Sunday, 10 July 2011

American Christian Bigots and the Female Afghan Parliament Fight

Why does hatred for Islam and Muslims (Islamophobia) force American Christian bigots to fall off their rockers? The same bigot who believes there are some American Christians within his community who attack other Christians in order to convert Muslims to Trinitarian Christianity (essentially the worship of a man, Prophet Jesus, pbuh)!

So a small fight breaks out within the Afghan parliament between a couple of females MPs and this American Christian bigot starts blaming Islam. I’m not kidding, he really starts to blame Islam for this!

Over last couple of decades American Christians have been dropping bombs on the heads of Muslim men, women and children in a merciless fashion (as well as shooting, raping and torturing) yet I don’t see Muslims blaming Christianity for the American Christian acts of butchery. These are acts of butchery which American Christians are still perpetrating – I guess their thirst for blood, specifically Muslim blood, has not been quenched. Why don’t we not supply these crazed American Christians with violent video games in the stead of real life weaponry – it would be a lot safer for the rest of the world.

Christians fighting each other

Maybe the Christian bigot being addressed believes these Christians (see video below) are fighting each other (Christians vs. Christians) to help their efforts to convert Muslims to Trinitarian Christianity (essentially the worship of a man, Prophet Jesus PBUH), after all, he does espouse some real nutty views.

Our advice to this American Christian bigot is to forget about promoting bigotry by commenting on a small fight in the puppet parliament of Afghanistan (puppetry controlled by none other than American Christians) and concentrate your mind on why ‘holy spirit inspired Christians’ are fighting each other and butchering Muslims. Perhaps you would like to explain why the two World Wars were Christian on Christian battles? In order to do so coherently, you need to get back on your rocker…

Christians fight other Christians for the control of a church

Armenian and Greek Orthodox Christians clashed for the control of the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem's Old City
To watch the continuation of this confrontation:
http://www.acommonword.net/2011/07/orthodox-christians-beating-holy-hell.html



American Christian bigot Dave

As for the Christian bigot who was blaming Islam, here he is getting rebuked by a commentator:

Just had to comment on the latest addition to the bigot fest that is David Wood's blog...


*Female MPs Get into Cat Fight on Floor of Afghan Parliament*


Of course Wood attributes this incident to Islam and those who follow prophet Muhammad (saws)...you know, the usual reductive and bigoted nonsense.


But perhaps he would like to explain these examples using the same criteria?


America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlXKBribICs&feature=player_embedded


South Korea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHMrgwAuJ_U


Russia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGqa4ATZhC8&feature=player_embedded#at=13


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZGaaqH2o6I&feature=player_embedded#at=59


Ukraine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLfLT9xMVuo#


Because democracy doesn't change people's hearts. It simply brings to light the attitudes of the majority...isn't that right Dave?

[What's the betting on the American fundy Christian Dave censoring such a comment...]

The David Wood section

What every Christian should know about the Bible

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

83 comments:

Yahya Snow said...

The related story from Tolonews.com:

Some Afghan lawmakers on their Tuesday session called on President Karzai to step down amid growing tensions between executive, judiciary and legislative branches of the government.

Parliamentarians claimed that President Karzai is sick and has lost the capability to govern the nation.

Some lawmakers warned that if President Karzai refuses to step down, they will implement the article 69 of the constitution.

The article 69 of the Afghan constitution says president accused of crimes against humanity and national treason could be held responsible by one third of the members of the House of Representative that will follow his resignation in a grand council, Loya Jirga.

Government taking a silence stance against Pakistan missile attacks into Afghanistan and neglecting the demands of parliamentarians have left the House of Representatives infuriated.

"The country is in a very sensitive situation. Lots of things will happen this year from security handover, Core Group summit to conclusion of US-Afghan strategic partnership agreement," Mohammad Shahir Rafiq, an Afghan MP, said. "President Karzai has fallen sick and fails to govern the nation. He should respect the Afghan nation and step down."

Another Afghan MP, Samiullah Samimi, said: "The time has come for the implementation of article 69 of the constitution. The President wants to drag the country to instability, not stability.

Tuesday session of lawmakers ended up with violence between two female legislators.

But President Karzai said new tensions between parliament and justice institutions are because democracy is young in the country.

"This is a normal process of democracy in Afghanistan and every nation that steps into a democratic system should go through some challenges to reach maturity," President Karzai said.

President Karzai has previously accused Pakistan of firing 470 missiles into Afghanistan which was later denied by officials in Islamabad

Radical Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Erik Fadli said...

@Yahya,

Bizarre it may be but I would like to remind you of this Aayah:Q 2:120>
And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance..

Although some of the Christians are sincere God-loving open minded people and (eventually) will discover hidaayah to submit (to the will of One and Only true God), it is no surprise that the most religious of them ie the evangelistic type everywhere will not hesitate to distort, deceive and defame Islam/muslims in order to market their ideology.

The only problem is their devious tactics break every fundamental rule or human benevolence.

Your post is just an example of how Christians evangelist operate.
To understand more of their bigotry (and worldwide strategy) you may find the following interview interesting:
http://bit.ly/mVuO2r

Yahya Snow said...

@Erik Fadli

Thanks very much. May Allah bless you further. Ameen

@ Radical Moderate

You wrote:

@Yahya

I have to say I'm a little surprised by this Post. I figured you would of been using the cat fight video to prove that Islam does give woman rights.

They have the right to be just as violent as men.

To me the video proves my point, put Muslims in the room, leave them alone, and they will practice Islam on each other

Then you decided to insult Allah. When will you realise Jesus (p) used the word Allah for God and so too do Arab Christians. You do realise even your trinitarian version of Christianity will consider you a blasphemer based on such a moronic comment.

PS Ham is something Jesus (p) shunned. The man who you take for God shunned pork yet you are scoffing it down and even using it to base moronic and blasphemous insults upon.

Grow up spiritually as well as mentally.

You will have to leave yor ludicrous anti-muslim views at the door in order to do so...

Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Yahya said:

Ham is something Jesus (p) shunned.

Jesus however said:

quote:

And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
(Mark 7:18-19)

end quote:

I find it strange how someone who claims to respect Jesus would choose to misrepresent what he believed.

I guess that is why he also said

quote:

"'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"
(Matthew 15:8-9)


peace

Radical Moderate said...

WOW, again WOW.

HAM is blashemous to MUSLIMS AMAZING. All the nasty things that Muslims say about God's holy spirit, in this blog, and the thing that upsets the Snow Man is HAM. Even deletes my comment.

Simply amazing. FMM is right Jesus never said such a thing, and Jesus never called his father ALLAH. The name of the Father, the Name that he was given is YHWH.

Yahya Snow said...

@Radical Moderate,

Stop please stop. You did not simply mention 'ham' - you were isnulting the God of Jesus - I shall not repeat your insult. Stop with your silliness.

Your manipulations and 'playing dumb' charades further disprove your view that you are a 'holy spirit inspired Christian'. In fact, your behaviour is insulting to your faith. Think about it...

@FMM


Where does Jesus allow pork? You are simply using a quotation from an unreliable book (you know it's unrelaible as you have visited this blog in the past) and interjecting your own understanding into the text, NOWHERE in the text is Jesus claiming eating pork is allowed, take a look:

And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?"

Now, surely, Christians claim Jesus was a practicing Jew (a rabbi), thus Jesus was practicing Jewish dietry laws, hence a prohibition of pork on the part of Jesus.

Your alleged quote can be interpreted as the action does not defile but the intention. You stick your exegesis in parenthesis but you are simply basing your exegesis on wishful conjecture.

I ask you, the man (prophet Jesus) who you take for God, whilst on earth shunned prok yet you allow pork consumption. Is that not an issue...

Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

yahya says,

You stick your exegesis in parenthesis but you are simply basing your exegesis on wishful conjecture.

I say


It's not my "exegesis" it's the word of God found in the gospel according to Mark.

A book written hundreds of years closer to Jesus than your chosen text. A book that is attested by a very early and reliable witness to be the recollections of one Jesus’ closest disciples. A book that has been universally accepted by Christians from the beginning and never renounced as unreliable by the founder of your faith.

Feel free to disregard the Word of the God because you don't like what it says but please don’t expect God to honor that decision.

quote:

But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"
(Luke 11:28)

end quote:

Yahya said:

I ask you, the man (prophet Jesus) who you take for God, whilst on earth shunned prok yet you allow pork consumption. Is that not an issue...

I say,

First of all Jesus did not “shun” pork instead he pronounced it clean for us in this age.

I’ll agree that during his incarnation He did not eat pork but that does not prove anything.

He did not eat corn on the cob or tomatoes either but that does not mean that these things are to be shunned for us in the New Covenant.

As an Jew fulfilling the old covenant law perfectly Jesus did lots of thing that are not required of us today.

For starters he would not have gathered grain on the Sabbath but he had no problem when his followers did so (Luke 6:1-5).

This is because as the Mediator of new Covenant he is it’s law giver by right.

When folks deney him that honor by pretending that the teachings of men are God’s commands he is not pleased.

quote:

"What God has made clean, do not call common."
(Acts 10:15b)

end quote


Peace

sam shamoun suporter said...

New York--A Brooklyn high school dropout was convicted Thursday of conspiring to join a foreign terrorist group so he could kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Betim Kaziu faces life in prison for the jihadi adventure that took him to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and finally Kosovo - where he was arrested in 2009.

The jury deliberated less than four hours before reaching a verdict in the two-week trial in Brooklyn Federal Court.

Kaziu smiled and waved to his parents, who emigrated from Macedonia.

"I need my son home," Kaziu's father said outside court.

Kaziu, 23, wanted to become a member of the Taliban or the Somali-based Al Shabbab so he could die a Muslim martyr on a battlefield in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine or Africa.

"The defendant desired to wage jihad," Assistant U.S. Attorney Ali Kazemi said in his closing argument.

"He never intended to return to the United States. He hoped to die a martyr. "

Flush with cash from a court settlement for a playground accident, Kaziu traveled overseas with a buddy from Mill Basin who chickened out of the scheme and returned to Brooklyn to eventually became a government cooperator.

Defense lawyer Joshua Dratel argued that a trove of militant videos - including some from hate-spewing Osama bin Laden and Anwar Al-Awlaki - found on Kaziu's laptop computer don't make him a terrorist.

"Millions of people watch these videos and don't fight jihad," Dratel said.

Kaziu had made a so-called martyrdom video in Albania before he was arrested.

"I came here with the brothers to chill before I, God willing, depart," Kaziu said as he stood on a cliff above the sea. (Source

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah,

Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

"Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
(Mark 7:18-19)

Internal Conflict with in the 'Godhead' ? Yup you bet!

Looks like "God the Son" didn't quite care for what "God the Holy Spirit" had to say here:

Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood.(Acts 15:20 New Living Translation)

Or maybe that is just a general prohibition they didn't really mean that you have to abstain from sexual immorality etc..

Not only that but if we were to be really picky Mark 7:18-19 just shows you that Jesus couldn't have been 'all knowing' when he made that statement, because indeed what enters into your mouth DOES enter into your heart duh! It's called the pulmonary valve and your food is processed into minerals that travel through the blood stream!

Didn't the 'all knowing' understand that?

Fifth Monarchy Man when you can have Jesus and the Holy Spirit in blatant contradiction of one another please do come back so I can sort out your distorted hermenutic and your flawed attempt at exegesis.

Peace be unto you as well for what it is worth, however know that we have peace as our doctrine stands upon solid foundation.

However, you are searching and looking for truth as the consternation in your heart and mind concerning the conflict and confusion that is your doctrine drives you back to this blog time and again to seek clarification and elucidation.

May Allah open your heart and guide you!

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey GrandVerb


There is no contradiction here at all. You are confusing a declaration that all foods are clean with a compromise reached so that Gentile Christians could have fellowship with Jewish Christians. The two issues are not related.

As Christians we are free to eat what ever we want but sometimes we set aside that freedom so as not to be stumbling block to our weaker brothers.

Quote:

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
(Romans 14:13-23)

End quote:



Christians appeal to this principle all the time. for example I am convinced that it is not a sin to consume alcoholic beverages in moderation but I choose to obtain because some of my brothers disagree.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

GrandVerb said:

Or maybe that is just a general prohibition they didn't really mean that you have to abstain from sexual immorality etc..

I say:

The Greek word translated to “sexual immorality” is porneia it’s actually a very broad term meaning any kind of sexual deviance.

Often an act one culture considers to be out of bounds in this area another culture deems to be perfectly innocent for example many Christians I know consider dancing to be a sin because they believe it is primarily sexual in nature.

This part of the compromise simply means that Christians need to bend over backwards so that our actions don’t place stumbling blocks in the path of our weaker brothers when it comes to things like this.

P.S. Probably the specific reason porneia is mentioned in the context of the Jerusalem Compromise is because sexual perversion played a big part in the pagan rituals that the gentile Christians were escaping and would therefore be a major sticking point in the early church


Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

GrandVerb said:

because indeed what enters into your mouth DOES enter into your heart duh! It's called the pulmonary valve and your food is processed into minerals that travel through the blood stream!

I say:

You have got to be kidding.

If you are going to be so hyper literal as to not understand the metaphor of the heart as seat of human will and desire then all communication between us will be impossible

peace

Radical Moderate said...

@yahya snow

So calling Gods Holy spirit a liar, a demon, saying that his spirit inspires rapest and pedaphiles and all the other nasty things the spirit of Islam inspires Muslims on this blog to say about the holy spirit, does not phase you. But I mention Ham, and Allah in the same sentence and its like I called for the 5th Crusade. LOL YOu need to stop and htink. Get your priorities straight.


I do have a question, will there be pork in Allahs paradise, if not then why not. Since everthing esle on earth that is Haram is Hala in Allah's presence, then why not some tasty BBQ ribs, or Pulled Pork, or bacon, sausage, slow smoked ham... I think its time for lunch.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth said:

As Christians we are free to eat what ever we want but sometimes we set aside that freedom so as not to be stumbling block to our weaker brothers.

Lupus said:

So you can eat shit if you want? I just want to get an idea of what kind of religion you're following.

Lupus el Lobo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth said:

There is no contradiction here at all. You are confusing a declaration that all foods are clean with a compromise reached so that Gentile Christians could have fellowship with Jewish Christians. The two issues are not related.

Lupus said:

But why is this compromise needed if Jesus so clearly declared all foods clean.
Would you count Peter among the weaker brothers who still followed the Jewish dietary laws?

Radical Moderate said...

@Lopus

Another foul mouthed Muslim. And no rebuke from Yahya Snow. I wouldnt expect anything less.

I mean its not like Lopus wrote Ham and Allah in sthe same sentence

Lupus el Lobo said...

Rad said:

Another foul mouthed Muslim. And no rebuke from Yahya Snow. I wouldnt expect anything less.

Lupus replied:

I asked a valid question. In what way am I a foul mouthed Muslim? You guys say you can eat anything. I'm just trying to figure out how far your interpretation of the NT can be extended.

Radmod, can't we just be friends?

Speak said...

Lupus said: "So you can eat shit if you want?"..."You guys say you can eat anything."

If you are holding a copy of the New Testament...please put it down. It was designed for someone with at least a sliver of common sense. I'm afraid you might hurt yourself. No one in their right mind reads the Gospel of Mark and assumes it means people should eat things like glass, garbage, dirt, or excrement. Read the verse again. It specifically says "foods". Is excrement food?

How many years did it take for Islam to corrode your brain so thouroughly that you are without rational and independant decision making power when reading the meaning of a text?

And yes Lupus, Radical Moderate is right. You are foul mouthed. There are a number of acceptable and polite ways to describe fecal matter in English that do not involve using vulgarities fit for a bar-room, back alley, or brothel (and if you are a representative sample, perhaps local mosque?).

Radical Moderate said...

@Lopus

You wrote...

"Radmod, can't we just be friends?"

No we can't your allah forbids it

Radical Moderate said...

Now Speak and I could be good friends lol.

Well said very well said.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

lupus said:

But why is this compromise needed if Jesus so clearly declared all foods clean.

I say:

Because some Christian’s faith was weak in this area (Romans 14:1-2)That is why we often don’t exercise our freedoms even today.

Christianity is very different from Islam in this regard.

Our focus in our relationships is not on selfishly doing the minimum required to get ourselves to heaven but instead on bearing one another’s burdens (Romans 15:1,Galations 6:2,Philipans 2 etc etc etc).

you said:

Would you count Peter among the weaker brothers who still followed the Jewish dietary laws?

I say,

If I had to speculate I would say it depended on the company he was keeping at the time. Peter had a big problem with peer pressure.

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

you said:


So you can eat shit if you want?

I say:

"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything. "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food"--and God will destroy both one and the other.
(1 Corinthians 6:12-13a)

peace

Lupus el Lobo said...

Radmon said:

Now Speak and I could be good friends lol.

Lupus:

First of all you are no authority on what my religion commands me to do.
So I still want to be your friend. My invitation still stands.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Speak said
If you are holding a copy of the New Testament...please put it down. It was designed for someone with at least a sliver of common sense. I'm afraid you might hurt yourself. No one in their right mind reads the Gospel of Mark and assumes it means people should eat things like glass, garbage, dirt, or excrement. Read the verse again. It specifically says "foods". Is excrement food?

Lupus:

Does it now some scholars interpret the passagse as follows: "This is how everything we eat is purified"

We all know how some christians like to translate the text to fit their preconceived ideas.

There are loads of things that you guys eat or dink that are not helpful. For instance alcohol. I just wan't to know how you on the basis of the NT come to the conclusion that you can't eat feces (reader you were right I should've used this word form the start).

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth said:

Peter had a big problem with peer pressure.

Lupus:

So the rock of Christianity had a problem with peer pressure. Talk about insulting your own holy men. A more convincing explanation is that James and Peter were not aware of a command from Jesus that allowed all foods and therefore contested the issue.
The main material you bring fourth for the case that all things are lawful come from Paul. Paul mainly preached to the gentiles. The compromise is suspiciously similar to the Noahide Laws. Even the Jews had no qualms about making the religion easier for gentiles. That doesn't mean that they thought that they should follow those laws.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah,

Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Fifth Monarchy Man you are honestly THE MOST respectful Christian I have come across thus far on this blog.

Now I have no idea what you may or may not have said in the past but I am dealing with you as you are now. Not the man yesterday but with the respect and manner you are conducting yourself today. Al hamdulillah!

So I wanted to say that from the get-go.

That said, I guess the problem that I have with your interpretation is that I do not find it consistent.

For example you say,

"You have got to be kidding.

If you are going to be so hyper literal as to not understand the metaphor of the heart as seat of human will and desire then all communication between us will be impossible"

I think this is very fair and very reasonable on your behalf. However, the problem that I have is that your willing to see one half of Jesus statement as not being hyper literal; however you take the first part of Jesus statement as hyper literal (i.e you can eat what you want).

The problem that I have is that you do not apply a consistent interpretation to the text.

If you read the whole context of Mark chapter 7 you can clearly see that Jesus was not talking about food per say as he was talking about the tradition of the elders because they had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen hands.

To take Jesus response to that statement as a license to go out and eat pork, meat sacrificed to idols and blood is to not only take the text to a literal extremism but it is to miss the context of Jesus response to the elders entirely!

So I will agree with what you say above because it is quite rational mash'Allah.

However, where I disagree respectfully is the inconsistency in the exegesis and the ignoring of the context of Jesus statement.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

lupus said:

So the rock of Christianity had a problem with peer pressure. Talk about insulting your own holy men.

I say;

This is another difference between our two religions. Islam seems to view it’s “holy men” as some sort of one dimensional robotic mouth piece for Allah while in Christianity Prophets and Apostles are living breathing human beings with personalities and faults just like the rest of us.

You say:

A more convincing explanation is that James and Peter were not aware of a command from Jesus that allowed all foods and therefore contested the issue.

I say,

Think about the sheer improbability of this conspiracy theory.

You are asking us to believe that the original disciples of Jesus allowed Paul a new comer who had just a few years before been persecuting the community to convince them to drop an important aspect of their religion for no good reason.

And then you would have us believe the community deliberately altered the record to put the words in Jesus’ mouth and then they proceed to unnecessarily suffer great persecution from their own countrymen because of their abandonment of Kosher.

You want us to believe this despite zero evidence. And you think this is a more convincing explanation than Peter being a little shy about his diet around his Jewish kin.

Amazing


Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

grandverb said

Fifth Monarchy Man you are honestly THE MOST respectful Christian I have come across thus far on this blog.

I say:

thank you for the compliment.

by the grace of God I am what I am
(1 Corinthians 15:10a)

I will be very busy for the next few days I'll respond to your post when I can

peace

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth said:

And then you would have us believe the community deliberately altered the record to put the words in Jesus’ mouth and then they proceed to unnecessarily suffer great persecution from their own countrymen because of their abandonment of Kosher.

Lupus said:

Well there are forgeries in the NT so that proposition isn't as far fetched as you would want it to be.
Moreover, actually I don't think Paul actually met Peter and James. I think that there were competing Christianities and that Pauline Christianity simply won because he bet on the winning horse, the gentiles in the Roman empire.
That Paul or somebody else would have invented a story about Peter finally accepting a compromise isn't very hard to believe since it would legitimize Pauline view of Kosher. The account of when and how Paul met with James and Peter isn't exactly consistent.
As you said yourself: "This is another difference between our two religions. Islam seems to view it’s “holy men” as some sort of one dimensional robotic mouth piece for Allah while in Christianity Prophets and Apostles are living breathing human beings with personalities and faults just like the rest of us."
why trust Paul or the other forgers who wrote in his or other apostles names?

Speak said...

Lupus: "(reader you were right I should've used this word form the start)."

I commend you for be willing to admit an error. I also want to apologize for suggesting your brain to be "corroded". That was uncalled for and unnecessary. There are better ways to get my point across.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Speak,

Thanks!

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Lupis said:

Well there are forgeries in the NT

I say:

What actual evidence do you have for this belief?

Lupis said

Moreover, actually I don't think Paul actually met Peter and James.

I say:

Again this is simply a leap of blind faith that you have no evidence to support.

To hold to this belief you must believe that every witness to what happened in the early Church we have are lying.

If Paul and Luke (and Peter) and the community were going to lie like that why did they not go all the way and make Paul into Jesus’ best friend and trusted companion.

Like all conspiracy theories in order for your story to be true literally hundreds of individuals needed to be in on the lie and to keep the secret to their grave.

You say:

I think that there were competing Christianities and that Pauline Christianity simply won

I say,

Again you have no evidence at all for this.

In order for your story to be true you must believe that “true” Christianity disappeared extremely quickly leaving no trace of it’s existence. No Churches no writings no trace whatsoever.

Yet at the same time weird off shoots of Christianity like Gnosticism managed to thrive for hundreds of years interacting with so called “Pauline” Christianity and leaving plenty of writings for us to examine and even physical evidence.

The sheer improbability of such a conspiracy boggles the mind.

It would be like me claiming that there were competing Islams and the true Trinitarian Islam that Muhammad actually founded was suppressed by the Ultman and his followers.


Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Grand verb said:

the problem that I have is that your willing to see one half of Jesus statement as not being hyper literal; however you take the first part of Jesus statement as hyper literal (i.e you can eat what you want).

I say:

I never claimed that we can eat what we want. I thought I made it clear that I believe it is a sin to eat anything that causes a weak brother to stumble and that all kinds of things are unhealthy to eat.

I only claimed that Jesus declared all foods clean because we are not defiled by what goes into our mouths but by what comes from our hearts

That is what the Word of God plainly says


Grand verb says,

To take Jesus response to that statement as a license to go out and eat pork, meat sacrificed to idols and blood is to not only take the text to a literal extremism but it is to miss the context of Jesus response to the elders entirely!


I say,

Actually to claim that certain foods are unclean by their nature is to totally miss Jesus' point that what matters is the heart and not the stomach.

The larger context of all of the Gospel is that God is interested in hearts and not rituals and taboos.

peace

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth said:

To hold to this belief you must believe that every witness to what happened in the early Church we have are lying.

Lupus replied:

What witnesses are you talking about. Paul sent letters to gentiles hundred of miles away. Evidently these gentiles also received rival teachings which means that there were rival understandings of Christianity. These people had no way of knowing whether Paul told the truth or not. Were there witnesses to Paul's conversion? How many independent sources verify that Paul actually met the Elders?

Fifth said:
In order for your story to be true you must believe that “true” Christianity disappeared extremely quickly leaving no trace of it’s existence. No Churches no writings no trace whatsoever.

Lupus said:

Go read all the ancient Christian books that refute heresies. There were tons of Christianities in addition to the Gnostics. There are tons of texts that are lost. Again read the works of the church fathers.

Fifth said:

It would be like me claiming that there were competing Islams and the true Trinitarian Islam that Muhammad actually founded was suppressed by the Ultman and his followers.

Lupus replied:

Well, I think you're exagerating a tad bit. A Islam that even remotley fits that description has never been described in any ancient sources. However, a form of Christianity that is similar to the Islamic understanding of the true teaching of Jesus has been described by your own Church fathers.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

lupus said:

What witnesses are you talking about.

I say,



By Witness I mean all early Christian and non Christian writings that mention Christianity none of these describe an “Islamic” Christianity.

you said:

Paul sent letters to gentiles hundred of miles away.

I say,

At this time in history travel in the roman empire was routine Paul visited the churches he wrote to multiple times. In his letter to Galatia he mentions interactions he had with Peter at the same location he was writing too. In order for your conspiracy theory to be true those churches would have to be in on the lie.

Luke traveled with Paul to Jerusalem and met with the leaders of the Church his account would also have to be entirely fictitious.

Instead of writing an easy lie like “Paul was with the disciples from the beginning” according to your theory Luke for some reason chose to construct an elaborate story in which Paul started out as an enemy of Christ and only later became a friend.

We even have a non canonical letter from Rome written just a few years after the their martyrdom to urge the Corinthian church to reconcile during a time of conflict in which the deaths of Peter and Paul are described in the same breath yet absolutely no mention is made of conflict between them and they are both listed as pillars and heroes of the faith.

Quote:

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.

End quote:

It doesen't sould like he is discribibg bitter rivals now does it?

You said:

Evidently these gentiles also received rival teachings which means that there were rival understandings of Christianity.

I say:

The rival understandings you refer to only amounted to the demand that Gentile Christians become Jews they don’t remotely resemble Islam.


You say:

However, a form of Christianity that is similar to the Islamic understanding of the true teaching of Jesus has been described by your own Church fathers.


I say:

Do you mean the Ebionites and Nazarenes? If so I think you are reading your own presuppositions into the evidence. These groups have only a very superficial similarity to Islam they much more closely resemble today’s Messianic Jews.

Besides they are not even mentioned till the 2nd century long after the disciples were dead and are even associated with some gnostic beliefs.

Hardly some sort of "true" Christanity that any muslim would want to immulate.


Peace

Lupus el Lobo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth said:

In his letter to Galatia he mentions interactions he had with Peter at the same location he was writing too.

Lupus replied:

Could you please give me the reference?

Basically your argument is that Luke witnessed the meeting between Paul and the elders. Luke's account of the first meeting is different from Paul's. This doesn't sound like a reliable account to me. Furthermore, Luke seems to follow Pauline Christianity and isn't an independent testimony.

Your second argument is that some sources don't mention any conflict between Paul and the elders. So what? Who says these sources did not stem from Pauline Christianity. Moreover, in addition to Luke who else in the NT claims that Paul was an apostle of Jesus? I'm not saying the NT is reliable but I only want to get at how consitent it is.

Fifth said:
Do you mean the Ebionites and Nazarenes? If so I think you are reading your own presuppositions into the evidence. These groups have only a very superficial similarity to Islam they much more closely resemble today’s Messianic Jews.

Besides they are not even mentioned till the 2nd century long after the disciples were dead and are even associated with some gnostic beliefs.

Lupus replied:

Just because they were mentioned in the second century doesn't mean that they didn't exist before that time. Moreover, almost all scholars agree that we don't know much about the ebionites and the nazarenees. What we know come from their enemies and such info is rarely very reliable. My point is that there were many competing Christianities from the very beginning. Even Paul admits that and it's not clear from his writings exactly what they preached and it's possible that one of this group were the "Islamic" Christians.
In any case the problem with Christianity are two:

1. First the trinity which exact definition wasn't settled until about 300 years after Jesus' death.
2. The unreliability of the NT and the OT.

Sorry I wan't to add one more problem, namely that so much of Christian theology and ritual come not from Jesus, but from a third party who never even met Jesus.

Lastly, you said that why Paul went through the trouble of making up a complecated story instead of just saying that he was with Jesus from the beginning. Well, that's how you make good forgeries. Read Ehrman, the Christian forgeries used such devices all the time to make their forgeries more credible. Another explanation might be that the gentiles had some superficial knowledge about Jesus and his life and any lie wouldn't work. Moreover, he realy exerts himself to convince the gentiles that he was a true apostle. The question is why?

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Lupus,

I really appreciate your patience with me. I am very very busy at the moment and for the next week or so So please again excuse my brevity and forgive me if I miss somthing.

You said,

Could you please give me the reference?

I say,

Quote:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;
(Galatians 2:11-15)

End quote:

You said:

Luke's account of the first meeting is different from Paul's. This doesn't sound like a reliable account to me.

I say,

That is because Luke and Paul are relating accounts of different meetings. It’s your presuppositions that drive you minimize the contact between the apostles and therefore confound two meetings into one

You say,

Luke seems to follow Pauline Christianity and isn't an independent testimony.


I say,

Here your bias begins to really show itself. You assume there is secret plot called “Pauline Christianity” and when presented with evidence that disputes this you assume it must all be part of the conspiracy.

More later

peace

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth,

No problems take your time.

As for the supposed meeting in Antioch with Peter we have no way of knowing whether the recepients had any first hand knowledge of such a meeting. The recepient church could be any church in Galatia (if it was even sent there in the first place). Moreover, he talks about the Antioch christians in the third person which suggests that the recepients were not present. If they were present he would have used the second person pronoun. Lastly, he seems to be informing them what happened and thus presupposing this was new info.

As for your "you're biased arguments" I won't address them since you don't seem to provide any concrete arguments for me to address.

Thanks

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

you say,

So what? Who says these sources did not stem from Pauline Christianity.

I say,

Again for the conspiracy theorist everyone who disagrees must be in on the secret. If I was so inclined I could say the same for the Muslim sources.

"They can’t be trusted because they stem from Ultman’s Islam so of course they would have hidden all information about the true original Trinitarian Islam that Muhammad founded."

you said,

Moreover, in addition to Luke who else in the NT claims that Paul was an apostle of Jesus?

I say,

How about Peter?

quote:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:15-16)

end quote:

You say,

Just because they were mentioned in the second century doesn't mean that they didn't exist before that time.

And:

First the trinity which exact definition wasn't settled until about 300 years after Jesus' death.


I say

It is often said that inconsistency is the surest sign of a failed argument.

You believe there was a 1st century edionite Christianity even though there is no record of it’s existence. And at the same time you deny the Trinity was defined before the third century simply because we have no record of it.

Can you not see the inconsistency?

You said,

Sorry I wan't to add one more problem, namely that so much of Christian theology and ritual come not from Jesus, but from a third party who never even met Jesus.

I say,

Of course you know that Christian’s would disagree with the entire premise of this statement.

We believe that Paul did meet Jesus and we believe that Paul was not the originator of any Christian doctrine or ritual.

You say,

Lastly, you said that why Paul went through the trouble of making up a complecated story instead of just saying that he was with Jesus from the beginning. Well, that's how you make good forgeries

I say,

Those crafty “Pauline Christians” they make their hero’s story seem suspect so that more people will believe it.

Can you not see how ludicrous your explanation sounds to those with out your bias?

You say,

Moreover, he realy exerts himself to convince the gentiles that he was a true apostle. The question is why?

I say,

Any objective observer would realize it was because he believed he was being challenged by people who had no authority to do so.

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

you said,

The recepient church could be any church in Galatia (if it was even sent there in the first place).

I say,

For some reason you act as if the Roman empire were the Amazon jungle or the moon.

Churches did not exist in isolation. Travel and communication between the churches was easy and happened all the time.

If Paul was lying about somthing as public as this happening in Antioch Christians in nearby Iconum or lystra would know about it.

Come on, use your head man.

peace

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth said:
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:15-16)

Lupus said:

The epistle is a forgery according to Ehrman. Furthermore, he is not even called an apostle.

You said:

Those crafty “Pauline Christians” they make their hero’s story seem suspect so that more people will believe it.

Lupus said:

It's funny you use the word suspicious. Do you think his story is suspicious? There are two possibilities either they wrote the store in such a way as to give the impression that no one would make up such a story or the story is patchy and odd because the recepients had some knowledge about the life of Jesus, for instance who his disciples were and that Paul had to navigate between what they knew.

Thanks

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth said:
Churches did not exist in isolation. Travel and communication between the churches was easy and happened all the time.

If Paul was lying about somthing as public as this happening in Antioch Christians in nearby Iconum or lystra would know about it.

Lupus said:

Would they? How do you know? Misinformation is spread all the time even in today's day and age.
Fifth, it's not that I don't believe in the Bible because of my theories about Paul. My disbelief stems from numerous problems with authenticity, theology, Paul's authority etc.
Fifth please spare us from "you're not objective arguments". I think we both are rather subjective.
I'm however objective when it comes to the authenticity and lack of internal consistency of the Bible but not when it comes to whether there was a muslim christianity. That's to a large extent based on faith.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth said:
Churches did not exist in isolation. Travel and communication between the churches was easy and happened all the time.

If Paul was lying about somthing as public as this happening in Antioch Christians in nearby Iconum or lystra would know about it.

Lupus said:

Would they? How do you know? Misinformation is spread all the time even in today's day and age.
Fifth, it's not that I don't believe in the Bible because of my theories about Paul. My disbelief stems from numerous problems with authenticity, theology, Paul's authority etc.
Fifth please spare us from "you're not objective arguments". I think we both are rather subjective.
I'm however objective when it comes to the inauthenticity and lack of internal consistency of the Bible but not when it comes to whether there was a muslim christianity. That's to a large extent based on faith.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

lupus said,

The epistle is a forgery according to Ehrman.

I reaize:

You do realize that Ehrman is an agnostic apostate on a antichristian mission and that no Christian recognizes as an authority on these kinds of issues.

His expertise is only in textual criticism. His theories on the authorship of books are just speculation.

If you are going to reject 2nd Peter you need to offer evidence and not just an appeal to a dubious authority


You said,

Furthermore, he is not even called an apostle

I say,

Do you understand what the term Apostle means?

Under the new covenant a person can not write scripture if they are not acting with the authority of a apostle. When Peter says that Paul received wisdom and wrote scripture he is calling him an apostle


More later


Peace

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth said:

Under the new covenant a person can not write scripture if they are not acting with the authority of a apostle. When Peter says that Paul received wisdom and wrote scripture he is calling him an apostle

Lupus said:

I rather believe a Scholar who has devoted his life to the study of the Bible than someone who believes the entire Bible riddled with forgeries and contradictions is from God.
Moreover, he does give evidence and also gives an overview of what other scholars think about the matter.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You said,

Do you think his story is suspicious?

I say,

I think that to an enemy of Paul the story would sound more suspicious than simply saying that Paul was with the disciples from the beginning.

There were 70 unnamed followers that Jesus sent out to spread the gospel. If you were just concocting a story in order to gain acceptance Why not just say that Paul was one of this number.

You say,

it's not that I don't believe in the Bible because of my theories about Paul. My disbelief stems from numerous problems with authenticity, theology, Paul's authority etc.


I say,

It seems to me that you disbelieve the Bible mostly because you don’t like what it says.

You say,

I think we both are rather subjective.

I say,

I would agree that each of us start with presuppositions. I just feel that you can’t live consistently with yours.

That is why you are forced to do things like reject an early definition of the trinity because there is no record of it while at the same time believe in “Islamic Christianity” despite a the same lack of record.

You say,

I'm however objective when it comes to the inauthenticity and lack of internal consistency of the Bible

I say,

I hold the Bible to the same standard as I do any ancient text. When I come across an apparent difficulty I let the bible interpret itself and give it’s authors the benefit of the doubt unless I have reason not to. I do the same for all books.


It is you who inconsistently hold the Bible to a higher standard than you do your own Quran.

You say,


but not when it comes to whether there was a muslim christianity. That's to a large extent based on faith.


I say,

Here is another difference between our faiths.

For the Christian having “faith” does not mean accepting something against the evidence it means trusting Jesus to keep his promises precisely because of the evidence


Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You say,

I rather believe a Scholar who has devoted his life to the study of the Bible than someone who believes the entire Bible riddled with forgeries and contradictions is from God.

I say

Exactly my point. You believe him because he does not accept the Bible.

There are plenty of scholars who accept 2nd Peter as authentic but you do not accept their opinion because they disagree with you.

You say,

Moreover, he does give evidence and also gives an overview of what other scholars think about the matter.

I say,

Why not present the evidence and let others evaluate the case instead of just appealing to authority

Peace

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth, first I would like to start out by complementing you about your manners. You're one of the few Christians on this site that adheres to a polite tone. It makes it much more enjoyable to discuss things with such a person.

You said:

It seems to me that you disbelieve the Bible mostly because you don’t like what it says.

I say:

To be honest that is only partly true. I find many of the stories about Jesus very fascinating. The main objection with the content is in the Pauline material.

You said:

It is you who inconsistently hold the Bible to a higher standard than you do your own Quran.

I say:

This is quite an interesting question. If I may be a bit objective most Scholars would say that the prophet wrote the Quran. Maybe this is your view as well. Let's work from that premise. If that is the case then objectively we can be pretty sure about who wrote the Quran. By objective I mean here that I put myself in the position of someone who doesn't believe that the Quran is inspired which is the case with a majority of secular scholars. So even from this perspective the Quran has a great deal of authenticity in terms of knowing who the author is.
The problem with the Bible is that not only is that lacking but there are clear examples of forgery or insertions that even Christians would recognize.
After having read the Quran I can with certainty exclude the Prophet due to numerous reasons. I won't bother you with those reasons as I gather you are fairly familiar with the arguments.

You said:

Why not present the evidence and let others evaluate the case instead of just appealing to authority.

I say:

Actually Fifth that is a valid point. I'll try to find his arguments and present them to you.

Thanks

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You said,

You're one of the few Christians on this site that adheres to a polite tone.

I say,

The internet seems to bring out the worst in both sides of this debate I'm afraid.

Not to make excuses for my brothers and sisters but you need to understand that we believe that the core of your religion is nothing but an disrespectful blasphemy of our Lord and Savior.

Repeated in your face proclamation that the Lord of the universe is a mere prophet tends to make Christians a little irritable.

Nothing but God’s amazing grace keeps me from going off sometimes here as well.

You say,

I find many of the stories about Jesus very fascinating.

I say,

This is the typical response that I hear from nonbelievers. As much as they refuse Jesus his rightful place as Lord there is something about him that is universally appealing.

You say,

The main objection with the content is in the Pauline material.

You say

You say that now but this conversation began because you rejected the Gospel of Mark and I bet there is not a single Biblical book you would accept as written.

You say,

most Scholars would say that the prophet wrote the Quran. Maybe this is your view as well. Let's work from that premise


I say,

not so fast

As you know I believe that appealing to authority is not a valid way to move a discussion forward so I am not at all impressed as to what 51 percent of scholars believe. Scholarly consensus changes more than the weather

To be consistent in your approach you must begin as an agnostic as to whether Mohammed wrote the Quran.

Before we can even begin you need to provide evidence as to the authorship of your text. Once you do that we can compare it with the evidence I have for the NT

What have you got?

Peace

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth said:

Not to make excuses for my brothers and sisters but you need to understand that we believe that the core of your religion is nothing but an disrespectful blasphemy of our Lord and Savior.

Repeated in your face proclamation that the Lord of the universe is a mere prophet tends to make Christians a little irritable.

Lupus say:

Who are we?

You said:
You say that now but this conversation began because you rejected the Gospel of Mark and I bet there is not a single Biblical book you would accept as written.

I say:
You said I don't like the content and I responded to that. I've already said why I don't believe in the authenticity of the Bible. Who wrote the gospel of mark?

You said:

As you know I believe that appealing to authority is not a valid way to move a discussion forward so I am not at all impressed as to what 51 percent of scholars believe. Scholarly consensus changes more than the weather.

I say:

You wan't me to provide evidence. When I appeal to authority you brush it off. Here you are making claims that I'm supposed to accept at face value. Provide proof that the concensus concerning the authorship of the Quran has changed among secular scholars.

Whatever the case might be as you know I don't believe our Prophet wrote the Quran so I'll give you evidence of it's divine origin. Is that ok with you.

Thanks

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Lupus,

I almost forgot about this question

When I said that Churches did not exist in isolation and if Paul was lying about a public event that happened in one congregation a neighboring congregation would know.

You asked…..


Would they? How do you know? Misinformation is spread all the time even in today's day and age.

I say,

One reason I know is to look at the greetings at the end of the epistles.

For example when Paul wrote to the Roman church, a church that he had never visited he greeted almost 30 friends that were already there. Even today it would be amazing to know 30 people in a town you have never been too.

There is other evidence as well like the allowances made for traveling preachers mentioned in the didache

Contact between the early churches was ubiquitous and continual.

You said:

Who are we?

I say,

I’m not sure I understand the question could you elaborate?


Who wrote the gospel of mark?

I say,

Quote:


Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered.

End quote:

Papais

You say,

Provide proof that the concensus concerning the authorship of the Quran has changed among secular scholars.

I say,

I am not aware of much skeptical scholarship about the Quran whatsoever. In Muslim countries it would not be allowed and western scholars have not as far as I know found the topic interesting

Your scholar of choice Ehrman will not even offer speculation on the subject.

I however was talking about scholarly consensus in general. Surely you would agree that it is ever in flux.

you say,

Whatever the case might be as you know I don't believe our Prophet wrote the Quran so I'll give you evidence of it's divine origin. Is that ok with you.

I say,

Not so fast

If you are being consistent in your approach before you discuss the origin of the Quran you need to prove that it has not been corrupted and that the Quran you have today has no additions or subtractions from the original.


Peace

Lupus el Lobo said...

You said:
I however was talking about scholarly consensus in general. Surely you would agree that it is ever in flux.

I say:

Well we aren't talking about scholarly consencus in general.

Concerning Mark, there is one source that claims it was written by John Mark, namely Papias. He bases this on second hand info. Moreover, the identity of the presbyter John as John the apostle is questioned by Eusebius. Moreover, how do we know that the gospel Papias talks about is the same as the one we have today. His description doesn't agree with the gospel we have today.

You said:
If you are being consistent in your approach before you discuss the origin of the Quran you need to prove that it has not been corrupted and that the Quran you have today has no additions or subtractions from the original.

I say:

Ok, let's start there. There are numerous hadiths describing the compilation of the Quran. There is and was a strong tradition of memorizing the quran. There are no differences between old manuscripts and the ones we have today.

Lupus el Lobo said...

You said:

we believe that the core of your religion is nothing but an disrespectful blasphemy of our Lord and Savior.

I say:

Who're we? Christians in general or fundamentalist Christians? The reason I'm asking is that most christians I've discussed Islam and Christianity do not have this view. The only Christians who seem to have this view are fundamentalist christians of various sects.

Lupus el Lobo said...

You said:
If you are being consistent in your approach before you discuss the origin of the Quran you need to prove that it has not been corrupted and that the Quran you have today has no additions or subtractions from the original.

I say:

Do you believe this to be the case with the Bible? A simple yes or no will do.

Lupus el Lobo said...

I just wan't to add that up to date 90% of the quran is present in manuscripts dated to within the first century of the Hijra.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You said,

There are numerous hadiths describing the compilation of the Quran.

I say,

If we use your approach we will have to reject the hadiths because they come from the mainstream ultman form of Islam and therefore can’t be trusted

You said,

There is and was a strong tradition of memorizing the quran.


I say,

Memorizing leaves zero physical evidence of the original Quran. All it takes is one corrupted “Ultman” Quran to destroy a chain of memorization


You say,

There are no differences between old manuscripts and the ones we have today.

How many manuscripts do you have from before Ultman destroyed the all the Qurans that he did not like?

You said,

Who're we? Christians in general or fundamentalist Christians?

I say,

Christians in general you can’t be a Christian and not believe in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The same way you can’t be a Muslim and believe that Jesus is Lord.

You say,

Do you believe this to be the case with the Bible? A simple yes or no will do.

I say,

Yes,

I believe that Jesus can be trusted to keep his promise to preserve his word. Remember I’m speaking of his God’s word and not a particular translation or manuscript.

You say,

I just wan't to add that up to date 90% of the quran is present in manuscripts dated to within the first century of the Hijra.


I say,

I hope you would agree that the manuscript evidence for the Bible is many times stronger than that of the Quran.

Peace

Lupus el Lobo said...

You said:

If we use your approach we will have to reject the hadiths because they come from the mainstream ultman form of Islam and therefore can’t be trusted

I say:

In what way do they come from Uthman form of Islam. What's your evidence?

You said:
Memorizing leaves zero physical evidence of the original Quran. All it takes is one corrupted “Ultman” Quran to destroy a chain of memorization

I say:

Does it now? First you have to prove this assertion of yours. Moreover, if that was the case surely those who knew the pre-Uthmanic quran would object.

You said:

How many manuscripts do you have from before Ultman destroyed the all the Qurans that he did not like?

I say:

Thanks, for acknowledging that the Quran has been preserved at least after the Uthmanic-compilation. So Muslims have been able to preserve it for about 1400 years but failed do preserve the pre-uthmanic one for only about 15 years? I don't think so.
Lastly, what evidence do you have for the claim that he burned manuscripts he didn't like. Surely, you must have at least one credible source.

You said:

Christians in general you can’t be a Christian and not believe in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The same way you can’t be a Muslim and believe that Jesus is Lord.

I say:

Not so fast. You know the context of my question. Is it a fundamental doctrine of Christianity to be rude and insult Islam whenever a muslim says that Jesus is a prophet? That's what your bible says as well. I think this is a characteristic of fundie Christians, or at least some. I don't want to generalize too much like them.

You said:
I believe that Jesus can be trusted to keep his promise to preserve his word. Remember I’m speaking of his God’s word and not a particular translation or manuscript.

I say:

That's a very cheap argument. I can take the easy route and say that I know the Quran is authentic because God said so, but I don't because I thought we could have a honest discussion.
However, I commend you for acknowledging that there are problems with particular manuscripts and translations. As far as I know those exact manuscripts and translations are the medium of what you claim to be God's words. If you can't trust the medium then you can't be sure exactly what is from God.

You said:

I hope you would agree that the manuscript evidence for the Bible is many times stronger than that of the Quran.

I say:

No!

Thanks

Lupus el Lobo said...

You said:

If we use your approach we will have to reject the hadiths because they come from the mainstream ultman form of Islam and therefore can’t be trusted

I say:

In what way do they come from Uthman form of Islam. What's your evidence?

You said:
Memorizing leaves zero physical evidence of the original Quran. All it takes is one corrupted “Ultman” Quran to destroy a chain of memorization

I say:

Does it now? First you have to prove this assertion of yours. Moreover, if that was the case surely those who knew the pre-Uthmanic quran would object.

You said:

How many manuscripts do you have from before Ultman destroyed the all the Qurans that he did not like?

I say:

Thanks, for acknowledging that the Quran has been preserved at least after the Uthmanic-compilation. So Muslims have been able to preserve it for about 1400 years but failed do preserve the pre-uthmanic one for only about 15 years? I don't think so.
Lastly, what evidence do you have for the claim that he burned manuscripts he didn't like. Surely, you must have at least one credible source.

You said:

Christians in general you can’t be a Christian and not believe in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The same way you can’t be a Muslim and believe that Jesus is Lord.

I say:

Not so fast. You know the context of my question. Is it a fundamental doctrine of Christianity to be rude and insult Islam whenever a muslim says that Jesus is a prophet? That's what your bible says as well. I think this is a characteristic of fundie Christians, or at least some. I don't want to generalize too much like them.

You said:
I believe that Jesus can be trusted to keep his promise to preserve his word. Remember I’m speaking of his God’s word and not a particular translation or manuscript.

I say:

That's a very cheap argument. I can take the easy route and say that I know the Quran is authentic because God said so, but I don't because I thought we could have a honest discussion.
However, I commend you for acknowledging that there are problems with particular manuscripts and translations. As far as I know those exact manuscripts and translations are the medium of what you claim to be God's words. If you can't trust the medium then you can't be sure exactly what is from God.

You said:

I hope you would agree that the manuscript evidence for the Bible is many times stronger than that of the Quran.

I say:

No!

Thanks

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

you say,

In what way do they come from Uthman form of Islam. What's your evidence?

I say,

I have none but then again you have no proof that the Christian sources you reject are "Pauline" yet you reject them none the less. I’m only asking you to be consistent

you say,

Is it a fundamental doctrine of Christianity to be rude and insult Islam whenever a muslim says that Jesus is a prophet?

I say,

It is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity that Jesus is Lord therefore to say that he is merely a prophet is blasphemy plain and simple. Another related blasphemy that is often committed by Muslims here is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

I agree that Christians should not be rude but you need to understand where that temptation comes from.

I say,

Thanks, for acknowledging that the Quran has been preserved at least after the Uthmanic-compilation.

I say,

I don't recall making any such statment. Please don't put words in my mouth.

more later

peace

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth said:

I have none but then again you have no proof that the Christian sources you reject are "Pauline" yet you reject them none the less. I’m only asking you to be consistent

I say:

There's a big difference. Uthman never claimed to receive revelation from God. He never formulated islamic doctrine.
Moreover, there are different stories about how he saw Jesus. This doesn't sound like a credible encounter with Jesus.
Jesus already chose 12 apsotles. Where did Paulus get his apostleship from?
Lastly, Pauline Chrisianity is a established term within Christian studies. Uthmanic Islam is not.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You said,

I can take the easy route and say that I know the Quran is authentic because God said so,

I say,

We are not talking about authenticity we are talking about preservation and you can’t claim that you can trust Allah to preserve the Quran because according to your worldview God failed to preserve his Torah and Gospel so you have no assurance that he will preserve the Quran

You say,

As far as I know those exact manuscripts and translations are the medium of what you claim to be God's words. If you can't trust the medium then you can't be sure exactly what is from God.

I say,

Manuscripts and translations are not the medium by which God preserves his words. The Medium is the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of his people. Individual manuscripts and translations are just the record of that miracle not the miracle itself.


Since you believe that the manuscript evidence for the Quran is stronger than that for Bible please provide it so we can compare.

I understand that we have over 24,000 manuscripts from the first 300 years after the NT was written. How many early copies of Quran do we have and where I find them If I want to compare.

You say,

Moreover, if that was the case surely those who knew the pre-Uthmanic quran would object.

I say,

Uthman was the head of state he had not only the motive but also the ability to silence any objections.

This is yet another difference between our faiths. Early Christian leaders had no ability to silence anybody.

You say,

Uthman never claimed to receive revelation from God. He never formulated islamic doctrine.

You say,

What do those things have to do with the choosing and preservation of texts? The fact is Paul could not suppress anything and according to your own sources Uthman did destroy Qurans that he did not like.

You say,


Jesus already chose 12 apsotles.

I say,

The Gospel was sent first to the Jews. There were 12 tribes of Israel therefore 12 apostles to the Jews.

Paul on the other hand was the apostle to the gentiles.

You say,

Where did Paulus get his apostleship from?

I say,

Jesus

you say,

Lastly, Pauline Chrisianity is a established term within Christian studies. Uthmanic Islam is not.


I say,

Pauline Christianity is not a term used in the circles I travel in. Perhaps it is used in skeptical scholarship but since there is no skeptical Islamic scholarship to speak of this is an immaterial and irrelevant point


Peace

PS
I want to thank you for the opportunity to defend my Lord. It has been enjoyable

Lupus el Lobo said...

You said:

We are not talking about authenticity we are talking about preservation and you can’t claim that you can trust Allah to preserve the Quran because according to your worldview God failed to preserve his Torah and Gospel so you have no assurance that he will preserve the Quran

I say:

Authenticity is tightly linked to preservation. I can trust that Allah doesn't lie. He has made a promise to preserve the Quran. Your own Bible says: "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jer 8:8)

You say:

Manuscripts and translations are not the medium by which God preserves his words. The Medium is the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of his people. Individual manuscripts and translations are just the record of that miracle not the miracle itself.

I say:

Talk about a circular argument. How do we know they were filled with the spirit? Because your corrupted manuscripts say so. How can corruption be a record of miracles. That sound like an oxymoron to me.

You said:

The Gospel was sent first to the Jews. There were 12 tribes of Israel therefore 12 apostles to the Jews.

Paul on the other hand was the apostle to the gentiles.

I say:

So there were thirteen apostles? Where did Jesus say there were supposed to be thirteen? Moreover, as your own sources say the apostles travelled all over the world and proclaimed the gospel to gentiles and even founded churches in Rome, the capital of the gentile world. Paul seems a bit redundant. Sorry I forget, he saw a vision on the road to Damascus, or did he hear a voice, or was it both, or did his co-travellers also see something?

You said:
You say,

Where did Paulus get his apostleship from?

I say,

Jesus

I say:

Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to give me a quote where Jesus says he will come back and appoint a third apostle named Paul. According to your own scriptures he could forsee all the major events that would happen before the crucifixion and after. He should've foreseen such an important event as the conversion of Paulus and his appointment as the thirteenth apostle, especially in light of his vast contribution to the NT. Maybe, it's not that vast if we exclude the 3 to six forgeries.

You said:
Pauline Christianity is not a term used in the circles I travel in. Perhaps it is used in skeptical scholarship but since there is no skeptical Islamic scholarship to speak of this is an immaterial and irrelevant point

I say:

I thought you didn't like conspiracies. Now when it suits you, you postulate a current conspiray unravelling in front of our eyes where secular scholars have come together to bash christianity, but spare Islam. Yeah sure, I'm sorry but what planet do you live in.

You say:

I want to thank you for the opportunity to defend my Lord. It has been enjoyable

I say:

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me.

Lupus el Lobo said...

You said:

The fact is Paul could not suppress anything and according to your own sources Uthman did destroy Qurans that he did not like.

I say:

Ok let's for arguments sake say that the manuscripts are reliable, then according to your own sources he did try to suppress what he perceived as false gospels, i.e. he tried to suppress texts that he didn't like. Moreover, Church history is riddled with suppression of texts the Church didn't like. Moreover, the Bible is riddled with suppression of wordings or passages that a scribe or somebody else didn't like.
Another aspect to take into account is that Paul benifitted from writing the epistles, i.e. tampering with the word of God. He achived a status he didn't have before. He had a medium through which he could affect people's perception of him etc.
What motive did Uthman have for changing the word of God? Surely, there must be at least one passage where he is mentioned or where he obtains some sort of advantage. Moreover, since he was the Caliph and he was bold enough to change the Quran why don't we have more Hadiths transmitted through him or hadiths that single him out as special?
We do however have manuscripts where Paul is singled out as special, where Paul is mentioned, where Paul obtains advantages.

Again thanks for taking the time to discuss with me.

Lupus

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey lupus,

Again I apologize very busy.


While you wait here are some hints as to what is comming as western scholars become intrested in the Quran.

enjoy

talk to you soon

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/4024/


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Textual-Criticism-Quran-Manuscripts-Keith/dp/0739142895

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Here is another to check out

http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Not-Father-Any-Your/dp/0812241789

Lupus el Lobo said...

Fifth,

Thank you for the references but do you expect me to purchase the books from Amazon or what is the motive for providing those links?
In regards to Puin, that's old news. The article is 12 years old. He has even recanted some of the things he's stated about the quran. He has been refuted by others as well.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey lupus,

I should be able to devote a few minutes to our conversation in a couple of days. in the mean time here is a comment from Keith Small the scholar who wrote..... (Textual Criticism and the Quran manuscripts)

from here

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17859011&postID=7965857985310460134


quote.....

Tommy, Thank you for posting this notice of my book. This is the first book-length examination of the kinds of textual variants one can observe in Qur'an manuscripts, and how these variants affect commonly held views on the transmission of the text of the Qur'an. Ahmed, for instance gives a very common view that the Qur'an's original text is preserved better than the NT because of oral tradition supplementing the written tradition. Actually the reverse is true. The NT is better preserved because of the written record that remains, even without an accompanying oral transmission.
My book challenges this normal Islamic views and concludes that the oral tradition actually complicated the textual history rather than simplifying it and preserving the original text.
Also,if the early Caliph Uthman performed the action on the text of the Qur'an that is attributed to him in Islamic tradition of establishing one text and destroying variant texts around 653 AD, then he cut off access to more original forms of the text of the Qur'an. One cannot recover the original text of the Qur'an from Islamic written or oral tradition or a combination of both. What one can achieve is a later revised version of a consonantal text that was officially standardized in the first Islamic century. Also, that particular consonantal text, over three centuries, went through a process of development and improvement so that it could phonetically reproduce just one form of the text. Before that, the text was recited in at least 50 different ways, because the ambiguity of the Arabic script allowed such diversity. Every time the written script was improved it provided a new platform for the development of additional oral traditions and discouraged the use of prior ones.

The challenge of textual criticism as applied to the Qur'an is to account for the plethora of factors, both intentional and unintentional, oral and written, that have made the text what it is today. It was produced over four centuries to read a certain way to bring political and religious unity in the midst of competing Islamic groups. There has consistently been more of an attitude of standardizing the text to a desired ideal, then preserving the most original forms of the text. Bart Ehrman's approach and conclusions actually fit the history of the Qur'an more than they do the New Testament, in my opinion.

Permit me to quote my own conclusion (p. 179):

'Though Muslims may take pride in the fidelity of the preservation of this text, it does not reproduce precisely what was originally considered to be the Qur'an in the early seventh century. Because of the standardizations of the text in 653-705/33-86 AH and 936/324 AH, together with the constant pressure throughout Islamic history to have one text match their dogma, many texts which had equally good claims to containing authentic readings were suppressed and destroyed. And, because of the emphasis on oral transmission and the vagaries of Arabic as it developed, the written text was constantly vocalized in new ways which did not preserve the original vocalization. The original vocalization must have been lost very early on if it did indeed exist. While bearing testimony to the careful preservation of one particular consonantal text, the history of the transmission of the text of the Qur'an is at least as much a testament to the destruction of Qur'an material as it is to its preservation. It is also testimony to the fact that there never was one original text of the Qur'an.'

Keith E. Small

end quote:


peace

Radical Moderate said...

FMM

I forgot all about this book, is it out in publication? Do you know where I can get a copy?

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

lupus,

I've got a minute here goes

You say,

I can trust that Allah doesn't lie.

I say,

Why do you say that? Does Allah never deceive people? According to your Quran didn’t Allah deceive folks into believing that Jesus had been killed on the cross?

You say,

He has made a promise to preserve the Quran?

I say,

How do you know the Allah will keep his promises? Is he bound to keep his word acouriding to Islam or is his sovereignty such that he has the absolute freedom to do as he pleases.

you say,

Your own Bible says: "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jer 8:8)

I say,

It is a pet peeve of mine when someone cherry picks scripture and ignores the context. If I did this with your Quran I would hope that you would call me on it as well.

This passage has absolutely noting to do with the preservation of God’s word. It is about the elite of Israel rejecting God’s law. This is clear if you just look at the very next verse.

Quote:

Jer 8:9 The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?

End quote:

In the very same book (Chapter 36) God shows how preserves his word even when the king’s scribes try to destroy it

You say,

Talk about a circular argument.

I say,

All worldviews are circular. The difference between yours and mine is my circle begins and ends with God in the person of Jesus Christ and yours begins and ends with man (lupus and Muhammad).

You say,

How do we know they were filled with the spirit? Because your corrupted manuscripts say so.

I say,

Not at all. We know they were they were filled with the Holy Sprit because of the internal testimony of the Holy Sprit to us directly. This testimony is verified in all kinds of ways like fellow believers, physical evidence, fulfilled prophecy, harmony with previous revelation, historical sources, their fruits etc etc etc

you say

How can corruption be a record of miracles. That sound like an oxymoron to me.

I say,

All physical documents even photocopies are corrupt to some extent ink smudges letters blur etc. neither can an imperfect human flawlessly read any document we accidentally skip words and miss subtle metaphors etc.

Yet God’s word is somehow heard and understood by his people. That is nothing short of a miracle.

I’ve seen time and again God reveal his Word through the most inept reader or inaccurate translation.

I know personally a fellow who came to believe the doctrine of the Trinity by studying the New World Translation a so-called “bible translation” put together by a cult with the express purpose of removing all references to that doctrine. Yet somehow God was able to reveal his truth to his child through this profoundly corrupted document.

The same thing happens to a much lessor extent with manuscripts and translations that are not deliberately altered. That is the how the miracle of preservation happens.

It has been happining for thousands of years

We know this because we Christians don't hide textual variants they are footnoted in our bibles and we can compare one manuscript to another ourselves. what we find is that not a single Christian doctrine rests on a disputed reading of schripture.

more later

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You said,

So there were thirteen apostles? Where did Jesus say there were supposed to be thirteen?

I said,

Quote:

But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name." But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name."
(Acts 9:13-16)

End quote:

You said,

Moreover, as your own sources say the apostles travelled all over the world and proclaimed the gospel to gentiles and even founded churches in Rome, the capital of the gentile world. Paul seems a bit redundant.

I say,

I’m not sure you understand what the term apostle means.

Modern preachers can proclaim the Gospel to billions through modern technology but that does not make them apostles.

You say

Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to give me a quote where Jesus says he will come back and appoint a third apostle named Paul.


I say,

There you go with inconsistency again You deny Paul because Jesus did not mention him by name but this does not prevent you from embracing Mohammed.

I would think your head would hurt from the mental gymnastics your worldview forces you to perform

You say,

Now when it suits you, you postulate a current conspiray unravelling in front of our eyes where secular scholars have come together to bash christianity, but spare Islam.

I say,

No conspiracy required It’s just that up till now Western scholars have not found the textual history of the Quran to be interesting. This is not hard to understand given the limited interest in this topic from Muslims.


Ok let's for arguments sake say that the manuscripts are reliable, then according to your own sources he did try to suppress what he perceived as false gospels, i.e. he tried to suppress texts that he didn't like. Moreover, Church history is riddled with suppression of texts the Church didn't like.


I don’t think you understand what the term suppress means. What Paul and the early church did was recommend that Christians not utilize false scripture. The did not suppress anything only someone with the power of the sword is in a position to suppress a text

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You said,

Another aspect to take into account is that Paul benifitted from writing the epistles, i.e. tampering with the word of God. He achived a status he didn't have before.




I say,

What????????? I’m not sure that you understand what the term “benefit” means



Quote:



with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant? If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.
(2 Corinthians 11:23b-30)


End quote:

After all of that “benefit” he was martyred alone having been abandoned by his friends save one. (2nd Timothy chapter 4).





According to your own scriptures he could forsee all the major events that would happen before the crucifixion and after. He should've foreseen such an important event as the conversion of Paulus and his appointment as the thirteenth apostle, especially in light of his vast contribution to the NT. Maybe, it's not that vast if we exclude the 3 to six forgeries.

You say,

What motive did Uthman have for changing the word of God?

I say,

Um He could remove the parts he did not like.


since he was the Caliph and he was bold enough to change the Quran why don't we have more Hadiths transmitted through him or hadiths that single him out as special?

I say,

Most folks would say that being the most powerful man in the Muslim nation and the single individual who would decide what the Quran is makes one pretty special in Islam

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

lupus said,

Thank you for the references but do you expect me to purchase the books from Amazon or what is the motive for providing those links?

I say,

I wanted to show you that when scholars look at the Quran they invariably conclude it was less well preserved than the NT

RM says,


I forgot all about this book, is it out in publication? Do you know where I can get a copy?

I say,

Yes it's out you can find it on Amazon.

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

test

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

test 2

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Yahya,

Please tell me why you have chosen to place this particular thread under special moderation and require my comments to be approved before they show up here?

Have I been rude or disrespectful?
Have I been dishonest or slanderous?

I don’t see how that can be the case because several Muslim posters here have commended me on my demeanor.

Given the facts I have I can only conclude that you don’t like to see friendly dialogue or that you are afraid of what I have to say?

I’m am sure that you don’t want me to come to that conclusion so please help me out with an explanation

Thanks in advance

Lupus el Lobo said...

FMM,

The source you provided doesn't provide any proof of his conclusions.
For instance he talks about 50 different readings.

You also talk about the text being vocalized in new ways. Some examples please.

FFM said:

Why do you say that? Does Allah never deceive people? According to your Quran didn’t Allah deceive folks into believing that Jesus had been killed on the cross?

I say:
Well you can interpret the verse like that if you want, but it's quite clear that the verse talks about those who claim they killed Jesus, not people in general.

FFM said:

This passage has absolutely noting to do with the preservation of God’s word. It is about the elite of Israel rejecting God’s law. This is clear if you just look at the very next verse.

I say:
Well changing the word of God is the ultimate way of rejecting the word of God. The context you provided doesn't explicitly change my reading.

FMM said:

In the very same book (Chapter 36) God shows how preserves his word even when the king’s scribes try to destroy it.

I say:

It talks about one scroll. Are there any originals of that scroll. Are there even any copies from 200 years after the scroll was written?

Lupus el Lobo said...

FMM,

Concerning your quote from acts, are acts eyewitness accounts? Let's say that we know who wrote this,i.e. Luke. Was he there or did he hear it from Paul?

FFM said:
I’m not sure you understand what the term apostle means.

Modern preachers can proclaim the Gospel to billions through modern technology but that does not make them apostles.

I say:

Well the twelwe were clearly apostles, right? You said that they were supposed to preach to the twelwe tribes and Paul to the gentiles. That explanation doesn't sound very convincing since many of the apostles clearly did spread the gospel to the gentiles. In light of this, i.e. what the twelwe did according to your scriptures, the rationale for appointing an additional apsotle doesn't hold.

FMM said:

All worldviews are circular. The difference between yours and mine is my circle begins and ends with God in the person of Jesus Christ and yours begins and ends with man (lupus and Muhammad).

I say:

Maybe so but not all arguments need to be circular. Again you provide us with a circular argument for the belief that Jesus was God. Moreover, your circle doesn't begin with Jesus. It begins with anonymous accounts that have been proven to have been tampered with.

FMM said:

Not at all. We know they were they were filled with the Holy Sprit because of the internal testimony of the Holy Sprit to us directly. This testimony is verified in all kinds of ways like fellow believers, physical evidence, fulfilled prophecy, harmony with previous revelation, historical sources, their fruits etc etc etc

I say:

Basically what you're saying is that you know the bible is true because there is evidence in addition to the Bible. The problem is that just because you can enumerate a bunch of things you believe is evidence doesn't mean they are reliable or can be verified. For instance what you believe to be the holy spirit talking to you, can be a hundred different things, such as delusion, the Devil, the psychology of believing in something etc.

Actually, I will stop any further discussion with you, because I don't think it's possible to have a fruitful discussion with somebody who provides arguments like these.

Yahya Snow said...

@FMM

There have been no special restrictions put in place. Friendly dialogue is good.

The blog settings automatically push older posts into 'comment approve'.

Hope that helps.

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Yahya,

Thanks for the explanation.

lupus said,

For instance what you believe to be the holy spirit talking to you, can be a hundred different things, such as delusion, the Devil, the psychology of believing in something etc.

I say

I agree


That is why as Christians we are commanded to test the Spirits. If you believe I have been misled all you have to do is provide evidence that the testimony I received is not from God but has a human or demonic origin.

Apparently you are unwilling or unable to do that.

peace

Radical Moderate said...

FMM wrote...


"I agree


That is why as Christians we are commanded to test the Spirits. If you believe I have been misled all you have to do is provide evidence that the testimony I received is not from God but has a human or demonic origin.

Apparently you are unwilling or unable to do that. "


Muslims can you do that, show where anything that FMM has written that is from Human or demonic orgin?