I tried to join this same topic in the prophets/Jesus forum, but 'do not have permission to post replies' there.

My colleagues here have frequently advised me to watch 'Peace TV', presumably because they think it will help me to better understand Islam.  Well, I have taken their advice on several occasions, but to be honest, I find Dr Zaik on Peace TV to be too much to handle for me.  Here is a good example - one that has lead me to this forum in search of some debate:

Yesterday Dr Zaik used his skill to prove, from quotes from the bible, that Christ was not crucified.  Given that the central message of the New Testament is that Christ died on the cross for the sins of all people, Dr Zaik's message is an insult to all Christians.  Since tolerance of other religions is part of Islam, then Dr Zaik is, proven by his own actions, anti-Islamic.  Had a Christian cleric claimed on international TV that Mohammad was a false prophet, then there would have been demonstrations by Muslims around the world.  

I don't think that Christians are the sort of people who are likely to make a fuss about what some radical Islamic cleric has to say.  However, I think that it is the responsibility of moderate Muslims to send the message to Dr Zaik that Islam is tolerant of the views of other religions, and that it is unacceptable to make claims that undermine the very basis of those religions, no matter how logical an argument he can construct.

brother we are not insulting Jesus (PBUH) we respect him more than christians we believe him more than christians.

the truth is that Jesus (PBUH) is not crucified that's what your Bible says and that's what our Quran says.

if you really want to know about the crucifixion story then please watch this debate between Dr.Zakir Naik and Pastor Ruknuddin henry pyo (The faith healer).  title was christ really cruciefied?

by the way this is not an insult to say that Jesus (PBUH) was saved by God and was raised to heavens.

but this is absolutley insulting that Jesus(PBUH) was tortured beaten and then killed on the cross.

we Muslim never insult other religion that's what our Quran teaches us. but your most influential personality like pope benidect insulted our prophet (PBUH).

 isnt this rediculous for a great religious person to Insult a prophet of God?

if he thinks that Mohammad (PBUH) is not the prophet of God  then why was he scared of Dr.Zakir Naik?

Dr.Zakir Naik invited pope benidect for an open public debate but benidect ignored it.

if you want me to tell you about all the crucifixion i post it for you.

Brother,

My point is not whether Jesus was crucified or not.  My point is that an entire religion is based on this idea.  For Dr Zaik to contradict this idea is by definition to insult Christians.  The message of Islam is tolerance of others' beliefs; therefore, Dr Zaik's insulting of another's religion is anti Islamic.  He is therefore a bad muslim.  This is a simple fact and can't be contradicted by any logical argument.  It can only be contradicted by illogical dogma.

If it is OK for Dr Zaik, or you, or anybody else to say that they believe that Christ was not crucified, then it is equally OK for anybody to say that Mohammad PBUH was not a prophet. You can't have it both ways.  If you want to contradict others' beliefs then you can't complain if they contradict yours.  If you don't like having your beliefs contradicted, then don't contradict the views of others.

Please understand that I don't care about whether Jesus was crucified or not.  What I do care about is double standards and hypocrisy.

By the way, it is not 'your' Quran and 'My' bible. The books do not belong to you or me or your religion or my religion. They are books written by God (according to your beliefs). They are 'The' Quran and 'The' bible. I have read both of them, and according to my interpretation, they both claim that Jesus was indeed crucified. My interpretation is just as valid as anybody elses, including Dr Zaik's.

I would like to invite the Pope for a chat with me, too.  I don't think he will come to see me.  I haven't ever said anything against the Pope. So what insane reason can you think of that the Pope would accept an invitiation to meet a man who has openly stated that he considers him to be an enemy of Islam?  There would simply be no point in such a meeting.  It would simply be an argument of one man's beliefs against another man's beliefs, an argument that can't be won by either.

Welcome to the Forum,

If it is OK for Dr Zaik, or you, or anybody else to say that they believe that Christ was not crucified, then it is equally OK for anybody to say that Mohammad PBUH was not a prophet.

You can say you do not believe that Mohammed was not a Prophet. That is actually fine. There is no compulsion in religion.

Dr Zaik, from what I have seen, has read many religious texts, from Christianity, Hinduism, etc.  If he is quoting the New Testament then it is fine for people to disagree. You can disagree. You can read the Quran and disagree. That is your choice.

Intolerance is �unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters� If Dr. Zaik doing this? Is he denying your right to believe and think as you do?  Would this be any different then a debate or discussion in a college?  I guess I am unsure how it is an �insult� He is reading the New Testament after all. Not some other book from an anti-Christian or atheist web site.  

Have you seen him do his programs about similarities of the �messages� of different religions? I saw a great piece he did with a Hindu guru. They talked about what they had in common.

Is a debate on the differences between Islam and Christianity? Is that so bad?  He has had Christian �scholars� on his shows. He is fine talking about it. His medium is to talk about these issues. Really if we do not talk about them how can we learn about the basics of these religions. I mean really, this is far better TV then most of the junk on these days.:)

Take care

Hayfa

Actually I understand what ur saying here lost puppy, and you have a apoint. but btw the Quran does not state that Christ was crusified you said youve read it and that it does state that, it doesnt. But yeah you have a point about Zakir Naik on how certain people may get offended however its thathe does back his point using the Bible so hes discussing the Bible which Muslims too believe in. So we have the right to look at what came before us you see the same way Christians look at the OT for example.

lost_puppy wrote: esterday Dr Zaik used his skill to prove, from quotes from the bible, that Christ was not crucified.  Given that the central message of the New Testament is that Christ died on the cross for the sins of all people, Dr Zaik's message is an insult to all Christians.

I am sure "arab" at his post right above this has stated that the Qur'an denies the crucifiction.

There are few subject that you need to expect to come from the muslim side to you as a christian. The trinity, the sonship, the crucifiction and the validity of the Bible in general. There are more most likely, but the above four are valid as far as the muslim side is concerned.

Personally - not dogmatically - I don't believe in the son of Mary's crucifiction, but my belief is not for discussion. I have made up my mind in it. It is subject to change only if I come accross something that can over run it.

 In all the posts above, the meaning of crucifixion has to be understood. People have notions about it. Crucifixion does not mean just putting up on the cross. It means putting upon the cross and dying on the cross. That means death on the cross.

Quran clearly denies it. The words of the bible NT also support the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross. His prayer in the garden and so many other factors point to that. Also the ignonimous death on the cross cannot be allowed, being good only for a cursed person.

 I personally believe that cross is the enemy of christ, being an instrument of punishment for Jesus the beloved of God. But the christians may be offended. So I would keep my opinion to myself in the future.

Actually, there are ancient jewish and roman documents that say Jesus was crucifed. What many do not know is that crucifiction was brought back during Jesus' time. It had been stopped for a long time and then crucifiction became popular again.

Psalms 22

This is an interesting topic.  The belief Christ was crucified is based on the testimony of the church.  The church has always believed this on the testimony of the first believers in a continual chain until the Lord returns.  I realized that there were sects that said he was not cruficied, he was two people, a similaricam too his place, no it was Judas.  Everyone loves a good conspiracy story.  The bottom line Jesus the Lord has always been source of controversy. 

many questions have risen whether Jesus was crucified.. There are ancient creeds which state he was. The people who state Jesus was crucified did not even believe in him.

Josephus

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ.

Josephus does not tell us whether he believed Jesus was the Christ. He just stated he was the Christ.

When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified,

Here is where Jospehus states Jesus was crucified.

those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold,

And here he states that Jesus was resurrected!

along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.^[36]

On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.[61]

buddyman wrote: many questions have risen whether Jesus was crucified.. There are ancient creeds which state he was. The people who state Jesus was crucified did not even believe in him.   Josephus About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. Josephus does not tell us whether he believed Jesus was the Christ. He just stated he was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, Here is where Jospehus states Jesus was crucified. those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, And here he states that Jesus was resurrected! along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[36]

^{I realize that credible and scholarly sources are of no importance to you (given the material that you have used so far to explain the credibility of your beliefs is void of any scholarship), but keep in mind that for the rest of the thinking world, no one gives any credibility to the accounts found in Josephus in regards to Jesus. Every major scholar has agreed that these verses have been "interpolated" by early Christians, and so there is no way to distinguish to what is fraud and what he actually wrote. In other words, your fellow Christians tampered with the texts and so the evidence is "corrupted".}

^{This does bring up the question: If the original work of Josephus required the desperation of early Christians to tamper with the work, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the original verses about Jesus were not "impressive" and did not provide the evidence that was hoped for. So why the need to tamper with "real evidence"?}

There were also ancient Roman creeds by: Tacitus - he doesnt mention they way of his death, but he specifically mentions Jesus and when you read what he wrote you will see he hated us and blamed us for the things that were going on at that time. and others such as, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Julius Africanus, Lucian and Celus who hated Christians and Jesus.

^{None of these people lived during the time of Jesus, and simply wrote what some Christians thought, which is not necessarily the truth (in other words, nothing was verified and cannot be used to claim historical evidence). Hate would be irrelevant, the writings were simply about what they heard from some people. Hardly evidence to prove the historicity of your claims.}

There there is Jewish records from the Talmund Sanhedrin On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.[61] This is the Jews admitting they "hung" him. Obviously he was hung on the cross.

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ.

Josephus does not tell us whether he believed Jesus was the Christ. He just stated he was the Christ.

When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified,

Here is where Jospehus states Jesus was crucified.

those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold,

And here he states that Jesus was resurrected!

along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.^[36]"

 In discussing this subject, please ascertain the meaning of Crucifixtion. What exactly do you understand by crucifixion?? Does it involve death on the cross or is it simply hanging / nailing some one on a cross?? Thanks.

Andalus wrote: buddyman wrote: many questions have risen whether Jesus was crucified.. There are ancient creeds which state he was. The people who state Jesus was crucified did not even believe in him.   Josephus About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. Josephus does not tell us whether he believed Jesus was the Christ. He just stated he was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, Here is where Jospehus states Jesus was crucified. those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, And here he states that Jesus was resurrected! along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[36] I realize that credible and scholarly sources are of no importance to you (given the material that you have used so far to explain the credibility of your beliefs is void of any scholarship), but keep in mind that for the rest of the thinking world, no one gives any credibility to the accounts found in Josephus in regards to Jesus. Every major scholar has agreed that these verses have been "interpolated" by early Christians, and so there is no way to distinguish to what is fraud and what he actually wrote. In other words, your fellow Christians tampered with the texts and so the evidence is "corrupted". This does bring up the question: If the original work of Josephus required the desperation of early Christians to tamper with the work, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the original verses about Jesus were not "impressive" and did not provide the evidence that was hoped for. So why the need to tamper with "real evidence"? There were also ancient Roman creeds by: Tacitus - he doesnt mention they way of his death, but he specifically mentions Jesus and when you read what he wrote you will see he hated us and blamed us for the things that were going on at that time. and others such as, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Julius Africanus, Lucian and Celus who hated Christians and Jesus. None of these people lived during the time of Jesus, and simply wrote what some Christians thought, which is not necessarily the truth (in other words, nothing was verified and cannot be used to claim historical evidence). Hate would be irrelevant, the writings were simply about what they heard from some people. Hardly evidence to prove the historicity of your claims.   There there is Jewish records from the Talmund Sanhedrin On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.[61] This is the Jews admitting they "hung" him. Obviously he was hung on the cross. Yeshu was as common as Smith is in anglo America in the first century. There is no clear evidence in this passage that even remotely concludes that it was talking about the "Jesus" you have tunred into a god. There is nothing "obviousl" in this passage. You are "handwaving".

LOL! Andalus,

Always excuses with you and someone ALWAYS had to change the real scriptures..LOL! Jesus was killed on the EVE of the Passover- also there is no record of any other Yeshu enticing sorcery or apostasy and being killed for it.

islamispeace wrote: "Josephus About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. Josephus does not tell us whether he believed Jesus was the Christ. He just stated he was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, Here is where Jospehus states Jesus was crucified. those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, And here he states that Jesus was resurrected! along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[36]" The so-called "Testimonium Flavianum" is nothing more than a simple Christian forgery from the 3rd century AD.  When one studies the Testimonium, obvious questions arise.  For instance, why would Josephus, a Jew, have said that Jesus performed "paradoxical feats" or that "he appeared to [his followers] on the third day" or that "he was the Christ"?  If Josephus said that Jesus "was the Christ," would it not mean that he actually believed it?  If he said that he appeared alive on the third day, would it not mean he believed that as well?  But why would he?  Why would he regard two, that's right two, men as the Messiah?  Who was the second man, you ask?  It was http://www.livius.org/va-vh/vespasian/vespasian.html - Vespasian .  Josephus wrote in "Wars of the Jews" the following: "But now, what did elevate them [the Jews] in undertaking this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, 'about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.'  The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular; and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.  Now, this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea." (Book 6, Chapter 6, v. 4) Notice that Josephus refers to "an ambiguous oracle" referring to "one from their country" who would become ruler of the world.  This certainly sounds like a reference to the Messiah.  Josephus believed that Vespasian fulfilled this prophecy, and thus was the Messiah.  Obviously, both Jesus and Vespasian could not have been the Messiah.  Another important fact to take note of is the complete absence of the Testimonium in any of the writings of Christian historians, until Eusebius, a 3rd century historian.  Origen, a 2nd century historian, makes no mention of Josephus' testimony regarding Jesus.  He does refer to Josephus' rendition of the execution of James, the brother of Jesus, but makes no reference to the "Testimonium Flavianum."  Now why would he have done that?  Third, let us say that Josephus' account of Jesus is genuine.  Let us also say that he is a reliable source of the events of that time.  Therefore, every event which had occurred in that time period, from the reign of Herod the Great to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and Vespasian's ascension to power, would be found in Josephus' account.  What other major events took place in that time period?  The Gospel of Matthew claims that during the reign of Herod the Great, all male children were ordered to be slaughtered, much like the slaughter of all male children in Egypt.  This was done because Herod feared the arrival of the Messiah, who could potentially overthrow him.  The Gospel states the following: "16When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: 18"A voice is heard in Ramah,       weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."" (2:16-18) If this so-called "Massacre of the Innocents" had truly occurred, certainly Josephus would have mentioned it in his historical works, especially since it involved many Jewish children.  Unfortunately, no such account exists in any of Josephus' works.  Why is this so?  Josephus mentioned Pharaoh's orders to massacre all male children among the Jews, so it would have made sense that he also mention Herod's similar crime.  Concerning Pharaoh's orders, Josephus writes: "Which thing was so feared by the king, that, according to this man's opinion, he commanded that they should cast every male child, which was born to the Israelites, into the river, and destroy it;" ("Antiquities of the Jews," Book 2, Chapter 9, v. 2) Can anyone find a similar account involving Herod and the children of Bethelem and the surrounding areas?  Clearly, the Christian use of Josephus to confirm their beliefs is not without controversy and contradiction.  Upon careful study of Josephus' works, we find no real confirmation.  The use of Tacitus is also not without controversy.  I will comment on this later, inshaAllah.

Also you fail to mention other writers such as Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius. I don't believe it matters that these things were written after the fact. What matters is that they were still written because they happened and were spoken of.

buddyman wrote: Andalus wrote: buddyman wrote: many questions have risen whether Jesus was crucified.. There are ancient creeds which state he was. The people who state Jesus was crucified did not even believe in him.   Josephus About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. Josephus does not tell us whether he believed Jesus was the Christ. He just stated he was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, Here is where Jospehus states Jesus was crucified. those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, And here he states that Jesus was resurrected! along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[36] I realize that credible and scholarly sources are of no importance to you (given the material that you have used so far to explain the credibility of your beliefs is void of any scholarship), but keep in mind that for the rest of the thinking world, no one gives any credibility to the accounts found in Josephus in regards to Jesus. Every major scholar has agreed that these verses have been "interpolated" by early Christians, and so there is no way to distinguish to what is fraud and what he actually wrote. In other words, your fellow Christians tampered with the texts and so the evidence is "corrupted". This does bring up the question: If the original work of Josephus required the desperation of early Christians to tamper with the work, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the original verses about Jesus were not "impressive" and did not provide the evidence that was hoped for. So why the need to tamper with "real evidence"? There were also ancient Roman creeds by: Tacitus - he doesnt mention they way of his death, but he specifically mentions Jesus and when you read what he wrote you will see he hated us and blamed us for the things that were going on at that time. and others such as, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Julius Africanus, Lucian and Celus who hated Christians and Jesus. None of these people lived during the time of Jesus, and simply wrote what some Christians thought, which is not necessarily the truth (in other words, nothing was verified and cannot be used to claim historical evidence). Hate would be irrelevant, the writings were simply about what they heard from some people. Hardly evidence to prove the historicity of your claims.   There there is Jewish records from the Talmund Sanhedrin On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.[61] This is the Jews admitting they "hung" him. Obviously he was hung on the cross. Yeshu was as common as Smith is in anglo America in the first century. There is no clear evidence in this passage that even remotely concludes that it was talking about the "Jesus" you have tunred into a god. There is nothing "obviousl" in this passage. You are "handwaving".    LOL! Andalus, Always excuses with you and someone ALWAYS had to change the real scriptures..LOL!

Greetings Buddyman.

1) I have given you rational, solid reasons to object based upon "critical thinking". If one must trash reason and use blind faith to believe, then one must use "excuses" to maintain their belief, which is what you have given since your time on this forum.

2) I never stated anything about the NT nor the topic of textual criticism of the bible. The passages of Josephus that you provided are labeled by the majority of mainstream scholars as "products of interpolation". That is a fact. Perhaps you do not see the absurdity in your request that I must accept these writings as fact, but I will give you an analogy of just how absurd your notion is:

In the court of law, the defendent and his attorney discover that the prosecuter is using evidence that has been tampered with. When they approach the prosecuter about this discovery, the prosectuer shrugs his shoulders and exclaims that the evidence is not a problem, after all, it was a witness of the prosecuter that did the tampering. No problem!

And buddyman, you would not accept this, nor would the court, but in the realm of your faith, this is "ok".

Jesus was killed on the EVE of the Passover- also there is no record of any other Yeshu enticing sorcery or apostasy and being killed for it.

Circular reasoning.

Furthermore, keep in mind that the talmud was not written down until the late second, early third century. So even if you want to use the fallacy of circular reasoning to maintain your belief in this passage, you still have nothing but a second/third century "witness" (I used the term very loosley for the sake of argument) with no ability to validate the claim.

I am sorry that you cannot recognize clear, rational objections stated without ambiguity, not befuddled by a great deal of theological hyperbole which consumes 98% of the material you copy and paste.

I beg you to contemplate seriously, and understand the contrast between an excuse and a real objection.

regards

Greetings Buddyman.

1) I have given you rational, solid reasons to object based upon "critical thinking". If one must trash reason and use blind faith to believe, then one must use "excuses" to maintain their belief, which is what you have given since your time on this forum.

2) I never stated anything about the NT nor the topic of textual criticism of the bible. The passages of Josephus that you provided are labeled by the majority of mainstream scholars as "products of interpolation". That is a fact. Perhaps you do not see the absurdity in your request that I must accept these writings as fact, but I will give you an analogy of just how absurd your notion is:

In the court of law, the defendent and his attorney discover that the prosecuter is using evidence that has been tampered with. When they approach the prosecuter about this discovery, the prosectuer shrugs his shoulders and exclaims that the evidence is not a problem, after all, it was a witness of the prosecuter that did the tampering. No problem!

It's kind of interesting how you think our scriptures are tampered with or anything having to prove you wrong is tampered with. Do you think the Quran was tampered with?

buddyman wrote: Greetings Buddyman. 1) I have given you rational, solid reasons to object based upon "critical thinking". If one must trash reason and use blind faith to believe, then one must use "excuses" to maintain their belief, which is what you have given since your time on this forum. 2) I never stated anything about the NT nor the topic of textual criticism of the bible. The passages of Josephus that you provided are labeled by the majority of mainstream scholars as "products of interpolation". That is a fact. Perhaps you do not see the absurdity in your request that I must accept these writings as fact, but I will give you an analogy of just how absurd your notion is: In the court of law, the defendent and his attorney discover that the prosecuter is using evidence that has been tampered with. When they approach the prosecuter about this discovery, the prosectuer shrugs his shoulders and exclaims that the evidence is not a problem, after all, it was a witness of the prosecuter that did the tampering. No problem!   It's kind of interesting how you think our scriptures are tampered with or anything having to prove you wrong is tampered with.

You are digressing, as there is no discussion on textual criticism of the bible in this thread.

What is even more compelling is that I have shown you why I rejected your evidences, none of which includes "because they prove me wrong". Why is it that even in the face of rational reasoning, you simply appeal to your erroneous evidences as me being "difficult". Buddyman, no serious scholar accepts Josephus concerning Jesus as a word for word witness of the author. The lack of reply conerning my objections is a telling indication that your belief in your faith is based upon blind faith.

Do you think the Quran was tampered with?

I am fascinated that my original thread has become a debate on whether or not Jesus was crucified.  It may have been the title of the thread, but my original point was that whilst it is accepted by muslims as perfectly acceptable to state that Jesus was not crucified, no-one can make any statement doubting the efficacy of the 'Prophet' Mohammed's true connection with God without Jihad being declared against him.

Andalus wrote: buddyman wrote: Greetings Buddyman. 1) I have given you rational, solid reasons to object based upon "critical thinking". If one must trash reason and use blind faith to believe, then one must use "excuses" to maintain their belief, which is what you have given since your time on this forum. 2) I never stated anything about the NT nor the topic of textual criticism of the bible. The passages of Josephus that you provided are labeled by the majority of mainstream scholars as "products of interpolation". That is a fact. Perhaps you do not see the absurdity in your request that I must accept these writings as fact, but I will give you an analogy of just how absurd your notion is: In the court of law, the defendent and his attorney discover that the prosecuter is using evidence that has been tampered with. When they approach the prosecuter about this discovery, the prosectuer shrugs his shoulders and exclaims that the evidence is not a problem, after all, it was a witness of the prosecuter that did the tampering. No problem!   It's kind of interesting how you think our scriptures are tampered with or anything having to prove you wrong is tampered with. You are digressing, as there is no discussion on textual criticism of the bible in this thread. What is even more compelling is that I have shown you why I rejected your evidences, none of which includes "because they prove me wrong". Why is it that even in the face of rational reasoning, you simply appeal to your erroneous evidences as me being "difficult". Buddyman, no serious scholar accepts Josephus concerning Jesus as a word for word witness of the author. The lack of reply conerning my objections is a telling indication that your belief in your faith is based upon blind faith.   Do you think the Quran was tampered with? This is an irrelevant question, but for the sake of argument, no.

Of course not!..lol! I wonder why the Surat would tell Muslims to read the OT and NT then...hmm.

islamispeace wrote: lost_puppy wrote: I am fascinated that my original thread has become a debate on whether or not Jesus was crucified.  It may have been the title of the thread, but my original point was that whilst it is accepted by muslims as perfectly acceptable to state that Jesus was not crucified, no-one can make any statement doubting the efficacy of the 'Prophet' Mohammed's true connection with God without Jihad being declared against him. It was only a matter of time that the topic would be whether Jesus was crucified or not.  I disagree with you that doubting the blessed Muhammad's prophetic mission can automatically result in criticism from Muslims.  You can believe what you want.  It makes no difference to me.  Of course, as a Muslim, it is my duty to share the message of Islam with you and every other person.  But what you believe in the end is between you and God.  I cannot force my views on you, but I can express my views as long as they are decent and respectful.  In the same way, you can say "I don't believe that Muhammad was a prophet" and not be the target of my criticism.  Of course, I would say you are wrong, but I would not say more than that.  However, if you take the path of actually insulting the Prophet, that is when I will declare "intellectual war" and pummel you with intellectual criticism.

You know its very easy to prove a Christian wrong. All you have to do is let the Gospel be preached to the entire world. If Jesus doesn't come, then we were wrong..

islamispeace wrote: "You know its very easy to prove a Christian wrong. All you have to do is let the Gospel be preached to the entire world. If Jesus doesn't come, then we were wrong.." I have already proven you wrong several times.

All yo uhave proven is that you haven't read the Bible. You have never proven me wrong.

buddyman wrote: Andalus wrote: buddyman wrote: Greetings Buddyman. 1) I have given you rational, solid reasons to object based upon "critical thinking". If one must trash reason and use blind faith to believe, then one must use "excuses" to maintain their belief, which is what you have given since your time on this forum. 2) I never stated anything about the NT nor the topic of textual criticism of the bible. The passages of Josephus that you provided are labeled by the majority of mainstream scholars as "products of interpolation". That is a fact. Perhaps you do not see the absurdity in your request that I must accept these writings as fact, but I will give you an analogy of just how absurd your notion is: In the court of law, the defendent and his attorney discover that the prosecuter is using evidence that has been tampered with. When they approach the prosecuter about this discovery, the prosectuer shrugs his shoulders and exclaims that the evidence is not a problem, after all, it was a witness of the prosecuter that did the tampering. No problem!   It's kind of interesting how you think our scriptures are tampered with or anything having to prove you wrong is tampered with. You are digressing, as there is no discussion on textual criticism of the bible in this thread. What is even more compelling is that I have shown you why I rejected your evidences, none of which includes "because they prove me wrong". Why is it that even in the face of rational reasoning, you simply appeal to your erroneous evidences as me being "difficult". Buddyman, no serious scholar accepts Josephus concerning Jesus as a word for word witness of the author. The lack of reply conerning my objections is a telling indication that your belief in your faith is based upon blind faith.   Do you think the Quran was tampered with? This is an irrelevant question, but for the sake of argument, no.    Of course not!..lol! I wonder why the Surat would tell Muslims to read the OT and NT then...hmm.

I am not sure since I am wondering now also. I am wondering which surah commands Muslims to read the OT and NT, and which version of the OT and the NT we are supposed to study (even the holy ghost was confused, as you have one tradition of the OT while the ghost man referred to another tradition of the OT in the NT). I am also wondering how, if true concerning your claim about the Quran, would reading the bible even remotely imply that there is an error in the Quran. It is a "non sequitur" fallacy.

As usual you have offered nothing helpful, or useful to substantiate your claims, or even of any benefit to this discussion.

islamispeace wrote: "All yo uhave proven is that you haven't read the Bible. You have never proven me wrong." I proved you wrong about your assertion on crucifixion in the Roman Empire, your claims regarding Josephus and the Testimonium Flavianum, and your claims about specific Bible verses which allegedly alluded to Jesus' divinity.  Did I forget anything?

Islamispeace,

You have never proven me wrong, especially about verses in the Bible. Gods word is never wrong.

You have never proven me wrong, especially about verses in the Bible. Gods word is never wrong."