Tuesday, 16 November 2010

KeithTruth Defends the Indefensible + Sam Shamoun's Friend Speaks

Friendship Vs the Church

Recently my colleagues and I have been covering Sam Shamoun’s unedifying attacks and calling him to better ways; repentance and reform (as well as warning other Christians and Muslims so they can give him a wide birth)

Sadly, this quest to highlight the shackles of hatred Sam Shamoun is bound by (and ultimately free him of such) has been undermined and/or sabotaged by colleagues and/or “friends of Mr Shamoun. The most recent and high profile attempt has just been uploaded (or mirrored) onto YouTube by KeithTruth (aka Keith Thompson). KeithTruth defends the indefensible; he tries to offer mitigating circumstances and seems to be intimating justification of Mr Shamoun’s malicious actions. Perhaps KeithTruth would like to clear this up for us.

As you may know we have featured two audio pieces on this blog of Mr Shamoun’s uncontrolled and unedifying onslaughts as well as showcased some horrific text comments attributed to Mr Sam Shamoun. Keith Truth fails to stand up for the church and ultimately gives us the impression he has chosen Mr Shamoun instead of the Bible

KeithTruth Defends the Un-Christ-Like Activity of Sam Shamoun



Selective: Why Audio-Only?

Firstly, let us do away with KeithTruth’s suggestion of selectively featuring audio-only clips. I am a major purveyor of these materials and I can honestly say when I get the footage in my possession it is AUDIO-ONLY thus there could never have been a selective stance in this regard. Keith should amend his video appropriately. His attack on Imam Shabir Ally was selective as far as extracting the hateful audio comments but there were no mitigating circumstances for Mr Shamoun’s defence.

I want you to go and re-listen to the audio (viewer discretion is advised as Mr Shamoun is very offensive to Islam and Muslims in general). KeithTruth intimates Mr Shamoun is only reacting to comments by Muslims and the reaction is missed out by those trying to “demonize” Sam Shamoun.

Sam Shamoun Orgy of Vile:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/07/sam-shamouns-foul-mouth-continues-with.html

Sam Shamoun Insulting Imam Shabir Ally, Muslims and the Prophet (p):
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/11/sam-shamoun-obsessed-with-shabir-ally.html

Of Children and Men (in their FORTIES)

Firstly I want to state grown men with wife and children on board should not be acting like kids on the internet. Mr Shamoun is acting like a child and KeithTruth is essentially excusing it. There is NO excuse for Mr Shamoun’s insults – he is a GROWN man who should be able to act accordingly. It’s not difficult to act in a mature manner.

I get fundamentalist “Christian” hate emails/comments sent my way from time to time but I NEVER respond in an equally abrasive and derogatory fashion. Why? Because I’m an adult who is in control and recognises the folly and sin in such an action. What do I do? I try to rehabilitate the miscreants by preaching the Word to them or rebuking them for their shoddy mannerisms (or even ignoring them). It is not rocket science!

Demonizing Sam Shamoun, really?

KeithTruth accuses people of “demonizing” Mr Shamoun. Utter and abysmal nonsense! Simply showcasing Mr Shamoun’s insults is NOT demonization. Initially when I met Mr Shamoun I tried to REHABILITATE him by acting as his mentor. I was actually praising him in comment sections when he made improvements or circumnavigated provocation. Sadly, this yielded little in the way of tangible result.

My current method of rehabilitating Mr Shamoun is by featuring his insults and encouraging responsible Christians to rebuke him. This is clearly not working as too many of the responsible Christians are not rebuking him - either they are unaware of the situation or they are worried for their own ministries financial wellbeing. In short some Christians are still stuck in an age where they do not wish to rebuke a fellow “Christian” as a result of a Muslim catalyst or insistence. This is the world we live in; us and them!

Real Demonization

What is Demonization? KeithTruth should be more cautious with his words in the future as Mr Shamoun’s colleague (David Wood) undertook acts of REAL “demonization” by spreading a sick sex hoax about Muslims. Perhaps KeithTruth will excuse this action too and lay the blame upon Muslims! I have also got wind of Sam Shamoun using the SAME sick sex hoax in 2008 (I guess the hunted has become the hunter). See here for Mr Wood’s sex hoax:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/11/pornographic-lies-on-abn-by-david-wood.html

Keith Truth Spins for his Pal

KeithTruth features rebuke-worthy audio of a Muslim on the chat site called pal talk. This is UNRELATED to Mr Shamoun’s outbursts. Mr Shamoun would not be seen dead in such a room. Mr Shamoun has his own rooms or visits Christian rooms.

Furthermore, why is Mr Shamoun insulting Imam Shabir Ally in one of the audio videos? Does Imam Shabir Ally spend time on pal talk? Not as far as I’m aware. So why is Mr Shamoun caught insulting this gentleman? Where is the provocation? Nowhere, KeithTruth simply tries to defend his un-Christ-like mate.

If Mr Shamoun is “reacting”…

Firstly, I do not believe Mr Shamoun’s behaviour is all to do with reaction. Have a look at his debate with Jibreelk; we recently featured a screenshot of the un-Christ-like Mr Shamoun calling his debate opponent a “dog”. For NO reason whatsoever. Did his debate opponent insult him prior to this? Certainly not! See here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/10/answeringislam-sam-shamoun-calls-muslim.html

In addition, why does Mr Shamoun NOT ignore the miscreants as Pal Talk has a feature of disabling comments and booting people from particular rooms? In fact, Mr Shamoun, in his raving attack on “Liverpool” ONLY booted him from the room once Shamoun had finished his crazed rant!

Rest assured; Mr Shamoun is not always reacting…he is instigating too

The Church or your pal?

Sam Shamoun is a fundamentalist Christian who likes to present himself as an individual who is full of the Holy Spirit (which he believes to be God). What impression would non-Christians come to by putting together Mr Shamoun’s theological assertion and his misbehaviour? Obviously the impression is far from one which furthers the church. Think about it Keith!

“Cowards” are “afraid” of Sam Shamoun in debate


Balderdash! Sam Shamoun is nothing special in debate. He is a low level polemicist. Go through the Sam Shamoun section on this blog and see his level for yourselves. Sadly, his supporters present Mr Shamoun as this awesome Terminator. He is not.

I have come across rhetoric of Dr Zakir Naik being AFRAID of Sam Shamoun. The truth is Dr Naik has probably never heard of Mr Shamoun but Mr Shamoun’s “friends” (as well as Mr Shamoun himself) like the pretence. I guess there is no hype like that of the self-induced variety.

Recently Mr Shamoun’s crew have been propagating another nonsensical claim of Ali Ataie being afraid of Sam Shamoun. Have the friend’s of Mr Shamoun ever stopped to think the reason why people avoid Mr Shamoun is due to his obnoxious behaviour – behaviour which is encouraged by his “friends”? With friends like these who needs enemies!

He is no Terminator

They should further reflect on Muslim debater’s willingness to debate RESPECTFUL and SERIOUS people like Mike Licona and Prof William Lane Craig, are they seriously claiming Professor Lane-Craig and Mike Licona are weaker opponents? It is an insult to the aforementioned gentleman. Think about it!

Debates and Offers: Sam Shamoun has got something to hide!

As per debate offers. At my initiation BeholderGuard (from YT) offered to debate Sam Shamoun on the subject: "are Muslims black stone lickers". Sam had been caught flooding comment boards with the lie “Muslims are black stone lickers”. Needless to say Mr Shamoun has shied away from defending this particular lie. In short, we are waiting for this self-styled “Terminator” of debates to accept the debate proposal. I guess Mr Shamoun never mentioned this debate to his pals – it just doesn’t feed the “Terminator hype, does it? See here for the debate outstanding proposal, I guess Mr Shamoun lacks the stomach to defend his lies:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/07/answering-islam-challenged-to-debate.html

Furthermore, you would do well to look into thegrandverbalizer’s critique of Mr Shamoun’s unwillingness to showcase all his debates on his website. Think about it, if Mr Shamoun is this “Terminator” he wants us to believe him to be then how about him showcasing his debates on his site. He does not. Why? Because he knows those debates are indeed an embarrassment, at times he even fizzes out and resorts to nasty insult. Arnold Schwarzenegger eat your heart out!

Sam is no “Terminator”; he knows it and everybody else knows it.

I will now discuss a comment sent in by ANOTHER friend of Sam Shamoun.

TheFatMan: Yahya Snow One of the most Vile People in the World (Wow!)

A sad insight into the hatred which surrounds Mr Shamoun

Here it is folks! I am alongside Charles Manson, Hitler, Starling etc according to Sam Shamoun’s friend who goes by the username “TheFatMan”.

“If i said the most vile person in the world, I was wrong. I meant to say "One of the most vile people in the world." thanks for correcting me. Why would I ever want to be your friend? You deliberately attack my friends”

Crikey, this is the bloke who ran off to Mr Wood’s blog as soon as I featured Mr Shamoun’s uncalled for and unprovoked assault on imam Ally. For those who are wondering; he claimed I was “attacking Christians again”! Wow, just wow!

Since when was featuring Mr Shamoun’s insults classified as an attack on “Christians”? Anybody would think I was a Roman emperor! Surely, featuring the problematic utterances of Mr Shamoun will HELP reform him and DEFEND true Christians? If you search this blog you will see I have a section DEFENDING Christians!

TheFatMan would do well to grow up and act like a REAL friend rather than a glorified sycophant who has allowed and encouraged Mr Shamoun to decay as an aberration on the internet for the past DECADE!

Sam Shamoun used by his “friends”, sad!

TheFatMan does not care about Mr Shamoun. The FatMan wants Mr Shamoun to continue wasting his life in chat rooms and comment boards insulting Muslims. TheFatman, for those who are unaware is a well-known insulter and hater of Islam. We don’t need to catalogue his misbehaviour, those who are familiar with him will testify to this. He even named his dog after the Prophet and was flippant about it when called on this issue. Sad!

And yes, I have tried to rehabilitate TheFatMan too. TheFatMan is also in his FORTIES; no, I don’t think ALL fundamentalist “Christians” go all childish on us once they hit the big 4-0 but rest assured a fair number of the childish brigade are attracted to bigots on the net. Sad!

Farts, Lessons and Minions

Mr Shamoun’s supporter (TheFatMan) continues:

“You have your minions interrupt someone while he is giving a lesson in order to provoke him to anger, and like a child who laughs at his own farts, you hold your nose and point the finger at someone else when they do it”

Classic denial, shoot the messenger!

Firstly, I have no “minions”. If people CHOOSE to send me audio material of Sam Shamoun going berserk then that is up to them, they are not hired by myself and nor are they my “minions”. Perhaps individuals who are willing to send material are GENUINELY seeing Sam Shamoun as in need of urgent help and they want to publicize it. Or perhaps they just find Sam Shamoun to be an unacceptable piece of work who is two-faced; in front of his financial donors and those who could further his “career” Mr Shamoun is the “pious” Christian but when their backs are turned…

Hours of polite conversation…

“I find it interesting that your one or two minute clips of Sam do not contain the sometimes hours of polite and pleseant dilogue that he has with Muslims

Since when did Sam have hours of “polite dialogue”? Perhaps TheFatMan should go off to Jibreelk’s site and study Jibreel’s interactions with Sam Shamoun. Sam Shamoun, somehow, pulled of a coup in getting Jibreelk to enter into a public debate with him. However, the debate soon fizzed out into a shambles as Sam Shamoun’s disingenuous, amateur and aggressive tendencies were manifesting themselves. What of the debate? It is meant to be still going o but the only problem is Sam has bailed out after his customary insults. The last I heard of Sam on this debate was him bailing out and authorising his pal (Keith Truth) to “refute” the “dog”. Yes he called Jibreelk a dog and bailed out. Amateur or what! Un-Christ-like or what? Un-Terminator like or what?

Really, go and study the debate. Jibreelk did not provoke Sam Shamoun’s craziness; he did not warrant such abuse. That is vintage Sam Shamoun – abuse and ask questions later!

TheFatMan discusses Negeen Mayel:

“And now you are attacking a girl. I hate to pour cold water on you, but you need to be woken up from this wet dream of yours. Nageen is in the hands of her one true love, and no one can wrestle her from his hands. She will never leave him especially to return to your vomit that is Islam”

Firstly, try spelling her name correctly.

Just for the record, I did not attack her. We responded to her inconsistent article related to Lauren Booth’s conversion. Everything is an attack in this man’s eyes. Go and see for yourself…it was NO attack on her being but a response to an article. See here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/11/negeen-mayels-inconsistent-attack-on.html

“Wet dream”?

Clearly this bloke has nothing to do with the church. This is the standard of friends Mr Shamoun has and this the calibre of those who defend Acts 17 Apologetics’ sex hoax and Mr Shamoun’s derisory behaviour.

He finishes off in true bigot style by calling Islam “vomit”. This man seems to be insecure, rather than responding to the article highlighting sister Negeen’s inconsistency TheFatMan just insults 1.7 billion people.

Do you really want me to continue quoting from the misery TheFatMan sent me? “Farts”, “vomit” and “wet dreams”???

This bloke will have us believe he is full of the Holy Spirit and Muslims are “children of the devil”. Welcome to the bizarre mind of the internet fundamentalist “Christian” (aka Islamophobe).

He then goes on to accuse me of being anti-dialogue. Oh really? Since when were hate-fests deemed to be "dialogue"?

What’s in a name?

TheFatMan takes umbrage with me calling him “Jeff” rather than this silly handle he has of “TheFatMan”. He insists I should call him “TheFatMan”. I have previously told him to change his name if he wants to be taken seriously. That is what true friends do…they advise each other with sincerity. “TheFatMan” NEVER received such advice from the Islamophobes which he circumambulates in the cyber capacity. That is quite telling; do they care about TheFatMan or do they just want his support and cash?

Forget About “Farts” “Vomit” and “wet dreams” we are now talking murderers, thieves and rapists

Apparently TheFatMan will rather be in the company of murderers and rapists than myself. Crikey, that is deep. I guess, in his view, his hater-pal is more important than the church:

“Sir I have literally been in a room with rapist's, murders and thieves. I would count anyone of them as a friend before I even considered you for the position. Not that I have a affinity for such people, but with them I would know where I stand and that is why I would prefer their company to yours.”

I have Muslim friends, honest!

As with every Islamophobe; they finish off (or begin) their rants with “I have Muslim friends” or “I love Muslims”. So TheFatMan wants us to believe he has Muslim friends whilst supporting two known abusers of Muslims/Islam who spread childish sex hoaxes about Islam and the Prophet (p).

He also wants us to believe he is pals with Muslims after calling the faith of Muslims “vomit” as well as insulting the Prophet Muslims believe in.

OK, TheFatMan…we are looking out for flying pigs.

You can see TheFatMan’s comment in full in the comment section. We don’t want him accusing us of “misquoting” him or “attacking” him!

TheFatMan, you are in your FORTIES…start acting that way! I call you to Islam. Research it with a sincere heart. The same applies to Mr Shamoun and KeithTruth.

Message to sincere Christians

Why do you allow shoddy folk to represent you? Please stop giving them cash as this only encourages them. These individuals are motivated by hate-expenditure, self-aggrandizement and/or financial gains. Muslims and Christians should work together more often as faith is being marginalized by the wave of secularism in the West. Think about it, gay “marriages” are forced on our society, pornography is an accepted norm nowadays, rampant materialism, religious figures are insulted and mocked etc. This is all very alarming for religious folk of whatever persuasion

Learn about Islam here:
http://www.ediscoverislam.com/

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17)

Peace and love
Yahya Snow

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

80 comments:

Yahya Snow said...

Here is TheFatMan's message of hatred in full:


Yahya Snow said... "You are puzzling. Sometimes you indicate you want to be friends whilst at other times you call me the most "vile person in the world". If I said the most vile person in the world, I was wrong. I meant to say "One of the most vile people in the world." thanks for correcting me. Why would I ever want to be your freind? You deliberately attack my friends. You have your minions interrupt someone while he is giving a lesson in order to provoke him to anger, and like a child who laughs at his own farts, you hold your nose and point the finger at someone else when they do it. I find it interesting that your one or two minute clips of Sam do not contain the sometimes hours of polite and pleseant dilogue that he has with Muslims. Well that would not serve your purpose because you are not interested in dioluge. Why would I want to be friends with someone like that? And now you are attacking a girl. I hate to pour cold water on you, but you need to be woken up from this wet dream of yours. Nageen is in the hands of her one true love, and no one can wrestle her from his hands. She will never leave him especially to return to your vomit that is Islam. You either took part or applauded the shutting down of dioluge between Christians and Muslims. You feign piety and humility but then say "I am a better person then them". You make broad claims and then have nothing to back that up, only to say in most case's "Inshallah I will respond soon". Why is Allah never willing for your to respond? You take a few verses out of the the word of God, then isloate those verses from the rest of the text, and from it's historical reality, and then ask "What about these verses?". Then you don't even bother to read my response but instead falsely accuse me of plagerizing my work. You disrespect me, by calling me Jeff instead of by chosen nick FATMAN. I'm sorry you don't like it but it is my nick. It has meaning to me. Why would I want to be friends with someone like that? Finally how could I possibily be freinds with someone who has no problem with the oppression of a religious minority. I find your response to the Laws of Dihimitude found in The Reliance of the Travelor to be incredulous and completely repulsive. How could I be friends with a bigot who see's no problem with oppressing, segregating, and discriminating against anyone for any reason? Sir I have literally been in a room with rapist's, murders and thieves. I would count anyone of them as a friend before I even considered you for the position. Not that I have a affinity for such people, but with them I would know where I stand and that is why I would prefer their company to yours. Truth be told, I have many Muslims as friends, in real life as well as on the internet. Most of the time we talk about other stuff, sports, weather, life, jobs, computers, cars, family etc... Sometimes we argue, and sometimes it gets heated, and yes sometimes words are said on both ends. It would be my pleasure to by them a beer at the end of the day.


------------------------

May Allah guide this man. Ameen.

Ibn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ibn said...

Yahya, why do YOU want to be friends with FatMan? The Prophet(saw) said that we should love him(saw) more than our parents. Would you be friends with one who insults your mother? If not, you would never think about befriending people like Fatman.

Yahya Snow said...

Ibn,

A fair rebuke.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the advice. May Allah reward you for your sincere advice. Ameen

Now Christians...that is the way to do it...please do run over to Mr Wood and Mr Shamoun and rebuke them

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with Keith Truth, you are demonizing Sam Shamoun and following the path of character assassination. These articles are ridiculous and if "stupid" is the best you have on Sam you should re read what your Quran says about Christians and Jews.

I know exactly what happens in those pal talk rooms. Muslims will get other Muslims to go into a Sams room and one will talk smack about Jesus and provoke Sam to say something while the other is sitting waiting and recording. It is clear cut planned character assassination through deception.

And then Yahya is left to :take out the garbage" so to speak.

Yahya your so misleading with your "audio only" bit. Hodgepoge.

Anonymous said...

So this is what Yahya has been doing, he has been REHABILITATING sam Shamoun! lol yahya i think Sam would do just fine without your attempts at rehabilitation. Whilst your at rehabilitating others please stop in at the local mental clinic for your own dose of rehab, they got chill pills.

Yahya said:
This is clearly not working as too many of the responsible Christians are unwilling to rebuke him - either they are unaware of the situation or they are worried for their own ministries financial wellbeing

it is neither of those. yahya (and crew) are simply considered the PPO&D and any well meaning Christian will see through yahyas demonization attempts.

yahya, your "sex secret" article is worthless because you do not including the FIRST 20 MINUTES of DAVID GIVING SOURCES. you only include his final 30 seconds. that is deception and lies by ripping what he said out of context. he did provide sources, those videos are playing on ABNSAT.COM.

Anonymous said...

yahya said (about the muslims who swear at Christians):
This is UNRELATED to Mr Shamoun’s outbursts.

It is RELATED. Like i said above, Muslims will call on other Muslims intentionally going in the room to provoke Sam and get him to say something people like yahya can demonize him with. This is classic, and it most certainly is related, it is the tactic of Islam. All I hear in sams "outbursts" is pure honesty and disgust for Muhammads lies.

yahya said:
Furthermore, why is Mr Shamoun insulting Imam Shabir Ally in one of the audio videos?

It has already been pointed out to you that the person whom Sam was speaking to in that room was saying something along the lines of "Shabir Ally said Jesus was a naked guy hanging on a stick" - thats your Muslim pawns working to get a sound bit.

And your Quran calls us many worse things besides "dog"

Anonymous said...

That Jebreel K character made a joke of a video. It was about 40 minutes going on and on about Jews and Christians, with nothing really relating to the debate of pagan allah. And dang did Jebreel get smoked.

yahya said:
Sam Shamoun is a fundamentalist Christian who likes to present himself as an individual who is full of the Holy Spirit (which he believes to be God).

WOW! I talked to Sam before I can ASSURE you he never "presented himself as an individual who is full of the Holy Spirit". That is just a blatant lie and utter deception from Yahyas imagery. Sam is very humbled by the Spirit and has great respect for the Spirit, he does not boast in the Spirit.

yahya said:
What impression would non-Christians come to by putting together Mr Shamoun’s theological assertion and his misbehaviour?

After those non-Muslims add in the Muslim behavior Sam was reacting to, they would turn Christian.

Anonymous said...

Balderdash Yahys! The only low level polemicist in the house is you and TGV. I cant believe you Shamounophobes and infidelophobes even talk about that joker Naik. That guy is the biggest coward who has ever lived. He will absolutely debate no one and still thinks Muhammad is mentioned in Deut 18! after being refuted time and time over again. Everyone knows Naik is nothing more than a showman - just listen to him lecture!

I think that Mike Licona and Prof William Lane Craig dont know as much about Islam as Sam. U Muslims would like to debate them since they start from a Catholic and Armenian presups, it would be much easier than Sams reformed presups.

As for your pathetic debate challenges, im pretty sure Sam has said in the past he is glad to debate anyone about anything LIVE and not over "youtube". Man up and talk to im face to face.

Anonymous said...

And bro, it makes me laugh how badly you want Sam to stop writing atricles EXPOSING islam. Well guess what, i dont think he is going to stop. He will produce many more articles, and many more people are going to read them, and many more people will know the sins of Muhammad, whether you like it or not.

And you call Mr. Shamoun a "decaying aberration" - goodness Yahya, thats kind of like Fatman saying you are vile. Its a pretty vile thing to say about someone. Like i said, thousands of people will read him, and thousands will carry around his information in their heads - the sins of Muhammad.

And i hope you contineu to waste your tmie on this blog yahya, you are Gloryfing Christ with every lie.

And why do you want Sams money so bad yahya? he aint paying for your hajj.

Yahya this whole debate was supposed to be between KEiTH and JEBREEL. Why are you obsessed with Sam so bad?

Anonymous said...

Yes, Sam has had HOURS of POLITE DIALOGUE with MUSLIMS in his pal talk rooms. I have personally witnessed when a Muslim was being very disrespectful and was trying to set Sam up by saying nasty things about Lord Jesus. Sam was very polite and listened to him, very politely refuted him, and bounced him.

Yes go and listen to Jebreel K. 40 minute rant of off topic nonsense.

Yahya you have attacked Negeen! She will never listen to you after the lies and vile things you said about her arrest with the Sharia PD. Do you forget what you have been saying about all these people (Nabeel, Negeen, Wood etc..) you have been trying to “rehabilitate”?

Anonymous said...

yahya said:
Since when were hate-fests deemed to be "dialogue"?

That is something i seriously want to ask Muhammad! lol

And yahya, if you keep censoring everyone’s refutations and altering your articles after misquoting your own Quran it shows you dont want to engage in serious dialogue, instead demonization and slander of Christians seems to be all you got. You dont deal with their ideas, you only deal with their personalities. That is such liberal thinking.

As with every Islamophobe; they finish off (or begin) their rants with “I have Muslim friends” or “I love Muslims”.

Yahya, you dont even want me to start talking about the Muslims I grew up with and their "worldviews" towards Jews and Christians.

Anonymous said...

- The following 8 posts brought to you by Anonymousing (are you happy WFT? I signed)

Ibn said...

Yahya must have hit a nerve. For what other reason would Shamoun's groupie, Anonymous, get so upset that he would post 8 posts in tandem which no one here will bother to read anyway?

Anonymous said...

Oops I mean “the previous 8 posts”, and I think Lane Craig is a Molinist or something other than what i said. But either way, muslims want to debate them and not Sam becuase they know debating those guys would be much easier and they could come away with some semblence of faith.

Anonymous said...

Ibn,

au contraire mon frere! - i just experienced one of the greatest belly laughs I had in a while, upset? I call it comedy hour.

But you are right, what is the point of me commenting on a blog which nobody reads!

The Fat Man said...

Yahya you do realize that you totaly fell for it, hook line and sinker.

manny said...

GENEALOGY OF JESUS: The Christians have contrived two separate lists of the ancestors of Jesus (PBUH); a. Matthew 1:1-16 and b. Luke 3:23-38. In these two lists consisting of sixty-six names, there is only one name which is common to both and that is of Joseph the carpenter, and he should never have been mentioned since he was never responsible for the conception of Jesus (pbuh).

manny said...

Messengers in Islam
A. (i) To every nation was sent a Guide or a Messenger
Al-Qur'an 35:24
Al-Qur'an 13:7
(ii) 25 Prophets mentioned by name in the Qur'an
(iii) Islam is the only non-Christian faith that believes in Jesus (pbuh)
(iv) Stories only of some prophets mentioned in Qur'an
Al-Qur'an 4:164
Al-Qur'an 40:78
(v) More than 1,24,000 Messengers according to Hadith
B. (i) Previous Messengers were only sent for their people and nation and their complete message was meant only for a particular time period.
(ii) Moses (pbuh) was only sent for the Jews.
(iii) Jesus (pbuh) sent only for the Jews i.e. lost sheep of Israel.
Al-Qur'an 3:49
Mathew 10:5-6
Mathew 15:24
(iv) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the Last and Final Messenger for the
Whole of Mankind.
Al-Qur'an 33:40
Al-Qur'an 21:107
Al-Qur'an 34:28
Sahih Bukhari Vol.1 Book of Salaah Chapter 56 Hadith No. 429
(v) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the Bible.
Al-Qur'an 7:157
Al-Qur'an 61:6
Deuteronomy 18:18
Isaiah 29:12
Song of Solomon 5:16
John 16:7
John 16:12-14

manny said...

a) If Christian is a person who follows the teachings of Christ (pbuh) and not one who worships Christ (pbuh). (We are more Christian than the Christians themselves).
(b) Muslim is a person who submits his will to Allah.
Jesus (pbuh) said, "not my will but thy will be done." i.e. Muslim.
John 5:30
(c) Al-Qur'an 5:82

Anonymous said...

sam shamun, david woods and fat man are worse then 3 stooges.

dnt waste time with them

ehteshaam gulam has already exposed ex con david wood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4XmH94Tr7A

Anonymous said...

Recently I was speaking to a Christian about the New Testament. I challenged him to give me reasons to believe in the New Testament. He gave me three which I will list below:

1.) The New Testament documents are early.

2.) It comes from eye witnesses

3.) It has multiple attestation to its events.

The only one of these claims that are true, is number 1. But Like Bassam Zawadi has said before, Just because something is early, doesn't mean its relaible.
So let me answer all three of these claims. Here I'll quickly debunk these three myths of the New Testament.

1) Just Because something is early doesn't mean its reliable. It has to be early and Reliable. It's possible that something is early and false. Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable. Yes Paul is early but he is not reliable. Read the Homer Epics and the Gospel of Mark by Dennis MacDonald, or Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms, the N.T. is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

2) The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts. For example see Luke 1:1-2. Most Biblical Scholars agree, the N.T. Gospels are not eye witnesses accounts, rather they were written by second generation believers in the late 1st century. ... The Gospels are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eye witnesses to Jesus minstry. They were Greek speaking Christiansliving 35-65 years after Jesus left the earth. The accounts they narrate are based on oral traditions of the time, which are not entirely reliable.

3) If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus, (which there are good reasons to do so) there is no outside evidence for Jesus death and resurrection.

So we can see that there is no solid evidence for the New Testament. To my Christian friends, if your willing to discuss the Quran (the Islamic Holy Scripture) and the evidence
for it, I would be more than happy to.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable.

And

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

This is incorrect. The Gospels ARE reliable because of their MULTIPLE eye witness testimony. They were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ or their desciples.

is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

Bro, you jsut summed up the entire history of your Quran and ahadit commentary.

Thats all you got, oral tradition. Not to mention that oral tradition was passed down from Muslim fighters who were delusional from major blod loss on the battlefields of Yememena.

We have thousands of hand written manuscripts, we have multiple attestation from different authors which all tell the same story of Jesus.

And then anonymous repeated himself a few times: "the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts" - i beg to differ, and most orientalists say your Quran is not historically reliable. And Jews also spoke Greek you chowderhead.

BTW - the BIBLE is the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE BOOK ON THE PLANET. There is no greater attestation to any work ever written than the Holy God Breathed Bible.

If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus

Please throw them out, and i will be happy to present you plenty of other "outside" (not that it matters - no other evidence is needed besides the internal evidence found in the Holy Bible) evidence about Jesus. I got books full of them.

But who needs it, the only evidence one needs to believe in Jesus is His Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the DEAD.

Plain and simple, the Bible came before the Quran, Jesus Rose from the Dead before Muhammad was born, God had already come for every living creature. The Bible was finalized and for everyone in the Person of Jesus which follows perfectly from the first pages of Genesis.

Your Quran interacted with pagan Jews and Christians and was recited by a man speaking for God, and compiled by another man who came after that mans death. Historically reliable – talk about historically UN reliable ;p

The Quranic prophet (Muhammad) does not reitirate the same message any of the true Israel prophets had spoken from God, does not recieve his revelation in the same manner, has a completly different goal in his preaching, and is just in everyway different from any of the true Prophets. You dont believe me start reading the Prophets and you will see.

-Anonymousing

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable.

And

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

This is incorrect. The Gospels ARE reliable because of their MULTIPLE eye witness testimony. They were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ or their desciples.

is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

Bro, you jsut summed up the entire history of your Quran and ahadit commentary.

Thats all you got, oral tradition. Not to mention that oral tradition was passed down from Muslim fighters who were delusional from major blod loss on the battlefields of Yememena.

We have thousands of hand written manuscripts, we have multiple attestation from different authors which all tell the same story of Jesus.

And then anonymous repeated himself a few times: "the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts" - i beg to differ, and most orientalists say your Quran is not historically reliable. And Jews also spoke Greek you chowderhead.

BTW - the BIBLE is the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE BOOK ON THE PLANET. There is no greater attestation to any work ever written than the Holy God Breathed Bible.

If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus

Please throw them out, and i will be happy to present you plenty of other "outside" (not that it matters - no other evidence is needed besides the internal evidence found in the Holy Bible) evidence about Jesus. I got books full of them.

But who needs it, the only evidence one needs to believe in Jesus is His Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the DEAD.

Plain and simple, the Bible came before the Quran, Jesus Rose from the Dead before Muhammad was born, God had already come for every living creature. The Bible was finalized and for everyone in the Person of Jesus which follows perfectly from the first pages of Genesis.

Your Quran interacted with pagan Jews and Christians and was recited by a man speaking for God, and compiled by another man who came after that mans death. Historically reliable – talk about historically UN reliable ;p

The Quranic prophet (Muhammad) does not reitirate the same message any of the true Israel prophets had spoken from God, does not recieve his revelation in the same manner, has a completly different goal in his preaching, and is just in everyway different from any of the true Prophets. You dont believe me start reading the Prophets and you will see.

-Anonymousing

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable.

And

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

This is incorrect. The Gospels ARE reliable because of their MULTIPLE eye witness testimony. They were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ or their desciples.

is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

Bro, you jsut summed up the entire history of your Quran and ahadit commentary.

Thats all you got, oral tradition. Not to mention that oral tradition was passed down from Muslim fighters who were delusional from major blod loss on the battlefields of Yememena.

We have thousands of hand written manuscripts, we have multiple attestation from different authors which all tell the same story of Jesus.

And then anonymous repeated himself a few times: "the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts" - i beg to differ, and most orientalists say your Quran is not historically reliable. And Jews also spoke Greek you chowderhead.

BTW - the BIBLE is the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE BOOK ON THE PLANET. There is no greater attestation to any work ever written than the Holy God Breathed Bible.

If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus

Please throw them out, and i will be happy to present you plenty of other "outside" (not that it matters - no other evidence is needed besides the internal evidence found in the Holy Bible) evidence about Jesus. I got books full of them.

But who needs it, the only evidence one needs to believe in Jesus is His Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the DEAD.

Plain and simple, the Bible came before the Quran, Jesus Rose from the Dead before Muhammad was born, God had already come for every living creature. The Bible was finalized and for everyone in the Person of Jesus which follows perfectly from the first pages of Genesis.

Your Quran interacted with pagan Jews and Christians and was recited by a man speaking for God, and compiled by another man who came after that mans death. Historically reliable – talk about historically UN reliable ;p

The Quranic prophet (Muhammad) does not reitirate the same message any of the true Israel prophets had spoken from God, does not recieve his revelation in the same manner, has a completly different goal in his preaching, and is just in everyway different from any of the true Prophets. You dont believe me start reading the Prophets and you will see.

-Anonymousing

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:

Maybe you can help me with this Muhammadim as "true savior" in islam...you know all the "YA Muhammada" and "intersession" through talking to Muhammad instead of Allah?

Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPyz4sVHYVE

-Anonymousing

Anonymous said...

Yahya how come you are deleating my comments answering Anonymous? I say absolutely nothing which can be considered bad by you, i just answer his queries and misconceptions.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable.

And

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

This is incorrect. The Gospels ARE reliable because of their MULTIPLE eye witness testimony. They were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ or their desciples.

is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

Bro, you jsut summed up the entire history of your Quran and ahadit commentary. Thats all you got, oral tradition just like the Talmud.

Not to mention that oral tradition was passed down from Muslim fighters who were delusional from major blod loss on the battlefields of Yememena.

We have thousands of hand written manuscripts; we have multiple attestations from different authors which all tell the same story of Jesus.

In fact the Gospels are the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE works we have to date on the face of this planet. The Holy Bible is the most attested to work of all time.


And then anonymous repeated himself a few times: "the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts" - i beg to differ, and most orientalists say your Quran is not historically reliable. And Jews also spoke Greek you chowderhead.

If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus

Please throw them out, and i will be happy to present you plenty of other “outside” (not that it matters - no other evidence is needed besides the internal evidence found in the Holy Bible) evidence about Jesus.

I got books full of them. But who needs it, the only evidence one needs to believe in Jesus is His Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the DEAD.

Plain and simple, the Bible came before the Quran, Jesus Rose from the Dead before Muhammad was born, God had already come for everyone. The Bible was finalized and for everyone in the Person of Jesus which follows perfectly from the first pages of Genesis.

Your Quran interacted with pagan Jews and Christians and was recited by a man speaking for God, and compiled by another man who came after that mans death. Historically reliable – talk about historically Unreliable.

Muhammad had absolutely nothing in common with any true Prophet of Israel. If you read the Prophets in the Bible you will realize that Muhammad did not reiterate the same message any of the previous true Prophets spoke on Gods behalf, the manner in which Muhammad received his revelation was completely different from any true Prophet, and his whole point of perching was wholly different from any true Prophet. Everything was different and does not form a continuation with the Previous true prophets of Israel. Just read the Prophets to find out.

-Anonymousing

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable.

And

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

This is incorrect. The Gospels ARE reliable because of their MULTIPLE eye witness testimony. They were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ or their desciples.

is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

Bro, you jsut summed up the entire history of your Quran and ahadit commentary. Thats all you got, oral tradition just like the Talmud.

Not to mention that oral tradition was passed down from Muslim fighters who were delusional from major blod loss on the battlefields of Yememena.

We have thousands of hand written manuscripts; we have multiple attestations from different authors which all tell the same story of Jesus.

In fact the Gospels are the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE works we have to date on the face of this planet. The Holy Bible is the most attested to work of all time.


And then anonymous repeated himself a few times: "the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts" - i beg to differ, and most orientalists say your Quran is not historically reliable. And Jews also spoke Greek you chowderhead.

If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus

Please throw them out, and i will be happy to present you plenty of other “outside” (not that it matters - no other evidence is needed besides the internal evidence found in the Holy Bible) evidence about Jesus.

I got books full of them. But who needs it, the only evidence one needs to believe in Jesus is His Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the DEAD.

Plain and simple, the Bible came before the Quran, Jesus Rose from the Dead before Muhammad was born, God had already come for everyone. The Bible was finalized and for everyone in the Person of Jesus which follows perfectly from the first pages of Genesis.

Your Quran interacted with pagan Jews and Christians and was recited by a man speaking for God, and compiled by another man who came after that mans death. Historically reliable – talk about historically Unreliable.

Muhammad had absolutely nothing in common with any true Prophet of Israel. If you read the Prophets in the Bible you will realize that Muhammad did not reiterate the same message any of the previous true Prophets spoke on Gods behalf, the manner in which Muhammad received his revelation was completely different from any true Prophet, and his whole point of perching was wholly different from any true Prophet. Everything was different and does not form a continuation with the Previous true prophets of Israel. Just read the Prophets to find out.

-Anonymousing

Anonymous said...

Yahya why dont you want Anonymous to see my refutation of what he said?

Why are you hiding and deleating it?

If you are "ignoring" me and my comments are simply, as Ibn said, foolish, then why are you so quick to veil any attempt at interaction and refutation. Hm...it seems im the one hitting nerves here ;p

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable.

And

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

This is incorrect. The Gospels ARE reliable because of their MULTIPLE eye witness testimony. They were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ or their desciples.

is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

Bro, you jsut summed up the entire history of your Quran and ahadit commentary. Thats all you got, oral tradition. Not to mention that oral tradition was passed down from Muslim fighters who were delusional from major blod loss on the battlefields of Yememena. We have thousands of hand written manuscripts; we have multiple attestations from different authors which all tell the same story of Jesus.
In fact the Gospels are the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE works we have to date on the face of this planet. The Holy Bible is the most attested to work of all time.


And then anonymous repeated himself a few times: "the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts" - i beg to differ, and most orientalists say your Quran is not historically reliable. And Jews also spoke Greek you chowderhead.

If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus

Please throw them out, and i will be happy to present you plenty of other “outside” (not that it matters - no other evidence is needed besides the internal evidence found in the Holy Bible) evidence about Jesus.
I got books full of them. But who needs it, the only evidence one needs to believe in Jesus is His Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the DEAD. Plain and simple, the Bible came before the Quran, Jesus Rose from the Dead before Muhammad was born, God had already come for everyone. The Bible was finalized and for everyone in the Person of Jesus which follows perfectly from the first pages of Genesis.
Your Quran interacted with pagan Jews and Christians and was recited by a man speaking for God, and compiled by another man who came after that mans death. Historically reliable – talk about historically Unreliable.
Muhammad had absolutely nothing in common with any true Prophet of Israel. If you read the Prophets in the Bible you will realize that Muhammad did not reiterate the same message any of the previous true Prophets spoke on Gods behalf, the manner in which Muhammad received his revelation was completely different from any true Prophet, and his whole point of perching was wholly different from any true Prophet. Everything was different and does not form a continuation with the Previous true prophets of Israel. Just read the Prophets to find out.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable.

And

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

This is incorrect. The Gospels ARE reliable because of their MULTIPLE eye witness testimony. They were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ or their desciples.

is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

Bro, you jsut summed up the entire history of your Quran and ahadit commentary. Thats all you got, oral tradition. Not to mention that oral tradition was passed down from Muslim fighters who were delusional from major blod loss on the battlefields of Yememena. We have thousands of hand written manuscripts; we have multiple attestations from different authors which all tell the same story of Jesus.
In fact the Gospels are the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE works we have to date on the face of this planet. The Holy Bible is the most attested to work of all time.


And then anonymous repeated himself a few times: "the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts" - i beg to differ, and most orientalists say your Quran is not historically reliable. And Jews also spoke Greek you chowderhead.

If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus

Please throw them out, and i will be happy to present you plenty of other “outside” (not that it matters - no other evidence is needed besides the internal evidence found in the Holy Bible) evidence about Jesus.
I got books full of them. But who needs it, the only evidence one needs to believe in Jesus is His Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the DEAD. Plain and simple, the Bible came before the Quran, Jesus Rose from the Dead before Muhammad was born, God had already come for everyone. The Bible was finalized and for everyone in the Person of Jesus which follows perfectly from the first pages of Genesis.
Your Quran interacted with pagan Jews and Christians and was recited by a man speaking for God, and compiled by another man who came after that mans death. Historically reliable – talk about historically Unreliable.
Muhammad had absolutely nothing in common with any true Prophet of Israel. If you read the Prophets in the Bible you will realize that Muhammad did not reiterate the same message any of the previous true Prophets spoke on Gods behalf, the manner in which Muhammad received his revelation was completely different from any true Prophet, and his whole point of perching was wholly different from any true Prophet. Everything was different and does not form a continuation with the Previous true prophets of Israel. Just read the Prophets to find out.

Anonymous said...

(sections in bold have been heavily edited due to Yahyas censorship)
Anonymous said:

Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable.

And

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

This is incorrect. The Gospels ARE reliable because of their MULTIPLE eye witness testimony. They were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ or their disciples.

is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

Bro, you jsut summed up the entire history of your Quran and ahadit commentary. Thats all you got, oral tradition. Not to mention that oral tradition was passed down from Muslim fighters and partially collected on the battlefields of Yememena. We have thousands of hand written manuscripts; we have multiple attestations from different authors which all tell the same story of Jesus.
In fact the Gospels are the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE works we have to date on the face of this planet. The Holy Bible is the most attested to work of all time.


And then anonymous repeated himself a few times: "the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts" - i beg to differ, and most orientalists say your Quran is not historically reliable. And Jews also spoke Greek in those times. Why do Muslims think that in ancient times people could only speak one language?

If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus

Please throw them out, and i will be happy to present you plenty of other “outside” (not that it matters - no other evidence is needed besides the internal evidence found in the Holy Bible) evidence about Jesus.

I got books full of them. But who needs it, the only evidence one needs to believe in Jesus is His Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the DEAD. Plain and simple, the Bible came before the Quran, Jesus Rose from the Dead before Muhammad was born, God had already come for everyone. The Bible was finalized and for everyone in the Person of Jesus which follows perfectly from the first pages of Genesis, the Bible was never to be “finalized” in any Prophet, the OT makes that clear.

Your Quran interacted with Jews and Christians and was recited (oral tradition) by a man speaking for God, and compiled by another man who came after that mans death. Historically reliable – talk about historically Unreliable.

Muhammad had absolutely nothing in common with any true Prophet of Israel. If you read the Prophets in the Bible you will realize that Muhammad did not reiterate the same message any of the previous true Prophets spoke on Gods behalf, the manner in which Muhammad received his revelation was completely different from any true Prophet, and his whole point of perching was wholly different from any true Prophet. Everything was different and does not form a continuation with the Previous true prophets of Israel. Just read the Prophets to find out.

Anonymous said...

(sections in bold have been heavily edited due to Yahyas censorship)
Anonymous said:

Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable.

And

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

This is incorrect. The Gospels ARE reliable because of their MULTIPLE eye witness testimony. They were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ or their disciples.

is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

Bro, you jsut summed up the entire history of your Quran and ahadit commentary. Thats all you got, oral tradition. Not to mention that oral tradition was passed down from Muslim fighters and partially collected on the battlefields of Yememena. We have thousands of hand written manuscripts; we have multiple attestations from different authors which all tell the same story of Jesus.
In fact the Gospels are the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE works we have to date on the face of this planet. The Holy Bible is the most attested to work of all time.


And then anonymous repeated himself a few times: "the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts" - i beg to differ, and most orientalists say your Quran is not historically reliable. And Jews also spoke Greek in those times. Why do Muslims think that in ancient times people could only speak one language?

If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus

Please throw them out, and i will be happy to present you plenty of other “outside” (not that it matters - no other evidence is needed besides the internal evidence found in the Holy Bible) evidence about Jesus.

I got books full of them. But who needs it, the only evidence one needs to believe in Jesus is His Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the DEAD. Plain and simple, the Bible came before the Quran, Jesus Rose from the Dead before Muhammad was born, God had already come for everyone. The Bible was finalized and for everyone in the Person of Jesus which follows perfectly from the first pages of Genesis, the Bible was never to be “finalized” in any Prophet, the OT makes that clear.

Your Quran interacted with Jews and Christians and was recited (oral tradition) by a man speaking for God, and compiled by another man who came after that mans death. Historically reliable – talk about historically Unreliable.

Muhammad had absolutely nothing in common with any true Prophet of Israel. If you read the Prophets in the Bible you will realize that Muhammad did not reiterate the same message any of the previous true Prophets spoke on Gods behalf, the manner in which Muhammad received his revelation was completely different from any true Prophet, and his whole point of perching was wholly different from any true Prophet. Everything was different and does not form a continuation with the Previous true prophets of Israel. Just read the Prophets to find out.

Anonymous said...

(sections in bold have been heavily edited due to Yahyas censorship)
Anonymous said:

Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable.

And

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

This is incorrect. The Gospels ARE reliable because of their MULTIPLE eye witness testimony. They were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ or their disciples.

is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

Bro, you jsut summed up the entire history of your Quran and ahadit commentary. Thats all you got, oral tradition. Not to mention that oral tradition was passed down from Muslim fighters and partially collected on the battlefields of Yememena. We have thousands of hand written manuscripts; we have multiple attestations from different authors which all tell the same story of Jesus.
In fact the Gospels are the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE works we have to date on the face of this planet. The Holy Bible is the most attested to work of all time.


And then anonymous repeated himself a few times: "the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts" - i beg to differ, and most orientalists say your Quran is not historically reliable. And Jews also spoke Greek in those times. Why do Muslims think that in ancient times people could only speak one language?

If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus

Please throw them out, and i will be happy to present you plenty of other “outside” (not that it matters - no other evidence is needed besides the internal evidence found in the Holy Bible) evidence about Jesus.

I got books full of them. But who needs it, the only evidence one needs to believe in Jesus is His Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the DEAD. Plain and simple, the Bible came before the Quran, Jesus Rose from the Dead before Muhammad was born, God had already come for everyone. The Bible was finalized and for everyone in the Person of Jesus which follows perfectly from the first pages of Genesis, the Bible was never to be “finalized” in any Prophet, the OT makes that clear.

Your Quran interacted with Jews and Christians and was recited (oral tradition) by a man speaking for God, and compiled by another man who came after that mans death. Historically reliable – talk about historically Unreliable.

Muhammad had absolutely nothing in common with any true Prophet of Israel. If you read the Prophets in the Bible you will realize that Muhammad did not reiterate the same message any of the previous true Prophets spoke on Gods behalf, the manner in which Muhammad received his revelation was completely different from any true Prophet, and his whole point of perching was wholly different from any true Prophet. Everything was different and does not form a continuation with the Previous true prophets of Israel. Just read the Prophets to find out.

Anonymous said...

Lol even after i edit out all the parts about Muhammad...hmmm...lets see if Yahya lets this one through.

Anonymous said...

(sections in bold have been heavily edited due to Yahyas censorship)
Anonymous said:

Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable.

And

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

This is incorrect. The Gospels ARE reliable because of their MULTIPLE eye witness testimony. They were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ or their disciples.

is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

Bro, you jsut summed up the entire history of your Quran and ahadit commentary. Now

We have thousands of hand written manuscripts; we have multiple attestations from different authors which all tell the same story of Jesus.

In fact the Gospels are the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE works we have to date on the face of this planet.

The Holy Bible is the most attested to work of all time, no other written work is as reliable.

And then anonymous repeated himself a few times: "the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts" - i beg to differ, and most orientalists say your Quran is not historically reliable. And Jews also spoke Greek in those times.

Why do some Muslims seem to think that in ancient times people could only speak one language?

If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus

Please throw them out, and i will be happy to present you plenty of other “outside” (not that it matters - no other evidence is needed besides the internal evidence found in the Holy Bible) evidence about Jesus (including the Jooz).

I got books full of them. But who needs it, the only evidence one needs to believe in Jesus is His Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the DEAD. Plain and simple, the Bible came before the Quran, Jesus Rose from the Dead before, God had already come for everyone.

The Bible was finalized and for everyone in the Person of Jesus which follows perfectly from the first pages of Genesis, the Bible was never to be “finalized” in any Prophet, the OT makes that clear.

If you read the Prophets in the Bible you will realize that Muhammad did not reiterate the same message (I am afraid of adding what I previously wrote since yahya has a knack for censorship) Just read the Prophets to find out.

Anonymous said...

(sections in bold have been heavily edited due to Yahyas censorship)
Anonymous said:

Yes, the Gospels of the New Testament are early but they are not reliable.

And

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts

This is incorrect. The Gospels ARE reliable because of their MULTIPLE eye witness testimony. They were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ or their disciples.

is based off unreliable oral traditions and legends with no basis in History.

Bro, you jsut summed up the entire history of your Quran and ahadit commentary.
We have thousands of hand written manuscripts; we have multiple attestations from different authors which all tell the same story of Jesus.
In fact the Gospels are the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE works we have to date on the face of this planet. The Holy Bible is the most attested to work of all time, no other written work is as reliable.


And then anonymous repeated himself a few times: "the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts" - i beg to differ, and most orientalists say your Quran is not historically reliable. And Jews also spoke Greek in those times. Why do Muslims think that in ancient times people could only speak one language?

If we throw out Joesphus and Taticus

Please throw them out, and i will be happy to present you plenty of other “outside” (not that it matters - no other evidence is needed besides the internal evidence found in the Holy Bible) evidence about Jesus.
I got books full of them. But who needs it, the only evidence one needs to believe in Jesus is His Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the DEAD. Plain and simple, the Bible came before the Quran, Jesus Rose from the Dead before. God had already come for everyone. The Bible was finalized and for everyone in the Person of Jesus which follows perfectly from the first pages of Genesis, the Bible was never to be “finalized” in any Prophet, the OT makes that clear.
If you read the Prophets in the Bible you will realize that Muhammad did not reiterate the same message any of the previous true Prophets (I am afraid of adding what I previously wrote since yahya has a knack for censorship) Just read the Prophets to find out.

Anonymous said...

What in the world? My comment has been "saved"? dude i took out every reference i made to Muhammad besides the last bit about him NOT being a continuation of the true Israel prophets just to appease you yahya. What is your problem?

I use Muhammads name once for crying out loud, just let the kid see my comment informing him that the Holy Bible is the most historically reliable and most widely attested to work of all time, that it was written by MULTIPLE EYE WITNESSES of Jesus life and their disciples whom all tell the same story from multiple angles, and that the whole tradition of the Quran and ahadit commentary is nothing more than what he attacks, that being oral tradition.

Anonymous said...

Good my post is up!

Anonymous said...

Check out this hadit:


Bukhari Volume 1, Book 9, Number 490
Narrated 'Aisha:

The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "YOU have MADE us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him."

Aisha says YOU MUHAMMAD, YOU HAVE MADE revelation! YOU have made US dogs. You see what Aisha has to presuppose, she has to presuppose that Muhammad is the one "making" the call. Not Allah, but Muhammad. YOU MUHAMMAD have made us into dogs? Really Muhammad? You gave the instruction Muhammad, Ya Muhammada.

Ibn said...

Anonymous: Check out this hadit:


Bukhari Volume 1, Book 9, Number 490
Narrated 'Aisha:

The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "YOU have MADE us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him."

Aisha says YOU MUHAMMAD, YOU HAVE MADE revelation! YOU have made US dogs. You see what Aisha has to presuppose, she has to presuppose that Muhammad is the one "making" the call. Not Allah, but Muhammad. YOU MUHAMMAD have made us into dogs? Really Muhammad? You gave the instruction Muhammad, Ya Muhammada.


Me: Where does Aisha(ra)"YOU MUHAMMAD, YOU HAVE MADE revelation?" Also, who's the "they" the hadith speaks of?

BTW Anon, do you realize that you have been spamming this thread?

sam1528 said...

Anonymousing,

From you
'..In fact the Gospels are the MOST HISTORICALLY RELIABLE works we have to date on the face of this planet. The Holy Bible is the most attested to work of all time, no other written work is as reliable..'

Just a simple question then. Can you provide the 'chain of narrators' for , hmmm , say mark16. For example the hadith compilation of bukhari have the 'chain of narrators' for the veracity of each hadith. I can't seem to find the 'chain of narrators' for mark16. Your help is appreciated.

If there is none , how do you claim reliability of the gospels? Lets concentrate on mark16 for starters.

maratsafin said...

ok so judging by the commets of sams groupies,if sam were to debate someone like Dr Zakir Naik,he would destroy him and all other muslim debaters but this is just not true as can be seen from his debates with the muslim he has debated. the real problem lies with thier logic,they think the arguments sam brings has not been seen by muslims and so when sam persents it muslims will apostasise in huge droves or there will some form of huge reformation like christianity which will make Islam evetually becoming like sams worthless religion in this day and age. do you know who likes sam? the stupid southern rednecks who cannot think for themselves and who believe any rubbish that is fed to them,they like a big bufoon who talks a big game and someone who likes to declare victory even though they loose. just like america as a whole,lose in vietnam but decalre it a victory none the less, make no difference in Iraq but decalre it victory,claim communism is over after the fall of the soviet union, and decalre it a victory for them but communism still lives especially in thier biggest rival china and has major influnce in the other big giant india and the soviet union fell on its own. I know i have gone a bit of tangent but can you see the parallel with the stupid supporters of sam and america as a whole? they are arrogant and think they are better than everyone else. christians have always hated education and the use of logic thats why they never let any tom dick and harry read the bible for well over a thousand years, and what did happen when the bible was read extensively? the utter dilution of thier faith,the take over of secularism, and the rise of athiesm and Islam and this my friends is the reason why these lot spend most of thier time trying to destroy Islam istead of preaching thier faith because thier faith has but been demolished. they treat sam like a God,they actually believe he has so much knowledge of Islam when all he does is read the work of biased orientalists,they believe all the argumensts he brings forward are new and impossible to refute,that is the reason they adore him to such an extent,because they themselves do not read and try to have a proper education,that is why they still harp on about the new testament being the most attested history book on earth!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

THE DAILY SCOURGE

LOVE AT THE BALL
by our Court Correspondent

Yes – it’s official!

Hunky Prince Richard has found a bride at last!

At midnight last night, the Palace announced the engagement of his Royal Highness Prince Richard to the Lady Aurelia Ashington.

“We are very happy,” said the Prince.

It is understood that the Royal Wedding will be celebrated very soon.

Our romance correspondent writes:

It was like something out of a fairy tale. The charming Prince, the mysterious girl who seemed to vanish into nowhere only to be found by the merest chance…

They met at the Midsummer Ball. To the music of a shimmering waltz, they danced like thistledown, and they only had eyes for each other.

“I’ve never seen him so in love,” said a close friend of the Prince’s. “I think this time it’s the real thing.”

It was certainly fast. By midnight, they were head over heels in love, and it only took another day for the engagement to be made official.

Prince Richard – the lover:

A fact file of the playboy Prince’s previous girlfriends, pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Lady Aurelia – where does she come from?

Our reporters investigate the background of the lovely young Princess-to-be, page 9.

YFC777 said...

I haven't gone through the 44 comments prior to my post but just looking at the latest comment by Sam1528 who said "Just a simple question then. Can you provide the 'chain of narrators' for , hmmm , say mark16"

The methodology chain of narrations cannot be considered as an accurate way to attest if a document is historically correct or not. In my opinion this is a weak argument that Muslims bring to the table against the Gospels. Anyone who has played a game of Chinese whisper knows that a chain of oral transmission can be lost. For example when ever someone brings up the topic of satanic verses Muslims will argue that the unbelievers somehow introduced it in the narrations.

The historical authenticity of the Gospels and other books of the NT have been attested by historians and literary scholars. I don't think Muslims have actually looked into this topic or are just following apologist blindly

Anonymous said...

THE DAILY SCOURGE

PALACE MAKE-OVER!

To celebrate the royal marriage, the Palace is to be spectacularly redecorated. OUT go fuddy-duddy antiques and dusty old pictures. IN come designer furniture and a new, bright, up-to-the-minute look.

The redecoration is being carried out by attractive blonde Sophie Trend-Butcher, 23, the brilliant young designer. The wallpaper is being hand-printed in gold.

While the work is being carried out in the Palace, the Royal Family is staying at the Hotel Splendifico.

THE SCOURGE SAYS:

Yes, the redecoration is costing a fortune. Yes, the money is coming from you and me.

BUT THIS IS OUR ROYAL FAMILY!

For heaven’s sake, where is our national pride?

We have the finest designers and craftspeople in the world – and here is a chance to show what they can really do.

And let’s not forget Prince Richard and his radiant bride to-be.
Are they supposed to live in a museum?

Let’s get behind the Royal Family in their attempt to bring the Palace up to date!

Anonymous said...

Ibn,

Yes Aisha says to Muhammad, about the rule that dogs or women or Jews nullify prayer, YOU HAVE MADE US.

She knows Muhammad is the one calling the shots not no Allah, she indicates this when she says YOU MADE US, Muhammad is the one “making” people into things (like dogs) by giving these commandments and rules, Aisha knew this is no Allah – if she knew it was Allah’s commandment or rule then why didn’t she say “Allah has made us?”.

That poor little child must have been so scared. Just put yourself in her shoes when she is asking Muhammad about that rule and Muhammad just sits there after she asks him why he put women on the same level a dog in astonishment. He just sits there.

Anonymous said...

Sam (might the 1528 in your tag have something to do with Cabeza de Vacas?)

We do not need any such chain of transmission; it would be rather obsolete for the written Gospel and the amount of different manuscripts from all parts of the world.

Mark was Peters interpreter and was used as a worker by the Apostles to put the collective and individual witness of Jesus into writing. Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to Mark, his attendant.

For Marks experiences with the Apostles please see: Acts 12:12, 25; 13.5, 15:37, Col. 4.10; 2Tim. 4.11; Philem. 24, etc..

Since our friend brought up external evidence, such early church fathers as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement all affirm that Mark wrote the second Gospel.

Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis and was born around 60AD, said that Mark was the writer of Peters words.

You can read where Mark leaves clues about himself in Mark 14:51 (he was the young man that fled when Jesus was arrested). Also, if you ever actually read the Gospel of Mark or the Acts of the Apostles, please compare Peters speech (Acts 3, etc.) with Peters speech and words in Mark.

You can also check Acts 12.12, Peter and Mark would meet together along with the rest of the church in his mother’s house, they knew each other from the earliest days. Mark was like a son to Peter.

As for the ending of Mark 16, specifically verses 9-20, they really aren’t that important when one takes verses 4-8 into consideration.

Mark 16.4-8 clearly states Jesus had risen from the dead and presents an Angel appearing to Mary and the Apostles – and those verses are found in EVERY ancient manuscript.

Besides, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16.9-20 in his works indicating that those verses had to have been written prior to Irenaeus. This is nothing new to Christians, we have known about “the ending of Mark” since Eusebius’ time, its no big deal.

Maybe earlier manuscripts which contained those verses were destroyed with the persecution of Christians, but it really does not matter as Jesus resurrection from the dead and His going to Galilee are mentioned in the preceeding verses which ARE found in EVERY manuscript. The Gospel could have been left open ended at verse 8 on purpouse by Mark anyway.

We have many manuscripts from multiple eyewitnesses at that, which can be textually and linguistically compared and analyzed one against the other.

In the first Epistle of Peter, we have Peter describing himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(5.1)

In the final verses of that Epistle, Peter says: “She who is Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, AND SO DOES MARK, my son. Greet one another with the kiss of love.” – As can be seen, the “chain of transmission” was quite simply Jesus, Peter, then Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written during 50AD.

Like I said, in terms of quantity and age of manuscripts, nothing else comes close to the New Testament.

But let me turn the tables now, do you have a chain of transmission for every ayat and surah going back to Muhammad? NOPE. In fact you have absolutely no chain for the oral tradition in the Quran – but only for the hadit commentary coming 2 hundred years after Muhammad, and we can see how sahih that really turns out to be!

Anonymous said...

Let me break it down even more.

All of Jesus’ Apostles witnessed him speaking, they were all there.

His ministry lasted 3 years.

Muhammad ministered for over a decade. Muhammd would get “revelations” in different places and different times around completely different people, over this huge amount of time lasting 10 years.

Some people were present and “witnessed” Muhammad getting a revelation, and some were not present. Muhammad supposedly got many revelations in many different places and times.

When some of his followers heard these revelations they would relay Muhammads words to his followers who were not present to witness that specific revelation.

Then when Muhammad would get another “revelation”, there would be a completely different group of people around him! And so on and so on. Do you see what im getting at?

Muhammad had many revelations over a giant amount of time, of which only A FEW people would hear at any given time. Those people would transmit those revelations to people who were not present at time of specific revelation.

Is it making sense yet? It’s a giant soup of “what did Muhammad say”. Even during Muhammads time it is safe to assume the so called “revelations” had already been corrupted by people telling stories (and in fact I believe the ahadit say the same).

Just think about it: Jesus’ Apostles were TOGETHER IN THE SAME CONTEXT almost EVERYTIME Jesus would speak – they heard the SAME THING.

Muhammads numerous and different followers were never all together in the same contextS (plural, MANY places) Muhammad received all his supposed revelations, and this happened over a 10 year period! One heard something the other didn’t, and that one heard something someone else didn’t.

It’s like that game where someone whispers something into your ear and you tell someone else, and that person tells someone else, and after a few people whipsper it between one another it comes out COMPLETELY different from what was said in the first place. There is your Quran.

Anonymous said...

Let me break it down a little bit more.

Christianity preached peace and tolerance. Christianity spread during times of mass persecution. It is only through Gods Will and the Miracle of the Gospel that we know anything about Lord Jesus today. Christianity exploded by DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT BELIEVING, PREACHING, AND BEING PERSECUTED.

On the other hand we have Islam.

There were a whole bunch of apostates when Muhammad died.

There was a huge war between factions within Islam right after Muhammad died.

The whole religion spread to different parts of the world by subjugation and conquest. It spread by FORCE IMPOSED on others. This is an obvious worldly way for any idea or culture to spread, through domination.

Its no miracle that Islam spread, anything would have spread like that if you conquer lands and force their peoples. And if you think im fibbin, well any historian will tell you that’s how Islam spread after your beloved prophet died. And during your prophets time, I say that Muhammad also spread his ideology using force and dominance (ie. slaughter of the Qurayza).

Anonymous said...

@Yahya Snow

When I tried to post my comment for the first time yesterday it went through just fine. I reloaded the page, it was still there, I navigated away from the page, it was still there, I read comments for about 10 minutes, came back to the page, it was still there.

All of a sudden about 5 minutes after that im reading some other comments on the same thread and noticed mine was gone.

After that anytime I tried to post a comment it relocated me to a different page which said “Database Error 505”, and whenever I clicked back it would say “script error”. I don’t know what is up with your settings on the filter or if you are just up to your old devilish tricks, but these types of experiences ONLY happen to me on your blog. Interesting huh? ONLY your blog.

Anonymous said...

And where in the world is my comment to Sam that I just posted!

Ibn said...

Anonymous: Its no miracle that Islam spread, anything would have spread like that if you conquer lands and force their peoples. And if you think im fibbin, well any historian will tell you that’s how Islam spread after your beloved prophet died.

You just shot yourself in the foot again! Any historian? Here's what Daniel W. Brown says in his book about the earliest Muslim empires, "A New Introduction to Islam", "No systematic sacking of cities took place, and no destruction of agricultural land occurred. The conquests brought little immediate change to the patterns of religious or communal life. There were no mass or forced conversions. Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian communities in Syria and Iraq may have felt threatened, but they continued to thrive. New synagogues, churches, and monasteries were still being built into the eighth century, and churches or synagogues were not converted to mosques on any noticeable scale. The first urban mosques were not built until after 690" (p.109)

Do you want me to quote Bernard Lewis, the greatest historian of the Middle East of our age?

Look Anonymous, you are not a good actor. You pretend that you know stuff about Islam that would make Muslims shudder, but so far your acting and your claims has only made us laugh at you and pity you. Apparently, you are just as illiterate on Christianity. You said "Christianity exploded by DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT BELIEVING, PREACHING, AND BEING PERSECUTED."

Are you kidding me? Ever heard of Constantine or Charlemagne? What about the Inquisition? Man you are clueless!

Ibn said...

Anonymous: Ibn,Yes Aisha says to Muhammad, about the rule that dogs or women or Jews nullify prayer, YOU HAVE MADE US.

You illiterate knuckle head! That hadith is not even a conversation between Aisha (ra) and Muhammad (saw). A group of people made the claim before her that prayer is nullified by a dog, donkey and a woman. That's why the hadith says, "THEY said, 'Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman'"

Who's the they, you fool? There was a discussion between `Aishah, the wife of the Prophet (P), with some Muslims who were not knowledgeable about religious matters on the issue of what would nullify the salat (the Islamic ritual prayer). She told them that she was knowledgeable about such rules. They remarked that when a woman or a dog, or a donkey passed in front of a praying person, the latter’s prayer was nullified. She corrected their wrong understanding with sarcasm (by saying that they are equating woman with dogs) and said that when the Prophet (P) prayed his tahajjud (midnight voluntary prayers) in her room, her bed (where she lay) was right in front of him. Hence, those Muslims were wrong in their understanding of the rules of nullification of salat: a salat is not nullified if a woman is in front of a praying person.

Anonymous said...

Sam,

We do not need any such chain of transmission; it would be rather obsolete for the written Gospel and the amount of different manuscripts from all parts of the world.

Mark was Peters interpreter and was used as a worker by the Apostles to put the collective and individual witness of Jesus into writing.

Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to Mark, his attendant.

For Marks experiences with the Apostles please see: Acts 12:12, 25; 13.5, 15:37, Col. 4.10; 2Tim. 4.11; Philem. 24, etc..

Since our friend brought up external evidence, such early church fathers as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement all affirm that Mark wrote the second Gospel.

Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis and was born around 60AD, said that Mark was the writer of Peters words.

You can read where Mark leaves clues about himself in Mark 14:51 (he was the young man that fled when Jesus was arrested). Also, if you ever actually read the Gospel of Mark or the Acts of the Apostles, please compare Peters speech (Acts 3, etc.) with Peters speech and words in Mark.

You can also check Acts 12.12, Peter and Mark would meet together along with the rest of the church in his mother’s house, they knew each other from the earliest days. Mark was like a son to Peter.

As for the ending of Mark 16, specifically verses 9-20, they really aren’t that important when one takes verses 4-8 into consideration.

Mark 16.4-8 clearly states Jesus had risen from the dead and presents an Angel appearing to Mary and the Apostles – and those verses are found in EVERY ancient manuscript.

Besides, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16.9-20 in his works indicating that those verses had to have been written prior to Irenaeus. This is nothing new to Christians, we have known about “the ending of Mark” since Eusebius’ time, its no big deal.

Maybe earlier manuscripts which contained those verses were destroyed with the persecution of Christians, but it really does not matter as Jesus resurrection from the dead and His going to Galilee are mentioned. The Gospel could have been left open ended

We have many manuscripts from multiple eyewitnesses at that, which can be textually and linguistically compared and analyzed one against the other.

In the first Epistle of Peter, we have Peter describing himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(5.1)

In the final verses of that Epistle, Peter says: “She who is Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, AND SO DOES MARK, my son. Greet one another with the kiss of love.” – As can be seen, the “chain of transmission” was quite simply Jesus, Peter, then Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written during 50AD.

Like I said, in terms of quantity and age of manuscripts, nothing else comes close to the New Testament.

But let me turn the tables now, do you have a chain of transmission for every ayat and surah going back to Muhammad? NOPE. In fact you have absolutely no chain for the oral tradition in the Quran – but only for the hadit commentary coming 2 hundred years after Muhammad, and we can see how sahih that really turns out to be!

Anonymous said...

Sam,

We do not need any such chain of transmission; it would be rather obsolete for the written Gospel and the amount of different manuscripts from all parts of the world. Mark was Peters interpreter and was used as a worker by the Apostles to put the collective and individual witness of Jesus into writing. Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to Mark, his attendant. For Marks experiences with the Apostles please see: Acts 12:12, 25; 13.5, 15:37, Col. 4.10; 2Tim. 4.11; Philem. 24, etc..
Since our friend brought up external evidence, such early church fathers as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement all affirm that Mark wrote the second Gospel. Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis and was born around 60AD, said that Mark was the writer of Peters words.
You can read where Mark leaves clues about himself in Mark 14:51 (he was the young man that fled when Jesus was arrested). Also, if you ever actually read the Gospel of Mark or the Acts of the Apostles, please compare Peters speech (Acts 3, etc.) with Peters speech and words in Mark.
You can also check Acts 12.12, Peter and Mark would meet together along with the rest of the church in his mother’s house, they knew each other from the earliest days. Mark was like a son to Peter.
As for the ending of Mark 16, specifically verses 9-20, they really aren’t that important when one takes verses 4-8 into consideration.
Mark 16.4-8 clearly states Jesus had risen from the dead and presents an Angel appearing to Mary and the Apostles – and those verses are found in EVERY ancient manuscript.
Besides, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16.9-20 in his works indicating that those verses had to have been written prior to Irenaeus. This is nothing new to Christians, we have known about “the ending of Mark” since Eusebius’ time, its no big deal. Maybe earlier manuscripts which contained those verses were destroyed with the persecution of Christians, but it really does not matter as Jesus resurrection from the dead and His going to Galilee are mentioned. The Gospel could have been left open ended
W have many manuscripts from multiple different eyewitnesses at that, which can be textually and linguistically compared and analyzed one against the other.
In the first Epistle of Peter, we have Peter describing himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(5.1) In the final verses of that Epistle, Peter says: “She who is Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, AND SO DOES MARK, my son. Greet one another with the kiss of love.” – As can be seen, the “chain of transmission” was quite simply Jesus, Peter, then Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written during 50AD.
Like I said, in terms of quantity and age of manuscripts, nothing else comes close to the New Testament.
But let me turn the tables now, do you have a chain of transmission for every ayat and surah going back to Muhammad? NOPE. In fact you have absolutely no chain for the oral tradition in the Quran – but only for the hadit commentary coming 2 hundred years after Muhammad, and we can see how sahih that really turns out to be!

Anonymous said...

Sam,

We do not need any such chain of transmission; it would be rather obsolete for the written Gospel and the amount of different manuscripts from all parts of the world. Mark was Peters interpreter and was used as a worker by the Apostles to put the collective and individual witness of Jesus into writing. Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to Mark, his attendant. For Marks experiences with the Apostles please see: Acts 12:12, 25; 13.5, 15:37, Col. 4.10; 2Tim. 4.11; Philem. 24, etc..
Since our friend brought up external evidence, such early church fathers as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement all affirm that Mark wrote the second Gospel. Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis and was born around 60AD, said that Mark was the writer of Peters words.
You can read where Mark leaves clues about himself in Mark 14:51 (he was the young man that fled when Jesus was arrested). Also, if you ever actually read the Gospel of Mark or the Acts of the Apostles, please compare Peters speech (Acts 3, etc.) with Peters speech and words in Mark.
You can also check Acts 12.12, Peter and Mark would meet together along with the rest of the church in his mother’s house, they knew each other from the earliest days. Mark was like a son to Peter.
As for the ending of Mark 16, specifically verses 9-20, they really aren’t that important when one takes verses 4-8 into consideration.
Mark 16.4-8 clearly states Jesus had risen from the dead and presents an Angel appearing to Mary and the Apostles – and those verses are found in EVERY ancient manuscript.
Besides, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16.9-20 in his works indicating that those verses had to have been written prior to Irenaeus. This is nothing new to Christians, we have known about “the ending of Mark” since Eusebius’ time, its no big deal. Maybe earlier manuscripts which contained those verses were destroyed with the persecution of Christians, but it really does not matter as Jesus resurrection from the dead and His going to Galilee are mentioned. The Gospel could have been left open ended
W have many manuscripts from multiple different eyewitnesses at that, which can be textually and linguistically compared and analyzed one against the other.
In the first Epistle of Peter, we have Peter describing himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(5.1) In the final verses of that Epistle, Peter says: “She who is Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, AND SO DOES MARK, my son. Greet one another with the kiss of love.” – As can be seen, the “chain of transmission” was quite simply Jesus, Peter, then Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written during 50AD.
Like I said, in terms of quantity and age of manuscripts, nothing else comes close to the New Testament.
But let me turn the tables now, do you have a chain of transmission for every ayat and surah going back to Muhammad? NOPE. In fact you have absolutely no chain for the oral tradition in the Quran – but only for the hadit commentary coming 2 hundred years after Muhammad, and we can see how sahih that really turns out to be!

Anonymous said...

Sam,

We do not need any such chain of transmission; it would be rather obsolete for the written Gospel and the amount of different manuscripts from all parts of the world. Mark was Peters interpreter and was used as a worker by the Apostles to put the collective and individual witness of Jesus into writing. Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to Mark, his attendant. For Marks experiences with the Apostles please see: Acts 12:12, 25; 13.5, 15:37, Col. 4.10; 2Tim. 4.11; Philem. 24, etc..
Since our friend brought up external evidence, such early church fathers as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement all affirm that Mark wrote the second Gospel. Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis and was born around 60AD, said that Mark was the writer of Peters words.
You can read where Mark leaves clues about himself in Mark 14:51 (he was the young man that fled when Jesus was arrested). Also, if you ever actually read the Gospel of Mark or the Acts of the Apostles, please compare Peters speech (Acts 3, etc.) with Peters speech and words in Mark.
You can also check Acts 12.12, Peter and Mark would meet together along with the rest of the church in his mother’s house, they knew each other from the earliest days. Mark was like a son to Peter.
As for the ending of Mark 16, specifically verses 9-20, they really aren’t that important when one takes verses 4-8 into consideration.
Mark 16.4-8 clearly states Jesus had risen from the dead and presents an Angel appearing to Mary and the Apostles – and those verses are found in EVERY ancient manuscript.
Besides, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16.9-20 in his works indicating that those verses had to have been written prior to Irenaeus. This is nothing new to Christians, we have known about “the ending of Mark” since Eusebius’ time, its no big deal. Maybe earlier manuscripts which contained those verses were destroyed with the persecution of Christians, but it really does not matter as Jesus resurrection from the dead and His going to Galilee are mentioned. The Gospel could have been left open ended
W have many manuscripts from multiple different eyewitnesses at that, which can be textually and linguistically compared and analyzed one against the other.
In the first Epistle of Peter, we have Peter describing himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(5.1) In the final verses of that Epistle, Peter says: “She who is Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, AND SO DOES MARK, my son. Greet one another with the kiss of love.” – As can be seen, the “chain of transmission” was quite simply Jesus, Peter, then Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written during 50AD.
Like I said, in terms of quantity and age of manuscripts, nothing else comes close to the New Testament.
But let me turn the tables now, do you have a chain of transmission for every ayat and surah going back to Muhammad? NOPE. In fact you have absolutely no chain for the oral tradition in the Quran – but only for the hadit commentary coming 2 hundred years after Muhammad, and we can see how sahih that really turns out to be!

Anonymous said...

Like i said,

I refuse to post on this cheap nazi blog until yahya approves my refutations of Sams misconceptions.

3 whole comments are missing.

Anonymous said...

Ibn,

Everything you said is basically a joke, and your one mean person.

Christianity already dominated the world before Constantine could even declare it the State religion.

It had spread like a wildfire in the year 100-200, all during times of persecution.

And my comment describing Mark and the authenticity of the Gospels would also help refute everything you said but Yahya will hide that comment indefinately so it seems.

Anonymous said...

Maybe if i post them in parts...

Sam,

We do not need any such chain of transmission; it would be rather obsolete for the written Gospel and the amount of different manuscripts from all parts of the world.

Mark was Peters interpreter and was used as a worker by the Apostles to put the collective and individual witness of Jesus into writing.

Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to Mark, his attendant. For Marks experiences with the Apostles please see: Acts 12:12, 25; 13.5, 15:37, Col. 4.10; 2Tim. 4.11; Philem. 24, etc..

Since our friend brought up external evidence, such early church fathers as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement all affirm that Mark wrote the second Gospel. Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis and was born around 60AD, said that Mark was the writer of Peters words.

Anonymous said...

Sam,

You can read where Mark leaves clues about himself in Mark 14:51 (he was the young man that fled when Jesus was arrested). Also, if you ever actually read the Gospel of Mark or the Acts of the Apostles, please compare Peters speech (Acts 3, etc.) with Peters speech and words in Mark.

You can also check Acts 12.12, Peter and Mark would meet together along with the rest of the church in his mother’s house, they knew each other from the earliest days. Mark was like a son to Peter.

Anonymous said...

As for the ending of Mark 16, specifically verses 9-20, they really aren’t that important when one takes verses 4-8 into consideration.

Mark 16.4-8 clearly states Jesus had risen from the dead and presents an Angel appearing to Mary and the Apostles – and those verses are found in EVERY ancient manuscript.

Besides, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16.9-20 in his works indicating that those verses had to have been written prior to Irenaeus. This is nothing new to Christians, we have known about “the ending of Mark” since Eusebius’ time, its no big deal.

Maybe earlier manuscripts which contained those verses were destroyed with the persecution of Christians, but it really does not matter as Jesus' resurrection from the dead and His going to Galilee are mentioned. The Gospel could have been left open ended

We have many manuscripts from multiple eyewitnesses at that, which can be textually and linguistically compared and analyzed one against the other.

Anonymous said...

Sam,

In the first Epistle of Peter, we have Peter describing himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(5.1)

In the final verses of that Epistle, Peter says: “She who is Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, AND SO DOES MARK, my son. Greet one another with the kiss of love.” – As can be seen, the “chain of transmission” was quite simply Jesus, Peter, then Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written during 50AD.

Like I said, in terms of quantity and age of manuscripts, nothing else comes close to the New Testament.

But let me turn the tables now, do you have a chain of transmission for every ayat and surah going back to Muhammad? NOPE. In fact you have absolutely no chain for the oral tradition in the Quran – but only for the hadit commentary coming 2 hundred years after Muhammad, and we can see how sahih that really turns out to be!

Anonymous said...

And here was my comment to yahya,

When I tried to post my comment for the first time yesterday it went through just fine. I reloaded the page, it was still there, I navigated away from the page, it was still there, I read comments for about 10 minutes, came back to the page, it was still there.

All of a sudden about 5 after im reading some other comments on the same thread and notice it was gone. After that anytime I tried to post a comment it relocated me to a different page which said “Database Error 505”, and whenever I clicked back it would say “script error”. I don’t know what is up with your settings on the filter or if you are just up to your old devilish tricks, but these types of experiences ONLY happen to me on your blog. Interesting huh? ONLY your blog.

Anonymous said...

Ibn,

do you at least understand what context even is? I know you cannot grasp a simple syllogism from our prior interactions but dang - this aint rocket science.

you proved my point.

I don’t care about your historians theory on “how Islam acted” AFTER it conquered a peoples, your author CLEARLY states that Islam had CONQUERED! Like I said, EVERY HISTORIAN agrees that Islam spread through THE SWORD, through CONQUESTS!

Lol, and notice your author says “systematic”sacking of cities. Oh really Mr. Brown, so a “regular” sacking of cities occurred? And isn’t that the fictional author who wrote the Davinci Code and not a real historian anyway?

Anonymous said...

Ibn,

I feel you are leaving things out about that hadit. I had already read through all the ones where aisha is in the room and Muhammad is praying, i understand that. But that would be more of a problem for you than me since your hadit contradict eachother and there are Muslims who agree that women nullify salat.

But i will look into this a little bit, cause it does seem Aisha was talking to Muhammad and you say no, so i will check.

RefutingActs17 said...

Why is David Wood always on about sex and women in Islam? I'm assuming he has a slight penchant for vulgarity and lies.

Refuting

sam1528 said...

yfc777 ,

From you '..Anyone who has played a game of Chinese whisper knows that a chain of oral transmission can be lost..'

You just killed the reliability of the gospels. An example is the biblical incident at gethsemene. Compare
(1) mat26:47-55
(2) mark14:43-50
(3) luk22:47-53
(4) joh18:5-11
You can see the story moving in a different direction. For example , striking off the ear , no names in mat / mark / luke. However a 'new story' inserted in luke of biblical jesus healing the ear. In joh , it gets better , names were mentioned and the soldiers / chief priests / Pharisees fell backwards when biblical jesus said 'i am'. Your 'chinese whisper' analogy fits exactly with the bible if we compare the same incident across the 4 gospels.

In the science of hadiths , there are classifications such as 'attested by many' , 'broken chain' , 'lone attestation' , 'weak' , 'fabricated'.

Therefore we muslims know such and such a hadith falls under which classification and it is treated as such. However its not the case for the bible. Everything is treated as the word of god , even though it fails the 'chinese whisper' test.

When you claim of historical / literary attestation , it does fit into any one of the classification of the hadiths. Nothing new about that. You try to downplay the 'chain of narrators' as you know the bible does not have it. 'chain of narrators' is one step higher than historical / literary attestation as one can actually trace the event and actually deternime if there was / were any changes and classify the hadith in its proper classification.

sam1528 said...

anonymousing ,

Why do you flood this comment section with repeated response? Why don't you copy your response , save it in a words file. Just publish it once and check after 5 hrs. If it does not appear , copy paste again.

You are answering with an assumption that it was mark (peter's interpreter) wrote the gospel according to mark. However the majority of modern NT scholarship agree that the gospel according to mark was written by an anonymous author. I don't think I need to quote scholars like Bart Ehrman / Raymond Brown on this issue.

Whaat?? There is no issue with you / christians that mark16:9-20 was a later insertion? What standard of textual integrity you people have?

You have stumbled before you even started. No wonder you don't need verification of 'isnads' as the gospels themselves are written buy anonymous authors. For all you know , they got the stories from the marketplace. Textual and linguistical comparison is done because you don't have the 'chain of narrators'. You keep on saying multiple eyewitnesses but what is the use of such as modern scholarship confirmed that the authors of the gospels were / are anonymous.

The Quran when revealed to Prophet Muhammad(saw) was immediately documented and then read back to the Prophet(saw) to ensure no documentation error. No need for chain of narrators as documentation was done on an immediate basis.

Don't bring up the issue of preservation of the Quran. Your hero Nabeel Qureshi was decimated by Bro Bassam Zawadi in the debate regarding this topic in london last yer.

YFC777 said...

Sam1528,

Once again a weak argument in my opinion. Taking your example of the events from the garden of Gethsemane. All four gospels mention the incident. The Gospel writers had different styles of writing and were writing for different audiences. Just because Mark is very brief in his writing of an incident while John gives more details it does not mean John is not historically accurate. We have about 1500 manuscripts of the Gospel of John and guess what, they all read the same. Ignatius of Antioch is believed to be the disciple of John and was appointed Bishop by Peter himself. We have the writings of Ignatius and the Gospels date prior to his writings. Thus we can surely conclude that Ignatius would have read the Gospel of John while John himself was alive and would have discussed it with him.

These are merely a few examples and there are many such factors why the Bible OT and NT is considered a historically accurate book.

sam1528 said...

yfc777 ,

I differ in opinion. From you '..The Gospel writers had different styles of writing and were writing for different audiences..'.

Lets take a specific example. In mat26 / mark14 there is no such thing as biblical jesus healing the ear as in luke22. You define this as different writing style? Highly likely it is not. Its more like the lack of information in mat26 / mark14 when compared to luk22. Therefore this lack of information fits your claim of information loss due to 'chinese whispers'.

You can claim 1500 mss for the gospel of john. Are those mss originals from different authors? Highly likely they are not but only copies from one another. Again this fail the multiple attestation methodology. For the multiple attestation methodology to work for the gospel of john (for example) you must be able to show that the gospel of john has been derived from multiple independent sources.

Therefore the methodology of 'isnad' is for superior. It traces the 'chain of narrators' , and can be divided to 'multiple attestation' , 'broken chain' , 'lone attestation' , 'fraud' etc. Historical / multiple attestation methodology is a subset of the methodology of 'isnad'.

Ibn said...

Anonymous, your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. You wrote, "Like I said, EVERY HISTORIAN agrees that Islam spread through THE SWORD, through CONQUESTS!"

You wrote earlier, "It spread by FORCE IMPOSED on others" which implies that you believe Islam spread by forced conversions. The reality is, although Muslim conquests did happen, the non-Muslim populations were not forced to convert to Islam. There is a big difference between saying Islam was spread by the sword (which implies forced conversions) and Muslim rule was spread by the sword (which doesn't necessarily imply forced conversions).

Anonymous: Lol, and notice your author says “systematic”sacking of cities. Oh really Mr. Brown, so a “regular” sacking of cities occurred? And isn’t that the fictional author who wrote the Davinci Code and not a real historian anyway?

Lol! You're such an idiot. Do you think there is only one Daniel Brown in the world? The person I quoted is a scholar of Islam, not the same guy who wrote Angels and Demons and the Davinci Code. You can find his book here
http://books.google.com/books?id=ViTmBB8DQNcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+New+Introduction+to+Islam&hl=en&ei=tS_lTIeGNtGahQfli_H0DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

At least read the book before opening your hole!

Ibn said...

Anonymous: Christianity already dominated the world

Are you on crack? If Christianity dominated the world before Constantine, then what was the religion of, say, Japan in 200 AD?

maratsafin said...

those christians who preach that thier form of christianity spread by peace and love are so full of it.after jesus there was a whole swath of sects that were preaching about the coming redemption of israel some were followers of jesus and some were not. Paul who was most definietly a agent of rome,saw an oppurtunity to try and suppress the jewish rebellion against rome and started preaching a completely different message.if you read his letters you can see the differences he has with others that are preaching,he is always telling people to follow him and no one else. just take a look at the difference between his doctrine of justification by faith alone and the james 's letter were he emphasises oh work and faith (no wonder luther disliked that letter so much) he had a argument with the jerusalem church which was never resolved despite what church historians try to tell everyone. the many sects had absolutely no power to do anything, especially against rome(who paul was an agent for). they were busy quarelling amongst each other and when finally pauls religion won out with its inclusion of the many pagan element which no doubt converted many pagan romans,what did they start doing? oh yes persecuting those they deemed as heretics and apostates, expanding under the name of the cross,trying to completely annihialte indigenous people and so forth. Yes muslims armies conqured,that was prophetic but they most certainly did not make people convert at the end of the sword,dumbo's who still peddle this myth really need an education.
as for the authorship of the new testament, noone knows who wrote the gospels, and personally i do not believe a illeterate fisherman who fishes naked (peter) could write in koine greek. so there you have it nothing was written by the apostles but over half ofit was authored by a agent of rome who had major differences with the actual apostles.

sam1528 said...

anonymousing ,

Your response is based on the assumption that the gospel according to mark was written by a person named mark who was peter's interpreter.

You drop names like Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement claiming they all affirm that it was peter's interpreter who wrote the gospel according to mark. I guess you don't read modern scholarship then. I don't have to quote Bart Ehrman or Raymond Brown who affirmed that the author for the gospel according to mark was anonymous.

Interesting point , you quote mark14:51 '..A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind..'. Was there a pervert running around in loin clothes?

You still could not provide the 'chain of narrators' for mark 16. The author by modern scholarship standards was anonymous. Nobody knows who , where and how the stories got handed down. In essence you have nothing but blind faith. The anonymous author could very well got the marketplace gossip and decided to pen it as gospel according to mark.

Its even funnier that you claim christians don't consider it important that the ending of mark 16 has been proven to be a later date insertion. This reflects the fact that there has been so many changes to the gospels that you now don't really care. Yet some christians claim it to be the inerrant word of god. You have stumbled even before you started.

You want to 'turn the tables' and talk about the Quran? The Quran was documented immediately by the scribes of Prophet Muhammad(saw) and read back for counter check. 1400 yrs ago the methodology surpassed ISO standards for documentation. Don't bring up the issue of preservation. Your hero Nabeel Qureshi got hammered by Bro Bassam Zawadi debating on this topic last year in London.

YFC777 said...

Matthew only mentions Jesus and his disciples were in Gethsemane and then moves to Jesus taken to pilot. So does this mean Jesus was not arrested ? No, it means he is being brief in his narration of the incident.

Luke narrates the incident where a disciple cuts of the ear of the servant of the high priest and Jesus heals the servant. Notice Luke 22:52 is same as Mark 14:48. However Mark does not give the context of 14:48 which is included by Luke.

John 18:10 mentions the incident and also names the servant.

From the above we see that all authors agree about that Jesus was in Gethsemane, Matthew and Mark are brief in their description of what happened while Luke and John are detailed.

I do not know Hadit sciences but I know that no liberal or critical work has been done to check the historical accuracy of the hadits. Most Muslims even agree that even in the hadits they claim to be authentic there are authentic and not authentic topics.

YFC777 said...

Sam1528,

You said - "The author by modern scholarship standards was anonymous.I don't have to quote Bart Ehrman or Raymond Brown who affirmed that the author for the gospel according to mark was anonymous."

What modern scholarship standards have been applied to the Quran and Hadits ? It is only a self proclaimed claim from Muslims that they can trace both to Muhammad.

sam1528 said...

yfc777 ,

First you talk about different literary styles and now context. I don't have an issue with context. However I have an issue with the character development of biblical jesus as we move from mat26 to mark14 to luke22 to john18. It is actually an addition to the so called ability of biblical jesus. It fits your claim of 'chinese whispers' - things that has been added or deleted from the original 'whisper'.

Modern scholarship to the Quran / hadiths? For starters why don't you read
(1) sciences of the Quran - Yasir Qhadi
(2) cambridge companion to the Quran - Angelika Neuwirth
(3) Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and modern World (Oneworld, Foundations of Islam series, 2009). - Jonathan Brown
(4) The Canonization of al-Bukhari and Muslim: The Formation and Function of the Sunni Hadith Canon (Leiden: Brill, 2007). - Jonathan Brown