Discussion with Orangeduck

[Orangeduck]

Re: Easter.

Well, I see that you will spin information any way you can. I gave you examples of documents that historians consider to be contemporary. You can choose to reject the concensus of historians, but the burden of proof is on you to give me a reason why you reject them.

I noticed you used the the Quran as your only price of evidence. Unfortunatly, a statement written 600 years after the fact isn't going to convince many rational people.

I know you said its a retorical question, but I will answer it

If something historically happened, but a document claims it never happened, then that document is wrong. For example, if I write a document that states the holocaust never happened, then my document would be wrong. The same logic applies to the Bible, quran, and any other book (assuming the book is not meant to be fiction).

 

[aadil77]

Re: Easter.

Well, I see that you will spin information any way you can. I gave you examples of documents that historians consider to be contemporary. You can choose to reject the concensus of historians, but the burden of proof is on you to give me a reason why you reject them.

I noticed you used the the Quran as your only price of evidence. Unfortunatly, a statement written 600 years after the fact isn't going to convince many rational people.

I know you said its a retorical question, but I will answer it

If something historically happened, but a document claims it never happened, then that document is wrong. For example, if I write a document that states the holocaust never happened, then my document would be wrong. The same logic applies to the Bible, quran, and any other book (assuming the book is not meant to be fiction).

Are you a christian or an atheist?

I can provide you with countless biblical stories that you will be unable to provide 'historical' evidence for

 

[Orangeduck]

Re: Easter.

/\/\/\

There are many stories in the Bible that can't be proven. That was one of the very first things I said when I joined this forum. There is no provable theology. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to prove theology. That is why I don't like getting into theological debtes. We can debate theology till Judgement Day and neither of us would be able to prove anything.

That was a major reason for my converstion. There is un-provable theology in the Bible, but there is a lot more provable history in the Bible than the Quran.

At this point in my life, I dont think I could ever be an athiest. My spiritually is too strong. I will probably always believe in some monotheistic deity :statisfie

 

[GodIsOne]

Re: Easter.

/\/\/\


That was a major reason for my converstion. There is un-provable theology in the Bible, but there is a lot more provable history in the Bible than the Quran.

Are you willing to bet your life on that? Or is that just more made up Christian nonsense so you can try and justify your idolatry?

"The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the 'sources' behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance." - Francis Edwards Peters

Find me one quote from that can say the same thing about the Torah or gospels.

 

[aadil77]

Re: Easter.

/\/\/\

There are many stories in the Bible that can't be proven. That was one of the very first things I said when I joined this forum. There is no provable theology. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to prove theology. That is why I don't like getting into theological debtes. We can debate theology till Judgement Day and neither of us would be able to prove anything.

That was a major reason for my converstion. There is un-provable theology in the Bible, but there is a lot more provable history in the Bible than the Quran.

At this point in my life, I dont think I could ever be an athiest. My spiritually is too strong. I will probably always believe in some monotheistic deity :statisfie

The history part of the bible is not of God's revelation, its of no use or benefit to its followers. This is man made literature that has been added to the bible. We have plenty of recorded history as well, sticking into the Qur'an would not make it 'provable history'. So don't bring up 'historical evidence' ever again, it will only make you seem like a hypocrite.

Now enough of the evidence and lets talk logic and common sense, use the scriptures we have available to us.

What is it about worshipping a mangod that attracts you? With all the talk about warning against idolatry in the bible - does it then make sense that you go and turn God's prophet into an idol god and start to worship him?

 

[Al-Mufarridun]

wait a minute, did he say;

"History lead me to Christianity"

did i get that right? for I am clearly confused!

 

[Muhammad]

Re: Easter.

I noticed you used the the Quran as your only price of evidence. Unfortunatly, a statement written 600 years after the fact isn't going to convince many rational people.

Where did you get this nonsense from?

 

[Orangeduck]

Re: Easter.

Are you willing to bet your life on that? Or is that just more made up Christian nonsense so you can try and justify your idolatry?

"The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the 'sources' behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance." - Francis Edwards Peters

Find me one quote from that can say the same thing about the Torah or gospels.

I will give you 2 quotes. The first quote deals with what you asked about the Gospels.

Bart Ehrman said on page 260 "The vast majority of these changes are insignificant, immaterial and of no importance for the meaning of the passages in which they are found".

The next quotes will be from my favorite arabic and quranic scholar...Puin.

He claims the quran is an "evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh". He also noticed that the oldest text of the quran ended at sura 95 (scholars and historians generally accept the older the text, the more authentic it is).

We dont really need to debate this as it will probably only lead 1 or both of developing a negitive opinion of each other (and that is not my intent).

 

[Orangeduck]

Re: Easter.

Where did you get this nonsense from?

Do you doubt the quran was written 600 years after Christ died?

 

[Scimitar]

Salaam to you OrangeDuck,

I think you should take a look at this series, it WILL prove that Muhammad pbuh was mentioned in the bible,

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6B36E4E4DFD6E52F&feature=plcp

Here is the intro for it:

Scimi

 

[Orangeduck]

/\/\/\

Hello and peace be with you.

I would like to say something about the youtube clip. 1) I have seen that movie and I loved it. Mel Gibson did a fantastic job imo. Not every is going to agree with me however

2) Tell me. Can a hollywood movie from 2004 really be used as evidence that a man in the first century prophesied about a man in the 7th century? The answer is "no". Please do not take offense as I am not trying to offend anyone.

If you do think that the Bible prophesied about muhammad, please give the verse and I will be more than happy to talk to you about it

 

[Muhammad]

Re: Easter.

Greetings,

Do you doubt the quran was written 600 years after Christ died?

You didn't make it clear you were referring to the period of Christ. Instead, the context of your post indicated you were talking about the period of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) since you were talking about contemporary evidences and comparing the Bible and the Qur'an. But I'm glad that is cleared up.

The next quotes will be from my favorite arabic and quranic scholar...Puin.

He claims the quran is an "evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh". He also noticed that the oldest text of the quran ended at sura 95 (scholars and historians generally accept the older the text, the more authentic it is).

We dont really need to debate this as it will probably only lead 1 or both of developing a negitive opinion of each other (and that is not my intent).

I have already provided several quotes to show the contrary, in addition to explanations for this point. At the moment we do not seem to be debating anything because you seem to have ignored that post and are simply reiterating false information. If this is your idea of having a discussion then we won't be wasting any more time in responding to your posts.

 

[GodIsOne]

Re: Easter.

Bart Ehrman is a Christian scholar. Furthermore, I meant all gospels not just canonical ones. I know you won't find the actual proper quote because it's mainstream scholarly accepted fact that the canonical gospels are a tiny minority of the actual gospels created after يَسُوعَ and that the difference between the actual gospels and the canonical ones is staggering.

No historian accepts the idea of the Qu'ran as an evolving text... perhaps a text from multiple sources but it definitely is not evolving.... and no that is ridiculous and arbitrary way of trying to authenticate your own idea of history. The older text is not more authentic, and unless carbon dating was used you can't claim any historical document has an actual age either. Sana's manuscript has been carbon dated to just 15 years after Muhammed's death. The idea that any of the text came before Muhammed is still a theory and cannot be proven using carbon dating. [h=1][/h][h=1][/h]

 

[Orangeduck]

Re: Easter.

Bart Ehrman is a Christian scholar. Furthermore, I meant all gospels not just canonical ones. I know you won't find the actual proper quote because it's mainstream scholarly accepted fact that the canonical gospels are a tiny minority of the actual gospels created after يَسُوعَ and that the difference between the actual gospels and the canonical ones is staggering.

No historian accepts the idea of the Qu'ran as an evolving text... perhaps a text from multiple sources but it definitely is not evolving.... and no that is ridiculous and arbitrary way of trying to authenticate your own idea of history. The older text is not more authentic, and unless carbon dating was used you can't claim any historical document has an actual age either. Sana's manuscript has been carbon dated to just 15 years after Muhammed's death. The idea that any of the text came before Muhammed is still a theory and cannot be proven using carbon dating.

I just gave you a historian with a PHD that DOES accept the fact that the quran evolved. How can you say no historian accepts that fact when I just gave you one.

The Yemin governemnt paid to bring Puin to Yemin to examine the text. The wanted him to examine the text since he is the probably the best in the world at ancient arabic and quranic manuscipts.

No one on this board has been able to bring any evidence to refute this claim. The quran evolved after muhammad died. That is not debatable and historians have proved that. Muslim apologetics argue against that claim, but they are not historians. I would never trust their word against the word of a PHD historian.

Please tell me why historians are wrong and you are right when you say the oldest text is not the most authentic. I cant wait to hear your explination. The older the text, the closer it is to the original, and the less time has passed for editions to be added to the text. That is simple logic, and it's the basis for textual criticism. The sana text is the oldest, thus making it the closest to the original. There are suras in the Ciaro text that do no appear in the sana text. There are different words, and different order of suras. This is nothing to loose faith over as every book prior to the printing press has the same problem.

This is the concensus of historians. Apologetics may disagree, but as stated, they are defending their faith...they do not speak for the historical community.

You did say one thing that was correct. There were hundreds of gospels written after Christ died. Only 4 were written by people who were alive durring His lifetime. The hundreds others were written by people who were not alive to witness His life. Some examples are, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Barnabas.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Orangeduck,

Most of your claims were already responded to in my previous post (#50). If you will ignore answers to your claims then your presence here will be discontinued because we will not entertain such insincerity.

 

[Orangeduck]

Greetings Orangeduck,

Most of your claims were already responded to in my previous post (#50). If you will ignore answers to your claims then your presence here will be discontinued because we will not entertain such insincerity.

Im not ignoring anything. Some of those people are not historians. Some of those quotes are from the person you listed, but that person is quoting someone else (often times a non-historian).

You have to be very careful of which authors you quote from, and you have to be EXTREMELY careful of what you are quoting. I am not accusing you of lieing or being dishonest, as all you were doing is copying-and-pasting (nothing wrong with that).

I actually got into a debate with a Christian some months back. He quoted me something from a book. I tracted that quote down and discovered it was from another book from the same author. The author was quoting his other books. That is circular reasoning, and it can happen very easy in the accedemic arean without even knowing, or even intending for it to happen.

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Re: Easter.

Greetings Orangeduck,

Have you read Sr. Lamees's posts 12, 17 and 23? if not, please do.

You did say one thing that was correct. There were hundreds of gospels written after Christ died. Only 4 were written by people who were alive durring His lifetime. The hundreds others were written by people who were not alive to witness His life. Some examples are, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Barnabas.

Post your evidence that the 4 authors of the gospels, lived, breathed with Jesus (P).

And Barnabas is considered the oldest of Gospels. And why is it that you'll find Barnabas conversing with Jesus, while you'll never find, matthew, mark, luke or John? if i'm wrong, post your evidence.

Yes. I authors of the New Testament made it pretty clear that He is God. The authors record many stories of people worshiping Jesus and He fully accepted their worship. I'm not here to convince you that you need to believe what I believe, but now that I am a Christian, I accept the Bible and Church Tradition.

Post your evidence that Jesus is God from the bible, i'm interested.

 

[M.I.A.]

Re: Easter.

However, I realized that didn't fully answer your question.

What is disagree with about islam, is that lost things I was told to believe were wrong. Mohammad was not foretold in the Bible. The quran, the Bible, and all books written before the printing press have been changed.

What caused me to convert to Christianity was the message and the historical basis for the belief. Christianity and Judiasm, whe neither can be proven form a theological stand point, both are historical sound and verifiable.

epic troll thread is epic.

seriously the chances of anything real and original being discovered thousands of years later are very very small.
lets face it,
i guess things have been found that call religions into dispute.

but that would call into question the basis of your belief.. not the people that actually lived thousands of years ago.

maybe the old saying only god can save you still rings true.

twenty years old and has compared and contrasted several major religions...

so what have you learned about god? surely that is the question rather than how you can win an argument.

..thats what you have to pass on to your children.

..or just put them into debate class after school.

 

[Orangeduck]

Greetings Orangeduck,

Have you read Sr. Lamees's posts 12, 17 and 23? if not, please do.



Post your evidence that the 4 authors of the gospels, lived, breathed with Jesus (P).

And Barnabas is considered the oldest of Gospels. And why is it that you'll find Jesus conversing with Jesus, while you'll never find, matthew, mark, luke or John? if i'm wrong, post your evidence.



Post your evidence that Jesus is God from the bible, i'm interested.

Hello. I will be typing this in haste, so forgive me if I dont answer all your questions.

Post your evidence that the 4 authors of the gospels, lived, breathed with Jesus (P).

I will start with people alive to during the time of Christ. I will refer you to the last paragraph of Saint John's Gospel

"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that would be written."

As you can see, the author was there to witness Christ's ministry.

Post your evidence that Jesus is God from the bible, i'm interested.

I can give you many examples, but I will give you a few to start with.

John 10:30 states "I and the Father are one." I have heard muslims try to argue that "One" refers to purpose. However, if you read John 10:33, it reads, "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

The people who were there when Jesus said His words knew exactly what Christ was saying. He was saying that He is God.

Col. 2:9 - "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

Phil. 2:5-8 - "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped". This veruse is a bit complicated, but I will explain. John 14:28 says, "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." The word "greater" in Koine Greek is "MEZION". The word refers to authority. Let me give you an example. My boss is greater than I am. He is my boss, and he has more authority than I do. The word does NOT refer to someone that is a greater order of being. For example, an Angel is a greater being than I (a human). The word only works when speaking of authority to a being that is equal. This means that a human can not use the word "MEZION" when speaking of God or an Angel. God is a greater being than us humans (I think you will agree with that). Since Jesus used that word, He said that He is equal with Father, but the Father has more authority.

Matt. 28:9 - "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

I could give you many more examples, but that should get your started

As for Barnabas, you should read as to when the Gospel of Barnabas was written. It might surprise you

 

[aadil77]

I'll post this again just incase you forgot to read it

/\/\/\

There are many stories in the Bible that can't be proven. That was one of the very first things I said when I joined this forum. There is no provable theology. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to prove theology. That is why I don't like getting into theological debtes. We can debate theology till Judgement Day and neither of us would be able to prove anything.

That was a major reason for my converstion. There is un-provable theology in the Bible, but there is a lot more provable history in the Bible than the Quran.

At this point in my life, I dont think I could ever be an athiest. My spiritually is too strong. I will probably always believe in some monotheistic deity :statisfie

The history part of the bible is not of God's revelation, its of no use or benefit to its followers. This is man made literature that has been added to the bible. We have plenty of recorded history as well, sticking into the Qur'an would not make it 'provable history'. So don't bring up 'historical evidence' ever again, it will only make you seem like a hypocrite.

Now enough of the evidence and lets talk logic and common sense, use the scriptures we have available to us.

What is it about worshipping a mangod that attracts you? With all the talk about warning against idolatry in the bible - does it then make sense that you go and turn God's prophet into an idol god and start to worship him?