Burden of Proof

Chrysalis wrote: Apollos wrote:   Hasan,   I thought you understood that Christians believe in only one God and this one God consists of three persons. The separate persons of the Godhead are not separate Gods anymore that your spirit and body are separate "Hasans".   These are not contradictions but further confirmation that these three persons of the Godhead are one.   Apollos But Hassan doesnt refer to his body and spirit seperatley, they dont have different names, and are not considered seperate entities. Whereas, Christians clearly refer to God, Spirit and Jesus as 3 seperate ppl - picture them as 3 different persons, and portray them as 3 different persons/entities (with Jesus taking the limelight, and actual God i.e. Creator has a supporting role only). Only when ppl ask them, do u believe in 3 gods? they quickly revert to the explanation you gave. If God and Jesus and Spirit are essentially one - God died, nauzubillah, and has human qualities and limitations? God consists of 3 persons? There is so much wrong with this statement, I dont even know where to start. Why does the Bible refer to Jesus and God as seperate entities, having seperate qualities and characteristics? If they are 3 in 1 and  in 3 - why not just have one name for them, i.e. God? Clearly, Christians have never ACTUALLY considered or portrayed God as one - or we wouldnt be having this discussion.

Chrysalis,

I actually think that Hasan might refer to his spirit or mind with different names but I get your point.*

I recognize that the analogy I used is not complete or perfect; No analogy is and that's why we call them such. I was only trying to point out that one doesn't have to look far to realize that we can't comprehend or explain our own nature let alone God's. Do we see three persons in one human being? No. But neither do we see infinity, true holiness or other attributes of God. Does this mean they don�t exist?

The objection I hear Muslims making to the idea of God consisting of three persons is � We don�t see this in humans or created things therefore it must not be true or possible. This opinion implies that God conforms to human analogies and observations. I don�t think that is what Muslims are trying to imply, but if that implication is rejected, what is the basic objection?

* - see other post.

Apollos

Apollos wrote: Reply from Andalus: Most of your bases is supposition based upon �Christian theology�, not universally accepted fact.  You really do not have Jesus as a first hand witness to what he thought of the Hebrew Scriptures, you have copies of copies of copies of something written by someone anonymous that were among hundreds of other accounts that never made it into the official church cannon. In other words, we are not really discussing what Jesus felt, but instead what some written account says mixed in with �interpretation�, with strong influence from Saul of Tarsus. There are glaring assumptions that I must point out in your above attempt to reconcile the Pauline �problematic� view of Jesus. So you cannot figure out what �most� is? Really? Are you pretending? Are you appealing to �obfuscation�? What �most� is painfully obvious even to the most devout sophist if you are able to have some amount of literacy and read what I wrote? Please tell me exactly where this is not obvious. I will do my best to assist you. You stated supposition as if it is fact, in the context that Muslims need to prove facts. Your claim is absurd, and typical of a fundy. From Apollos: Show me a �universally accepted fact� in Islam and maybe I will be able to understand what you mean by such a statement. Reply from Andalus: Irrelevant. The discussion is on your claim, not mine. And I have not argued for any case about universal facts in general, or in specifics. From Apollos: Again I find your argumentation quite strange. You criticize my statements for being �supposition based upon �Christian theology�, not universally accepted fact�. The criticism implies a negative connotation on �Christian Theology� and it contrasts Christian theology with �universally accepted fact�. If you can�t explain to me what this phrase means, or even confirm that such a thing exists, why would you use it as you have?

You did not ask for an explanation, you erroneously concluded that I believe for such truth�s to exist. This is a strawman since there is no argument on my behalf either for or against the existence of universally accepted facts. Your stance strongly supposes such. This is all I am going to say about it, since it is an irrelevant side topic. If you wish to pursue it further, start a new thread and let all discuss it.

From Apollos: I agree that my supposition is based on �Christian theology� as described in Christian documents during the first 150 years of the Church including Paul�s writings. I could have clarified this but I doubt it would change your objections. Reply from Andalus: It is supposition because none of the writings tell us of the actual historical Jesus and your point of view comes from copies of copies from unknown sources and not from anything that puts us with Jesus. My point is that you cannot tell us that you know what Jesus thought or did, you can only tell us what labored interpretations of texts say about him. From Apollos: Since your �refutation� relies on this claim, you have the obligation to prove your claim. As a starting point, why don�t you provide some evidence that Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus or that the Disciples rejected his teachings.

My refutation is based on the internal problems with your claim, with demo using critical thinking with numerous examples. You are stuck in this realm that you have certain rules that allow you to challenge the beliefs of one faith using such and such reasons, yet your stance itself fails in light of the same reasons. You further propose that only followers of the other faith have some great burden of proof while we must accept your blank assertions and �assumptions� you have buried in your statements as if they are facts, in fact, we must accept them as universally accepted facts. When you are called out on the internal problems with your contribution, you cont with �special pleading�.

You want me to prove Paul was not a witness to Jesus? Show me a single document that counters what I have stated. I believe that when you are pressed for specifics, you rely on claiming that it is the other person, not you, that needs to specify.

Paul is not even a witness to Jesus, and your following his word is nothing but complete special pleading on your part as far as your claim about following authorities. It is really funny actually. I am not sure why no one has caught your convoluted claims. Your claim begs the question: What was Paul�s authority? From Apollos: Paul�s authority came directly from Jesus and it was confirmed by the Disciples as well as signs and wonders from God. It does not matter that you or I were not there to observe the latter. Others were and he wrote his letters describing this sign of his authority when contemporaries could refute him if it wasn�t true. The fact that his authority and statements were accepted by the Church shows how this was common knowledge.

You are telling me what you believe, which is the common mantra one would here in Sunday school. This is good for the faithful, but fails in terms of providing you with the right to lay down assertions which you feel others should accept as �fact�. Paul never met Jesus, Paul came with a claim which differed from what the Jews taught and believed, his proof of authority, the last time I looked, is extremely �short�. We can believe letters attributed him about how great he is, but I must point out that as far as proof goes, it is �weak�.

So, for you, the proof of Paul�s authority is what he wrote about himself in letters. Nice.

Furthermore, I find your statement ambiguous,

The fact that his authority and statements were accepted by the Church shows how this was common knowledge.

In other words,

-Paul is right

-The Church believes Paul is right

-Paul is right

I would also like to point out, that factually, there is not much in terms of �documents� in the first 150 years, and you are deluded if you think so. From Apollos: Please then, provide an explanation that accounts for just the following: Lexionaries before 200 A.D. quote all but a handful of verses from the Gospels which indicates widespread knowledge and use of the Gospels before this time. There are several manuscript fragments of these Gospels dated as early 70 A.D. and no later than 125 A.D. (They are identical to the versions we use today). Paul�s letters � which are written between 52 A.D. and 65 A.D. - quote from these Gospels. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (95 A.D.) quotes the Gospels. Ignatius � a disciple of John and martyr � wrote letters in 110 A.D. confirming the Gospels and who wrote them. Polycarp � another disciple of John � quoted and confirmed the Gospels in 135 A.D. Christian creeds, Secular and Jewish writings confirm that the fundamentals of the Gospels were known and believed by the early Church prior to 110 A.D.

This is the latest �broad stroke� used by apologists. It used to be, �we have hundreds and thousands of MSS that give us the gospels that date from the first century�. This worked because who could possibly look up the facts and look at every MS to show otherwise. In time, it became clear that this claim was not true. Now the latest broad stroke is, �we have the lexionaries�, where now one must either accept it, or deny it without giving a good reason since who has time to read through all of the church father�s writings to say otherwise. For those who have spent some time studying the beginnings of your faith know that this is problematic, and for others it just does not seem �reasonable�. The study of the early writings is extensive and one will find that there are quotes that are not in the cannon and there are quotes that are differing from what is found in the cannon. Applying the criteria of textual criticism, one will find that early NT scholars will not pt out an edition of the NT based upon the �lexionaries�, and there is good reason. To just make a sweeping generalization by invoking the magnificent lexionaries as evidence is �cherry picking�. 

Strange, my �next section� seems to have been ignored by you, let us recap so it will be painfully obvious for you: From Apollos: No I answered in the preceding section but I will now respond after you have �made your case�.  This was part of the �most� that you seem so confused about. You stated,   He only had two areas where His teaching actually differed from what the average Jew believed at that time and He told His disciples to listen to what the Priests and Scribes said � but not follow their hypocritical practices. (The two differences Jesus had with the Jewish leadership were � the idea that the Law could not be accomplished by human efforts and, the Messiah would be God�s Son who would suffer and die for their failure to satisfy the Law.)      From Andalus: Here you have problems. Your major implication is that the claims of Muslims and what the Prophet Muhammad (saw) taught is invalid because he (saw) goes against what the bible teaches, while your views of Jesus makes your theology correct, yet your above statement is not only weak but leads to you appealing to special pleading. To bring out the glaring problems in your assertion, I replied with the following, which is not opinion, but valid points based on reason, not your claim that I am arguing for a �universal fact� (which is a cont of the strawman fallacy you created above, since I have not argue either way for universal facts). I replied:  1)     You must argue and prove that there is a distinction between what the average Jew believe and what the Hebrew Scriptures teach. If there is a distinction, then was it all Jews or just a group, and does this mean the other Jews thought something else and what is their source for this �other belief�? 2)     In Deuteronomy 30, we find something regarding �average Jewish thought�.  I then provided verses from the bible that Moses, according to you, wrote, with divine authority, with a summation of the problems these verses cause for your poorly constructed assertion:  Deuteronomy 30   10 if thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul. {S} 11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.   So here we have Moses, not anyone else, saying with God�s authority, that the law can be kept and performed. That it is not too hard or �far off�, and no one can intermediate for them to help them with the law. So if you say that Jesus had a problem with the law, and we have Moses saying something else, then by your reasoning, Jesus is antithetical to previous teachings. As is your church and your scholars. Of course I know your doctors have given labored interpretations to �harmonize� this. What any reasonable person of intelligence must conclude is this is what the average Jew would have thought and it would have been in line with what they believed God had given them.    Any problems with understanding �most�? From Apollos: A.      I am not appealing to special pleading nor am I arguing that there was a distinction between what the average Jew believed and what the Hebrew Scriptures teach. I am acknowledging that there were two minor areas where Jesus �surprised� the Jews of His day. One was that He chose fishermen and tax collectors as his disciples rather than the established Jewish leadership. Considering how corrupt the latter were, this shouldn�t be a surprise to us and certainly not a contradiction with the Old Testament. The other �surprise� was that the Messiah would fulfill Old Testament prophecies by way of two advents, not just one. The Jews prior to Jesus recognized that there were puzzles about the Messiah being both the coming King and a suffering servant and they speculated that there might be two Messiahs or a two phase approach. They realized that the OT was not clear on this and Jesus cleared this up after His resurrection. Otherwise Jesus is the Messiah the Old Testament prophesized and described. He satisfied OT prophecies and Jewish expectations.

Your response is simply a review of church doctrine and not a reply to what I gave you.

B.      Your example from Deuteronomy and how it supposedly contradicts Jesus or the New Testament � is in error. First off, you have used a translation that employs �too hard� rather than �hidden�. You then proceed to interpret the meaning of these words contrary to how Jews and Christians understand this passage.  Even if your interpretation of the passage was correct, it is only a contradiction with what you think I believe but certainly do not. You claim I say �that Jesus had a problem with the law�. I have not said this nor do I believe this at all. Jesus came to fulfill the Law which is holy and good.

Careful, trying to split hairs as a means to shrug off a strong point I have made may come back to haunt you. I do not mind moving to a strict translation such as that found in the Stone Edition TANACH, this will not help you with many of the OT verses your doctors have translated to show a �Jesus prophecy�. Copying and pasting from the JPS is convenient since it is on my computer, and as long as I do not see a glaring translation problem, I will go with it. Going from �too hard� to �hidden� does not help you and the verse still means the same thing.

My interpretation is not mine, but rathers the Jewish interpretation, found in every Jewish TANACH, and is the consistant teachings from Torah observant Jews. To say that I am not in line with how Christians and Jews understand this is a willfull distortion on your part. It  may not be the way the church understands it (which means they do not understand it at all because it is very clear), but I assure you that the Jews do not follow church �labored interpretations� of their scriptures.

This is classic Christian,

You claim I say �that Jesus had a problem with the law�. I have not said this nor do I believe this at all. Jesus came to fulfill the Law which is holy and good.

According to your beliefs, Jesus came and did teach contrary to what the Torah taught. You can twist and reword (you all call it harmonizing) and say, he did not teach against it, he just became it, but it is all the same thing. You follow a man who taught contrary to what God said in the Torah. If he taught he became the law and you no longer have to follow it, then it is contrary. Harmonizing only works with the faithful, not in the realm of ideas and discourse.

posted by Andalus By the way, the title is "burden of proof", so where does you burden begin? As I stated, it begins with the resurrection of Jesus. It does not begin with proving the Bible is our source of guidance, that the Church started in Jerusalem, that we have a chain of doctrine and beliefs from 200 B.C. to 325 A.D. The consensus for this is such that anyone arguing against this has the burden of proof � not we Christians. You are free to have your opinions but you might as well assert that aliens from space account for everything. We have no obligation to respond to every hair-brained fantasy someone comes up with. If you have a real theory with real evidence, please share. Otherwise it is irrelevant that you don�t agree with history. No one has argued that the bible is not a source of guidance, another strawman by you to deflect from what was given to you. From Apollos: I am referring to the Bible being a source of guidance from the first century on. I believe you do reject this, don�t you?

The bible can be a source of guidance, but that does not give us confidence that it is a document from God, of God, with authority from God.

posted by Andalus You assertion about a chain of doctrine from 200 BC is pure rubbish and if you have some source that has been hidden from the rest of the world, then please bring it forth. From Apollos: I listed some examples above and one of the links of the chain that goes back to 200 B.C. is the book of Isaiah found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Since our belief includes the OT as well, this ancient manuscript is another evidence of the integrity of God�s Word and part of our doctrines and beliefs.

You are cherry picking, there are things in the Qumran find that support some things, and there are findings that do not support your claims. Again, you are invoking a huge topic still debated by scholars. Many things were found there and what we have learned is that the OT has at least two different traditions and the whole notion of what biblical cannon is was not quite agreed upon even in the late temple era. In fact, the find creates �uncertainty�, not �confidence�.

posted by Andalus Asking me to prove it does not exist is not only unreasonable, but absurd. Pretending that anyone who disagrees has the burden of proof is purely ridiculous. You shrug all responsibility for evidence with an unsubstantiated claim that all who disagree have the burden. Hilarious. From Apollos: I asked you to provide a real theory with real evidence for your claim that there is no chain of Christian doctrine and beliefs back to 200 B.C. And you say it is unreasonable to ask you to do so. So, it is reasonable for you to dismiss all of the documents, history, and archaeology that agree with what I am saying but it is unreasonable to ask you for contrary evidence? Those are pretty good rules you came up with. Where can I buy a box?

I covered this in the beginning concerning your feelings that everyone else must have the burden but we only need to accept the common assertions of church belief as a sound bases.

Your assertions in your first contribution assumes that your beliefs must necessarily be accepted as sound. I am calling you on this, That is all.  

From Apollos:

I agree that my supposition is based on �Christian theology� as described in Christian documents during the first 150 years of the Church including Paul�s writings. I could have clarified this but I doubt it would change your objections.

Post by Andalus:

It is supposition because none of the writings tell us of the actual historical Jesus and your point of view comes from copies of copies from unknown sources and not from anything that puts us with Jesus.

My point is that you cannot tell us that you know what Jesus thought or did, you can only tell us what labored interpretations of texts say about him.

From Apollos:

Since your �refutation� relies on this claim, you have the obligation to prove your claim. As a starting point, why don�t you provide some evidence that Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus or that the Disciples rejected his teachings.

Post by Andalus:

My refutation is based on the internal problems with your claim, with demo using critical thinking with numerous examples. You are stuck in this realm that you have certain rules that allow you to challenge the beliefs of one faith using such and such reasons, yet your stance itself fails in light of the same reasons. You further propose that only followers of the other faith have some great burden of proof while we must accept your blank assertions and �assumptions� you have buried in your statements as if they are facts, in fact, we must accept them as universally accepted facts. When you are called out on the internal problems with your contribution, you cont with �special pleading�.

You want me to prove Paul was not a witness to Jesus? Show me a single document that counters what I have stated. I believe that when you are pressed for specifics, you rely on claiming that it is the other person, not you, that needs to specify.

Paul is not even a witness to Jesus, and your following his word is nothing but complete special pleading on your part as far as your claim about following authorities. It is really funny actually. I am not sure why no one has caught your convoluted claims. Your claim begs the question: What was Paul�s authority?

From Apollos:

Paul�s authority came directly from Jesus and it was confirmed by the Disciples as well as signs and wonders from God. It does not matter that you or I were not there to observe the latter. Others were and he wrote his letters describing this sign of his authority when contemporaries could refute him if it wasn�t true. The fact that his authority and statements were accepted by the Church shows how this was common knowledge.

Post by Andalus:

You are telling me what you believe, which is the common mantra one would here in Sunday school. This is good for the faithful, but fails in terms of providing you with the right to lay down assertions which you feel others should accept as �fact�. Paul never met Jesus, Paul came with a claim which differed from what the Jews taught and believed, his proof of authority, the last time I looked, is extremely �short�. We can believe letters attributed him about how great he is, but I must point out that as far as proof goes, it is �weak�.

So, for you, the proof of Paul�s authority is what he wrote about himself in letters. Nice.

Furthermore, I find your statement ambiguous,

  The fact that his authority and statements were accepted by the Church shows how this was common knowledge.

In other words,

-Paul is right

-The Church believes Paul is right

-Paul is right

Reply by Apollos:

Andalus � When I referred to the Church, I was referring to the Church that existed during Paul�s day. They had the ability to check with Peter, James and others as to Paul�s authority. They had the ability to know if Paul�s claims of performing signs and wonders was true. The fact that these people accepted Paul is very significant. Your remarks don�t address this.

Post by Andalus:

I would also like to point out, that factually, there is not much in terms of �documents� in the first 150 years, and you are deluded if you think so.

From Apollos:

Please then, provide an explanation that accounts for just the following:

Lexionaries before 200 A.D. quote all but a handful of verses from the Gospels which indicates widespread knowledge and use of the Gospels before this time. There are several manuscript fragments of these Gospels dated as early 70 A.D. and no later than 125 A.D. (They are identical to the versions we use today). Paul�s letters � which are written between 52 A.D. and 65 A.D. - quote from these Gospels. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (95 A.D.) quotes the Gospels. Ignatius � a disciple of John and martyr � wrote letters in 110 A.D. confirming the Gospels and who wrote them. Polycarp � another disciple of John � quoted and confirmed the Gospels in 135 A.D. Christian creeds, Secular and Jewish writings confirm that the fundamentals of the Gospels were known and believed by the early Church prior to 110 A.D.

Post by Andalus:

This is the latest �broad stroke� used by apologists. It used to be, �we have hundreds and thousands of MSS that give us the gospels that date from the first century�. This worked because who could possibly look up the facts and look at every MS to show otherwise. In time, it became clear that this claim was not true.

Reply by Apollos:

We do have thousands of manuscripts and textual criticism leads scholars to conclude that the autographs behind these copies are from the first century. The evidence keeps getting better not worse. Since you claim the contrary, please provide some details of what you are referring to.

Post by Andalus:

Now the latest broad stroke is, �we have the lexionaries�, where now one must either accept it, or deny it without giving a good reason since who has time to read through all of the church father�s writings to say otherwise. For those who have spent some time studying the beginnings of your faith know that this is problematic, and for others it just does not seem �reasonable�. The study of the early writings is extensive and one will find that there are quotes that are not in the cannon and there are quotes that are differing from what is found in the cannon. Applying the criteria of textual criticism, one will find that early NT scholars will not pt out an edition of the NT based upon the �lexionaries�, and there is good reason. To just make a sweeping generalization by invoking the magnificent lexionaries as evidence is �cherry picking�. 

Reply by Apollos:

I have presented a minimal and concise list of documents that exist within 150 years of Jesus walking the earth. Lexionairies are one type and your remarks don�t address their importance. Even if the Lexionaries were filled with the paraphrases, misquotes, etc., they document that there were written Gospels with these words and/or ideas in them prior to the Lexionairies. (Else they couldn�t be referenced). You seemed to be arguing that because the Lexionaries aren�t as good or complete as manuscripts of the Bible that they are worthless. They certainly are not. They document what the early church was practicing and teaching in their services and they consistently quoted passages from the Gospels.  

What about the other documents I reference? You said I was deluded to think there is much in the way of documents during the first 150 years and I showed you many. Paul�s letters alone represent a wealth of documentation for what the Church believed while the Disciples were still living.

Strange, my �next section� seems to have been ignored by you, let us recap so it will be painfully obvious for you:

From Apollos:

No I answered in the preceding section but I will now respond after you have �made your case�.

 This was part of the �most� that you seem so confused about. You stated,

He only had two areas where His teaching actually differed from what the average Jew believed at that time and He told His disciples to listen to what the Priests and Scribes said � but not follow their hypocritical practices. (The two differences Jesus had with the Jewish leadership were � the idea that the Law could not be accomplished by human efforts and, the Messiah would be God�s Son who would suffer and die for their failure to satisfy the Law.)   

Posted by Andalus:

Here you have problems. Your major implication is that the claims of Muslims and what the Prophet Muhammad (saw) taught is invalid because he (saw) goes against what the bible teaches, while your views of Jesus makes your theology correct, yet your above statement is not only weak but leads to you appealing to special pleading. To bring out the glaring problems in your assertion, I replied with the following, which is not opinion, but valid points based on reason, not your claim that I am arguing for a �universal fact� (which is a cont of the strawman fallacy you created above, since I have not argue either way for universal facts).

I replied:

 1)     You must argue and prove that there is a distinction between what the average Jew believe and what the Hebrew Scriptures teach. If there is a distinction, then was it all Jews or just a group, and does this mean the other Jews thought something else and what is their source for this �other belief�?

2)     In Deuteronomy 30, we find something regarding �average Jewish thought�.

 I then provided verses from the bible that Moses, according to you, wrote, with divine authority, with a summation of the problems these verses cause for your poorly constructed assertion:

 Deuteronomy 30

  10 if thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul. {S} 11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

So here we have Moses, not anyone else, saying with God�s authority, that the law can be kept and performed. That it is not too hard or �far off�, and no one can intermediate for them to help them with the law. So if you say that Jesus had a problem with the law, and we have Moses saying something else, then by your reasoning, Jesus is antithetical to previous teachings. As is your church and your scholars. Of course I know your doctors have given labored interpretations to �harmonize� this. What any reasonable person of intelligence must conclude is this is what the average Jew would have thought and it would have been in line with what they believed God had given them. 

Any problems with understanding �most�?

From Apollos:

A.      I am not appealing to special pleading nor am I arguing that there was a distinction between what the average Jew believed and what the Hebrew Scriptures teach. I am acknowledging that there were two minor areas where Jesus �surprised� the Jews of His day. One was that He chose fishermen and tax collectors as his disciples rather than the established Jewish leadership. Considering how corrupt the latter were, this shouldn�t be a surprise to us and certainly not a contradiction with the Old Testament. The other �surprise� was that the Messiah would fulfill Old Testament prophecies by way of two advents, not just one. The Jews prior to Jesus recognized that there were puzzles about the Messiah being both the coming King and a suffering servant and they speculated that there might be two Messiahs or a two phase approach. They realized that the OT was not clear on this and Jesus cleared this up after His resurrection. Otherwise Jesus is the Messiah the Old Testament prophesized and described. He satisfied OT prophecies and Jewish expectations.

Your response is simply a review of church doctrine and not a reply to what I gave you.

 Reply by Apollos:

You accused me of special pleading � that Christians believe contrary to what the Bible (TANACH) teaches but then we accuse Muslims of the same. That is what I was responding to in the above.

B.      Your example from Deuteronomy and how it supposedly contradicts Jesus or the New Testament � is in error. First off, you have used a translation that employs �too hard� rather than �hidden�. You then proceed to interpret the meaning of these words contrary to how Jews and Christians understand this passage.  Even if your interpretation of the passage was correct, it is only a contradiction with what you think I believe but certainly do not. You claim I say �that Jesus had a problem with the law�. I have not said this nor do I believe this at all. Jesus came to fulfill the Law which is holy and good.

Posted by Andalus:

Careful, trying to split hairs as a means to shrug off a strong point I have made may come back to haunt you. I do not mind moving to a strict translation such as that found in the Stone Edition TANACH, this will not help you with many of the OT verses your doctors have translated to show a �Jesus prophecy�. Copying and pasting from the JPS is convenient since it is on my computer, and as long as I do not see a glaring translation problem, I will go with it. Going from �too hard� to �hidden� does not help you and the verse still means the same thing.

My interpretation is not mine, but rathers the Jewish interpretation, found in every Jewish TANACH, and is the consistant teachings from Torah observant Jews.

Reply by Apollos:

Anadalus � You say the Law is not too hard or �far off�, and no one can intermediate for them to help them with the law. I do not see this interpretation in any Jewish Bible or translation. In fact, the CJB doesn�t even agree with other translations that use the word �hard� for �pala�(פּלא ).

 (Complete Jewish Bible) 30:11 For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.

Christians don�t have a problem with the passage � just your interpretation that it is not too hard or �far off�, and no one can intermediate for them to help them with the law. Please support your claim that this is a Jewish opinion and that this opinion was common during Jesus� day. Quoting a Targum or similar would be helpful.

Posted by Andalus:

This is classic Christian,

 You claim I say �that Jesus had a problem with the law�. I have not said this nor do I believe this at all. Jesus came to fulfill the Law which is holy and good.

According to your beliefs, Jesus came and did teach contrary to what the Torah taught. You can twist and reword (you all call it harmonizing) and say, he did not teach against it, he just became it, but it is all the same thing. You follow a man who taught contrary to what God said in the Torah. If he taught he became the law and you no longer have to follow it, then it is contrary. Harmonizing only works with the faithful, not in the realm of ideas and discourse.

Reply by Apollos:

Anadalus � No, you are wrong. I do not believe Jesus taught contrary to the Torah. But let�s say your claim was correct � that the logical implications of what Jesus taught was contrary to the Torah. Do you want to argue that Mohammed taught according to the Torah? Do Jews of today want to argue that they are living according to the Torah? (They aren�t even doing the sacrifices that are required so how could they?) I at least believe that there is no contradiction between my beliefs and the Torah. You and the Jews admit that the Torah is not being followed.

 posted by Andalus

By the way, the title is "burden of proof", so where does you burden begin?

As I stated, it begins with the resurrection of Jesus.

It does not begin with proving the Bible is our source of guidance, that the Church started in Jerusalem, that we have a chain of doctrine and beliefs from 200 B.C. to 325 A.D. The consensus for this is such that anyone arguing against this has the burden of proof � not we Christians. You are free to have your opinions but you might as well assert that aliens from space account for everything. We have no obligation to respond to every hair-brained fantasy someone comes up with. If you have a real theory with real evidence, please share. Otherwise it is irrelevant that you don�t agree with history.

No one has argued that the bible is not a source of guidance, another strawman by you to deflect from what was given to you.

From Apollos:

I am referring to the Bible being a source of guidance from the first century on. I believe you do reject this, don�t you?

 The bible can be a source of guidance, but that does not give us confidence that it is a document from God, of God, with authority from God.

Reply by Apollos:

When I refer to the Bible being a source of guidance during the first centuries, it is irrelevant as to whether it is divine or not. It existed and was well known, used and copied. This is historical evidence that what it claims about Jesus was early enough to be from eyewitnesses as they claimed. Remember this was a big objection of yours � that we can�t trust the history about Jesus and there couldn�t have been eyewitnesses. Put this together with the other historical evidence I referenced and I think your objection is refuted. 

posted by Andalus
You assertion about a chain of doctrine from 200 BC is pure rubbish and if you have some source that has been hidden from the rest of the world, then please bring it forth.

From Apollos:

I listed some examples above and one of the links of the chain that goes back to 200 B.C. is the book of Isaiah found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Since our belief includes the OT as well, this ancient manuscript is another evidence of the integrity of God�s Word and part of our doctrines and beliefs.

You are cherry picking, there are things in the Qumran find that support some things, and there are findings that do not support your claims. Again, you are invoking a huge topic still debated by scholars. Many things were found there and what we have learned is that the OT has at least two different traditions and the whole notion of what biblical cannon is was not quite agreed upon even in the late temple era. In fact, the find creates �uncertainty�, not �confidence�.

Reply by Apollos:

Anadalus � You are the one who is cherry-picking. You claim that a chain of Christian doctrine from 200 BC is �pure rubbish� then when I reference a manuscript that is key to Christian beliefs, you try to dismiss it. This manuscript refutes several Muslim claims and it deserves a response from you. It proves that at least this part of the Bible was not corrupted as Muslims claim. It proves that Christians did not edit the real Isaiah to fit their beliefs and the life of Jesus. It proves that the conflicts between Islam and this part of the Bible represent a conflict between Islam and the �real� Bible.

posted by Andalus
Asking me to prove it does not exist is not only unreasonable, but absurd. Pretending that anyone who disagrees has the burden of proof is purely ridiculous. You shrug all responsibility for evidence with an unsubstantiated claim that all who disagree have the burden. Hilarious.

From Apollos:

I asked you to provide a real theory with real evidence for your claim that there is no chain of Christian doctrine and beliefs back to 200 B.C. And you say it is unreasonable to ask you to do so. So, it is reasonable for you to dismiss all of the documents, history, and archaeology that agree with what I am saying but it is unreasonable to ask you for contrary evidence? Those are pretty good rules you came up with. Where can I buy a box?

I covered this in the beginning concerning your feelings that everyone else must have the burden but we only need to accept the common assertions of church belief as a sound bases.

Your assertions in your first contribution assumes that your beliefs must necessarily be accepted as sound. I am calling you on this, That is all. 

Reply by Apollos:

As I said in the beginning of this topic post � Jesus met the burden of proof by rising from the dead. Christians attempt to meet the burden of proof by pointing to the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. I don�t expect people to accept these assertions as sound without inquiry. But I do expect them to recognize that we accept the burden of proof. I asked if Muslims accept a similar burden of proof for their claims and I haven�t gotten a straight answer. I take your numerous objections to mean: �No� but you are welcome to clarify if you intend something else.

I do find it interesting that someone who apparently doesn�t think their belief system requires them to prove anything they believe, is so determined for me to prove every thing I believe.

Apollos