4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Ghazzali wrote: According to Jews, Christians and Muslims are hypocrites and liars�.why does a Jew believe Musa(pbuh) is a prophet?

The same reason why Christians and Muslims believe that Moses was a Prophet, no need to reinvent the wheel.

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

That is why the burden of proof falls on Muslims to prove that Muhammad was a prophet; a fact which both Jews and Christians disagree with. Moses, Jesus, (the greater Moses) his 12 Apostles and other prophets spoke about each other. They all knew that Moses and Jesus were prophets, even Muhammad. None of them however spoke about Muhammad let alone him being a prophet, not even Ishmael or his 12 sons. In the Quran ONLY Muhammad talks about his �so-called� revelation from God, no one else can even confirm it or even eye-witness it. It�s like saying Ishmael was the son that was about to be sacrificed by Abraham but the Quran never mentions Ishmael by name, which the Quran doesn�t. But, it does mention Isaac.

But, yet Muslims say his revelation is the last one. Why, because he says so with no divine backing to prove it, really?      

Kish wrote: Deuteronomy 19:15 . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good Matthew 18:16 . . .  in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 2 Corithians 13:1 . . .This is the third time I am coming to YOU. �At the mouth of two witnesses or of three every matter must be established. Why did Moses, Jesus, his 12 disciples and the Apostle Paul keep this principle of LAW but not Muhammad? They ALL agreed with each other, why not Muhammad? Could it be Muhammad came with his own teachings and that is why not one person can confirm his revelation or his miracles?

²¹ You may say to yourselves, �How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?� ²² If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed." (NIV)

Notice that it says nothing about eye-witnesses.  Rather, the way to judge whether a prophet was a true prophet or a false one was to see if the prophet:

A. Called on the people to worship other gods, and

B. Made prophecies which did not come true.

In fact, the passage clearly states that if people ask how they could know "when a message has not been spoken by the LORD", the answer is that they should wait and see if the prophecies made by the prophet come true.  If not, then he is a false prophet and must be put to death.

Therefore, to judge whether any claimant to prophethood was telling the truth or not, we must analyze their prophecies.  I will do that with regard to Paul and Muhammad (pbuh) in a separate post, inshaAllah.

To summarize, eyewitnesses were required in matters of criminal law and prophets were judged according to their teachings (worshiping God or worshiping "other gods") and whether their prophecies came true.

Now, Kish claims that Muhammad (pbuh) did not follow the Law of Moses (pbuh).  Well, first of all, the Law of Moses was for the Jews only.  The Laws that Muhammad (pbuh) brought supercede all previous Laws, because Islam is a universal religion and Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to all people, whereas Moses (pbuh) was sent only to the Jews.  However, the evidence shows that Islam shares the same priniciple with regard to criminal law and eye witnesses.  For example, in the matter of financial disagreements, the Quran states that two male witnesses or one male and two female witnesses should be brought forth:

"O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her." (2:182)

Sahih Bukhari also mentions the need for witnesses in such matters:

"Narrated Abu Wail: Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) said, "Whoever takes a (false) oath in order to grab some property (unjustly), Allah will be angry with him when he will meet Him. Allah confirmed that through His Divine Revelation: "Verily! Those who purchase a little gain at the cost of Allah's covenant and their oaths . . . they will have a painful punishment." (3.77) Al-Ash'ath bin Qais came to us and asked, 'What is Abu Abdur-Rahman (i.e. 'Abdullah) telling you? 'We told him what he was narrating to us. He said, 'He was telling the truth; this Divine Verse was revealed in connection with me. There was a dispute between me and another man about something and the case was filed before Allah's Apostle who said, 'Produce your two witnesses or else the defendant is to take an oath.' I said, The defendant will surely take a (false) oath caring for nothing.' The Prophet said, 'Whoever takes a false oath in order to grab (other's) property, then Allah will be angry with him when he will meet Him.' Then Allah revealed its confirmation. Al-Ashath then recited the above Divine Verse."" (48:386)

The Quran also affirmed the need to produce four, reliable witnesses in order to prove an accusation of sexual iniquity:

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way." (4:15)

So, we can see that both the Torah and the Quran are in agreement with regard to the need for witnesses in criminal cases or financial disagreements.

²¹ You may say to yourselves, �How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?� ²² If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed."

Let us deal with Paul first.  Before we delve into whether he passed the test of Deuteronomy 18, it is prudent to read the story of his life-changing experience on the road to Damascus.  In fact, there are multiple accounts of this encounter in the New Testament:

"As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. ⁴ He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, �Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?�

⁵ ï¿½Who are you, Lord?� Saul asked.

�I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,� he replied. ⁶ ï¿½Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.�

⁷ The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. ⁸ Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. ⁹ For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything." (Acts 9:3-9)

"�About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. ⁷ I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, �Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?�

⁸ ï¿½ï¿½Who are you, Lord?� I asked.

� �I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,� he replied. ⁹ My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

¹⁰ ï¿½ï¿½What shall I do, Lord?� I asked.

� �Get up,� the Lord said, �and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.� ¹¹ My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me." (Acts 22:6-11)

"�On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. ¹³ About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. ¹⁴ We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, "#fen-NIV-27838a" - a ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2026&version=NIV#fen-NIV-27838a - a ] �Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.�" (Acts 26:12-14)

The differences in these verses are self-evident.  One would think that the "inspired" authors of the New Testament would not have written contradictory accounts of the same story. 

Moving on, does Paul pass the test of Deuteronomy 18?  Did he speak in the name of the One God or in the name of "other gods"?  Did he proclaim anything that did not come to pass?  The answer can be found in the following verses:

"To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ�their Lord and ours:

³ Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:2-3)

"For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. ¹² It teaches us to say �No� to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, ¹³ while we wait for the blessed hope�the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, ¹⁴ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." (Titus 2:11-14)

Clearly, Paul spoke in the name of Jesus and worshiped him as "God", which is of course nothing new.  It is the central tenet of Christianity that Jesus was God incarnate.  But by speaking in the name of Jesus, Paul fails the test of Deuteronomy 18.

Finally, Paul also spoke about future events, as in the following:

"According to the Lord�s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁶ For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. ¹⁸ Therefore encourage one another with these words." (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18)

Clearly, Paul was stating that Jesus' return was imminent and that it would occur within the lifetime of some of the first generation of Christians.  This prophecy was also made in the First Epistle of John:

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." (1 John 2:18)

Therefore, Paul failed the second part of the test of Deuteronomy 18.  Hence, according to the Bible, Paul was a false prophet.

In my next post, I will discuss whether Muhammad (pbuh) passed or failed the test of Deuteronomy 18, inshaAllah.

islamispeace wrote: Now that the issue regarding Deuteronomy 19 has hopefully been cleared up, we can investigate which person, Muhammad (pbuh) or Paul, met the Torah's test of a prophet or any person claiming to be the recipient of God's message.

Well, how can one even come close to being a messenger of God if he cannot follow a simple Law? Unless of course he thinks he is above the Law and can break them at will, I don�t think you want to go there with me on that one!

But let me remind you, the post is not on prophet hood but whether or not the revelations of these men were true. That will determine whether or not they were sent by God.

islamispeace wrote: The differences in these verses are self-evident.  One would think that the "inspired" authors of the New Testament would not have written contradictory accounts of the same story

Seriously, this is all you have when no enemy of Christianity (Roman or Jew), scholars or historian said otherwise until the 19^th Century, not even ancient Islam?

The only thing evident here is that you are entitled to an opinion and that no two people who see and explain the same thing the same.

islamispeace wrote: Clearly, Paul spoke in the name of Jesus and worshiped him as "God", which is of course nothing new

Another weak attempt by Islamispeace to assume what Paul is saying here. Throughout the Holy Scriptures including the fourteen books the Apostle Paul wrote in the New Testament, they all clearly differentiate God and Christ.

Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: �I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle�s way of writing.��(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.

�of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus� The Riverside New Testament, Boston and New York.

�of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus� A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York and London.

�of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ� La Sainte Bible, by Louis Segond, Paris

�of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus� The New American Bible, New York and London.

In this place we find two nouns connected by καί (kai, �and�), the first noun being preceded by the definite article του̃ (tou, �of the�) and the second noun without the definite article. This indicates that when two distinct persons are connected by καί, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person.

A detailed study of the construction in Tit 2:13 is found in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp. 439-457

Again, Paul was talking about two distinct persons as shown throughout the rest of his writings. Nice try anyway.             

islamispeace wrote: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18

This means that the first resurrection begun early in Christ�s presence, and it continues �during his presence.� So, he did return, first in the flesh, then spirit. How else was he able to talk to the Apostle Paul while on the road to Damascus? (1 Corinthians 15:23) What you also failed to grasp is that rather than occurring all at once, the first resurrection takes place over a period of time.

Everything Paul said came true. That is why no one contested what Paul and that small ban of Christians wrote, it was part of the then known history and nothing has changed. Of course NOW in this day and age modern-day skeptics wants to say otherwise.

Now, here is where truth always prevail over falsehood.

islamispeace wrote: Now, let us discuss whether Muhammad (pbuh) passed the test of Deuteronomy 18.

Not so fast! And skip the 2 or more eye-witness law that he failed to keep to confirm that his revelation was indeed a true testimony from God, not a chance. That alone disqualifies him just from not being a good example and being a law abiding citizen let alone a true servant and messenger of God. How can Muhammad be a messenger of God when he cannot even follow God�s law concerning eye-witnesses to establish a matter as being true opposed to being false?

As I have shown you, not only by using the Holy Scriptures but also the Quran, it does not apply to just criminal cases but in any matter where truth needs to be established concerning God�s law. Again, if this was to apply in settling human matters so more importantly would it apply when it comes to matters representing the most high God which is why that law/principle is applied throughout the entire 66 books of the Holy Scriptures and it�s 40 Prophets.

Muhammad and others comes along decades later and wants to change the whole dynamics of things, not hardly. Even Moses and Jesus testimonies required two or more witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) to establish a matter as being true.

This my friend was a rule of thumb throughout the whole Scriptures (OT and NT) to root out false prophets and false prophecies, the very criteria that many men failed during and after Jesus ascension to heaven.

islamispeace wrote: It is well-known that Muhammad (pbuh) preached in the name of the One God, not multiple gods.

Oh really, when, who and where was the name of Allah first applied, certainly not by Israel, although the God of Israel Jehovah/Yahweh (YHWH) is still being used today, the Dead Sea Scroll confirms that. In fact who was the chief god of the Kaaba and who worshiped him? That�s another question I�m looking for an answer too. You and I know that Allah is really not a name but a descriptor that literally means �the god� like saying �elohim� or �theos� these are not names but titles.

So did Muhammad speak in the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? A resounding no.

Here is what the scholars say about the title name Allah:

It is not related that the Black Stone was connected with any special god. In the Ka'ba was the statue of the god Hubal who might be called the god of Mecca and of the Ka'ba. Caetani gives great prominence to the connection between the Ka'ba and Hubal. Besides him, however, al-Lat, al-`Uzza, and al-Manat were worshipped and are mentioned in the Kur'an; Hubal is never mentioned there. What position Allah held beside these is not exactly known. The Islamic tradition has certainly elevated him at the expense of other deities. It may be considered certain that the Black Stone was not the only idol in or at the Ka'ba. The Makam Ibrahim was of course a sacred stone from very early times. Its name has not been handed down. Beside it several idols are mentioned, among them the 360 statues. (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1987, Islam, p. 587-591)

"The verses of the Qur'an make it clear that the very name Allah existed in the Jahiliyya or pre-Islamic Arabia. Certain pagan tribes believed in a god whom they called 'Allah' and whom they believed to be the creator of heaven and earth and holder of the highest rank in the hierarchy of the gods. It is well known that the Quraish as well as other tribes believed in Allah, whom they designated as the 'Lord of the House' (i.e., of the Ka'ba)...It is therefore clear that the Qur'anic conception of Allah is not entirely new." A Guide to the Contents of the Quran, Faruq Sherif, (Reading, 1995), pgs. 21-22., Muslim)

According to al-Masudi (Murudj, iv. 47), certain people have regarded the Ka'ba as a temple devoted to the sun, the moon and the five planets. The 36o idols placed round the Ka'ba also point in this direction. It can therefore hardly be denied that traces exist of an astral symbolism. At the same time one can safely say that there can be no question of any general conception on these lines. The cult at the Ka'ba was in the heathen period syncretic as is usual in heathenism. (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1987, Islam, p. 587-591)

"Jehovah" is the only revealed proper name for the "Elohim" of the Old Testament Here is my scriptural proof (Exodus 3:13; 6:3) Historical and archeological proof is available everywhere from non-Christians sources or at any Museum. Can you say the same with allah? If so, feel free to show the forum its use before Muhammad.

Kish wrote: It was an established law, a common fact so it would not have to spell it out again. If such the case was a common law which we both agree and here in this instance it is being applied to criminal law it would even more so apply to prophet hood which is more of a serious nature then even criminal law.

⁶ ï¿½Alas, Sovereign Lord,� I said, �I do not know how to speak; I am too young.�

⁷ But the Lord said to me, �Do not say, �I am too young.� You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. ⁸ Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,� declares the Lord.

⁹ Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, �I have put my words in your mouth. ¹⁰ See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.�" (Jeremiah 1:4-10)

Where were the eye-witnesses?

Kish wrote: Incorrect, eye-witnesses was a principle in the Law of establishing every matter at the mouth of two or three witnesses, be it criminal law, settling a matter, prophet hood or anything else that is deemed as fact and believable.

Once again, you are voicing your own opinion, without any corroborating evidence.  Let's read the verse again, shall we?

"One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (Deuteronomy 19:15)

The "matter" being referred to is the accusation of a crime or offense.  Nothing is said about claimants to prophethood.  It was not a crime to claim prophethood, was it?  The only crime was when a self-proclaimed prophet made a prophecy which did not come true, which was the sign that he is in fact a false prophet.

Kish wrote: Are you suggesting that it applies to one and not the other? Dismiss it when referring to prophet hood but apply it only to criminal law?

I am not saying that.  The Bible says that and that is how the Jews interpreted it.

Kish wrote: Muhammad did not follow the Law of Moses in establishing or confirming a matter as truth, which is the touchstone of any true religion.

I have already dealt with this. 

Kish wrote: But you conveniently left Q 2:282 out "If the party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, let his guardian dictate faithfully. And get two witnesses out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women." The Sura of the Table (Al-Ma'ida) 5:109 from 10 A.H. reads, "O ye who believe! When death approaches any of you, (take) witnesses among yourselves when making bequests---two just men." Are these criminal offenses?

You are confusing the Law of Moses with the Sharia.  As I stated before, the Law of Moses was for the Jews only.  The Sharia is for all mankind and supercedes all previous laws.  It was the Law of Moses which stipulated that eye-witnesses were needed for criminal offenses.    The Sharia stipulates that witnesses were needed in many instances, such as criminal cases, financial disagreements (as per 2:182) and making last requests or wills (as per 5:106 - not 109 as you erroneously wrote).

Moreover, if you had read my last post carefully, you would have seen the commentary of Rashi on Deuteronomy 19:15, which clearly spelled out that the verse could be applied to all criminal cases, which naturally also includes financial disagreements:

"where his testimony would lead to the accused being punished, either with corporal punishment or with or monetary punishment."  

Kish wrote: The Sura of the Light (Al-Nur) 24:4 from 5-6 A.H. requires four witnesses in order to sustain an accusation of marital infidelity. It reads, "And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors." So I ask you, if two or four witnesses are necessary in human matters, how much more important it is to have two or more witnesses establishing a word as "the Word of God" come by revelation? No wonder God has used not just ONE man to deliver his message, nor just 2 or 3 witnesses, but 40 prophets.

That's a question for you to answer, because it the Bible which does not require witnesses to corroborate a prophet's claims of receiving divine revelation.  The Bible's test for a prophet was not in witnesses but in whether his prophecies came true.  As I stated before, if witnesses were required, who witnesses Jeremiah's first experience? 

Now of course, in order for anyone to verify whether a prophet's claims about the future came true or not, then witnesses would be needed.  But witnesses were not required to prove the claim that one had a divine experience, as in Jeremiah's example.

As it stands, plenty of people witnessed the prophecies of the Hebrew prophets as well as the prophecies of Muhammad (pbuh).

Kish wrote: From this we understand that when Muhammad spoke to the people of Mecca saying that he was a prophet, and the Meccans and the Jews demanded that Muhammad should show them some confirming miracle, it was not just because of hard-hearted unbelief.

Now you are talking about miracles, which is a different situation altogether.  Before, you were talking about revelation. 

Muhammad (pbuh) did perform miracles, which many people witnessed.  One of these was the splitting of the moon, which the Quran states was witnessed by the unbelievers.  But the unbelievers still refused to believe, claiming that the miracle was actually the work of a magician:

"The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.  But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic."  They reject (the warning) and follow their (own) lusts but every matter has its appointed time." (55:1-3)

Kish wrote: That may have been true of many of them, but as the Quran itself admits, some of the Jews were honorable and feared God. The Jews and others in Mecca were saying, "One witness is not enough. We need a confirming witness from God." They were doing exactly what God has commanded men to do, because Jehovah (YHWH), the Eternal One, has ruled for our sake that there must be two or more witnesses.

You have absolutely no proof for this.  You are just making stuff up based on your pre-conceived (and erroneous) understanding of Deuteronomy 19:15. 

Kish wrote: However, the key factor here is Muhammad failed to have two or more witnesses to confirm his revelation as fact, unlike Moses, Jesus and Paul. In fact in all three men, had manifestations that God�s Holy Spirit was with them in front of all to see. That in itself proves that God was backing these men.

Not so, as I proved.  Where were the witnesses for Jeremiah?  In fact, the Bible never mentions that any person witnessed the revelation coming to any of the Hebrew prophets, whether Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea etc.

Kish wrote: Well, how can one even come close to being a messenger of God if he cannot follow a simple Law? Unless of course he thinks he is above the Law and can break them at will, I don�t think you want to go there with me on that one!

Kish wrote: But let me remind you, the post is not on prophet hood but whether or not the revelations of these men were true. That will determine whether or not they were sent by God.

Kish wrote: Seriously, this is all you have when no enemy of Christianity (Roman or Jew), scholars or historian said otherwise until the 19th Century, not even ancient Islam?

Kish wrote: The only thing evident here is that you are entitled to an opinion and that no two people who see and explain the same thing the same.

Kish wrote: Another weak attempt by Islamispeace to assume what Paul is saying here. Throughout the Holy Scriptures including the fourteen books the Apostle Paul wrote in the New Testament, they all clearly differentiate God and Christ.

"To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ�their Lord and ours:

³ Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:2-3)

"For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. ¹² It teaches us to say �No� to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, ¹³ while we wait for the blessed hope�the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, ¹⁴ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." (Titus 2:11-14)

Kish wrote: Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: �I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle�s way of writing.��(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421. �of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus� The Riverside New Testament, Boston and New York.   �of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus� A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York and London.   �of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ� La Sainte Bible, by Louis Segond, Paris   �of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus� The New American Bible, New York and London. In this place we find two nouns connected by καί (kai, �and�), the first noun being preceded by the definite article του̃ (tou, �of the�) and the second noun without the definite article. This indicates that when two distinct persons are connected by καί, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person. A detailed study of the construction in Tit 2:13 is found in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp. 439-457 Again, Paul was talking about two distinct persons as shown throughout the rest of his writings. Nice try anyway.

Kish wrote: This means that the first resurrection begun early in Christ�s presence, and it continues �during his presence.� So, he did return, first in the flesh, then spirit. How else was he able to talk to the Apostle Paul while on the road to Damascus? (1 Corinthians 15:23) What you also failed to grasp is that rather than occurring all at once, the first resurrection takes place over a period of time.

Kish wrote: Everything Paul said came true. That is why no one contested what Paul and that small ban of Christians wrote, it was part of the then known history and nothing has changed. Of course NOW in this day and age modern-day skeptics wants to say otherwise.

Kish wrote: Now, here is where truth always prevail over falsehood.

Kish wrote: Not so fast! And skip the 2 or more eye-witness law that he failed to keep to confirm that his revelation was indeed a true testimony from God, not a chance. That alone disqualifies him just from not being a good example and being a law abiding citizen let alone a true servant and messenger of God. How can Muhammad be a messenger of God when he cannot even follow God�s law concerning eye-witnesses to establish a matter as being true opposed to being false?

Kish wrote: As I have shown you, not only by using the Holy Scriptures but also the Quran, it does not apply to just criminal cases but in any matter where truth needs to be established concerning God�s law. Again, if this was to apply in settling human matters so more importantly would it apply when it comes to matters representing the most high God which is why that law/principle is applied throughout the entire 66 books of the Holy Scriptures and it�s 40 Prophets.

Kish wrote: Muhammad and others comes along decades later and wants to change the whole dynamics of things, not hardly. Even Moses and Jesus testimonies required two or more witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) to establish a matter as being true.

Kish wrote: This my friend was a rule of thumb throughout the whole Scriptures (OT and NT) to root out false prophets and false prophecies, the very criteria that many men failed during and after Jesus ascension to heaven.

Kish wrote: Oh really, when, who and where was the name of Allah first applied, certainly not by Israel, although the God of Israel Jehovah/Yahweh (YHWH) is still being used today, the Dead Sea Scroll confirms that.

Kish wrote: In fact who was the chief god of the Kaaba and who worshiped him? That�s another question I�m looking for an answer too. You and I know that Allah is really not a name but a descriptor that literally means �the god� like saying �elohim� or �theos� these are not names but titles.

Kish wrote: So did Muhammad speak in the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? A resounding no.

Kish wrote: Here is what the scholars say about the title name Allah: It is not related that the Black Stone was connected with any special god. In the Ka'ba was the statue of the god Hubal who might be called the god of Mecca and of the Ka'ba. Caetani gives great prominence to the connection between the Ka'ba and Hubal. Besides him, however, al-Lat, al-`Uzza, and al-Manat were worshipped and are mentioned in the Kur'an; Hubal is never mentioned there. What position Allah held beside these is not exactly known. The Islamic tradition has certainly elevated him at the expense of other deities. It may be considered certain that the Black Stone was not the only idol in or at the Ka'ba. The Makam Ibrahim was of course a sacred stone from very early times. Its name has not been handed down. Beside it several idols are mentioned, among them the 360 statues. (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1987, Islam, p. 587-591) "The verses of the Qur'an make it clear that the very name Allah existed in the Jahiliyya or pre-Islamic Arabia. Certain pagan tribes believed in a god whom they called 'Allah' and whom they believed to be the creator of heaven and earth and holder of the highest rank in the hierarchy of the gods. It is well known that the Quraish as well as other tribes believed in Allah, whom they designated as the 'Lord of the House' (i.e., of the Ka'ba)...It is therefore clear that the Qur'anic conception of Allah is not entirely new." A Guide to the Contents of the Quran, Faruq Sherif, (Reading, 1995), pgs. 21-22., Muslim) According to al-Masudi (Murudj, iv. 47), certain people have regarded the Ka'ba as a temple devoted to the sun, the moon and the five planets. The 36o idols placed round the Ka'ba also point in this direction. It can therefore hardly be denied that traces exist of an astral symbolism. At the same time one can safely say that there can be no question of any general conception on these lines. The cult at the Ka'ba was in the heathen period syncretic as is usual in heathenism. (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1987, Islam, p. 587-591)

Your plagiarism of like-minded, ignorant Christians does not reveal anything new!  Every Muslim knows that the pagan Arabs acknowledged Allah as the supreme God.  This is nothing new, Kish!  That was the whole point of Prophet Muhammad's mission.  It was to destroy idolatry and bring the Arabs back to the worship of the One God. 

And as I showed above, Arab Jews and Christians were perfectly content in calling upon "Yahweh" as "Allah".  Your desperate attempts to show that Allah is not the same God as "Yahweh" only exposes your own ignorance and blaspheming nature.    

The only one who did not call upon the God of Abraham was Paul.  He wrote his letters in the name of Jesus, his so-called "Lord". 

Kish wrote: Jehovah" is the only revealed proper name for the "Elohim" of the Old Testament Here is my scriptural proof (Exodus 3:13; 6:3) Historical and archeological proof is available everywhere from non-Christians sources or at any Museum. Can you say the same with allah? If so, feel free to show the forum its use before Muhammad

Your request has already been granted, with the evidence given above.

Earth to Kish: The Jews were not the only ones to be given God's message.  Allah sent prophets to all people, not just to one group of people.  He sent His message to all in their own languages, so they may have referred to Him under different names and titles.  With the coming of the universal message of Islam, it is now proper to call Him "Allah" or by any of the other 99 names mentioned in the Quran.  As Saeed Malik so succinctly states in his book "A Perspective on the Signs of Al-Quran:Through the Prism of the Heart":

"Call Him God; call Him Allah or Call Him Rahman or Call Him by any other name because He is One (Al-Wahid) and there is no other (Al-Ahad)."

How long will you persist in your blasphemy?  Judgment awaits you in the hereafter.  Open your eyes to the truth, before it is too late!

Islamispeace wrote: When reading Chapter 1 of the Book of Jeremiah, we are told that he received "the Word of the Lord", yet nothing is said about any eye-witnesses to this incident:

So let me take this from the top. I said . . .

Kish wrote: In the Quran ONLY Muhammad talks about his �so-called� revelation from God, no one else can even confirm it or even eye-witness it.

No one, I mean no one:

A.    In the Quran confirmed Muhammad�s revelation

B.    Eye-witnessed Muhammad�s revelation

The Scriptural Law in the OT and NT was and still is . . .

Kish wrote: Deuteronomy 19:15 . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good Matthew 18:16 . . .  in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 2 Corithians 13:1 . . .This is the third time I am coming to YOU. �At the mouth of two witnesses or of three every matter must be established.

I also present the words of Jesus himself in the �Two or more Witness� principle

John 8:17, 18 Jesus said: �In your own Law it is written, �The witness of two men is TRUE.� I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.�

Are you saying that the Prophet Jesus was guilty of a criminal offense, of course not but was establishing his sayings and teachings as TRUE

John 8:11 �If we receive the witness men give, the witness God gives is greater, because this is the witness God gives, the fact that he has borne witness concerning his Son.

Hebrew 10:28.29 Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three. ²⁹ Of how much more severe a punishment, do YOU think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God and who has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt?

Again, if this just was applied to human matters and it�s not but if it was how much more so when concerning to spiritual matters.

The topic here is �Prove that Paul or Muhammad had a Revelation� not Jeremiah, so for the forums benefit I�ll get straight to the point on this one.

By your own admission you quoted . . .

Islamispeace wrote: "The word of the Lord came to me,

What better witness then the Lord as Jesus himself mentions in John 8:11 above? Unlike Muhammad, there was no confusion as to who spoke to Paul and or Jeremiah whatsoever, they knew who it was. In fact it came from the Lord personally, how do we know? Because Gabriel does not appoint prophets, he never did, he is a messenger of God. That is why you have never seen him in the roll of appointing or anointing prophets of God, AT ALL! On the other-hand, Muhammad has Gabriel portrayed in the Quran as one who appoints and anoints although much, much, much later he said that it was believed to be Gabriel that spoke to him, but he really was freighted and unsure because this so called �angel� violently chocked him, unlike any of God�s angels in any roll.  

Now; who besides �the Lord� confirmed Jeremiah�s Prophet Hood to make it authentic and to follow the �Two or More� principle of the Law? I�ll be brief . . .  

Daniel 9:2 . . . Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years . . .

Ezra 1:1 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah�s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm, and also in writing, saying

Matthew 2:17 Then that was fulfilled which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying:

Matthew 16:14 They said: �Some say John the Baptist, others E�li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

As you can see, there was no question that Jeremiah was a true prophet of God and Paul was an Apostle to the Nations as confirmed by the prophets and the Apostles of Jesus; again only Islam disagrees, but we know why.  

So, we have more than enough information to address this issue whether, you agree with it or not, the Scriptures show you over and over again so you cannot change the law. Furthermore you don't even believe in 100% of the Bible. The only parts in the Bible that you do believe in are the ones that you assume supports Mohammed and his belief so what is that, maybe 5% of the Bible? Also, you cannot believe in the Old Testament and not believe in the New Testament and vice versa.  In fact more than 90% of the earth's population owns a Bible in their own language; you can't say that for the Quran.  So whether you agree with the two or more witness principle that is stated in the Bible it is neither here or there it is very well-documented as I�ve just shown. So you can keep dancing around this �Two or more Witness� principle all you want you have nothing to support or confirm Muhammad�s revelation.

Islamispeace wrote: As it stands, plenty of people witnessed the prophecies of the Hebrew prophets as well as the prophecies of Muhammad (pbuh).

And as shown, plenty of the prophets confirmed as true the prophethood of Jeremiah by using the �Two or more Witness� principle. I�ll repeat what I said  . .

Kish wrote: In the Quran ONLY Muhammad talks about his �so-called� revelation from God, no one else can even confirm it or even eye-witness it.

No one, I mean no one:

A.    In the Quran confirmed Muhammad�s revelation or

B.    Eye-witnessed Muhammad�s revelation

Long story short, Jeremiah, Paul and even Jesus himself had both A and B according to the principle of the LAW.

Muhammad, had neither A and or B.

kish wrote: Muhammad and others comes along decades later and wants to change the whole dynamics of things, not hardly. Even Moses and Jesus testimonies required two or more witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) to establish a matter as being true.

islamispeace wrote: So far, you have failed to prove any of this.  It is just your own opinion, which unfortunately for you, is not supported by your "Holy Scriptures"!

Talking to the Jews Jesus said . .

Kish wrote: John 8:17, 18 �In your own Law it is written, �The witness of two men is TRUE.� I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.�

You really need to meditate more on your reading because all of this is FACT!

EVERYTHING that I�ve said is solidly backed up and supported!

You also said and I quote "Christians have used the word Allah from pre-Islamic times."

Okay, but that is why the word Allah in English only means "the god," that is not a name, certainly not the name of the God of Israel.          

islamispeace wrote: It was to destroy idolatry and bring the Arabs back to the worship of the One God.

By using one of the pagan gods of the Kaba, ok.

islamispeace wrote: "Call Him God; call Him Allah or Call Him Rahman or Call Him by any other name because He is One (Al-Wahid) and there is no other (Al-Ahad)."

Muhammad would change the words of the Prophet Moses and Christ the Messiah.

(Exodus 6:3) . . .  as respects my name Jehovah  . . . 

(Psalms 113:2, 3) . . .  Jehovah�s name become blessed From now on and to time indefinite. ³ From the rising of the sun until it setting Jehovah�s name is to be praised.

(Psalm 83:18) That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

(Matthew 4:10) Then Jesus said to him: �Go away, Satan! For it is written, �It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.

Jesus and his followers used the name Jehovah, he said it in the Hebrew form not Arabic although he could speak Arabic and many other languages.

Kish wrote: No one, I mean no one: A.    In the Quran confirmed Muhammad�s revelation B.    Eye-witnessed Muhammad�s revelation The Scriptural Law in the OT and NT was and still is . . .

What difference does it make that no one "in the Quran confirmed Muhammad's revelation"?  Even if it did, would you believe it?  So, what's your point?  The Quran is not like the Bible.  It is not a narrative of Muhammad's life and experiences.  The Quran is a guide for believers to live their lives according to God's Laws. 

There were no witnesses to the initial revelation that Muhammad (pbuh) received in the Cave of Hira, just as there were no witnesses to the initial revelation received by Jeremiah or any of the other prophets mentioned in the Tanakh.  Either this is a contradiction of Deuteronomy 19 (which you claim requires witnesses for a prophet's claims) or Deuteronomy 19 has nothing to do with prophets, as I claimed.

Kish wrote: I also present the words of Jesus himself in the �Two or more Witness� principle John 8:17, 18 Jesus said: �In your own Law it is written, �The witness of two men is TRUE.� I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.� Are you saying that the Prophet Jesus was guilty of a criminal offense, of course not but was establishing his sayings and teachings as TRUE

First of all, Deuteronomy 19:15 required two human witnesses, and the one accused could not be one of the witnesses!  Read the verse again:

"One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

Where does it say that God could be one of the witnesses?  Where does it say that the accused could be the other?  Obviously, the person who wrote the Gospel of John misquoted Deuteronomy 19:15. 

Second, I have already proven that Deuteronomy 19:15 was concerned only with criminal and financial cases, because it says that clearly.  Nothing is mentioned about prophets. 

Third, if the rule Deuteronomy 19:15 also included prophets, then you cannot confirm that any of the Hebrew prophets has actually received a revelation from God.

Kish wrote: Again, if this just was applied to human matters and it�s not but if it was how much more so when concerning to spiritual matters.

You have no proof for this from the Tanakh itself.  Quoting ad nauseum from the New Testament is a circular argument.  We know for a fact that the authors of the New Testament books often selectively quoted from the Tanakh when it suited their purpose.

Kish wrote: The topic here is �Prove that Paul or Muhammad had a Revelation� not Jeremiah, so for the forums benefit I�ll get straight to the point on this one.

The topic applies just as much to Jeremiah (pbuh) and all the other prophets as it does to Paul or Muhammad (pbuh).  The reason I mentioned Jeremiah (pbuh) was to show how the Tanakh contradicts your claims about Deuteronomy 19:15.  If two witnesses were needed to confirm that a prophet had actually received God's revelation, then Jeremiah (obuh) and all the other Hebrew prophets failed the test. 

Kish wrote: By your own admission you quoted . . . Originally posted by Islamispeace "The word of the Lord came to me,   What better witness then the Lord as Jesus himself mentions in John 8:11 above? Unlike Muhammad, there was no confusion as to who spoke to Paul and or Jeremiah whatsoever, they knew who it was. In fact it came from the Lord personally, how do we know?

Kish wrote: Because Gabriel does not appoint prophets, he never did, he is a messenger of God. That is why you have never seen him in the roll of appointing or anointing prophets of God, AT ALL!

Kish wrote: On the other-hand, Muhammad has Gabriel portrayed in the Quran as one who appoints and anoints although much, much, much later he said that it was believed to be Gabriel that spoke to him, but he really was freighted and unsure because this so called �angel� violently chocked him, unlike any of God�s angels in any roll.

Kish wrote: Now; who besides �the Lord� confirmed Jeremiah�s Prophet Hood to make it authentic and to follow the �Two or More� principle of the Law? I�ll be brief . . .     Daniel 9:2 . . . Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years . . . Ezra 1:1 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah�s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm, and also in writing, saying Matthew 2:17 Then that was fulfilled which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying:   Matthew 16:14 They said: �Some say John the Baptist, others E�li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.   As you can see, there was no question that Jeremiah was a true prophet of God and Paul was an Apostle to the Nations as confirmed by the prophets and the Apostles of Jesus; again only Islam disagrees, but we know why.

Wow!  More special pleading!  So, the so-called "eye-witnesses" to Jeremiah's "prophethood" were people who lived after him?!  How convenient! 

In that case, Muhammad (pbuh) also is a prophet because billions of people today believe he was a prophet!  But, of course, you don't accept that argument but apparently Jeremiah was a true prophet because people living hundreds of years after him believed he was. 

You also forgot about poor Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Haggai and all the other Hebrew prophets.  Who were their witnesses?

I think it has become clear that you do not know if there were any witnesses to the claims of any of the Hebrew prophets.  Yet, instead of admitting the truth, you persist in your folly by using circular arguments and special pleading. 

Kish wrote: So, we have more than enough information to address this issue whether, you agree with it or not, the Scriptures show you over and over again so you cannot change the law.

What are you smoking?  The "information" you showed above actually shows that the law was being changed all the time!  You appealed to John 8:17 to show that Jesus had two witnesses to his claim that he received God's revelation (himself and God), yet Deuteronomy 19:15 stated that there had to be two human witnesses, and God was not one of them.  Therefore, the "Jesus" of John 8 changed the law when it suited his purpose!

Kish wrote: Furthermore you don't even believe in 100% of the Bible. The only parts in the Bible that you do believe in are the ones that you assume supports Mohammed and his belief so what is that, maybe 5% of the Bible? Also, you cannot believe in the Old Testament and not believe in the New Testament and vice versa.  In fact more than 90% of the earth's population owns a Bible in their own language; you can't say that for the Quran.  So whether you agree with the two or more witness principle that is stated in the Bible it is neither here or there it is very well-documented as I�ve just shown. So you can keep dancing around this �Two or more Witness� principle all you want you have nothing to support or confirm Muhammad�s revelation.

I never said I did believe in the whole Bible.  The point was to show that your asinine claims are contradicted by the very books you claim to uphold.  So far, you have failed to prove that Jeremiah or any of the Hebrew prophets had two witnesses, as you have been hypocritically demanding from Muhammad (pbuh).  You can dance around that all you want, but you will only tire yourself out! 

Kish wrote: And as shown, plenty of the prophets confirmed as true the prophethood of Jeremiah by using the �Two or more Witness� principle. I�ll repeat what I said  . .

Right...people living hundreds of years after Jeremiah were his "witnesses".  But none when he was actually alive.  So tell me.  When poor Jeremiah was alive and he had no witnesses, what was the judgment regarding his claim to prophethood?  Was it "pending further evidence"? 

Kish wrote: No one, I mean no one: A.    In the Quran confirmed Muhammad�s revelation or B.    Eye-witnessed Muhammad�s revelation Long story short, Jeremiah, Paul and even Jesus himself had both A and B according to the principle of the LAW. Muhammad, had neither A and or B.

According to your weak evidence above, Jeremiah, Paul and Jesus all failed to bring any witnesses in their lifetimes, except themselves, God and people who lived hundreds of years after the fact.  So actually, neither had A or B.

Also, as I have stated and shown, many people confirmed Muhammad's prophecies after he had died.  The prophecies he had made had come true. 

Kish wrote: Of course he glosses over it, nothing to show who contested Paul�s miracles and encounter with Jesus, not even the Jews, Romans and Greeks who were the persecutors and enemies of Christianity. Only modern day maybe 19th Century Jonny come lately scholars who say otherwise base on pure assumptions at best.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Paul really did receive God's revelation.  Asking for evidence that non-Christians questioned Paul's credentials is a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that he truly believed that the end would come in his lifetime. 

Moreover, the fact of the matter is that Paul was not a famous person in Rome.  He was known perhaps only to the Christian congregations, but not to Rome itself.  The Romans regarded Christianity with indifference.  In other words, they did not care about this small group of what they saw as religious fanatics.  The funny thing is that Christians after Paul were apparently embarrassed that Paul was not as well-known as they believed he should have been.  So what did they do?  They forged letters between Paul and the Roman philosopher Seneca!  As Bart Ehrman notes:

"But over the years Christians wondered why, if Paul was such a brilliant and astute thinker, none of the other great thinkers of his day mentions him.  Why does he appear to have been a great unknown in the Roman Empire, outside of the Christian church itself?

Sometime in the fourth century an unknown author sought to address the issue and did so by forging a series of fourteen letters between Paul and the Roman philosopher Seneca.  [...]

They are meant to show that Paul was well placed and well respected by intellectuals of his time." ("Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are", p. 91) 

You see, Kish, Paul was an unknown in his time.  No one in Rome paid much attention to him. 

But this is all irrelevant to our discussion.  The fact is that Paul believed that Jesus (pbuh) would return in his lifetime.  He said so many times throughout his surviving letters.  For the purposes of this topic, we can say with full confidence that he was not the recipient of God's revelation.

Kish wrote: Talking to the Jews Jesus said . . Originally posted by Kish John 8:17, 18 �In your own Law it is written, �The witness of two men is TRUE.� I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.� You really need to meditate more on your reading because all of this is FACT! EVERYTHING that I�ve said is solidly backed up and supported!

"Solidly backed up and supported"?    Oh, please.  All you have done to "support" your claim about the Tanakh is to quote not the Tanakh but the New Testament, which was written hundreds of years afterwards.  If you want to prove your claim regarding Deuteronomy 19:15, do so by quoting the Tanakh.  This is my challenge to you.  Provide one iota of evidence from the Tanakh that any claimant to prophethood was asked to provide two witnesses that he had indeed received God's revelation.  They had to be two human witnesses or one human witness (not the accused individual) who was willing to testify under oath to God.  

Kish wrote: You also said and I quote "Christians have used the word Allah from pre-Islamic times." Okay, but that is why the word Allah in English only means "the god," that is not a name, certainly not the name of the God of Israel.

Kish wrote: By using one of the pagan gods of the Kaba, ok.

Kish wrote: Muhammad would change the words of the Prophet Moses and Christ the Messiah. (Exodus 6:3) . . .  as respects my name Jehovah  . . .  (Psalms 113:2, 3) . . .  Jehovah�s name become blessed From now on and to time indefinite. 3 From the rising of the sun until it setting Jehovah�s name is to be praised. (Psalm 83:18) That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth. (Matthew 4:10) Then Jesus said to him: �Go away, Satan! For it is written, �It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service. Jesus and his followers used the name Jehovah, he said it in the Hebrew form not Arabic although he could speak Arabic and many other languages.

It is very obvious then that Muhammad did not follow the Law of Moses pertaining to the �Two or more witness� rule, although the other entire bible Prophets did, ending with Jesus. If it was good enough for all the prophets from Moses to Jesus, what makes Muhammad so special unless he�s suspect?  

Islamispeace has also admitted that HE feels it only pertains to criminal cases, missing the main point which is whether or not the testimony of two or more is true.

Islamispeace just focuses on the nature of the incident being criminal AND not the testimony of the incident being true or false by the �two or more witness� rule. Most of you would agree that your main concern would be whether the accusation is true or not.

Islamispeace I�m glad you�re not the Judge, Jury and or Executioner. 

You have totally misconstrued the Law in Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 19:15 . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the MATTER should stand good

Matthew 18:16 . . .  in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses EVERY MATTER may be established.

2 Corithians 13:1 . . .This is the third time I am coming to YOU. �At the mouth of two witnesses or of three EVERY MATTER must be established.

Here is my favorite . . .

Originally posted by Kish

John 8:17, 18 �In your own Law it is written, �The witness of two men is TRUE.� I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.�

And here you missed the point again . . .

islamispeace wrote: First of all, Deuteronomy 19:15 required two human witnesses, and the one accused could not be one of the witnesses!  Read the verse again:  Where does it say that God could be one of the witnesses?  Where does it say that the accused could be the other?  Obviously, the person who wrote the Gospel of John misquoted Deuteronomy 19:15.

Keeping it simple, the �two or more witness� rule was being applied even in the case of Jesus teachings, How? As I have said Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. agreed with his (Birth, death and resurrection) and followed his teachings and preached that the Kingdom of God is near.

It is out of ONLY Muhammad�s mouth who teaches something entirely different from the Old and New Testament and not out of anyone else�s mouth in the Quran to establish Muhammad�s statement or matter as truth!  

Not only did the New Testament keep the rule �Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses� the MATTER should stand good which in this case is Matthew and Paul but all the writers  in the New Testament themselves followed it.   

It was a real law to prove or disprove eternal truths and even the Lord Jesus supported it like I�ve shown previously. People are concerned about TRUTHS!

How did the �two or more witness� rule apply to Jeremiah? As I�ve have shown . . .

kish wrote: Daniel 9:2 . . . Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years . . . Ezra 1:1 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah�s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm, and also in writing, saying Matthew 2:17 Then that was fulfilled which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying:   Matthew 16:14 They said: �Some say John the Baptist, others E�li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

islamispeace wrote: What difference does it make that no one "in the Quran confirmed Muhammad's revelation"?

A.    He failed to follow the Principle Law of Moses

B.    His revelation was not from the God of Israel

C.    His revelation was never confirmed by anyone other than himself

D.    The account cannot be confirmed in the Quran by �two or more witnesses� as TRUTH!

islamispeace wrote: ]Even if it did, would you believe it?

For anyone to truly follow God he FIRST have to SUBMIT to God and that just the beginning, let alone have the blessings of a true messenger.

islamispeace wrote: ]What His "name" is in Hebrew is irrelevant when a prophet is sent to non-Hebrew speaking people.

Again, not according to the LAW of the Holy Scriptures, his name is everlasting; you really have been misinformed and even misguided.

Isaiah 42:8 I am Jehovah. That is my name; http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2030 - - +  neither my praise http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2032 - - +

Isaiah 64:6 �For your Grand Maker http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060026/713 - - +  is your husbandly owner, http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060026/714 - - +  Jehovah of armies being his name; http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2788 - - +  The God of the whole earth http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060026/715 - Romans 10:13 http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/dx/r1/lp-e/28317 - ^-   For �everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060048/85 - - +

kish wrote: Islamispeace just focuses on the nature of the incident being criminal AND not the testimony of the incident being true or false by the �two or more witness� rule. Most of you would agree that your main concern would be whether the accusation is true or not.

According to �Deuteronomy 19:15 . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the MATTER should stand good �

Matthew 18:16 . . .  in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses EVERY MATTER may be established.

2 Corithians 13:1 . . .This is the third time I am coming to YOU. �At the mouth of two witnesses or of three EVERY MATTER must be established.

John 8:17, 18 �In your own Law it is written, �The witness of two men is TRUE.� I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.�

My question to any Muslim on this forum according to these scriptures is this; on the basis of what would a person first be brought to justice?  

ONLY on the basis of being accused of a wrong doing by who, the �two or more� witnesses.

Until the case was actually establish as TRUE by who islamispeace? the �two or more witnesses, you could NOT move forward.

If you supposedly submit to God and if you are honest with yourself, you would know it would only be on the basis of the �two or more witness� rule whether or not the individual would first stand trial. There would have to be two or more confirmations that the event happened, as in the case of Moses, Jeremiah, Paul, Jesus etc. . .

So it is FIRST and foremost only by the TESTIMONY of the Two or more Witnesses not the �nature� of the incident, that brings forth a case in the court of LAW, especially the Mosaic LAW.

Unequivocally, Muhammad failed in that respect; no one confirmed anything he said in the Quran, him being a messenger, a prophet or a servant of the most High God.

It is ONLY by the words of Muhammad himself that he had this revelation and was a Prophet and penned his Quran, unlike the confirmation that Jeremiah, Paul and all the others had regarding their writings. As in the case of Jeremiah . . .

kish wrote: Daniel 9:2 . . . Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years . . . Ezra 1:1 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah�s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm, and also in writing, saying Matthew 2:17 Then that was fulfilled which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying:   Matthew 16:14 They said: �Some say John the Baptist, others E�li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

Kish wrote: It is very obvious then that Muhammad did not follow the Law of Moses pertaining to the �Two or more witness� rule, although the other entire bible Prophets did, ending with Jesus. If it was good enough for all the prophets from Moses to Jesus, what makes Muhammad so special unless he�s suspect?

¹¹ Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense." (Luke 1:8-11)

In the sixth month of Elizabeth�s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, ²⁷ to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin�s name was Mary. ²⁸ The angel went to her and said, �Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.�" (Luke 1:26-28)

Whoo!  Let's stop there.  We can keep going with the other prophets such as Obadiah, Jonah etc.  The main point to take away from all this is that all of these prophets were alone when God's word came to them.  I challenge you, Kish, to prove otherwise.   

Kish wrote: Islamispeace has also admitted that HE feels it only pertains to criminal cases, missing the main point which is whether or not the testimony of two or more is true.   Islamispeace just focuses on the nature of the incident being criminal AND not the testimony of the incident being true or false by the �two or more witness� rule. Most of you would agree that your main concern would be whether the accusation is true or not.

Me thinks that Kish doth protest too much!  Kish, surely you remember that I backed up my claims about Deut. 19 by quoting the commentary of the Jewish scholar Rashi. 

Kish wrote: You have totally misconstrued the Law in Deuteronomy.   Deuteronomy 19:15 . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the MATTER should stand good   Matthew 18:16 . . .  in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses EVERY MATTER may be established. 2 Corithians 13:1 . . .This is the third time I am coming to YOU. �At the mouth of two witnesses or of three EVERY MATTER must be established.   Here is my favorite . . .   Originally posted by Kish John 8:17, 18 �In your own Law it is written, �The witness of two men is TRUE.� I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.� And here you missed the point again . . .

How conveniently you ignore my comments on these verses.  All of these were dealt with in my previous response.  Kish really thinks that mindless repetition will drive his point home!  I would keep an eye on the third base coach, Kish, because I don't think he is waiving you home! 

Kish wrote: Keeping it simple, the �two or more witness� rule was being applied even in the case of Jesus teachings, How? As I have said Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. agreed with his (Birth, death and resurrection) and followed his teachings and preached that the Kingdom of God is near.

Oh, so Kish wants to "keep it simple".  That is Christian code for "special pleading".  Kish realizes he is trapped, so he resorts to special pleading to make Deut. 19 appear to be in agreement with Jesus' claims of witnesses. 

To repeat, Deut. 19 requires two HUMAN witnesses.  When Jesus (pbuh) was questioned by the Pharisees, he stated that his "witnesses" were himself and God, a clear violation of Deut. 19.

Kish wrote: It is out of ONLY Muhammad�s mouth who teaches something entirely different from the Old and New Testament and not out of anyone else�s mouth in the Quran to establish Muhammad�s statement or matter as truth!     Not only did the New Testament keep the rule �Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses� the MATTER should stand good which in this case is Matthew and Paul but all the writers  in the New Testament themselves followed it.      It was a real law to prove or disprove eternal truths and even the Lord Jesus supported it like I�ve shown previously. People are concerned about TRUTHS! How did the �two or more witness� rule apply to Jeremiah? As I�ve have shown . . .

Sure, sure.  I know it hurts Kish.  Childish repetition is the last resort of an biased Christian apologist with no way out of an intellectual dilemma. 

Kish wrote: It�s well documented in the inspired Holy Scriptures that Jeremiah was indeed a prophet and that what he said was an established fact by the �two or more witness� rule, that�s how and that is why it�s part of the Bible canon of Muhammad�s day and the same bible canon today.

Who were the witnesses in Jeremiah's lifetime?  You have yet to answer this question.  Was Deut. 19 referring to "future witnesses" or was it referring to witnesses in the here and now?  C'mon Kish!  Think hard!

Kish wrote: A.    He failed to follow the Principle Law of Moses B.    His revelation was not from the God of Israel C.    His revelation was never confirmed by anyone other than himself D.    The account cannot be confirmed in the Quran by �two or more witnesses� as TRUTH!

Circular reasoning once again! 

A.  "Prinicipal Law of Moses" - What on earth does that mean?  It is well-known that Paul did not follow the Law of Moses.  Kish, of course, knows this, so he deceptively adds the word "principally" to spare placing Paul in an obvious dilemma.

B.  Revelation was not from the God of Israel - Really?  How so?  This is Kish doing what Kish knows best: making circular arguments. 

C.  Revelation was never confirmed by anyone other than himself - Really?  What about Waraqah and Bahira?  Oh, but I know.  Kish will resort to the argument "well, they don't count". 

D.  Two or more witnesses - Still gnawing away at that bone, even though you have been refuted on this nonsense several times already!  Your silence on the issue of whether any of the Biblical prophets had witnesses in their lifetimes to back up their claims of receiving God's word is delightful! 

Kish wrote: For anyone to truly follow God he FIRST have to SUBMIT to God and that just the beginning, let alone have the blessings of a true messenger.

And Muhammad (pbuh) did that, didn't he?

"

So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted My whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, Thy duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah's sight are (all) His servants. " (3:20)

It just keeps getting worse for you, doesn't it? 

Kish wrote: Again, not according to the LAW of the Holy Scriptures, his name is everlasting; you really have been misinformed and even misguided. Isaiah 42:8 I am Jehovah. That is my name; http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2030 - - +  and to no one else shall I give my own glory, http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2031 - - +  neither my praise http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2032 - - +  to graven images. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2033 - - + Isaiah 64:6 �For your Grand Maker http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060026/713 - - * http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2786 - - +  is your husbandly owner, http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060026/714 - - * http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2787 - - +  Jehovah of armies being his name; http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2788 - - +  and the Holy One of Israel is your Repurchaser. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060026/2789 - - +  The God of the whole earth http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060026/715 - - *  he will be called. Romans 10:13 http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/dx/r1/lp-e/28317 - - 13For �everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060048/85 - - *  will be saved.� http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/bc/r1/lp-e/1001060048/641 - - +

According to the "Jewish Encyclopedia":

"Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh (), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility ( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8568-jehovah - see Jehovah ). This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai ( = "Lord"), which the Masorites have inserted in the text, indicating thereby that Adonai was to be read (as a "ḳeri perpetuum") instead of Yhwh. When the name Adonai itself precedes, to avoid repetition of this name, Yhwh is written by the Masorites with the vowels of Elohim, in which case Elohim is read instead of Yhwh. In consequence of this Masoretic reading the authorized and revised English versions (though not the American edition of the revised version) render Yhwh by the word "Lord" in the great majority of cases." http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11305-names-of-god - [1]

The same article also points out the usage of variations of different names, such as Elohim and El, in different languages, such as Ethiopic and Hebrew:

"The most common of the originally appellative names of God is Elohim (), plural in form though commonly construed with a singular verb or adjective. [...] In Ethiopic, Amlak ("lords") is the common name for God. The singular, Eloah (), is comparatively rare, occurring only in poetry and late prose (in Job, 41 times). The same divine name is found in Arabic (ilah) and in Aramaic (elah). [...]

The word El () appears in Assyrian (ilu) and Phoenician, as well as in Hebrew, as an ordinary name of God. It is found also in the South-Arabian dialects, and in Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, as also in Hebrew, as an element in proper names. It is used in both the singular and plural, both for other gods and for the God of Israel. [...]

Other titles applied to the God of Israel, but which can scarcely be called names, are the following: Abir ("Strong One" of Jacob or Israel; Gen. xlix. 24; Isa. i. 24; etc.); Ḳedosh Yisrael ("Holy One of Israel"; Isa. i.4, xxxi. 1; etc.); Ẓur ("Rock") and Ẓur Yisrael ("Rock of Israel"; II Sam. xxiii. 3; Isa. xxx. 29; Deut. xxxii. 4, 18, 30); Eben Yisrael ("Stone of Israel";" [Ibid]

Who is really "misinformed" here?  I think it is obvious that you are the one who is misinformed.  Those "Jehovah's Witnesses" sure have got you brainwashed!

Kish wrote: You can keep calling him something other than by his name all you want but don�t say I didn�t tell you.

A fool's warning!  Oooh, I am so scared!

Kish wrote: My question to any Muslim on this forum according to these scriptures is this; on the basis of what would a person first be brought to justice?     ONLY on the basis of being accused of a wrong doing by who, the �two or more� witnesses. Until the case was actually establish as TRUE by who islamispeace? the �two or more witnesses, you could NOT move forward.

Kish wrote: If you supposedly submit to God and if you are honest with yourself, you would know it would only be on the basis of the �two or more witness� rule whether or not the individual would first stand trial. There would have to be two or more confirmations that the event happened, as in the case of Moses, Jeremiah, Paul, Jesus etc. . . So it is FIRST and foremost only by the TESTIMONY of the Two or more Witnesses not the �nature� of the incident, that brings forth a case in the court of LAW, especially the Mosaic LAW. Unequivocally, Muhammad failed in that respect; no one confirmed anything he said in the Quran, him being a messenger, a prophet or a servant of the most High God. It is ONLY by the words of Muhammad himself that he had this revelation and was a Prophet and penned his Quran, unlike the confirmation that Jeremiah, Paul and all the others had regarding their writings. As in the case of Jeremiah . . .

Kish wrote: Daniel 9:2 . . . Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years . . . Ezra 1:1 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah�s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm, and also in writing, saying Matthew 2:17 Then that was fulfilled which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying:   Matthew 16:14 They said: �Some say John the Baptist, others E�li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

"One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (Deuteronomy 19:15)

islamispeace wrote: Please provide the names of witnesses who corroborated the biblical prophets in their lifetimes.

Now names are not just good enough, you want to rewrite the LAW? Where is this NEW law of yours in the Torah where the �two witnesses� rule HAD to live during their lifetime, although some actually did although it was not a mandatory rule? WHERE?

Now islamispeace wants to add other stipulations to the LAW of Moses, interesting indeed when you�re grasping from the straw mans hat!

Just because �NO ONE� can confirm NONE of Muhammad�s revelation in the Quran, no need to get bent out of shape and disgusted and try to make NEW rules. That was the purpose of the LAW, so that imposters would be dealt with fairly and justly.

Again, by your admission . . .

islamispeace wrote: According to your interpretation of Deut. 19, there have to be at least two human witnesses or one human witness who is willing to take an oath.

AND ALL THOSE NAMES AT LEAST TWO OR MORE WITNESSES CONFIRMED OR TESTIFIED THE MATTER AS TRUTH IN WHICH THESE PEOPLE SPOKE OR WENT THROUGH. YES, FIRMLY ESTABLISHED!

Ironically, even the Quran has established, confirmed and testified the individuals YOU listed that what they said and experience as TRUTH � THANKS!!

Where in the Quran or the Bible is that done for Muhammad.

What is a witness? A witness is someone who has, who claims to have, or is thought, by someone with authority to compel testimony, to have knowledge relevant to an event or other matter of interest. In law a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what he or she knows or claims to know about the matter before some official authorized to take such testimony.

In islamispeace mind he thinks a witness is one who has to SEE an event, NO! Look up the word my friend.

Again, where in the Quran or the Bible did someone testified, heard or even furnished evidence for Muhammad. ZERO! But those names YOU provided there is a testimony to each one of them in the Bible and even in your Quran, how about that! You nor I can say the say about Muhammad.

islamispeace wrote: The main point to take away from all this is that all of these prophets were alone when God's word came to them.

No, the main points are the �two or more witness� rule that makes their statement credible. Other people confirmed or testified the event they experience as TRUTH!

I know this is a blow to you Islam but look up the word witness to get clarity.  

Your attempt to water down the LAW went down the drain. A witness did not always have to be present as YOU continue to insist but �TWO OR MORE� witnesses HAD to testify to the event for it to be credible.

Who! Who! Who! In the Quran established Muhammad�s revelations as credible, a matter of TRUTH, WHO or forever hold your peace?  

Kish wrote: Now names are not just good enough, you want to rewrite the LAW? Where is this NEW law of yours in the Torah where the �two witnesses� rule HAD to live during their lifetime, although some actually did although it was not a mandatory rule? WHERE?

Kish wrote: Now islamispeace wants to add other stipulations to the LAW of Moses, interesting indeed when you�re grasping from the straw mans hat! Just because �NO ONE� can confirm NONE of Muhammad�s revelation in the Quran, no need to get bent out of shape and disgusted and try to make NEW rules. That was the purpose of the LAW, so that imposters would be dealt with fairly and justly. Again, by your admission . . .

Kish wrote: AND ALL THOSE NAMES AT LEAST TWO OR MORE WITNESSES CONFIRMED OR TESTIFIED THE MATTER AS TRUTH IN WHICH THESE PEOPLE SPOKE OR WENT THROUGH. YES, FIRMLY ESTABLISHED!

Kish wrote: Ironically, even the Quran has established, confirmed and testified the individuals YOU listed that what they said and experience as TRUTH � THANKS!! Where in the Quran or the Bible is that done for Muhammad. What is a witness? A witness is someone who has, who claims to have, or is thought, by someone with authority to compel testimony, to have knowledge relevant to an event or other matter of interest. In law a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what he or she knows or claims to know about the matter before some official authorized to take such testimony. In islamispeace mind he thinks a witness is one who has to SEE an event, NO! Look up the word my friend. Again, where in the Quran or the Bible did someone testified, heard or even furnished evidence for Muhammad. ZERO! But those names YOU provided there is a testimony to each one of them in the Bible and even in your Quran, how about that! You nor I can say the say about Muhammad.

A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay - hearsay witness is one who testifies what someone else said or wrote. In most court proceedings there are many limitations on when hearsay evidence is admissible. Such limitations do not apply to grand jury investigations, many administrative proceedings, and may not apply to declarations used in support of an arrest or search warrant. Also some types of statements are not deemed to be hearsay and are not subject to such limitations.

An http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness - expert witness is one who allegedly has specialized knowledge relevant to the matter of interest, which knowledge purportedly helps to either make sense of other evidence, including other testimony, documentary evidence or physical evidence (e.g., a fingerprint). An expert witness may or may not also be a percipient witness, as in a doctor or may or may not have treated the victim of an accident or crime. [...]

Eyewitness testimony is generally presumed to be more reliable than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence - circumstantial evidence . Studies have shown, however, that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed, and parts of it can be meaningless." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness - [1]

Of these "classes" of witnesses, the only one which would apply to the Biblical prophets would be the "percipient witness" or "eyewitness".  So far, Kish has failed miserably to provide any evidence of eyewitnesses to the Biblical prophets, even though he has been harping about the important of eyewitnesses according to the Torah!  Awkward...

Kish wrote: No, the main points are the �two or more witness� rule that makes their statement credible. Other people confirmed or testified the event they experience as TRUTH! I know this is a blow to you Islam but look up the word witness to get clarity.

Kish wrote: Your attempt to water down the LAW went down the drain. A witness did not always have to be present as YOU continue to insist but �TWO OR MORE� witnesses HAD to testify to the event for it to be credible. Who! Who! Who! In the Quran established Muhammad�s revelations as credible, a matter of TRUTH, WHO or forever hold your peace?

Still making up your own rules using nonsensical and childish logic?  Kish, my dear, please explain how two "witnesses" could testify to an event if they were not even there to experience it???   

I think it is safe to say from your gobbledygook that you would not make a good lawyer or judge! 

. . . and as always rather than present ANY witnesses to Muhammad be it a �hearsay witness� an �expert witness� an �eyewitness� or otherwise as defined by the word � Witness, Islam gives us NOTHING

Whereas any giving Prophet in the Old and Testament fits at least one or more of the criteria of what a witness to their testimony is.

So, here is your chance again. Can YOU provide proof of anyone in the Quran that falls under anyone of these witness categories to Muhammad�s revelations, at least ONE?

islamispeace wrote: Kish, my dear, please explain how two "witnesses" could testify to an event if they were not even there to experience it???

Please forgive him he�s stuck on . . . . Islam read your OWN definition of what defines a witness in ANY dictionary.

I think it is safe to say when it comes to the Quran, Islam and it�s beliefs you could not testify in behalf of it or make a good WITNESS of any sort. How can you, according to your definition of it you were not there.

Well, Islam had more than enough chances to present his case to bring forth �two or more witnesses� within the Quran and according to the LAW of Moses to establish Muhammad�s revelation as being an established historical fact and that he was indeed a messenger or a prophet of God.

Based on his own thorough research in what defines a witness, Muhammad failed in ALL respect. UNLIKE, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul and ALL other writers of the Holy Scriptures (Old and New Testament) who had credible witnesses to testify, confirm and acknowledge their �inspired� written message Muhammad had NONE, ZERO, ZILCH!

Which means in his case the �two or more witness� rule was NOT applied and that Muhammad�s message was NOT a true inspired revelation but a false one.

When God said through Moses that no prophet should be accepted until his prophecy comes true, He was saying that there must be two witnesses.

What are the confirming witnesses that the words of the Qur'an which Muhammad spoke came from God? Why does every prophet in the Holy Scriptures have a confirming �witness� and in the Quran Muhammad does not have a confirming �witness�, that is the million dollar question. Why was Muhammad so secretive with his so call revelation?

When Muhammad walked into Mecca, or now walks into the mind of one who reads the Qur'an, and says that God spoke to him and told him about the day of judgment, how will the person hearing or reading know? Muhammad is only one witness.

When I have asked whether anyone other than Muhammad heard the Angel Gabriel, every person has answered that he was the only one.

REMEMBER, it was NOT Gabriel who identified himself, it was Muhammad who made this claim. If Muhammad as Muslims claim was greater than Moses and Jesus and these two Prophets fit every detail defined by the word WITNESS why does Muhammad fail in every aspect in the word, not having even ONE credible witness to confirm his revelation?

From Mt. Sinai God spoke to Moses and ALL the Children of Israel and they SAW his power.

During the life of Jesus there were three times that God spoke openly as a second witness. The first time was when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

Obviously, John and those being baptized at the same time heard this voice. The second time occurred in the presence of his three disciples - Peter, James and John (two or more witnesses to confirm) He took them up on a high mountain where he was transfigured. His clothes became dazzling. Moses and Elijah, who had each been dead for more than 900 years, appeared to Jesus.

Although most prophets are not confirmed by a voice from heaven but many have, or by fire like in the case of Moses and Elijah, BUT no one, I mean NO ONE in the Quran can confirm ANY of Muhammad claims by even the definition of the word witness. If he was greater and if he was a prophet as Muslims like to claim what made him so great compared to the others? Where did he even come from and by whose authority?

Well, wherever he came from it really does not matter because according to the LAW of Moses it was not from God.

But, now we do see why the message of such Prophets as - Moses, Jeremiah, Jesus and Paul (primarily known as an apostle) directly contradicts the message of Muhammad, why I am not surprised.

Since this thread is really about Paul and Muhammad, read this closely and carefully:

Here is what one renowned commentary, Al-Qurtubi, says about Paul:

Ibn Ishaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent (to preach) there were Peter AND PAUL who went to Rome;

al-Qurtubi had no qualms in admitting that Paul was a legitimate follower of Christ!

Then there is this candid admission in reference to Q 3:54 and Q 61:14

The Quran teaches that Jesus was God's best prophet, and that Christians will be placed above non-believers until the Day of Judgment. (Dr. Nader Pourhassan, The Corruption of Moslem Minds [Barbed Wire Publishers, Las Cruces, New Mexico 2002], pp. 61-62)

The first time I read this verse [3:54] in the Quran, I could hardly believe my eyes. Even today, any Muslim I discuss this verse with is shocked. In the Quran, God tells all Muslims that the followers of Jesus will be exalted above the disbelievers until the Day of Resurrection. God's prediction that the Christians will succeed in doing so is even clearer in the following verse [author then cites 61:14] ..."

Most Muslims obtain their understanding of the Quran from the interpretations of their religious leaders. Few ever question what they are told to believe. But the book contains many messages that might shock them from their complacency.

The above verse says very simply that Christians will be above non-believers until the resurrection.

Kish wrote: . . . and as always rather than present ANY witnesses to Muhammad be it a �hearsay witness� an �expert witness� an �eyewitness� or otherwise as defined by the word � Witness, Islam gives us NOTHING

Kish wrote: Whereas any giving Prophet in the Old and Testament fits at least one or more of the criteria of what a witness to their testimony is.

Kish wrote: So, here is your chance again. Can YOU provide proof of anyone in the Quran that falls under anyone of these witness categories to Muhammad�s revelations, at least ONE?

Kish wrote: Please forgive him he�s stuck on . . . . Islam read your OWN definition of what defines a witness in ANY dictionary. I think it is safe to say when it comes to the Quran, Islam and it�s beliefs you could not testify in behalf of it or make a good WITNESS of any sort. How can you, according to your definition of it you were not there.

Kish, Kish, Kish.  What are we going to do with you?  Did you not read what your own source stated about the different types of "witnesses"?

"A percipient witness or eyewitness is one who testifies what they perceived through his or her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense - senses (e.g. seeing, hearing, smelling, touching). That perception might be either with the unaided human sense or with the aid of an instrument, e.g., microscope or stethoscope, or by other scientific means, e.g.,a chemical reagent which changes color in the presence of a particular substance.

A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay - hearsay witness is one who testifies what someone else said or wrote. In most court proceedings there are many limitations on when hearsay evidence is admissible. Such limitations do not apply to grand jury investigations, many administrative proceedings, and may not apply to declarations used in support of an arrest or search warrant. Also some types of statements are not deemed to be hearsay and are not subject to such limitations.

An http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness - expert witness is one who allegedly has specialized knowledge relevant to the matter of interest, which knowledge purportedly helps to either make sense of other evidence, including other testimony, documentary evidence or physical evidence (e.g., a fingerprint). An expert witness may or may not also be a percipient witness, as in a doctor or may or may not have treated the victim of an accident or crime. [...]

So far, you have failed to provide "eyewitness testimony" for any of the Biblical prophets.  All you have provided are examples of "hearsay witnesses".  On the other hand, I have given you two examples of "eyewitnesses" to Muhammad's prophethood.  They are Bahira and Waraqah.  You have failed your own challenge and have unwittingly proven that Muhammad (pbuh) is a true prophet!  Thanks! 

Kish wrote: Well, Islam had more than enough chances to present his case to bring forth �two or more witnesses� within the Quran and according to the LAW of Moses to establish Muhammad�s revelation as being an established historical fact and that he was indeed a messenger or a prophet of God.

Kish wrote: Based on his own thorough research in what defines a witness, Muhammad failed in ALL respect. UNLIKE, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul and ALL other writers of the Holy Scriptures (Old and New Testament) who had credible witnesses to testify, confirm and acknowledge their �inspired� written message Muhammad had NONE, ZERO, ZILCH!

Kish wrote: When God said through Moses that no prophet should be accepted until his prophecy comes true, He was saying that there must be two witnesses.

Kish wrote: What are the confirming witnesses that the words of the Qur'an which Muhammad spoke came from God? Why does every prophet in the Holy Scriptures have a confirming �witness� and in the Quran Muhammad does not have a confirming �witness�, that is the million dollar question. Why was Muhammad so secretive with his so call revelation?

Kish wrote: When Muhammad walked into Mecca, or now walks into the mind of one who reads the Qur'an, and says that God spoke to him and told him about the day of judgment, how will the person hearing or reading know? Muhammad is only one witness.

Kish wrote: When I have asked whether anyone other than Muhammad heard the Angel Gabriel, every person has answered that he was the only one.

¹¹ Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense." (Luke 1:8-11)

Kish wrote: Prophets fit every detail defined by the word WITNESS why does Muhammad fail in every aspect in the word, not having even ONE credible witness to confirm his revelation?

Kish wrote: From Mt. Sinai God spoke to Moses and ALL the Children of Israel and they SAW his power. During the life of Jesus there were three times that God spoke openly as a second witness. The first time was when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Obviously, John and those being baptized at the same time heard this voice. The second time occurred in the presence of his three disciples - Peter, James and John (two or more witnesses to confirm) He took them up on a high mountain where he was transfigured. His clothes became dazzling. Moses and Elijah, who had each been dead for more than 900 years, appeared to Jesus.

Yeah, and there were also witnesses to Jesus' alleged prophecy that he would return in the lifetime of the disciples:

"�Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth "#fen-NIV-23988c" - c ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23988c - c ] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. "#fen-NIV-23988d" - d ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23988d - d ] ³¹ And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

³² ï¿½Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. ³³ Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it "#fen-NIV-23991e" - e ]">[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23991e - e ] is near, right at the door. ³⁴ Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. ³⁵ Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." (Matthew 24:30-35)

Therefore, according to your "two witnesses" theory, Jesus (pbuh) made a false prophecy.  It's no wonder that Paul also made the same false prophecy.

Kish wrote: Although most prophets are not confirmed by a voice from heaven but many have, or by fire like in the case of Moses and Elijah, BUT no one, I mean NO ONE in the Quran can confirm ANY of Muhammad claims by even the definition of the word witness. If he was greater and if he was a prophet as Muslims like to claim what made him so great compared to the others? Where did he even come from and by whose authority?

Still denying the truth?  See above.

You still have yet to name the witnesses for the minor prophets like Obadiah (pbuh), Amos (pbuh) etc.  Who were the witnesses for Zechariah (pbuh)?  

Kish wrote: Well, wherever he came from it really does not matter because according to the LAW of Moses it was not from God.

More special pleading?  I have already proven that Muhammad (pbuh) brought the same message as the previous prophets.  I also showed that the Law of Moses was for the Jews only, whereas the Law of Muhammad was for all people of the world.  Even then, both sets of laws shared many similarities. 

On the other hand, the Jesus of the Bible did not uphold the Law of Moses, and neither did Paul.  Of course, Kish conveniently ignores this fact and tries to lessen the damage by saying that they "principally" upheld the Law of Moses.

Kish wrote: But, now we do see why the message of such Prophets as - Moses, Jeremiah, Jesus and Paul (primarily known as an apostle) directly contradicts the message of Muhammad, why I am not surprised.

Mindless repetition...now I see why you keep doing that!  You are trying to convince yourself with your own ignorance  and lies!

Kish wrote: Ibn Ishaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent (to preach) there were Peter AND PAUL who went to Rome; al-Qurtubi had no qualms in admitting that Paul was a legitimate follower of Christ!

Here is another one of Kish' favorite tactics...shameless copying of "Answering-Islam"!

What Kish fails to realize is that Ibn Ishaq was known to rely heavily on Jewish and Christian traditions and that these traditions have no importance to Muslims, because our sources are the Quran and Sunnah.

Moreover, had Kish actually read the Quran, he would have realized that Jesus (pbuh) was speaking in Surah 61:14 to his disciples and that this was before the attempt on his life.  How then can this verse be referring to Paul, whom your own Bible admits only became a "disciple" on the road to Damascus?!  Use your head, Kish! 

If you need more proof, ponder on what the Tafsir of Ibn Abbas states:

"They were 12 male disciples, the first to believe in him and help him against his enemies. All of these men were believers." http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=61&tAyahNo=14&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 - [2]

The moral of the story, Kish, is: don't cut and paste from "Answering-Islam"!

Kish wrote: Then there is this candid admission in reference to Q 3:54 and Q 61:14

...which, if you had actually read them, would make you realize that they could not have been referring to Paul, who did not become a "disciple" until much later!  Do you not believe your own Bible?

Kish wrote: The Quran teaches that Jesus was God's best prophet, and that Christians will be placed above non-believers until the Day of Judgment. (Dr. Nader Pourhassan, The Corruption of Moslem Minds [Barbed Wire Publishers, Las Cruces, New Mexico 2002], pp. 61-62) The first time I read this verse [3:54] in the Quran, I could hardly believe my eyes. Even today, any Muslim I discuss this verse with is shocked. In the Quran, God tells all Muslims that the followers of Jesus will be exalted above the disbelievers until the Day of Resurrection. God's prediction that the Christians will succeed in doing so is even clearer in the following verse [author then cites 61:14] ..."

Another pathetic appeal to pseudo-experts who have no knowledge about the Quran.  Let me educate you and "Dr. Pourhassan".  First, one wonders what verse "Dr. Pourhassan" was reading because if we look at 3:54, here is what we find:

"And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah." (3:54)

Has "Dr. Pourhassan" even read the Quran? He probably meant 3:55, which states:

"Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute." (3:55)

All this verse says is that Allah (swt) will hold in high esteem those who follow Jesus (pbuh) over those who disbelieved.  If the Quran was saying that Christians (does that include Jehovah's Witnesses??) were the true followers of Jesus (pbuh), then it would not say that Christians have "forgotten" a large part of Jesus' message:

"From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done." (5:14)

Second, no, dear "doctor", the Quran does not place one prophet above another:

"Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."" (2:136)

It also states that Jesus (pbuh) is one of God's creations, just like Adam (pbuh):

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was." (3:59)

Also, it states that Muslims, not Christians, are the "best of people" and actually criticizes the Jews and Christians for not doing the same:

"Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors." (2:110)

Kish wrote: Most Muslims obtain their understanding of the Quran from the interpretations of their religious leaders. Few ever question what they are told to believe. But the book contains many messages that might shock them from their complacency. The above verse says very simply that Christians will be above non-believers until the resurrection.

How rich!  An ignorant Christian who has never read the Quran himself and gets all of his information from pseudo-scholarly sources like "Answering-Islam" criticizes Muslims for "obtaining their understanding...from the interpretation of their religious leaders"!    Oh the irony!

Hi Islamispeace,

Sorry but I fail to see how you have convinced Kish of anything. I know you believe it to the fullest extent yourself so proof is as easy as an Arabic word, (most of which have many meanings). This looks like a case of proving it to yourself over and over and getting frustrated when your twos and two don�t make fours in the eyes of others. There are reasons for that. In the same way you cannot convince me by your arguments that Paul was not a Prophet.

If you want to convince me you will have to go deeper into his ministry and show me where he contradicted Jesus, but this much for now�

islamispeace wrote: Let us deal with Paul first.  Before we delve into whether he passed the test of Deuteronomy 18, it is prudent to read the story of his life-changing experience on the road to Damascus.  In fact, there are multiple accounts of this encounter in the New Testament: "As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, �Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?� 5 �Who are you, Lord?� Saul asked. �I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,� he replied. 6 �Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.�   7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything." (Acts 9:3-9) "�About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, �Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?� 8 ��Who are you, Lord?� I asked. � �I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,� he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. 10 ��What shall I do, Lord?� I asked. � �Get up,� the Lord said, �and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.� 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me." (Acts 22:6-11) "�On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,a]">[a] �Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.�" (Acts 26:12-14) The differences in these verses are self-evident.  One would think that the "inspired" authors of the New Testament would not have written contradictory accounts of the same story.

Contradictory? One account mentions the companions heard but did not see anything. (How�s your spiritual vision doing?) Another says  couldn�t  see anything, (possibly because of a bright light?) Another says they fell to the ground. Do the first two accounts say they did not fall to the ground? K, noticed the variations, missed the contradictions. People like to mix them up lots.

This is an old Muslim criticism. All NT accounts must be exact yet the 7 variations of the Quranic account  of Sodom and Gomorrah should not be questioned. It�s a double standard.

Moving on, does Paul pass the test of Deuteronomy 18?  Did he speak in the name of the One God or in the name of "other gods"?  Did he proclaim anything that did not come to pass?  The answer can be found in the following verses: "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ�their Lord and ours: 3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:2-3) "For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say �No� to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope�the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." (Titus 2:11-14) Clearly, Paul spoke in the name of Jesus and worshiped him as "God", which is of course nothing new.  It is the central tenet of Christianity that Jesus was God incarnate.  But by speaking in the name of Jesus, Paul fails the test of Deuteronomy 18.

Clearly you are into the NIV and its updated opinions. Read the KJV and you will note how Paul always separates God from Jesus. I suppose nobody ever said Praise Allah and Muhammad in the same sentence before?

Finally, Paul also spoke about future events, as in the following: "According to the Lord�s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words." (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18) Clearly, Paul was stating that Jesus' return was imminent and that it would occur within the lifetime of some of the first generation of Christians.  Jesus said �Behold I come quickly� Jesus meant when He comes it will be quick; Paul�s prophesy was not about �Cool, we�ll see ya tomorrow� but about on the day it would happen. Where does Paul tell them they will all live until that day? Wishful thinking I�d say and same for every generation since that has sculpted the verses to believe it meant in their lifetime. [quote] This prophecy was also made in the First Epistle of John: "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." (1 John 2:18) I find it odd you would use the words of another author, (John) as an argument against Paul. On the surface they seem to agree, not contradict, but it�s irrelevant to your argument. How did you miss that?   John�s talk was a warning based on the appearance of anti-christs cast to the earth, which is what happened and remains even until this �hour�.  Not something Muslims want to get into, they�d rather say it�s all about the Jinn. So what happens to a prophet that prophesies about the end time that isn�t going to happen until the end time? Would you not want to put them to death cuz it didn�t happen in your lifetime? John died of old age. [quote]Therefore, Paul failed the second part of the test of Deuteronomy 18.  Hence, according to the Bible, Paul was a false prophet.

These arguments are not your own. They are age old and refuted many times. I would even venture to guess your training on this has been more Google than from sitting and listening to your Imam.  

On the other side of the coin�Using the NIV in your arguments will mess up a lot of �Christians� who do not know their own scripture. ;)

abu loren wrote: Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe. Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil.

How about that, another scripture from the Quran stolen from the Bible, plagiarism at its best! 2 Cor. 4:3-5 . . .

^{http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/2-corinthians/4#v-3 - 3} If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, ^{http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/2-corinthians/4#v-4 - 4} among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. ^{http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/2-corinthians/4#v-5 - 5} For we are preaching, not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as ​YOUR​ slaves for Jesus� sake.

This is exactly what Islam does by saying things like . . .

islamispeace wrote: . . .  the Jesus of the Bible did not uphold the Law of Moses, and neither did Paul.

How hilarious is your reasoning and belief when Jesus came to fulfill the law, is without sin and himself personally appointed Paul, which might I add are ALL part of the canon and authenticity of the Bible Scriptures. Muhammad on the other hand plagiarized that account of Paul to himself but not one person can confirm it, only legendary stories from the hadith, now that is circular reasoning at its BEST! Whereas writers of the New Testament all confirm each other with non-Christian Secular History backing it up.

islamispeace wrote: Every time he is cornered, he makes up a new argument! . . . he shifts gears and tries to deny the importance of the hadiths  . . .Regardless of your personal opinions, the simple fact is that you asked for witnesses and you got them!

From the beginning you were asked to provide �witnesses� from the Quran, what does Islam do, grabs support from the hadith and say I�m shifting gears, �Hold The Phone!� And then goes on to say this . . .

islamispeace wrote: . . .launch an attack on the Quran's "completeness".

My friend, if your book is �complete� as U say, you do not need the hadith, it�s that simple. WithOUT, the hadith the Quran is INcomplete!

kish wrote: Muhammad is expressly told to follow and judge only by the inspiration which HE received, and what he received was the Quran NOT the hadith: And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them (Not the hadith) by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee� So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee� S. 5:48-49

And you say Islam = Submit to Allah. What is stopping you now, or do U follow your Quran when it is convenient? Everything points to the scriptures as truth NOT the hadiths or even the Quran for that matter. Allah is here saying that he is a watcher over the scriptures. Did he watch over the scriptures like he said he would or did he allow them to be corrupted? Either-way there is a BIG problem here and you see it, I know U do.  But, then again if they are corrupted how can U judge between them as U are told, please read it again. See the dilemma; I�m not your enemy.  

Sometimes truth is hard to accept.

kish wrote: . . . Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it of my accord. I only follow that which is inspired in me. Lo! if I disobey my Lord I fear the retribution of an awful Day. S. 10:15

Hmmm, out of his own mouth, long story short nothing Muhammad said the self-appointing messenger of Allah of the Kaaba and not Jehovah the God of Israel is validated. No wonder Islam is so confused when it comes to the Gospel and Torah and blame Jesus and Paul of the Bible. They are only following what Muhammad and Ibn Khazem said. Where did Muhammad get his information from, not the Lord Jehovah but from some spirit that violently choked him until he gave in and then from some so called Christian monks, perhaps anyone would have gave in and done the same under those distressing circumstances.

islamispeace wrote: The Quran is instead concerned with teaching Muslims the importance of believing in Allah (swt) and His messengers.

And not its message, that is the sad part. Muslims say they submit but they are more concern with proving who the messenger was by using the hadiths but failed terribly about hearing and believing the MESSAGE of the previous �books� of the Bible the Holy Scriptures!

islamispeace wrote: You don't get to tell us what we can and cannot follow.

The Quran tells you to follow the previous scriptures and that you do not follow either, what else can I tell you.

islamispeace wrote: You best response was to try to determine for Muslims what they can and cannot use.  Unfortunately for you, Muslims use both the Quran and Sunnah.

You can use the Veda and hadith if you like I�m not Muslim and both are not part of the Bibles canon. Either way the Quran is incomplete without it!

islamispeace wrote: It's no wonder that you have been trying to avoid answering my question about these prophets and who were their witnesses.

Read page five of this thread and read Acts 9: 3-12 & 17-22 again. Luke, Theophilus who later became a Christian, Ananias and others accepted the account as factual! No wonder NO ONE disputed the account that Saul/Paul experienced as well as Jesus death. Peter, Barnabas and Jesus Apostles accepted the account and his commission as an Apostle to the nations, which Muhammad again plagiarized to himself.

Paul resurrects Eutychus in Troas in front of eyewitnesses (Acts 20:12), heals a man lame from birth and performed other miracles in front of eyewitnesses (Acts 14:8-18), another proof of him being an Apostle and Prophet of God. Paul prayed and laid his hands on the man, and he was healed. Deeply impressed by this miracle, the local people brought other sick ones to be healed, and they brought gifts to fill the needs of Paul and his companions (Acts 28:7-10)

Ordinary men like Muhammad cannot do these things but instead have to think up stories from the hadith which came after Muhammad's death to convince his followers that they really happened.

As you can see Paul had many witnesses even eye-witnesses to confirm his account and teachings during and after his death and that Jesus and God were backing him up!  

Luke 1: 3,4 ³ I (Luke) resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The�oph′i�lus, ⁴ that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally

Acts 1:1, 3 The first account, O The�oph′i�lus, I composed about all the things Jesus started both to do and to teach . . . To these also by many positive proofs he showed himself alive after he had suffered, being seen by them throughout forty days and telling the things about the kingdom of God

Like it or not, no one can prove these events did not take place because many eyewitnesses saw it and wrote about it and accepted it. The accuracy of the book of Acts has been verified over the years by a number of archaeological discoveries

Acts of Apostles was accepted without question as inspired Scripture and canonical by Scripture catalogers from the second through the fourth centuries C.E. Portions of the book, along with fragments of the four Gospels, are found in the Chester Beatty No. 1 papyrus manuscript (P⁴⁵) of the third century C.E. The Michigan No. 1571 manuscript (P³⁸) of the third or fourth century contains portions of chapters 18 and 19, and a fourth-century manuscript, Aegyptus No. 8683 (P⁸), contains parts of chapters 4 through 6. The book of Acts was quoted from by Polycarp of Smyrna about 115 C.E., by Ignatius of Antioch about 110 C.E., and by Clement of Rome perhaps as early as 95 C.E. Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine of the fourth century all confirm the earlier listings that included Acts.

More outside sources for your benefit not mines. - Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul�s letters. Clement says he will answer his opponents by �the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority,� that is, �by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.��The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 409, �The Stromata, or Miscellanies.�

As Paul�s associate, Luke recorded their travels. He also spoke to eyewitnesses. These factors and thorough research make his writings a masterpiece as far as historical accuracy is concerned.

Scholar William Ramsay could therefore say: �Luke is a historian of the first rank: not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.�

I don�t expect you to know, understand or accept any of this since you was told not to and you blindly followed without doing your own research but it was part of the bible canon long before Muhammad came on the scene.

All this was completed under great persecution from the Romans and Jews and the Christians were very small in number but nothing is impossible for Jehovah, the God of the heavens!

islamispeace wrote: Who was the "angel" that appeared to Mary to announce to her the birth of Jesus (pbuh)?

Are we going to go through all of the characters of the Bible, it still would not convince you.

SO, before Muhammad can even past the test of a prophet he first has to be a servant of the God of Abraham, Isaac AND of Jacob which he is not, how do we know?

What have we found regarding Muhammad and his spurious teachings thus far? The basic components are missing from the Quran that the Torah and Injil have to confirm each others written.

Six Major Points in Islam the Quran fails to Mention

1)    The Quran does not mention that Ishmael was the child to be sacrificed by Abraham

2)    The Quran does not mention that Muhammad was the promised seed of Abraham

3)    The Quran does not mention that a covenant was made with Ishmael by God

4)    The Quran does not mention ONE person who witnessed, confirmed or testified that Muhammad�s Revelation in the cave of Hi�ra was a TRUE event, according to the Law of Moses.

5)    The Quran does not mention the God of Muhammad (Allah) as a father and having a son (Sura 4:171) as does the God of Jesus (YHWH/JHVH = Yahweh/Jehovah) (Matt. 3:17)

6) The Quran does not mention God�s name as Yahweh or Jehovah as did ALL the other books of the prophets in the Bible

If the God of Muhammad and of the Quran Allah, is not the same God of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah and of Moses how can Muhammad even begin to past the test of a true Prophet.

honeto wrote: There is no way that you can bring in a witness who can testify on the prophethood of Moses' Jesus' or any of God's true prophets of the OT. A witness mean someone who is alive and can testify.

Unless you can prove otherwise, that is your opinion but the Torah states that you need �two or more witnesses� for any matter to be establish as truth, be they an eye-witness or not. This has been the rule of thumb throughout the Old AND New Testament, but not in your book. Testimony was giving to Jesus and Paul�s message, it was acknowledged and confirmed by others in the scriptures. But, no one can confirm Muhammad�s revelation in the Quran only the hadith which by that time he was already dead to agree on anything that was said about him. That being said, Islam, Muhammad and his Quran are the first book for Muslims, fine. However, they have no connection with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of the Old Testament just because Muhammad says so. There is no connection with the Quran and the Gospel of Jesus because Muhammad acknowledges it, it was already known history.  

The way you worship Allah is entirely up to you. But, don�t tell Jews and Christians that the God of the Old and New Testament is not a heavenly father just because Allah of the Quran is not. That is NOT a Biblical teaching! Most of the Quran is inconsistent if you are to compare it to the Bible, that�s okay; the Bible is a book for Christians, the Quran for Muslims. It is going to disagree on mostly everything essential to salvation.

I�m glad that the �two or more witness� rule was put into effect because many have tried to add legends and fanciful stories to the Bible to contaminate it. But, the Bible canon was closed, completed and finished after the end of the Apostle John�s writings, which was before 1 C.E. and accepted as authentic by the Jews and Christians until many, many years later after even Muhammad's death. 

Jehovah God said he would preserve and protect it and he did.

If you disagree try and answer the  "Six Major Points in Islam the Quran fails to Mention" above

There you will have your answer

Webber wrote: Sorry but I fail to see how you have convinced Kish of anything. I know you believe it to the fullest extent yourself so proof is as easy as an Arabic word, (most of which have many meanings). This looks like a case of proving it to yourself over and over and getting frustrated when your twos and two don�t make fours in the eyes of others. There are reasons for that. In the same way you cannot convince me by your arguments that Paul was not a Prophet.

Webber wrote: Contradictory? One account mentions the companions heard but did not see anything. (How�s your spiritual vision doing?) Another says  couldn�t  see anything, (possibly because of a bright light?) Another says they fell to the ground. Do the first two accounts say they did not fall to the ground? K, noticed the variations, missed the contradictions. People like to mix them up lots.

⁸ And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

⁹ And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink." (Acts 9:7-9)

This account says that the men heard a voice but no one.

"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

¹⁰ And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

¹¹ And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus." (Acts 22:9-11)

This account states that they saw a light but did not hear the voice!

Webber wrote: This is an old Muslim criticism. All NT accounts must be exact yet the 7 variations of the Quranic account  of Sodom and Gomorrah should not be questioned. It�s a double standard.

And this is an old Christian tactic: when in doubt, divert attention to an unrelated issue.

Webber wrote: Clearly you are into the NIV and its updated opinions. Read the KJV and you will note how Paul always separates God from Jesus. I suppose nobody ever said Praise Allah and Muhammad in the same sentence before?

Using the same KJV, we see the contradictions in Acts regarding Paul's encounter. 

Here is how the KJV translates 1 Corinthians 1:2-3:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

³ Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ."

There is little difference between the KJV and the NIV here.  Both tell Christians to call upon the name of Jesus "their lord and ours".  

Webber wrote: Jesus said �Behold I come quickly� Jesus meant when He comes it will be quick; Paul�s prophesy was not about �Cool, we�ll see ya tomorrow� but about on the day it would happen. Where does Paul tell them they will all live until that day? Wishful thinking I�d say and same for every generation since that has sculpted the verses to believe it meant in their lifetime

Another typical response.  Let's see the verses again:

"According to the Lord�s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words." (NIV, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18)

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

¹⁶ For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

¹⁷ Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

¹⁸ Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (KJV)

There can be little doubt what Paul is saying here.  Christians can try to dance around it all they want, but it is clear that Paul was expecting Jesus' return within a short amount of time.

Webber wrote: I find it odd you would use the words of another author, (John) as an argument against Paul. On the surface they seem to agree, not contradict, but it�s irrelevant to your argument. How did you miss that?

What's so "odd" about it?  I referred to 1 John to prove further that the early Christians were expecting the return of Jesus in their lifetimes, just like Paul.  Whoever wrote 1 John shared Paul's belief that Jesus was returning soon. 

Webber wrote: John�s talk was a warning based on the appearance of anti-christs cast to the earth, which is what happened and remains even until this �hour�.  Not something Muslims want to get into, they�d rather say it�s all about the Jinn.

John's "warning" was meant to tell Christians that the end was near.  That is why he said "it is the last hour". 

Webber wrote: So what happens to a prophet that prophesies about the end time that isn�t going to happen until the end time? Would you not want to put them to death cuz it didn�t happen in your lifetime? John died of old age.

First of all, scholars generally agree that the author of 1 John was not "John".  As Ehrman notes:

"The letters 1, 2, and 3 John sound in many ways like the Gospel of John, but they are strikingly different as well, especially in the historical context they presuppose.  They were probably not written by the same author, who was not John the son of Zebedee in any event, but by a later Christian living in the same community." [Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 229]

Second, the reason "John" was not killed for being a false prophet was because the letter was written anonymously.  Also, this author was simply repeating the belief of the Christian community at large.

Anonymity was a common phenomenon in early Christianity.  The number of anonymous writings in the New Testament is remarkable.  As Ehrman notes:

"None of the Gospels tells us the names of its author. [...] Also anonymous are the book of Acts and the letters known as 1, 2, and 3 John.  Technically speaking, the same is true of the book of Hebrews; the author never mentions his name, even if he wants you to assume he's Paul." [Ibid., p. 23]

Webber wrote: These arguments are not your own. They are age old and refuted many times. I would even venture to guess your training on this has been more Google than from sitting and listening to your Imam.

Oh that's rich.  "Googling" actually seems to be the main tactic of Christians such as yourself.  I tend to rely on journals and books written by actual experts.

Webber wrote: On the other side of the coin�Using the NIV in your arguments will mess up a lot of �Christians� who do not know their own scripture. ;)

You don't seem to know your scripture that well either, let alone whether it is the NIV or KJV, as I showed above.

Kish wrote: How hilarious is your reasoning and belief when Jesus came to fulfill the law, is without sin and himself personally appointed Paul, which might I add are ALL part of the canon and authenticity of the Bible Scriptures. Muhammad on the other hand plagiarized that account of Paul to himself but not one person can confirm it, only legendary stories from the hadith, now that is circular reasoning at its BEST! Whereas writers of the New Testament all confirm each other with non-Christian Secular History backing it up.

Kish wrote: From the beginning you were asked to provide �witnesses� from the Quran, what does Islam do, grabs support from the hadith and say I�m shifting gears, �Hold The Phone!� And then goes on to say this . . .

Kish wrote: My friend, if your book is �complete� as U say, you do not need the hadith, it�s that simple. WithOUT, the hadith the Quran is INcomplete!

Kish wrote: And you say Islam = Submit to Allah. What is stopping you now, or do U follow your Quran when it is convenient? Everything points to the scriptures as truth NOT the hadiths or even the Quran for that matter. Allah is here saying that he is a watcher over the scriptures. Did he watch over the scriptures like he said he would or did he allow them to be corrupted? Either-way there is a BIG problem here and you see it, I know U do.  But, then again if they are corrupted how can U judge between them as U are told, please read it again. See the dilemma; I�m not your enemy.   Sometimes truth is hard to accept.

The verse is saying that Allah (swt) is a watcher over the Quran.  He was not referring to the previous scriptures.  Sheik Kish thinks too much of himself to think that he can tell Muslims what their own scripture says!

Kish wrote: Hmmm, out of his own mouth, long story short nothing Muhammad said the self-appointing messenger of Allah of the Kaaba and not Jehovah the God of Israel is validated. No wonder Islam is so confused when it comes to the Gospel and Torah and blame Jesus and Paul of the Bible. They are only following what Muhammad and Ibn Khazem said. Where did Muhammad get his information from, not the Lord Jehovah but from some spirit that violently choked him until he gave in and then from some so called Christian monks, perhaps anyone would have gave in and done the same under those distressing circumstances.

Poor, poor Kish...confounded by his own theory, he now resorts to childish rants.  It seems like Kish is trying hard to convince himself of the "truth" as he sees it. 

Any one can notice how he has desperately tried to divert attention away from the Jesus of the Bible as well as Paul.  Why?  Because he knows that his own theory (about 2 witnesses) puts not only Jesus and Paul, but indeed all of the Biblical prophets in a very bad light!  I guess its proof that Kish puts the cart before the horse (or talks before he thinks)!

Kish wrote: And not its message, that is the sad part. Muslims say they submit but they are more concern with proving who the messenger was by using the hadiths but failed terribly about hearing and believing the MESSAGE of the previous �books� of the Bible the Holy Scriptures!

More Kishian rants aimed at convincing himself!  The real sad part is that Kish masquerades himself as someone who knows what the Quran says, but like most self-appointed pretend-scholars, he has never read it or absorbed its message.  He simply repeats what he has been told since childhood, like an automaton. 

Kish wrote: The Quran tells you to follow the previous scriptures and that you do not follow either, what else can I tell you.

Here goes Sheik Kish again telling us what the Quran says.  No Kish, the Quran does not tell us to "follow the previous scriptures".  Its just another absurd Christian myth.  Maybe you should actually read the Quran before opening your mouth.

Kish wrote: You can use the Veda and hadith if you like I�m not Muslim and both are not part of the Bibles canon. Either way the Quran is incomplete without it!

Regardless of your pathetic arguments, the fact remains that the central question of this thread has been answered.  But as one would expect, your arrogance and blind reasoning have kept you from admitting the truth. 

And here is the funny part.  You said that you don't believe in the Quran (duh!) but here you are asking for "witnesses" from the Quran!  What would be the point if you were provided with these "witnesses"?  Would you say "Alhamdulillah!" and become a Muslim?  It seems like this whole thread was just a pathetic attempt at objectivity.  Unfortunately, there can be no objectivity from one so biased from the beginning!

It is no surprise then that when you were surprised by the witnesses in the Quran, your response was...silence! 

Kish wrote: Read page five of this thread and read Acts 9: 3-12 & 17-22 again. Luke, Theophilus who later became a Christian, Ananias and others accepted the account as factual! No wonder NO ONE disputed the account that Saul/Paul experienced as well as Jesus death. Peter, Barnabas and Jesus Apostles accepted the account and his commission as an Apostle to the nations, which Muhammad again plagiarized to himself.

So, Kish thinks that Luke (a lackey of Paul) and some guy named "Theophilus", who we know nothing about, are the "witnesses" for Paul.  Ooookay! 

Then he mentions Ananias, the other obscure figure who, as claimed by Acts, had an encounter with "the Lord".  Poor Kish does not realize that he now has the little problem of identifying the witnesses for Ananias!  Who were these witnesses I wonder?  Oh right, Paul and Luke!  How nice and convenient that our little circle is complete!

Kish wrote: Paul resurrects Eutychus in Troas in front of eyewitnesses (Acts 20:12), heals a man lame from birth and performed other miracles in front of eyewitnesses (Acts 14:8-18), another proof of him being an Apostle and Prophet of God. Paul prayed and laid his hands on the man, and he was healed. Deeply impressed by this miracle, the local people brought other sick ones to be healed, and they brought gifts to fill the needs of Paul and his companions (Acts 28:7-10)

So, Kish believes these legendary stories and then on his authority says the following:

Kish wrote: Ordinary men like Muhammad cannot do these things but instead have to think up stories from the hadith which came after Muhammad's death to convince his followers that they really happened.

Wow!  Biased much, Kish?  Isn't it amazing that you believe one set of alleged miracles and reject another?  I guess it should not be surprising since we are dealing with a Christian apologist who has already made up his mind and will not answer to reason. 

Kish also conveniently forgets the little problem of contradictions in the account of Paul's first encounter as well as his false prophecy about Jesus' second coming and teaching of a doctrine different from that of all the previous prophets.  Obviously, even if Paul had performed thousands of miracles, these all go down the drain if he made just one false prophecy or taught a different doctrine than that of Jesus (pbuh).  If that is the case, which the evidence shows, then his so-called "miracles" (if they even occurred) could just have been the work of a false prophet, as Jesus himself allegedly warned:

"For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. ²⁵ See, I have told you ahead of time." (Matthew 24:24-25)

Kish wrote: As you can see Paul had many witnesses even eye-witnesses to confirm his account and teachings during and after his death and that Jesus and God were backing him up!   Luke 1: 3,4 3 I (Luke) resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The�oph′i�lus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally Acts 1:1, 3 The first account, O The�oph′i�lus, I composed about all the things Jesus started both to do and to teach . . . To these also by many positive proofs he showed himself alive after he had suffered, being seen by them throughout forty days and telling the things about the kingdom of God Like it or not, no one can prove these events did not take place because many eyewitnesses saw it and wrote about it and accepted it. The accuracy of the book of Acts has been verified over the years by a number of archaeological discoveries Acts of Apostles was accepted without question as inspired Scripture and canonical by Scripture catalogers from the second through the fourth centuries C.E. Portions of the book, along with fragments of the four Gospels, are found in the Chester Beatty No. 1 papyrus manuscript (P45) of the third century C.E. The Michigan No. 1571 manuscript (P38) of the third or fourth century contains portions of chapters 18 and 19, and a fourth-century manuscript, Aegyptus No. 8683 (P8), contains parts of chapters 4 through 6. The book of Acts was quoted from by Polycarp of Smyrna about 115 C.E., by Ignatius of Antioch about 110 C.E., and by Clement of Rome perhaps as early as 95 C.E. Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine of the fourth century all confirm the earlier listings that included Acts. More outside sources for your benefit not mines. - Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul�s letters. Clement says he will answer his opponents by �the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority,� that is, �by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.��The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 409, �The Stromata, or Miscellanies.� As Paul�s associate, Luke recorded their travels. He also spoke to eyewitnesses. These factors and thorough research make his writings a masterpiece as far as historical accuracy is concerned. Scholar William Ramsay could therefore say: �Luke is a historian of the first rank: not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.� I don�t expect you to know, understand or accept any of this since you was told not to and you blindly followed without doing your own research but it was part of the bible canon long before Muhammad came on the scene. All this was completed under great persecution from the Romans and Jews and the Christians were very small in number but nothing is impossible for Jehovah, the God of the heavens!

More copying by the lazy Kish who does not do his own research and yet criticizes others for not doing "your own research".

By the way, isn't it strange that a man who never even met Jesus (except for the couple of minutes in Damascus) went on to become the single most important figure in Christianity, so much so that most of the Christian canon is made up of books that were either written by him or his followers (and some that were forged in his name)?!  

Kish wrote: Are we going to go through all of the characters of the Bible, it still would not convince you. SO, before Muhammad can even past the test of a prophet he first has to be a servant of the God of Abraham, Isaac AND of Jacob which he is not, how do we know? What have we found regarding Muhammad and his spurious teachings thus far? The basic components are missing from the Quran that the Torah and Injil have to confirm each others written.

Kish wrote: If the God of Muhammad and of the Quran Allah, is not the same God of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah and of Moses how can Muhammad even begin to past the test of a true Prophet.

rational wrote: You can try and shake our foundation all you want . . .

Hey Newbie, what foundation does Islam has? Everything in the Q was barrowed; starting with some spirit who angrily chocked Muhammad who he later thought was Gabriel which is your belief and I don�t knock it. But, it�s not part of the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures and goes against the role of the angel Gabriel. Also, the Q�s teachings contradict ALL the prophets, starting with Moses (the story of Pharaoh and the Red sea, Abraham and who in Noah�s family survived the flood) and ending with Revelation.

Kish wrote: Six Major Points in Islam the Quran fails to Mention   1)    The Quran does not mention that Ishmael was the child to be sacrificed by Abraham   2)    The Quran does not mention that Muhammad was the promised seed of Abraham   3)    The Quran does not mention that a covenant was made with Ishmael by God   4)    The Quran does not mention ONE person who witnessed, confirmed or testified that Muhammad�s Revelation in the cave of Hi�ra was a TRUE event, according to the Law of Moses.   5)    The Quran does not mention the God of Muhammad (Allah) as a father and having a son (Sura 4:171) as does the God of Jesus (YHWH/JHVH = Yahweh/Jehovah) (Matt. 3:17)   6) The Quran does not mention God�s name as Yahweh or Jehovah as did ALL the other books of the prophets in the Bible   If the God of Muhammad and of the Quran Allah, is not the same God of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah and of Moses how can Muhammad even begin to past the test of a true Prophet.

honeto wrote: Islamic teachings are from God Almighty.

If you are referring to the God of Abraham, that�s incorrect �Based on the six points of Islam that the Quran fails to mention and or agree with.�

honeto wrote: The thing is that in their present form NT and OT are greatly in disagreement with each other,

The NT agrees with the OT and supports and affirms every word of the Prophets.  In fact to establish the identity of the Messiah Scripturally, the apostles and Jesus himself quoted more frequently from the prophecy of Isaiah than from any other Bible book. Still, the book of Isaiah was not the only one to foretell the future. Many other Hebrew Scripture prophecies also find fulfillment in Jesus birth, death and resurrection.

Not so with the Quran, it disagrees with everything about Jesus

honeto wrote: Let us take for example you, a follower of NT, believes God to be a Trinity�.You bring me one follower of the OT (that will be what we call these days a Jew) who can agree with you on the very first, the most basic teaching, that is about God and I will leave you alone with your argument because OT does not preach the same (Trinity)as we have seen.

Hasan, there are millions of Christians like me here and abroad who do not believe God to be part of a trinity and Jesus being the Supreme God. I like you believe he is one. But if I did not, that has nothing to do with whether or not the scriptures are correct. I�m sure as a Muslim (Sunni/Shite) you could understand that.  

However, the Law of Moses was nailed to the stake along with Christ which the prophet Isaiah himself prophesied about many centuries in advance; also, many Jews and Romans eye-witnessed the event.

honeto wrote: Find me a follower of the OT who can testify what you claim is true.

Starting with the Gospel of Matthew, first written in Hebrew for the Jews and Jesus 12 Disciples, the New Testament is full of Jewish individuals who at one time believed in the Old covenant/testament but understood Jesus to be the long promised Messiah of the New covenant/testament, all the writers of the New Covenant believed and preached it. Jesus said that God would reject the Jews (Matt. 21:43) God said Jesus is his �SON� (Matt 3:16, 17)

Prophet Jeremiah (25: 5, 6) and others even depicted the coming One, the Messiah, as the �sprout� for David. Prophet Micah (5:2) said he would be born in Bethlehem before he was ever born.

The Jews were looking for Jesus around a certain time of year; they were in expectation of him. (John 1:41 - �We have found the Mes�si′ah� (which means, when translated, Christ).

If a Muslim disagrees with all this proof from the Old and New Testament it, you�re making a BIG, terrible mistake.

But it still does not change the truth of the matter, be you a Jew, Christian, Muslim or Trinitarian.

Kish