them were in full agreement as to the correct canon of the Bible. Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself? Snap out of it, Kish. Come back Earth!

We are talking about the Gospel, now you are all over the place grasping for straws about the Bible (OT and NT), you�re a senior member????? Kidding me, right?

islamispeace wrote:

Yeah, I have been saying that the Gospels were not accepted until the LATE 2ND CENTURY all this time!

But, who are you? Jews by the thousands were getting baptized and accepted the Gospel before the death of the last Apostle John, if you would have read it as you are told to by your Quran you would have know that. It�s your denial and pride that perhaps is in your way.

According to available evidence AGAIN, the Gospels were written between the years 41 and 98 C.E. Jesus died in the year 33 C.E. You haven�t shown me anything different except what some early church fathers or students of the Apostles wrote which I still had to school you on.

It�s a shame and an abomination that you rather accept and put stock in what they wrote rather than Jesus and his Apostles. Logic is not a universal key as I always said.

Professor M. Blaiklock said it BEST!

"The evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history."�PROFESSOR E. M. BLAIKLOCK

Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 26 October 2011 at 1:48pm

Again, Kish chooses to ignore everything all the evidence which contradicts his claims, instead resorting to more special pleading. Case in point:

Kish wrote:

Now you are being juvenile and picky about translations, you have yet been able to answer any of my questions with references on any debates that took place beginning in the 1^st Century down through the 10^th Century to disprove the canonicity of the Gospel. Everyone knows that Jesus and his heavenly father mentions and acknowledge one another as father and son. What is ironic so does your Quran.

First of all, you are lumping two issues together. The issue of the translations have nothing to do with the issue of "debates" regarding the Gospels. Second, instead of actually responding to the issue of the translations, you choose to disregard the evidence and play a game of leap-frog.

I showed why your sly and weaselly attempt to use a specific translation of Matthew 26:63 was a pathetic attempt to deny the obvious contradiction which exists in the Gospels. Moreover, by using the WatchTower's translation, you essentially changed your argument regarding Matthew 26:63. First, you claimed that Jesus was simply not saying who he was because he was dealing with unbelievers or "puny mortal(s)" as you put it (which implies your agreement that he was denying being the son of God in front of the Sanhedrin). When you realized that this argument was whacky, you changed your argument and claimed that Jesus did in fact accept the title of "son of God" and used a Jehovah's Witness translation to support your claim. I refuted by showing that the translation is pitifully wrong and that Jesus was clearly denying the title. As usual, you have no actual response.

By the way, you have failed to show that the Gospels were accepted by everyone in the 1st century. All the evidence suggests that they were not accepted until the late 2nd century which would mean that it took 150 years for the Christian world to decide that there were only 4 "gospels". In addition, the first person to limit the number to four was Ireneaus, who as I showed, did not use historical evidence to come to that conclusion but rather a childish argument about the four "zones" of the earth! How ridiculously absurd the early Church was! LOL

Kish wrote:

Grow up, be a man or (woman) face the facts, stop crying and answer the questions

This coming from a person who has ignored nearly every question I have posed to him!

Kish wrote:

An assumption you came up with.
Another assumption you came up with.

And ones which you cannot refute!

Kish wrote:

As I clamed, now, you are back-peddling again.

How so? Am I responsible for your straw-man arguments! NO!

Kish wrote:

Yet, another assumption you came up with, Wow! All these men wrote, quoted and used the Gospel but yet the reliability of the Gospel is in question, I�ve heard everything now.

Wrong, they quoted certain parts of the "gospels", not the whole text. Moreover, since it took that long for the Church fathers to use those sources, which were already decades old and undergoing many changes (as I have shown previously), their historical reliability falls into question. Also, I have shown that some of the Church fathers like Origen, and non-Christians like Celsus were aware that Christians were making changes to the manuscripts as they pleased. All of this evidence damages the historical validity of the entire Christian Bible.

Kish wrote:

Don�t care if it was one or two Gospels it was accepted as part of the Bible�s canon

Care or not, it is evidence that the Christian canon was not finalized which implies that disagreements did exist.

Kish wrote:

Yet, you tried to use Justin�s writings to disprove the authenticity of the Gospel which he himself LIVED and DIED for its beliefs! Yea, that would certainly make it relevant, that�s my point!

WOW, what childish logic! Just because he believed they were truthful and was willing to die for that belief does not prove that they were truthful. As I said, people of all religious traditions have been willing to die for their beliefs. This included Gnostics like Priscillian and Ptolemy (who was executed by the Romans around 180 CE)!

Kish wrote:

First correction, YOUR flimsy apologist references, not mine. Secondly, I didn�t even need to bring my references into the picture; how�s your foot?

What? You argued that the Church fathers I referred to all believed that Jesus was the son of God. This was your pathetic way of trying to dismiss the evidence that they all had differing views on the canonized books. I countered that they also believed that he was God, which is to show you that what they believed is irrelevant here since we are talking about why they had differing views on which books were authoritative. What is your response to this? Do you deny that these Church fathers believed that Jesus was God? Like I said, you shot yourself in the foot! Ouch! Ouch

Kish wrote:

Prove I said that, which like everything else you cannot. Do what you do best, cut and paste where I said that. Of course you will also ignore this chance to prove me wrong. We will wait for the date when it was posted.

Right here:

In this connection it may be observed that Second Peter is quoted by Irenaeus as bearing the same evidence of canonicity as the rest of the Greek Scriptures. The same is true of Second John. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 551, 557, 341, 443, �Irenaeus Against Heresies�) Revelation, also rejected by some, was attested to by many early commentators, including Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenaeus. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PID=159736#159736 - (October 23, 5:23 PM)

By the way, as is typical of you, this statement was actually copied from the internet, probably from the following website:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/2010/10/canon-established.htm - http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/2010/10/canon-established.htm

How will you weasel your way out of this one! Big%20smile

Kish wrote:

We are talking about the Gospel, now you are all over the place grasping for straws about the Bible (OT and NT), you�re a senior member????? Kidding me, right?

Um, the Gospels are part of the canon, aren't they? So how am I "all over the place"? You are not even making sense anymore, Kish! I think you are getting angry or frustrated at all the evidence which you have unable to refute. You shouldn't get mad, because you are not doing anyone favor by denying the evidence. All you are doing is dooming yourself.

Kish wrote:

But, who are you? Jews by the thousands were getting baptized and accepted the Gospel before the death of the last Apostle John, if you would have read it as you are told to by your Quran you would have know that. It�s your denial and pride that perhaps is in your way.

Oh please. Spare me your Church lies. What historical evidence do you have that "thousands of Jews were getting baptized..."? Don't go quoting the NT again!

Kish wrote:

According to available evidence AGAIN, the Gospels were written between the years 41 and 98 C.E. Jesus died in the year 33 C.E. You haven�t shown me anything different except what some early church fathers or students of the Apostles wrote which I still had to school you on.

WRONG! The first Gospel written was that of Mark, which scholars believe was written some time around 70 CE. The very first NT documents written were the letters of Paul, who never even met Jesus (aside from his alleged encounter on the road to Damascus which has never been proven to be true).

Kish wrote:

It�s a shame and an abomination that you rather accept and put stock in what they wrote rather than Jesus and his Apostles. Logic is not a universal key as I always said.

How ironic! Now you are disowning the Church fathers you so zealously and passionately quoted in your last post! I think your goose is cooked Kish. Logic is certainly not one of your fortes!

Kish wrote:

Professor M. Blaiklock said it BEST!

"The evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history."�PROFESSOR E. M. BLAIKLOCK

Sure, sure. I bet he would have loved to prove it! I think about 99% of historians would disagree with him.

Now, here are the parts you did not respond to:

A. Kish thinks he is pretty slick using a particular English translation to "prove "his point. Actually Kish, by using this translation, you have proven that you are a Jehovah's Witness! You have trying to hide it, but now it is clear! You took this translation directly from a Jehovah's Witness website. Here is the link:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm -
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm

Now, is this translation accurate? Let us see other translations:

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.� (NIV)

"⁶⁴Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (KJV)

"⁶⁴ Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (ASV)

"⁶⁴Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."" (ESV)

"⁶⁴ Jesus said to him, Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half of the virtue of God [nevertheless, I say to you, from henceforth, ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half of God's virtue], and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Wycliffe Bible)

"⁶⁴Jesus saith to him, `Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming upon the clouds, of the heaven.'" (Young's Literal Translation)

We see a pattern here. Most English translations say 'Thou hast said" or "You have said so" which implies that Jesus is denying the title of "son of God". But what is even more amazing is that mistranslations like the WatchTower Bible retain the "son of Man" phrase which makes the translation utterly absurd. Why would Jesus say he is the son of God and then say "I tell you that you will see the son of Man..." Wouldn't it have made more sense to say "I tell you that will see the son of God..."?

But there is more to consider. According to Strong's Concordance Dictionary, the Greek word used after the phrase "Thou hast said" is "πλὴν" (plēn) which means "however, nevertheless, but, except that, yet." http://concordances.org/greek/4133.htm - [1] . Obviously, if Jesus was saying "Thou hast said. Nevertheless..." or "Thou hast said. However..." it would imply that he is denying the title. To give more support to this fact, let us see what Biblical scholar Geza Vermes states:

"The phrase implies a negative answer according to rabbinic literature (see The Changing Faces of Jesus, 181-3). It should be observed that in conformity with mainstream tradition some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel read 'You say that I am'" (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. 26).

The reference to Mark's Gospel is due to the fact that it states that Jesus replied in the affirmative while both Matthew and Luke state that Jesus replied in the negative. Yet Vermes states that some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel have been changed to conform to Matthew and Luke.

B. Yes AD 170, which would be roughly 140 years AFTER Jesus! How does this prove their historical reliability? Why did it take so long for them to be accepted and canonized? You delirious Christians have no answers, only assumptions based on leaps of faith. Referring to the Diatessaron, James Still writes:

"...Tatian will later create the Diatessaron, a harmony that omitted and redacted material from the four gospels and which was very popular, circulating widely in the West as well as in Syria. This demonstrates that even at this late date the gospels were still not afforded the same inerrant status as the Hebrew scriptures. The fact is the various communities were free to develop the material about Jesus depending upon their needs. The Gospel of John, for instance, thrived in Alexandria among the Mandaean Gnostics for many decades before it came to be circulated outside of that city and eventually canonized. The fact that we have many different extant gospels, both canonical and noncanonical, emphasizing different aspects of Jesus' teaching, demonstrates that no clear ideology had yet emerged from the various primitive communities. To suggest that one gospel is more authoritative than another, simply because it represents the teachings of the church today, is nothing more than an arbitrary decision based on a normative prejudice. The external evidence is very clear: the written gospels were profitable for teaching but not considered more authoritative than the thriving oral tradition circulating among the ancient communities during the first two hundred years" ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/bias2.html - The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller ).

C. 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:

3. The atonement ritual was only for the Jews. It was not required, for example, from the people of Jonah:

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.

-------------
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)

Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 27 October 2011 at 12:07pm

Dear MansoorAli and all other Muslims,

You, MansoorAli, said that the prophesies regarding Muhammad in the Holy Bible are veague because of the false verses surrounding them.

Right!

I'd like to see those prophesies and the "false verses" that surround them. That should be an excelent string that would get a real run for the effort. I hope you will consider it...

Blessings,

Jack Catholic

Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 27 October 2011 at 6:04pm

islamispeace wrote:

Second, instead of actually responding to the issue of the translations, you choose to disregard the evidence and play a game of leap-frog.

Firstly, you want me to respond to the issue of translations and I�m the one playing leap frog when this topic is on the Gospel, you�re a blast. Another attempt to try and change the topic.

Secondly, all your arguments thus far have been assumptions, case and points.

islamispeace wrote:

�Why would Jesus say he is the son of God and then say "I tell you that you will see the son of Man..." Wouldn't it have made more sense to say "I tell you that will see the son of God..."? I refuted by showing that the translation is pitifully wrong and that Jesus was clearly denying the title. As usual, you have no actual response.

As usual, another assumption, simply because you my friend come to your own conclusions AND are unable to prove what Jesus meant, especially since Jesus referred to himself on many, many occasions as �the Son of God� and �the son of man� throughout the Gospel.

So, whether it is the New American Standard Bible of Matt 26:63 which says �Jesus *said to him, �You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you�� Or the Jehovah�s Witness translation or even the translations that you used, throughout the Gospel and the NT we know Jesus referred to himself as �the son of God� and �the son of man� but it�s becoming obvious that you are running out of excuses.

islamispeace wrote:

By the way, you have failed to show that the Gospels were accepted by everyone in the 1st century.

Now I said everyone accepted the Gospel in the 1^st cent., more word play from islamispeace. I�m still waiting for all the other words you put in my mouth to try to make your argument stick. Do what you do best and cut and paste what I�ve said.

islamispeace wrote:

All the evidence suggests that they were not accepted until the late 2nd century which would mean that it took 150 years for the Christian world to decide that there were only 4 "gospels"

Your assumptions will get you nowhere Mr. Assume, splitting hairs again, but go ahead. The early Christians accepted the Gospel before the death of John, the last Apostle, which was before the 2^nd century. You may prefer to accept what the students of the Apostles had to say about these books, as they themselves often admitted to as being but I�ll stick to the source, what the teachers themselves said, Jesus and his twelve Apostles.

Even taken your theory into consideration, the Gospels�as we have them today have remained largely unchanged from the second century onward, that is what really matters and since such is the case when Muhammad received it he was correct in what he said about it.

No wonder there are still only four accounts of the Gospel of Jesus which I�ve been saying all along that are part of the Bible�s canon. As you are learning, God�s Holy Word cannot be altered, by anyone, be they Jew, Christian or Muslim. That is why no one, even today can show any alterations in the Gospel only what others have tried to add but failed.

islamispeace wrote:

Care or not, it is evidence that the Christian canon was not finalized which implies that disagreements did exist.

And yet with that being said you still can�t disprove that Jesus was the son of God, died on a torture stake and was resurrected.

islamispeace wrote:

Right here: In this connection it may be observed �

Now all of a sudden you cannot quote me within the brackets like I just did

islamispeace wrote:

The first Gospel written was that of Mark.

Why, because it is the shortest, wrong again. What is the matter you don�t believe the third-century theologian Origen no more who said that Matthew was the first or are you again going by what these 18th or 19th century scholars are saying? After all Matthew was an Apostle and an eyewitness which I know you�re not too big on eyewitnesses.

islamispeace wrote:

A. Kish thinks he is pretty slick using a particular English translation to "prove "his point. Actually Kish, by using this translation, you have proven that you are a Jehovah's Witness! You have trying to hide it, but now it is clear! You took this translation directly from a Jehovah's Witness website. Here is the link:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm -
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm

Does this mean you are one of Jehovah�s witnesses since you have access to it as well? I sincerely doubt it but thanks for the link.

^{Psalms 83:18} That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 29 October 2011 at 5:20pm

Jack Catholic wrote:

Dear Kish, Hasan, and IslamisPeace,

�

IslamisPeace posted this, "The answer is that the Gospel was sent to confirm the truth and to eliminate the falsehood (of the Torah)."

�

This may have been what the Qur'an says is the purpose of the Qur'an.� But the Holy Bible does not make this claim about itself.� Rather, the Holy Bible is simply an account of the life of Jesus who was sent to complete the Law and the Prophets.� The letters of the New Testament were sent to give guidance and direction to those who came to faith in Allah through Jesus and his ministry.� There was no contradiction by the NT�with the OT because nothing in the OT was found to be "false" by Jesus or the Apostles.� This very fact is why the Holy Bible is soooo much more believable than the Holy Qur'an when it comes to legitimacy as the word of Allah.� The Holy New Testament and the Tanach fit together like a solid block of revelation, whereas the Holy Qur'an is so different in so many ways, and affects culture and society in such different ways that it is not surprising that i have heard many people say that the Holy Qur'an is distorted revelation and they don't believe that it is truly from Allah.� What can I say?...

�

Allah bless you all,

�

Jack Catholic

Jack,
tell me if this is not a joke, because I cannot stop laughing of what you wrote. Please tell me, so I can proceed.
Hasan

-------------
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62

Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 31 October 2011 at 7:05pm

Kish wrote:

Firstly, you want me to respond to the issue of translations and I�m the one playing leap frog when this topic is on the Gospel, you�re a blast. Another attempt to try and change the topic.

What? We were talking about how the "Gospel" of Matthew shows Jesus (pbuh) denying the title of "son of God". In an attempt to disprove my assertion, you presented a specific translation of the verse in question, which I showed was pitifully wrong. Instead of trying to respond to my points, you continue to make irrelevant statements.

Kish wrote:

Secondly, all your arguments thus far have been assumptions, case and points.

Right, so presenting the linguistic evidence and the statements of a scholar like Geza Vermes in support of my claims is interpreted by you as "assumptions". Sure, sure.

Kish wrote:

As usual, another assumption, simply because you my friend come to your own conclusions AND are unable to prove what Jesus meant, especially since Jesus referred to himself on many, many occasions as �the Son of God� and �the son of man� throughout the Gospel.

And you like to simply ignore the evidence. Would like me to post it again? Here it is in italics:

Kish thinks he is pretty slick using a particular English translation to "prove "his point. Actually Kish, by using this translation, you have proven that you are a Jehovah's Witness! You have trying to hide it, but now it is clear! You took this translation directly from a Jehovah's Witness website. Here is the link:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm -
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_026.htm

Now, is this translation accurate? Let us see other translations:

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.� (NIV)

"⁶⁴Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (KJV)

"⁶⁴ Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (ASV)

"⁶⁴Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."" (ESV)

"⁶⁴ Jesus said to him, Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half of the virtue of God [nevertheless, I say to you, from henceforth, ye shall see man's Son sitting at the right half of God's virtue], and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Wycliffe Bible)

"⁶⁴Jesus saith to him, `Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming upon the clouds, of the heaven.'" (Young's Literal Translation)

We see a pattern here. Most English translations say 'Thou hast said" or "You have said so" which implies that Jesus is denying the title of "son of God". But what is even more amazing is that mistranslations like the WatchTower Bible retain the "son of Man" phrase which makes the translation utterly absurd. Why would Jesus say he is the son of God and then say "I tell you that you will see the son of Man..." Wouldn't it have made more sense to say "I tell you that will see the son of God..."?

But there is more to consider. According to Strong's Concordance Dictionary, the Greek word used after the phrase "Thou hast said" is "πλὴν" (plēn) which means "however, nevertheless, but, except that, yet." http://concordances.org/greek/4133.htm - [1] . Obviously, if Jesus was saying "Thou hast said. Nevertheless..." or "Thou hast said. However..." it would imply that he is denying the title. To give more support to this fact, let us see what Biblical scholar Geza Vermes states:

"The phrase implies a negative answer according to rabbinic literature (see The Changing Faces of Jesus, 181-3). It should be observed that in conformity with mainstream tradition some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel read 'You say that I am'" (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. 26).

The reference to Mark's Gospel is due to the fact that it states that Jesus replied in the affirmative while both Matthew and Luke state that Jesus replied in the negative. Yet Vermes states that some manuscripts of Mark's Gospel have been changed to conform to Matthew and Luke.

This is the evidence. As you can see, it is not based on my own "assumptions". The only assumptions are on your part.

Kish wrote:

So, whether it is the New American Standard Bible of Matt 26:63 which says �Jesus *said to him, �You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you�� Or the Jehovah�s Witness translation or even the translations that you used, throughout the Gospel and the NT we know Jesus referred to himself as �the son of God� and �the son of man� but it�s becoming obvious that you are running out of excuses.

Wrong! The translations I showed all say the same thing, which is that Jesus (pbuh) was denying the title. By saying "you said so", he was saying that they (the Jews) have made this accusation but he was not accepting responsibility. And then by saying "nevertheless" or "however", that seals the deal because that Jesus is saying that no matter what they think, he is not accepting their accusations against him.

Kish wrote:

Now I said everyone accepted the Gospel in the 1^st cent., more word play from islamispeace. I�m still waiting for all the other words you put in my mouth to try to make your argument stick. Do what you do best and cut and paste what I�ve said.

Are you delirious or purposefully trying to backtrack on your comments? Here is what you wrote on http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PID=159785#159785 - October 25 :

Now you are being juvenile and picky about translations, you have yet been able to answer any of my questions with references on any debates that took place beginning in the 1^st Century down through the 10^th Century to disprove the canonicity of the Gospel.

I already knew you were a deceiver, but you are really not helping your own cause by lying even more.

Kish wrote:

Your assumptions will get you nowhere Mr. Assume, splitting hairs again, but go ahead. The early Christians accepted the Gospel before the death of John, the last Apostle, which was before the 2^nd century.

You have yet to prove this. Talk about assumptions! LOL

Ironically, here you are claiming that the Gospels were accepted in the 1st century, yet you were asking above when you had claimed that! Wake up, Kish.

Kish wrote:

You may prefer to accept what the students of the Apostles had to say about these books, as they themselves often admitted to as being but I�ll stick to the source, what the teachers themselves said, Jesus and his twelve Apostles.

What did they say? You haven't presented any conclusive evidence of what they said. Assuming the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus (pbuh), you have yet to prove that they were accepted by everyone or that they did not undergo any alterations over the coming decades.

Kish wrote:

Even taken your theory into consideration, the Gospels�as we have them today have remained largely unchanged from the second century onward, that is what really matters and since such is the case when Muhammad received it he was correct in what he said about it.

The archaeological and historical evidence suggests the exact opposite. The Gospels were undergoing continuous changes. Both Christian and non-Christians were aware of these changes (see my references to Origin's Contra Celsus).

Kish wrote:

No wonder there are still only four accounts of the Gospel of Jesus which I�ve been saying all along that are part of the Bible�s canon. As you are learning, God�s Holy Word cannot be altered, by anyone, be they Jew, Christian or Muslim. That is why no one, even today can show any alterations in the Gospel only what others have tried to add but failed.

Then you are obviously suffering from a bad case of denial. The evidence is overwhelming that changes have been made to the Gospels. I have mentioned some in this thread already.

Kish wrote:

And yet with that being said you still can�t disprove that Jesus was the son of God, died on a torture stake and was resurrected.

The burden of proof is on you to prove this. It is not on me to prove that he was not "resurrected". You are the one who insists that this extraordinary event occurred. You have to prove it. And since you have failed to prove the Gospels' historical reliability or the contradictions that exist between the Gospels (via Matthew 26:63), that weakens your argument from the get-go.

Kish wrote:

Now all of a sudden you cannot quote me within the brackets like I just did

Huh? I just showed you where you wrote (or where the person you blindly copied wrote) that Revelation was not agreed upon by everyone, as you requested! Do you like it better like this:

Kish wrote:

n this connection it may be observed that Second Peter is quoted by Irenaeus as bearing the same evidence of canonicity as the rest of the Greek Scriptures. The same is true of Second John. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 551, 557, 341, 443, �Irenaeus Against Heresies�) Revelation, also rejected by some, was attested to by many early commentators, including Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenaeus. forum_posts.asp?TID=21316&PID=159736#159736 - (October 23, 5:23 PM)

Since you are denying that you wrote this, I think what happened was that you mistakenly copied more than you intended from the link I provided. You didn't bother to read what you were plagiarizing and ended up pasting more than you wanted, thereby weakening your argument further. Like I asked before, how will you weasel your way out of this one?

Kish wrote:

Why, because it is the shortest, wrong again. What is the matter you don�t believe the third-century theologian Origen no more who said that Matthew was the first or are you again going by what these 18th or 19th century scholars are saying? After all Matthew was an Apostle and an eyewitness which I know you�re not too big on eyewitnesses.

Modern scholarship considers Mark's Gospel to be the first one written. Origen wrote that he had learned by "tradition" that Matthew's Gospel was the first one written. He was not basing his claim on historical research but on Church tradition. Even if we assume that Matthew's Gospel was written first, the point is that your claim that the Gospels were written between 41 and 98 CE is flat-out wrong.

Kish wrote:

Does this mean you are one of Jehovah�s witnesses since you have access to it as well? I sincerely doubt it but thanks for the link.

Um, its on the internet Kish. You know, the internet? That thing that allows you to surf different websites from around the world?

To answer your hilarious question, no I am not a "Jehovah's Witness". The JWs are a false religion, in my view. However, I do believe that they are a bit closer to the truth than mainstream Christians. The fact that they reject the trinity is welcome news to my ears.

Now, here are the parts you did not respond to:

A. Yes AD 170, which would be roughly 140 years AFTER Jesus! How does this prove their historical reliability? Why did it take so long for them to be accepted and canonized? You delirious Christians have no answers, only assumptions based on leaps of faith. Referring to the Diatessaron, James Still writes:

"...Tatian will later create the Diatessaron, a harmony that omitted and redacted material from the four gospels and which was very popular, circulating widely in the West as well as in Syria. This demonstrates that even at this late date the gospels were still not afforded the same inerrant status as the Hebrew scriptures. The fact is the various communities were free to develop the material about Jesus depending upon their needs. The Gospel of John, for instance, thrived in Alexandria among the Mandaean Gnostics for many decades before it came to be circulated outside of that city and eventually canonized. The fact that we have many different extant gospels, both canonical and noncanonical, emphasizing different aspects of Jesus' teaching, demonstrates that no clear ideology had yet emerged from the various primitive communities. To suggest that one gospel is more authoritative than another, simply because it represents the teachings of the church today, is nothing more than an arbitrary decision based on a normative prejudice. The external evidence is very clear: the written gospels were profitable for teaching but not considered more authoritative than the thriving oral tradition circulating among the ancient communities during the first two hundred years" ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/bias2.html - The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller ).

B. 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:

3. The atonement ritual was only for the Jews. It was not required, for example, from the people of Jonah:

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.

-------------
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)

Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 04 November 2011 at 5:23am

Dear Kish,

Why don't you just post a list of the questions you have asked that neither isla nor any other has answered. Just make it a simple list. He tends to avoid answering questions where the answers might just indicate he is wrong, and he uses all kinds of verbal tirades to distract from the questions in hopes that no one will remember the questions. Just list them all off and see if he'll dare to answer any of them truthfully. Keep up the great work.

God bless you,

Jack Catholic

Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 05 November 2011 at 12:50pm

Jack Catholic wrote:

Dear Kish,

God bless you,

Jack Catholic

Because even if I did not answer his questions (care to point out which one?), it would not change the fact that he has avoided answering several questions I have posed. Tu quo que fallacies will not save you Christians from the facts, Jack. Perhaps you can try to answer the questions Kish has avoided. You have tried to interject in this thread, so why not interject by actually taking part in the discussion? Try to save your Jehovah's Witness friend. I dare ya! Big%20smile

-------------
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)

Posted By: Jack Catholic
Date Posted: 06 November 2011 at 3:08pm

Dear Isla,

Actually, why don't you make a list of your unanswered questions, you know, A, B, C, and see if he'll take the challange. Sometimes your style of posting, though fun for some, can get a bit distracting. If he posts his list, and you post your list, then we will all be treated to a sort of duel, if you know what I mean. Should be fun, don't you think?

The looser is the guy who doesn't answer all of the other's questions from the list.

Allah's blessings,

Jack Catholic

Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 06 November 2011 at 7:26pm

Islamispeace, I�m still waiting for you or anyone else to post the debates that took place about the Gospel of Jesus not being true. You continue to conveniently ignore what I said in the beginning of this post and that is this, the Gospel was never seriously debated until several hundred years ago. Why so if the Gospel was NOT the inspired word of God?

All you have done was talk about what language the Gospel should have been written in, what some scholar or church fathers had said about it, who disagreed with its teachings and how it evolved over several years later, these questions are nice but way off topic and not even coming close to answering my original question.

Then like the rest of your comrades you come with a barrage of questions which is ok, once you�ve addressed at least the first question I asked you.

Once I address even those question you then switch gears and talk about what translation I used, sacrifices or who wrote what, in order to change the subject and then address that with a lengthy response rather than answer the initial question in regards to the Gospel.

Then you try to distract by playing word games and misquoting me, here is one of many examples. I said . . .

kish wrote:

Your assumptions will get you nowhere Mr. Assume, splitting hairs again, but go ahead. The early Christians accepted the Gospel before the death of John, the last Apostle, which was before the 2^nd century.

Then you cunningly misquote me by saying that I said �all� people accepted the Gospel. My quote clearly says early Christians accepted the Gospel, not all people accepted the Gospel.

The issue is not whether you or Islam agrees or disagrees with the Gospel; it never has been since it has been part of the Bible canon before the birth of Muhammad and Islam. In fact, Islam is considered a baby religion in comparison to these two other major religions, Judaism and Christianity, and the Quran is the first holy book for Muslims.

I must say though that you do choose carefully what battle to fight although it makes your argument weak and premature.

So, in a nutshell some Muslims say (not all) the Gospel we have today of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the original sayings of Jesus.

islamispeace wrote:

As explained before, it was referring to the original Gospel sent via Jesus (pbuh) and not the "Gospel according to so and so".

There lies the first mistake; Muslims have been lead astray to believe that Jesus sent a Gospel. Jesus is the Gospel!

Jesus birth, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection were all prophesied in the Old Testament to the smallest detail which I�ve shown you. The point I�ve also made is, the four canonicial Gospels were universally accepted before the end of the second century.

Tatian�s widely used Diatessaron (a Greek term meaning �through [the] four�), compiled between 160 and 175 C.E., was based on only the four canonical Gospels and none of the Gnostic. Also noteworthy is an observation by Irenaeus of the late second century C.E. He asserted that there must be four Gospels, as there are four quarters of the globe and four cardinal winds. Though his comparisons may be questioned, his point supports the idea that there were only four canonical Gospels at the time. Daaa, this is what I�ve been saying all along.

Even Islam believes the Gospel was accepted by his followers by the end of the second century, right? That is why during the first 17 centuries of our Common era, the reliability of the Gospels was never seriously debated, because hundreds of people eye-witnessed the actual accounts.

Guess what that means islamispeace? It means that the four Gospels were accepted as truth back then and what we have today have remained largely unchanged from the second century onward, whether Muhammad or Islam agrees with it or not really doesn�t matter, historical evidence speaks for itself.

islamispeace wrote:

You haven't presented any conclusive evidence of what they said. Assuming the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus (pbuh), you have yet to prove that they were accepted by everyone or that they did not undergo any alterations over the coming decades.

Then clearly you are in denial to the fact of what you yourself admitted about the Gospel being universally accepted by the end of the second century by Christians. Besides, if everyone did not accept Jesus why would everyone accept the Gospel silly, which is not even realistic?

In any event, how is this for more conclusive evidence and proof - The Ancient manuscripts of the Diatessaron, provided definitive evidence that the four Gospels�and only the four�were already well-known and accepted as a collection by the middle of the second century C.E. Discovery of the Diatessaron and commentaries on it in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Latin led Bible scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon to write: �These discoveries finally disposed of any doubt as to what the Diatessaron was, and proved that by about A.D. 170 the four canonical Gospels held an undisputed pre-eminence over all other narratives of our Saviour�s life.�

Where YOUR ancient manuscripts to counter argue this point that the Gospel was indeed accepted, where?

You also said alterations and not Jesus teachings, why? So, you can have a play with words and the translation game again? What Jesus taught is in the Gospel that�s all you need to remember, they were universally accepted as was proven by his followers in the second century so how will anything be altered after that? They would have to track down and burn every single Gospel of Jesus that was written and circulated throughout the Mediterranean world and areas extending from Britain to Mesopotamia during that time which would amount up to thousands of copies. I can prove that is what happened to the Quran can you prove that is what happened with the Gospel?

Here is my one and only question to islamispeace or any Muslim:

Have you found a Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that teaches other then what we have today which is essentially the same as what was published and circulated in the second century?

If not, then God�s written instructions for life are found in the good news of the Gospel.

islamispeace wrote:

Because even if I did not answer his questions (care to point out which one?), it would not change the fact that he has avoided answering several questions I have posed. Tu quo que fallacies will not save you Christians from the facts, Jack. Perhaps you can try to answer the questions Kish has avoided. You have tried to interject in this thread, so why not interject by actually taking part in the discussion? Try to save your Jehovah's Witness friend. I dare ya!

Questions, questions and more questions to my questions, you never give answers and whether you realized it or not, you are admitting to defeat. The OLD divide and conquer maneuver to gain or maintain a power position from your opponent when all else fails.

P.S. This time present some scholarly work from ancient time not modern free thinking from the 19 century.

ISLAMISPEACE wrote:

Yes AD 170, which would be roughly 140 years AFTER Jesus! How does this prove their historical reliability?

Wow! You are incredibly forgetful of your own book and what it has to say about Jesus, Mary and where to find truth and guidance. I knew we would end up right back to where I started God�s written instructions for life. Do you know exactly where the Quran came up with the concept of Gabriel, Mary, Joseph and Jesus, do you? Again, again and again the Quran continues to quotes the Gospel over and over and over again and you ask how does this prove the historical reliability? You are truly piece of work! More than likely Muhammad wrote these sacred writings of the Gospel based on historical evidence and then plagiarized them to fit himself, why else would he accept his birth and resurrection. Why else would he say God�s promises are in the Gospel (9:111) unless he talks with a double tongue and didn�t believe it himself? Why else would he say Muslims should believe it 3:84, 4:136? Why would he even compare Muslims worship to a parable of Jesus in the Christian Gospel, its unreliable! In fact how could Allah judge those for rejecting the Gospel if corrupt, altered or edited (40:70)?

You are chasing your tail and doing a good job at it!

However, you or anyone else have yet to show one shred of historical evidence to show and support what Jesus taught his disciples should NOT be part of the Gospel! Why is that? Where is this pristine Gospel you were referring to other than what we have now? Do you have historical proof that there was another pristine Gospel other than what we have in our possession or is this just another assumption of yours?

Prove that Jesus teachings which are outlined in the Gospel by his Apostles are historically incorrect, unreliable, and false and have been tampered with; you haven�t been able to do yet so I won�t hold my breath.

Now, about the Diatessaron, this was compiled between 160, 175 C.E. and was accepted, when was the The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller compiled, in the 18 or 19th century? I said it before and I�ll say it again . . .

kish wrote:

Before Muhammad and even amongst Christ�s enemies in the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Century all the way to the 17^th & 18^th century the written Gospel was accepted; no serious debates about it whatsoever, hands-down. What took so long for this one to surface?

Also, what does being �bias� have to do with being �truthful�? This is clearly a personal attack, in history, this is known as the 'genetic fallacy'; in philosophy it is called the 'argumentum ad hominum' one has nothing to do with the other, I guess that�s 19th century skeptical literature for ya!

No wonder the Gospel began to be debated much, much later on in time, no one had anything conclusive to offer so instead they attack the writers character as if somehow that disqualifies the truthfulness of what they have presented, much like what you do islamispeace. Follow his post and you will see exactly what I mean, he is the only one who goes after people�s character. I see you really have it in for Jack Catholic and especially this person named Shibboleth, you even took the liberties in posting several topics about his �follies,� �exposing� him etc�.

He must of really hit a nerve and pinned you down, huh?

Kish

Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 08 November 2011 at 2:22pm

Kish,
if you have read, I mean really read around this forum you would find many answers to your questions or assumptions.
First of all please don't present your mixed up rather messed up understanding of Islamic position on Gospel.

In Islam, Jesus is not son of God, nor God. So their goes your claim that the Prophet (pbuh) has somehow stole or invented Islam from the Bible.
In Islam, Gospel was given to Jesus, not to John, Mark and so on.
The Quran is also very clear that Gospel and all other previous scriptures were from God and it makes sense, when God determines, He sends a prophet and a book when needed.

In Quran, God mentions those who changed meanings of/ or word of God to their own purpose for their disbelief.
57:27 (Y. Ali) Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our apostles: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah. but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors.
5:13 (Y. Ali) But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

Even the Bible has a similar verse:
Jeremiah 8:8
How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood.
Again, you would still not agree even as the evidence is loud and clear.
I think, unless you have other motives and not interested in truth, it would not matter if I write one such proofs to prove you wrong or a book, you will still deny it, as so far evident. But, I do not give up on you, there are many things that point to problems with the present day versions of the Bible. I will again quote just a few, you have the book, you know it.
Here are two of Bible's contrasting verses, teaching opposite thus suggesting problems with its authenticity:
(Jacob is quoted to have said that he has seen God)30And Jacob called the name of the place Phanuel, saying: I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been saved.

Now, I will quote a verse from NT, that opposes this idea of Jacob:
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Here is another one, this one is regarding sin, note the opposite teachings suggest human error.
Matthew 5:30
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
30 "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of the parts of your body than for your whole body to go into hell!"
I don't think there need any explanation, it is pretty clear what it says. But read this completely opposite idea given in the same book (the Bible).
1John 2: 1 "My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father�Jesus Christ the righteous One. 2 He Himself is the propitiation [a] for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world."

For a man of reason, these example are enough to conclude that there is something wrong with this book, and I don't believe that Jesus, a man from God would speak opposing things. It must be those who took the job of putting together the Bible, who rewrote it in its long journey. But that's something as one's word's against the other. It is for that reason that I resort to more meaningful way. To test the source, I would like to know what is your response, even though those quotes are self explanatory in proving my point.
Hasan

-------------
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62

Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 09 November 2011 at 12:36pm

honeto wrote:

Kish,
if you have read, I mean really read around this forum you would find many answers to your questions or assumptions.

From day one none of my questions have been answered with any sort of historical proof or even eyewitnesses to prove even the foundation of Islam, starting with Ishmael not being the one named in the Quran as the one whom Abraham was about to sacrifice, to Muhammad�s encounter in the cave with some spirit who LATER on was decided to be named Gabriel.

Show everyone some historical and archeological proof or at least names of eye witnesses to confirmed that these events actually happened? You, islamispeace and other�s responded with, Moses had no eye-witnesses of what happened to him when up on the mountain either, are you serious, how lame an answer is that.

honeto wrote:

First of all please don't present your mixed up rather messed up understanding of Islamic position on Gospel.

Well stop using the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that Muhammad plagiarized in the Quran and then complain the Christians are wrong because it doesn�t match up, get your own Messiah! . Besides, where else did Muhammad get the account of the virgin birth of Mary, from Readers Digest?

honeto wrote:

In Islam, Gospel was given to Jesus, not to John, Mark and so on.

Which Muslims have been unable to prove since day one, you care to prove otherwise? Who eye witnessed that event?

honeto wrote:

In Quran, God mentions those who changed meanings of/ or word of God to their own purpose for their disbelief

So simply show everyone the text before it was (as you say) �changed� that should be easy enough. Show us that this is not just another one of Islam�s assumptions.

honeto wrote:

Jeremiah 8:8
How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood

Now, this is hilarious because Muslims don�t even subscribe to anything Jeremiah says but this you agree with, how utterly convenient. But, let say you do, where he says the Gospel has been changed? Did the scribes write the Gospel as well? Who were the scribes and what was the falsehood Jeremiah was refereeing to? Of course these questions will go unanswered, AGAIN!

honeto wrote:

Again, you would still not agree even as the evidence is loud and clear

Evidence of Jeremiah? Prove it by answering the questions in red then.

honeto wrote:

Here are two of Bible's contrasting verses, teaching opposite thus suggesting problems with its authentic

I guess God failed to keep his promise in preserving his word, or perhaps just perhaps it is Islam�s misunderstanding of his word. I bet my life that God kept his promise and Islam is way off course.

honeto wrote:

For a man of reason, these example are enough to conclude that there is something wrong with this book, and I don't believe that Jesus, a man from God would speak opposing things. It must be those who took the job of putting together the Bible

Or that God is all powerful like we all agree and can preserve his word like he said he would in his Holy Word which we both agree and that encounter that Muhammad had in the cave was all made up (After all he was choked several times before agreeing to recite) doesn�t that make more since? YES!

Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 09 November 2011 at 7:30pm

Kish wrote:

Islamispeace, I�m still waiting for you or anyone else to post the debates that took place about the Gospel of Jesus not being true. You continue to conveniently ignore what I said in the beginning of this post and that is this, the Gospel was never seriously debated until several hundred years ago. Why so if the Gospel was NOT the inspired word of God?

All you have done was talk about what language the Gospel should have been written in, what some scholar or church fathers had said about it, who disagreed with its teachings and how it evolved over several years later, these questions are nice but way off topic and not even coming close to answering my original question.

If you choose to ignore the evidence I have presented thus far in answer to your question, then there is nothing further I can do. I have shown conclusively that the Gospels were not unanimously accepted until the late 2nd century. That means that their authenticity was being debated. I also showed that the early Church fathers differed in the gospels they used. You tried to get around this fact by arguing that they all still believed that Jesus was the son of God, to which I retorted that they also believed in the trinity and that Jesus was God. After that, you changed gears and chided me for relying on these Church fathers instead of relying on "Jesus and his apostles". Even your own sources showed that there were differences in which books to accept, as in the example of Revelations, which was rejected by some people. The Christian canon was always in a fluid state.

Kish wrote:

Then like the rest of your comrades you come with a barrage of questions which is ok, once you�ve addressed at least the first question I asked you.

This is a typical Christian tactic. You pretend like I haven't answered your question and then stall in answering the questions I have posed to you. Even if I haven't answered your question, what does that have to do with answering my questions?

Kish wrote:

Then you cunningly misquote me by saying that I said �all� people accepted the Gospel. My quote clearly says early Christians accepted the Gospel, not all people accepted the Gospel.

I was never implying "all people" as in non-Christians as well. It is implied that we are talking about Christians and not non-Christians, Kish. So, if anyone is "misquoting" anyone, it is you. I never said that you claimed that all people (non-Christians included) accepted the Gospels.

Kish wrote:

The issue is not whether you or Islam agrees or disagrees with the Gospel; it never has been since it has been part of the Bible canon before the birth of Muhammad and Islam. In fact, Islam is considered a baby religion in comparison to these two other major religions, Judaism and Christianity, and the Quran is the first holy book for Muslims.

Irrelevant as usual. By that token, Christianity is also younger than Judaism. What's your point?

Kish wrote:

I must say though that you do choose carefully what battle to fight although it makes your argument weak and premature.

So, in a nutshell some Muslims say (not all) the Gospel we have today of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the original sayings of Jesus.

All Muslims say this. You can pretend that they don't, but it is unanimously accepted by all Muslims that the Gospels are corrupt. In any case, these are irrelevant musings on your part again. So far, you have not responded to any of the points from my last rebuttal.

Kish wrote:

There lies the first mistake; Muslims have been lead astray to believe that Jesus sent a Gospel. Jesus is the Gospel!

Again, you divert to an unrelated issue which was dealt with a few weeks ago. You need to organize yourself Kish. You are jumping from post to post.

The Quran doesn't say that "Jesus sent a Gospel". It says the he was sent with the Gospel. His teachings were the Gospel. The only ones who have been led astray are the myriad number of Christian sects, some who believe that he is only the "son of God" while most believe that he is the son of God but also God Himself in a trinity, both of which are beliefs that contradict God's true message which has been disseminated to mankind for thousands of years.

Kish wrote:

Jesus birth, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection were all prophesied in the Old Testament to the smallest detail which I�ve shown you. The point I�ve also made is, the four canonicial Gospels were universally accepted before the end of the second century.

This is nonsense, of course. The so-called "prophecies" have been refuted as out of context verses and deliberate mistranslations. Regarding the Gospels, I have always maintained that the Gospels were only accepted in the late 2nd century! So, what you just said is nothing new to me. But the fact that it took nearly 150 years, and many changes to the text (as Celsus and Origen noted) until they were accepted shows conclusively that the Gospels were being debated and altered.

Kish wrote:

Tatian�s widely used Diatessaron (a Greek term meaning �through [the] four�), compiled between 160 and 175 C.E., was based on only the four canonical Gospels and none of the Gnostic. Also noteworthy is an observation by Irenaeus of the late second century C.E. He asserted that there must be four Gospels, as there are four quarters of the globe and four cardinal winds. Though his comparisons may be questioned, his point supports the idea that there were only four canonical Gospels at the time. Daaa, this is what I�ve been saying all along.

Again, you simply repeated your initial claims while ignoring the facts. To repeat James Still's observations:

"...Tatian will later create the Diatessaron, a harmony that omitted and redacted material from the four gospels and which was very popular, circulating widely in the West as well as in Syria. This demonstrates that even at this late date the gospels were still not afforded the same inerrant status as the Hebrew scriptures. The fact is the various communities were free to develop the material about Jesus depending upon their needs. The Gospel of John, for instance, thrived in Alexandria among the Mandaean Gnostics for many decades before it came to be circulated outside of that city and eventually canonized. The fact that we have many different extant gospels, both canonical and noncanonical, emphasizing different aspects of Jesus' teaching, demonstrates that no clear ideology had yet emerged from the various primitive communities. To suggest that one gospel is more authoritative than another, simply because it represents the teachings of the church today, is nothing more than an arbitrary decision based on a normative prejudice. The external evidence is very clear: the written gospels were profitable for teaching but not considered more authoritative than the thriving oral tradition circulating among the ancient communities during the first two hundred years" ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/bias2.html - The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller ).

Kish wrote:

Even Islam believes the Gospel was accepted by his followers by the end of the second century, right? That is why during the first 17 centuries of our Common era, the reliability of the Gospels was never seriously debated, because hundreds of people eye-witnessed the actual accounts.

Guess what that means islamispeace? It means that the four Gospels were accepted as truth back then and what we have today have remained largely unchanged from the second century onward, whether Muhammad or Islam agrees with it or not really doesn�t matter, historical evidence speaks for itself.

Oh what nonsense! By the end of the 2nd century, the so-called "followers of Jesus" had turned him into a god! How then can you maintain that they were "his followers"? The reliability of the Gospels was debated from their origin and it took 150 years and many alterations until they were finally accepted. That is what matters. It does not matter that once they were accepted by the Church, there were no debates after that. That is irrelevant! Of course, we can also point out that one of the reasons for this lack of debate was that the Church silenced anyone who disagreed, as I have shown in past posts.

Kish wrote:

Then clearly you are in denial to the fact of what you yourself admitted about the Gospel being universally accepted by the end of the second century by Christians. Besides, if everyone did not accept Jesus why would everyone accept the Gospel silly, which is not even realistic?

Again silly, I thought you were smart enough to realize that by "all people", it is implied that we are talking about Christians. Obviously, I misjudged your intellect. I will try to be more careful in the future. LOL

Kish wrote:

In any event, how is this for more conclusive evidence and proof - The Ancient manuscripts of the Diatessaron, provided definitive evidence that the four Gospels�and only the four�were already well-known and accepted as a collection by the middle of the second century C.E. Discovery of the Diatessaron and commentaries on it in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Latin led Bible scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon to write: �These discoveries finally disposed of any doubt as to what the Diatessaron was, and proved that by about A.D. 170 the four canonical Gospels held an undisputed pre-eminence over all other narratives of our Saviour�s life.�

Again, this is nothing new to me! I have been saying all along that the Gospels were not accepted by mainstream Christians until the late 2nd century! What's your point?

Kish wrote:

Where YOUR ancient manuscripts to counter argue this point that the Gospel was indeed accepted, where?

Um, have you ever heard of the Gnostic Gospels? Ever heard of the "Gospel of Truth"? Ever heard of the Montanists? The existence of these groups shows that Christianity was in a fluid state. Each group had its own beliefs and regarded certain books as being more authoritative than others. Also, consider the Gospel of Mark again. Consider that Papias, whose writings now exist only in fragments, had to defend the authority of Mark as James Still describes:

"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.].

Now Kish, answer the question. Why did Papias have to defend Mark from this "presbyter" if, as you claim, his Gospel was well-accepted? You wanted evidence that the authority of the Gospels were being debated, which I have already provided. Here I have given you some more evidence.

Kish wrote:

You also said alterations and not Jesus teachings, why? So, you can have a play with words and the translation game again? What Jesus taught is in the Gospel that�s all you need to remember, they were universally accepted as was proven by his followers in the second century so how will anything be altered after that? They would have to track down and burn every single Gospel of Jesus that was written and circulated throughout the Mediterranean world and areas extending from Britain to Mesopotamia during that time which would amount up to thousands of copies. I can prove that is what happened to the Quran can you prove that is what happened with the Gospel?

Your irrelevant ramblings about the Quran aside, the answer to your question is a resounding 'yes'. Besides Constantine's decree to burn all "heretical" books, there is also the example of the Theodosian Code. I guess you have not heard of it, so here is a little history lesson. According to Prof. Haig Bosmajian:

"[t]he Christians' book burning rituals that were to last for several centuries were well on their way in the fourth and fifth centuries, with both Church and state involved in the fiery extermination of blasphemous, heretical books and their authors. [...]

The Theodosian Code commanded that the books containing the doctrines of the 'Eunomian and Montanist [heretical] superstitions' were to be sought out and 'be consumed with fire immediately under the supervision of the judges'" ["Burning Books", p. 39].

So, there you go Kish. There were indeed attempts by the Church to burn all heretical books. That is why the Nag Hammadi codices were only recently discovered, after being hidden away for nearly 2,000 years. Their caretakers did not want them to be burned!

Kish wrote:

Here is my one and only question to islamispeace or any Muslim:

Have you found a Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that teaches other then what we have today which is essentially the same as what was published and circulated in the second century?

If not, then God�s written instructions for life are found in the good news of the Gospel.

Wow, what a non-sequitur! Even if there wasn't a gospel "that teaches other then what we have today...", how would that prove that "God's written instructions for life are found in the...Gospel"?

But anyway, to answer your question, the fact of the matter is that extant manuscripts show without a doubt that the original Gospels did indeed contain material that does not conform to the modern copies. I have given several examples already in this thread and others. Besides the contradiction in Matthew 26 regarding Jesus denying being the son of God, there are other examples where the original text said something quite different from what modern copies say. I gave the example of Mark 1:11 which had Adoptionist undertones in one Greek manuscript and several Latin ones as well. There is also the example of the Pericope de Adultera not being present in most early copies of the Gospel of John. There is also the ending of Mark 16, where most early copies end at verse 9, even though many modern Bibles have the additional verses which were obviously added later. All of these examples are proof that the Gospels underwent many changes. So, the answer to your question is once again a resounding 'yes'!

Kish wrote:

Questions, questions and more questions to my questions, you never give answers and whether you realized it or not, you are admitting to defeat. The OLD divide and conquer maneuver to gain or maintain a power position from your opponent when all else fails.

P.S. This time present some scholarly work from ancient time not modern free thinking from the 19 century.

LOL Typical Christian attempts to question modern scholarship when it disagrees with them. I have answered all of your questions Kish. You, on the other hand, have avoided many of my questions like the plague! I can't say I don't blame you. Those are difficult questions to answer since they require you to come out of your little ideological bubble in which you have been trapped by years of steady brain-washing.

Kish wrote:

Wow! You are incredibly forgetful of your own book and what it has to say about Jesus, Mary and where to find truth and guidance. I knew we would end up right back to where I started God�s written instructions for life. Do you know exactly where the Quran came up with the concept of Gabriel, Mary, Joseph and Jesus, do you? Again, again and again the Quran continues to quotes the Gospel over and over and over again and you ask how does this prove the historical reliability? You are truly piece of work! More than likely Muhammad wrote these sacred writings of the Gospel based on historical evidence and then plagiarized them to fit himself, why else would he accept his birth and resurrection. Why else would he say God�s promises are in the Gospel (9:111) unless he talks with a double tongue and didn�t believe it himself? Why else would he say Muslims should believe it 3:84, 4:136? Why would he even compare Muslims worship to a parable of Jesus in the Christian Gospel, its unreliable! In fact how could Allah judge those for rejecting the Gospel if corrupt, altered or edited (40:70)?

Again, you try to divert to the Quran when you know you have been cornered! Get a clue Kish! The Quran is not dependent on the Bible. Also, the earliest copy of the Bible in Arabic is from the 9th century, so the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would not have had access to any Bible in his language. Even if he did, he would not have been able to use it since like many Arabians, he could not read or write.

Kish wrote:

However, you or anyone else have yet to show one shred of historical evidence to show and support what Jesus taught his disciples should NOT be part of the Gospel! Why is that? Where is this pristine Gospel you were referring to other than what we have now? Do you have historical proof that there was another pristine Gospel other than what we have in our possession or is this just another assumption of yours?

If you won't open your eyes to the evidence I have already given, that is your problem. Denial is a very ugly thing! The Gospel was taught by Jesus (pbuh) to his followers. The evidence we have seen thus far shows that in the decades after Jesus, there were many different groups fighting to claim Jesus for themselves and they used different writings to support their causes. The so-called "Gospels" were among these books. They were written decades after Jesus (pbuh) by anonymous people and they were debated for decades more until finally they were accepted by the heretical Church which had by then turned the human Jesus into a god.

Kish wrote:

Prove that Jesus teachings which are outlined in the Gospel by his Apostles are historically incorrect, unreliable, and false and have been tampered with; you haven�t been able to do yet so I won�t hold my breath.

I have already provided much evidence, which you choose to ignore (as expected). Much of the Gospels are not Jesus' teachings. These include the "son of God" myth, because such teachings would contradict his Jewish upbringing. Jesus' mission was mostly concerned with the "Kingdom of God". He saw himself as a servant of God, not His son. I recommend you read "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus" by Geza Vermes. This book does a good job of stripping away centuries of Church doctrine to present the historical Jesus, a Jewish prophet who had come to guide the Children of Israel.

Kish wrote:

Now, about the Diatessaron, this was compiled between 160, 175 C.E. and was accepted, when was the The Synoptic Problem and "Bias": A Rejoinder to Glenn Miller compiled, in the 18 or 19th century? I said it before and I�ll say it again . . .

LOL Again, special pleading does not change the facts. Instead of responding to the article, you question its credibility or the time period it was written in! Do you know what that's called? It's an ad hominem fallacy! Can anyone define irony for me?

Kish wrote:

No wonder the Gospel began to be debated much, much later on in time, no one had anything conclusive to offer so instead they attack the writers character as if somehow that disqualifies the truthfulness of what they have presented, much like what you do islamispeace. Follow his post and you will see exactly what I mean, he is the only one who goes after people�s character. I see you really have it in for Jack Catholic and especially this person named Shibboleth, you even took the liberties in posting several topics about his �follies,� �exposing� him etc�.

He must of really hit a nerve and pinned you down, huh?

Yes, I expose the ignorance and inaccuracies that people like you like to dabble in. You know you remind me much of Shibbo. If I didn't know better, I would say you guys were twins! It's actually quote uncanny how both of you follow the same general tactics, which include but are not limited to plagiarism, shabby research, avoidance of certain questions, inaccurate statements etc. Did you read the thread "Shibbo's Follies"? It catalogs the many inaccurate statements he made, followed by a refutation of each claim. As usual, you choose to whine about my perceived "attacks" instead of actually trying to refute my claims. How could Shibbo have "pinned me down" when he made so many inaccurate statements? Don't make me laugh Kish!

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:

3. The atonement ritual was only for the Jews. It was not required, for example, from the people of Jonah:

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.

-------------
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)

Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 10 November 2011 at 3:31am

Jack Catholic wrote:

Dear Isla,Actually, why don't you make a list of your unanswered questions, you know, A, B, C, and see if he'll take the challange. Sometimes your style of posting, though fun for some, can get a bit distracting. If he posts his list, and you post your list, then we will all be treated to a sort of duel, if you know what I mean. Should be fun, don't you think? The looser is the guy who doesn't answer all of the other's questions from the list.

Let�s Go! I�ll even let Isla ask the first �three� question. And since we all believe in the Torah it will be the Torah that determines whether the answers are correct or not. Ancient manuscripts with references included adds weight to the answers, NOT modern day free skeptical thinking. Bias accusations and assumptions are not allowed.

Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 14 November 2011 at 2:43pm

Kish,
I think as it appears from your post you are not really interested in truth. You are only interested in with what you can disagree with and you would not say why.
With that attitude and standard to prove that what you have is better than what people at Islamicity forum believe is no less than a joke to yourself and you perceive it not.
Anyway, as a servant of one who created me and guided me, it is my obligation to bring that guidance to you, if Allah willing.
As my standard rule to take one topic at a time and to make my post to the point, short and not without proves I will take the first issue in your reply to me. We will go forward from there on!
Your first complain is that none of your questions have been answered. And you seem to have forgotten to look up to the topics, all of those have been discussed in details ans answered.
But like I have said, as a Muslim, it is my job to bring the truth to you of the matters about which I have knowledge and then leave it up to you to decided.
One of the first thing you seem not to have gotten answer about is Ishmael, whether he was the son Abraham offered for sacrifice when asked by God to do so.
It is amazing like they say, if you look for God, you will find Him. I was told by Christians and Jews that it was Isaac, not Ishmael that Abraham offered for sacrifice, and that Muslims are wrong. I decided to study on my own and see what the "Bible" really say: Who it was that Abraham offered for sacrifice. I was shocked, I could not believe that how those who say it was Issac and not Ishmael don't bother to read and try to make sense by just doing some basic maths calculation and putting facts in order. They only read one verse, that does not agree with the whole account.
Here I will give you my hard work findings because Allah tells me to share the knowledge of what I've learnt so others can benefit from it, even if others refuse to benefit from it, I get my share of benefit for sharing it.
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:

According to the "Bible" here is the order:

Those who think that Hagar was not Abraham's wife, here is the answer:

Genesis 16:16 Abraham was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abraham.

Genesis 21:5 Now Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.

Let us stop here and do some simple maths, 100-86=14 that is the age of Ishmael when Isaac was born.

Genesis 22:5 Abraham said to his young (his helpers that went with him) men, �Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.�

Now remember here the word "lad" for Abraham's son, who was a young boy then.

So far we see that Ishmael is the first son, and if any say to him take your only son, it will 100% mean Ishmael only before the birth of Isaac.

So in the light of these verses, it is crystal clear that it cannot be Isaac since he was Abraham's second son, and thus could not have been taken as his "only son". If at any time anyone of the two could have been his only son was before the birth of Isaac, when Ishmael was the only son. So when asked " take your only son" could only be Ishmael without doubt.
Now something is wrong with this verse because it does not agree with the contents I mentioned above:

Genesis 22:2 Then He (God)said, �Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.�

In my opinion someone did not fix it right. Because by the time Abraham had Isaac, he already had Ishmael. So Isaac cannot be refered as "the only son"
Hasan

-------------
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62

Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 14 November 2011 at 6:38pm

islamispeace wrote:

I have shown conclusively that the Gospels were not unanimously accepted until the late 2nd century.

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.

3 And tongues as if of fire became visible to them and were distributed about, and one sat upon each one of them, ⁴ and they all became filled with Holy Spirit and started to speak with different tongues, just as the spirit was granting them to make utterance.

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.�

So, again, it was the 1^st 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!

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. .

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.

islamispeace wrote:

That means that their authenticity was being debated

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 . . .

kish wrote:

Early in the history of Christianity, critics argued that the Gospels contradicted one another and thus their accounts could not be trusted. The Syrian writer Tatian (about 110-180 C.E.) came to the defense of the Gospels. He felt that any apparent contradictions would disappear if the Gospels were skillfully harmonized and blended into one account instead of four. Tatian set about preparing such a harmony. About 170 C.E., Tatian completed his work, known as the Diatessaron, a Greek word meaning �through [the] four.� In the 19th century, critics began to promote the view that none of the Gospels were written before the middle of the second century C.E.; hence, they could have little historical value. Ancient manuscripts of the Diatessaron discovered since then, however, provide definitive evidence that the four Gospels were well-known and accepted as a collection by the middle of the second century C.E. Discovery of the Diatessaron and commentaries on it in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Latin led Bible scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon to write: �These discoveries finally disposed of any doubt as to what the Diatessaron was, and proved that by about A.D. 170 the four canonical Gospels held an undisputed pre-eminence over all other narratives of our Saviour�s life.�

Besides, many people questioned whether Moses and Jesus are real historical (Authentic) people, that is a big difference whether Moses and Jesus really existed or not. Just because people debate the evolution theory over the creation of God does that mean God is not real? Of course not, people have a right to question things.

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.

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?

islamispeace wrote:

Even your own sources showed that there were differences in which books to accept, as in the example of Revelations, which was rejected by some people. The Christian canon was always in a fluid state.

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.

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.

islamispeace wrote:

Um, have you ever heard of the Gnostic Gospels? Ever heard of the "Gospel of Truth"? Ever heard of the Montanists? The existence of these groups shows that Christianity was in a fluid state. Each group had its own beliefs and regarded certain books as being more authoritative than others.

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.

islamispeace wrote:

Now Kish, answer the question. Why did Papias have to defend Mark from this "presbyter" if, as you claim, his Gospel was well-accepted? You wanted evidence that the authority of the Gospels were being debated, which I have already provided. Here I have given you some more evidence.

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.

islamispeace wrote:

I gave the example of Mark 1:11 which had Adoptionist undertones in one Greek manuscript and several Latin ones as well.

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.

islamispeace wrote:

There is also the example of the Pericope de Adultera not being present in most early copies of the Gospel of John.

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 2^nd century, you keep making my point. Thanks again!

islamispeace wrote:

There is also the ending of Mark 16, where most early copies end at verse 9, even though many modern Bibles have the additional verses which were obviously added later.

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!

islamispeace wrote:

All of these examples are proof that the Gospels underwent many changes. So, the answer to your question is once again a resounding 'yes'!

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 2^nd century is the same Gospel that most people have today two thousand years later.

But of course none of this disproves anything that we have been discussing throughout this post, that is what the Gospel teaches about Jesus; that he is God�s son, that he appointed 12 Apostles, died on a torture stake, was resurrected to heaven, taught God�s Kingdom, that Jesus appeared to Saul/Paul in a vision on the road, etc, etc. These are the teachings of the Gospel that you are unable to refute, but yet what you bring to this discussion was to discredit Jesus by what was later added to the Gospel but was not written in the original verses of the Gospel. Who in their right mind would do that? What is your motive? If these points are the only points you have to disprove Jesus being the son of God or that he died and was resurrected you have a very long journey ahead of you.

islamispeace wrote:

If you won't open your eyes to the evidence I have already given, that is your problem.

That was his evidence everyone, smashed to smithereens. .

islamispeace wrote:

Did you read the thread "Shibbo's Follies"? How could Shibbo have "pinned me down" . .

Looks that way to me . . .

forum_posts.asp?TID=17330&PN=2 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17330&PN=2

forum_posts.asp?TID=17330&PN=2 -

But, let me get this right, I asked you �Have you found a Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that teaches other then what we have today which is essentially the same as what was published and circulated in the second century?�

You said

islamispeace wrote:

the fact of the matter is that extant manuscripts show without a doubt that the original Gospels did indeed contain material that does not conform to the modern copies.

I 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 2^nd 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.

That is why 98% of the world�s population who poses a Bible in whole or part and who are Christians does not believe that flimsy accounts.

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!

Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 15 November 2011 at 3:43am

Originally posted by honeto-First of all please don't present your mixed up rather messed up understanding of Islamic position on Gospel.

kish wrote:

Well stop using the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that Muhammad plagiarized in the Quran and then complain the Christians are wrong because it doesn�t match up, get your own Messiah! . Besides, where else did Muhammad get the account of the virgin birth of Mary, from Readers Digest?

Originally posted by honeto-Jeremiah 8:8 How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood

kish wrote:

Now, this is hilarious because Muslims don�t even subscribe to anything Jeremiah says but this you agree with, how utterly convenient. But, let say you do, where he says the Gospel has been changed? Did the scribes write the Gospel as well? Who were the scribes and what was the falsehood Jeremiah was refereeing to? Of course these questions will go unanswered, AGAIN!

Honeto, can you at least answer the questions in red?

honeto wrote:

Now remember here the word "lad" for Abraham's son, who was a young boy then.
So far we see that Ishmael is the first son, and if any say to him take your only son, it will 100% mean Ishmael only before the birth of Isaac. So in the light of these verses, it is crystal clear that it cannot be Isaac since he was Abraham's second son, and thus could not have been taken as his "only son

Wrong.! Wrong.! Wrong.! Isaac, first and foremost was Sarah�s only son. Secondly, Isaac was Abraham�s first born son with Sarah. Thirdly, Geneses mentions Isaac only and fourthly the Quran never said Ishmael.

Of course you and islamispeace can try to wiggle your way out of this one but Muhammad never had God�s blessings from the very start as I�ve just shown, he was just another ordinary man.

Kish

Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 November 2011 at 11:51am

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 1^st 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:

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.

LOL 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"" http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15940 -

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 2^nd 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 http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/joh/chapter_008.htm - - [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.]" http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html -

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! Shocked 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 2^nd 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. .

LOL 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 . . .

forum_posts.asp?TID=17330&PN=2 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17330&PN=2

LOL 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 2^nd 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! LOL

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:

3. The atonement ritual was only for the Jews. It was not required, for example, from the people of Jonah:

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.

-------------
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)