tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post1635752712588545826..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Muslim’s favorite conservative scholar proves them wrongJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69466470063891132202013-06-06T22:59:24.959-04:002013-06-06T22:59:24.959-04:00This is one argument for them that they can never ...This is one argument for them that they can never defend. There are sumerian tablets that are still preserved. These clay tablets are 1000-1500 years older than Moses's Law (writings of Hebrew OT in tablets) yet are still intact and writings are readable.<br /><br />Since there are nothing to hide, you can see those clay tablets were entirely not destroyed or lost throughout the millenia. But not for 'Old Testament'. They do not seem to want original hebrew scriptures to exist. Why is this?<br /><br />Why must Greek translations be used as guidance and assumed inpired? Are there unwanted contents in original Hebrew OT that they thought not suitable thus need to be rewrite?<br /><br />As for Greek "First Edition" of the Gospel, it was written around early 2nd century. Thats arguably 80- 100 years after the preaching of Jesus in Aramaic.<br /><br />'Fragment P52' oldest surviving Greek New Testament was in the time of Hadrian and has been challenged by Andreas Schmidt, who favours a date around 170 AD (late 2nd century).TheBloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02548076957174892531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59621057519282438882012-09-06T13:35:20.309-04:002012-09-06T13:35:20.309-04:00I don't understand.
the real "question...I don't understand. <br /><br />the real "question" can be understood in English as "the real issue" <br /><br />so, I don't know what you mean; spell it out for me and communicate better.<br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-39008198645660091022012-09-06T12:15:20.038-04:002012-09-06T12:15:20.038-04:00A question is where the sentence ends with a chara...A question is where the sentence ends with a character like this "?". I think, either you are dishonest, or have a serious problem of understanding.1MoreMuslimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04831333084902899060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44381399128002634752012-09-06T11:21:45.669-04:002012-09-06T11:21:45.669-04:00I don't see where I have avoided the real ques...I don't see where I have avoided the real question.<br /><br />وَلْيَحْكُمْ أَهْلُ الْإِنجِيلِ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فِيهِ ۚ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ <br /><br /><br /><br />Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.<br /><br />Surah Al Maaida 5:47<br /><br />Both statements in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 are true.<br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-60199662757358629172012-09-06T03:36:37.186-04:002012-09-06T03:36:37.186-04:00In all my posts, I have never wrote the words TRUE...In all my posts, I have never wrote the words TRUE or FALSE. Keep avoiding the real question. I gave your blog more time than it deserves. bye.<br />1MoreMuslimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04831333084902899060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30895003380334987622012-09-06T03:33:12.989-04:002012-09-06T03:33:12.989-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.1MoreMuslimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04831333084902899060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69246151712282861282012-09-05T16:42:46.387-04:002012-09-05T16:42:46.387-04:00No.
the Qur'an confirms the Bible, coming 600...No.<br /><br />the Qur'an confirms the Bible, coming 600 years later and confirming it (all of it - Torah, Zobur, Injeel) which means both Matthew and Mark are true, because Christians always had them and believed in both of them, since 40-55 AD.<br /><br />Paul Williams theory is bogus.<br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67502619904753285662012-09-05T15:55:33.691-04:002012-09-05T15:55:33.691-04:00OK, The Quran confirms the NT, implies the story o...OK, The Quran confirms the NT, implies the story of Matt makes sense. Is that better ? The best that yu can do is a diversion from the question: What Jesus intended in saying "Why you ask me about what is good" ? Until you find an alternative answer, the best (and only) answer so far, is Paul William's "theory".1MoreMuslimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04831333084902899060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33538339096647301172012-09-05T12:39:29.828-04:002012-09-05T12:39:29.828-04:00One more Muslim:
I did not write what you claimed...One more Muslim:<br /><br />I did not write what you claimed I did.<br /><br />Read it again.<br /><br />The Qur'an affirms the Injeel at the time that the Qur'an was written / collected (Surah 5:46-48; 10:94)<br /><br />and we have many copies that go back to 120 AD.<br /><br />Therefore, it is clear that Muhammad did not think the Injeel or the Torah or the Zobur was able to be corrupted by humans. <br /><br />The verses in the Qur'an that Muslims use to teach their doctrine of Tahreef are ones that speak about the interpretations of the Jews, not the texts itself - not the matn ( متن ) <br /><br />Williams is afraid of something, otherwise he should debate Dr. White, since he debated Chris Green, and Chris Green believes the same things as Dr. White on the issues that they debated (Who is Jesus?). <br /><br />He won't interact with me anymore because he cannot handle the issues and questions I bring to him.<br /><br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-91121162297481837622012-09-05T11:32:50.332-04:002012-09-05T11:32:50.332-04:00The story makes sense because it's wriiten ver...The story makes sense because it's wriiten very long ago... Well, if that's how far your common sense leads you, then I understand why Paul Williams stopped interacting with you.1MoreMuslimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04831333084902899060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34122425816231943862012-09-05T08:35:22.230-04:002012-09-05T08:35:22.230-04:00Both Mark and Matthew were written in the 50s AD, ...Both Mark and Matthew were written in the 50s AD, Mark maybe around 45 -48 AD. <br /><br />Since they are both that old and they were copied for centuries and we have many copies of NT dating from the 200s, 300s, 400s, 500s, 600s (before Islam); and John from 120-150 AD (John Rylands fragment, P52 of John 18); <br /><br />And since the Qur'an confirms that the Injeel الانجیل was never corrupted, we have a stronger witness that both Matthew and Mark are the word of God, and so that conversation makes sense, since both of them are true. (Both Mark - "why do you call Me good?" and Matthew, "why do you ask Me about what is good?" ) <br /><br />The Qur'ans says<br />10:94 - go and ask the people of the book. (that means that what they had in texts متن has not been corrupted.<br /><br />5:46-48 - "let the people of the gospel judge by is revealed therein" . Therein means in the gospel itself.<br /><br />Those were written / collected by Uthman around 655 AD, and since we have the gospel manuscripts much older than that, this demonstrates that the Injeel was never corrupted.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44718842390669759612012-09-05T05:31:53.543-04:002012-09-05T05:31:53.543-04:00The fact that very little is recorded in ancient h...The fact that very little is recorded in ancient history, does't make your invented conversation meaningful. Your proposed conversation is more silly than the original Matt's version, You didn't offer any meaningful interpretation for Jésus' reply "Why do You ask me about What is good?". You just added insult to injury. All through the ages, Christians have being trading Jesus for church doctrines.1MoreMuslimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04831333084902899060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20217604945776455772012-09-04T21:02:05.698-04:002012-09-04T21:02:05.698-04:00"both" meaning the verses in Matthew and..."both" meaning the verses in Matthew and the verses in Mark.<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-87239788032643138582012-09-04T21:01:22.777-04:002012-09-04T21:01:22.777-04:00Its not silly when you consider that lots of thing...Its not silly when you consider that lots of things happened and were said that were not recorded.<br /><br />Not everything was written down. and both were said because both are "God-breathed" - 2 Tim. 3:16<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69717331768080837952012-09-04T18:22:12.165-04:002012-09-04T18:22:12.165-04:00Thank you for you reply.
You have dismissed matt c...Thank you for you reply.<br />You have dismissed matt copying from Mark for the lack of proof. If you are asking video tapes as proof , then we don't have proof for anything in history. You cannot dismiss one narrative for the lack of proof, and propose another story without giving any single proof. That shows that your rejection is not based on proof, but on your own bias: It's wrong because I don't like it. I found your own gospel , combining the two accounts, and your own insertion on the lips of the rich man, is even more silly, than the original version of Matt. Is there also a double entendre in Matt? What is it ? If in Mark Jesus is saying that he is God because he is good, what is he trying to convey in Matt? 1MoreMuslimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04831333084902899060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-89677733563610122442012-09-03T23:06:51.740-04:002012-09-03T23:06:51.740-04:001MoreMuslim:
Thanks for your comment!
شکرأ
Shokra...1MoreMuslim:<br />Thanks for your comment!<br /><br />شکرأ<br />Shokran!<br /><br />Peace unto you!<br />سلام و علیکوم <br />Jesus gives true peace - John 14:27; Romans 5:1; Matthew 11:28-30<br /><br />You are assuming that Matthew changed Mark's wording - there is no proof of this.<br /><br />Jesus probably said both statements, beginning with<br /><br />"why do you call Me good? Only God is good.<br /><br />We can imagine the man answered, well, you do seem to be a good teacher, so can can you tell me about the good thing that I can do to be saved?<br /><br />Jesus then asks, "Why do you ask Me about what is good?" There is only one who is good.<br /><br />So, Jesus could have said both statements in history, just that one author records one of the statements and another author records another of the statements.<br /><br />Like a report from eyewitnesses of a car accident, each eyewitness only sees aspects from his/her angle - but all four give us the full picture of the historical event. There is no contradiction. <br /><br />When police separate several witnesses of a crime and they say the exact same thing, they know there is collusion; but if they are generally the same idea, they know that they did not conspire beforehand. Some will say certain details, the other eyewitness emphasizes other details. No contradiction. <br /><br />and Luke 18:18-19 has the same thing as Mark. <br /><br />18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.<br /><br />Thanks again for your comment!Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59446026555763500722012-09-03T18:12:20.437-04:002012-09-03T18:12:20.437-04:00You have tried to respond to half of the problem ...You have tried to respond to half of the problem for some reason , you left out the other half. Why Matt transformed " Good teacher" to " What good things" making the answer of Jesus really silly . From "why call me good" to " why you ask me about good"! If in Mark the reply of Jesus is a Double entendre, what is the purpose of Mattew's version of Jesus' reply? Is there a hidden meaning? There should be, since the appearing is really stupid and meaningless. <br />Note , the suppsed "double entendre" is just a theory, since no one can know what hidden meaning Jesus intended, if there is one. But for sure, the rich man didn't get it, since he stopped calling Jesus "Good" once for all.1MoreMuslimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04831333084902899060noreply@blogger.com